Takehi Inornata and Stephen D. Horrstcjn (ed.) - Royal courts of the ancient Maya

Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya Volume One This page intentionally left blank he Ancien Volume One: Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis EDITED BY Takes...

42 downloads 2905 Views 72MB Size

Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya Volume One

This page intentionally left blank

he Ancien Volume One: Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis

EDITED BY

Takeshi Inomata University of Arizona AND

Stephen D. Houston Brigham Young University

V- '

A Member of the Perseus Books Cixoup

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may ~ by any means, e1ectrt)nic or mechanical, inbe reproduced or transmieed in any f c m or cluding photocopy, recording, or any infannation stctrage and retrieval system, without pemission in wxliking from the ptlblisher. Coppriglnt 82001 bp Westview Press, A Member of the Perseus Books Grt~up Published in 2001 in the United States of America by West-riiewPress, 5500 Central k e n u e , Boulder, Colorado 80301-2877, and in the United Kingdom by Westview Press, 12 Hid's Copse Road, Cumnor Hill, Oxford C1X2 9Jj Find us on the Wcjrld Wide Web at ww.weshriewpress.com

Library of Congress Cataloghg-in-PublicationData Royal courts of the ancient Maya/edited by Takehi Inornata and Stephen D. Horrstcjn. p. cm. lrzcludes bibliograplnical references and index. Cc~ntents:v, I. 21eory comparison, and syntlnesis ISBN 0-8133-3M0-6 (pb) I. Mayas-Kings and rulers. 2, Maya architecture. 3. Mayas-Antiquities, 4. Inscriptions, Mayan. 5, Royal house-&Mexico. 6. Royal ltouses
The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper ltor PrinQd Library MaQrialt; 239.48-19f).1,.

F86

OM DEMAND

To the mernory of Floyd Lounsb~ln~

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

List of: Tables and Illusfmticlns Preface Qbilrrtrry: Floyd L O U E Z S ~ U ~

ix a . .

Xlll XV

1 Opening the Royal ikfaya Court, 'T"ukeshiInomafn urzd

5tqtlle-l~D. Hozdsiion PART ONE Theoretical and Thematic Approaches 2 King" People: Classic Maya Caustiers in a Comparatke Perspecthe, Takeshi bzrtmafu 3 Peqling the Classic Maya Court, S t q h e n D. Frluzksto~zand David Stzart 4 PempectiLies an Actors, Gender Roles, a d Architecture at Classic Maya Courts and Moudolds, f2afric1;IA. MeA~z,nnyand Shannon P l a ~ k

84

5 SpaC.ialDimensions of Maya Courtly Lik: ProbZems and Issues, David Webster 6 Court and Realm: Architecturd Signabres in the Classic Maya Southern Lowlmds, Simo~tMlarti~z

168

7 Classic M v a Concepts of the Royal Cowt: An Analysis of Re~~derings or1 Rctorial Ceramirs, Dork IZeenfs-Kzrdet

195

Confenis

PART TWO Camparatitre Views and Conclusions 8 Aztec Noble Courts: Men, TVVomen, and Children

sl:the Palace, Szksan Toby Evtlns 9 Concluding &marks, Miefuel D, Coe

List of Contributors

I~zdex

Tables and Illustrations

4.1 4.2 4.3

Prhcipal roles of members of a royal court and a household fCituai practices of a royal court and a household Structure 23 dates

1.1 Map of the Maya area with the location of major sites discussed in the volume

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

Shell ornamnt fomd in Str. M8-lO of Aguateca Dos Pilas Stela 14depicting a dwarf accompanying a d e r Map of the cel~tratpart: of /?iguatecaWith the location of the Palace Group m d other stmctures mentioned in the text Axonometric drawing of Str. M7"-35 DistsibutionofceramicvesselshStr.M8-I0 Polychrome vessel furrnd in Str. M7-35 of Aguateca

Selection of my al and noble titles Hieroglyphjc captions on weavjng bones belonging to queen Scene of tribute Glyph for "feast" Piedras Negras Panel 3 Chrtmological trends in population and title use during the Classic period

'The South Court oE the Sayil SoutJRern Palare Complex and Sayil Household Complex N6781, E5599 Examples of the y-oto: t glypk from Yaxchilan Central portion of the Yaxchilan site center Plan of Uaxchilm Structure 23 The lintels of Uaxchilm Structure 23, mdessides hxchilan Lintel 25, front edge

89 98 105

4 36 3'7"

42 44 45 47 60 65 70 70 71

75 87 100 102 102 102 104

4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12

Text passage from Yaxchilan Lintel 25 U-kab-zr-clzfc:nphrases at Uaxchilan VatchilanLintel23,fmntedge hxchilan Lintel 56, front edge Uaxchilm Structures 11,74,10, and 13 Text passage from Yaxchilan LhteI 25

Stage 1of Str. A-7ti, Uaxactran; stage 8 of Str. A-V CmtraX Acmpolis of Ekal. 'The central 16 square kilometers of Tik-al, showing t-he monums~tafcore of the site 5.4 The Copm Main Group 5.5 Carved and inscriZled bench from Str. 9N-82 cmter, Copan 5.6 Group IQL-2,Copan; royal compound attached to southern edge of Acropolis 5.7 Elite residentd Group 9N-8 in the Copm urlnar.1care 5.8 The Copm urban core, showhg Groups 8N-11, 9fd-gf and other elite rclsidential compounds 5.9 Two sets of buildings in the elite Group KN-11, Capm urban core 5.10 fafan of Ghaccf-tob,Vucatan, Mexico 5.11 Plan of palace at Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico 5.1 5.2 5.3

Court complexes in central Ekal Court complexes in central Naranjo Court complexes in central C a l a h u l Court complexes in central Caracol C;reat/:Red 'furkey playing ball at C a f a h u l The exile and return of B'alaj Chm K'awiil The death of a lord at CalakmuI An heir goes to C a l a h u l 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4

7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8

.An official court visit and the presentation of prisoners A prisoner sacrifice rite A cowt building in connbined fmntd and prdilc view The decorative roof comb m a vaulted buifdhg from the Mercado Complex at Chichen Itza Calahnul Structure Xllf Vase from the Motul de San Jose pdity Two emissaries from C a l a h u l offer a bundle to a lord associated with the site of Tikml Iconic mtifs marking the piers of court buildings

Quatrefoil forms embellished with various motifs; quatrefoil hrms on court buildjngs at various sites 7.10 .A cornparism of narrative decorative pmgrams m court alrchitecture 7.11 Represe~~tatians of the water throne and the ajazu cushion from vessels painted, in diifcrent styles 7.12 Three buildings depicted on an Early Classic hcised ~ressel,Tikal 7.9

8.1 8.2

828 8.4 85 8.6 8.7

:Map of the Basin of Mexico showing Aztec-period sites mel-rtioned in the text Mapa Lie Quil~at.z-ir~ illtrstration of NezahuaXcoyt>tl"s admhistrative tecpn at Texcoc~,Mexico Structure 6, the probable Aztec-period tecpan at Cit-tuatecpan, Mexico Aztec formal speeches: E'rc-rpantone responds Aztec courtly pleasures: Jugglers, dwarves Aztec courtly pleasures: BaUgame Aztec noble home life: A newly-wed couple entertains friends

This page intentionally left blank

Preface The idea for this book took shape in 1996, when we organized a srnail session on this topic for the annual meeting of the h e r i c a n hthropological Association, Most particjpants would agree that through the effnrts of the speakers, the AAA session was productive and well-received. It semed logical to undertake a more ambitious effort in a forum that would allow greater intellectuaf and chrmologird scope. Accordingly, we devised a sympo"iurn titled Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, held at: W e University in November 1998, with the plan of publishing an edited volume afterward. At the outset, we felt that ftale would be an ideal venue, It was, after all, the plaice where Michaet Coe, George I(ub:lt.r, and Flopd Lounsbury had created a remarkable program of study and learning that continues to influence current research m ancient Maya art, writhg, m d thought. Sadly, there was another reasm to hold the confe~neeat Yale. Floyd, a beloved figure to all who hekv him and a personal inspiration for Houston, passed. away hlate spring 3.948, after years of physicai frailty that somehow failed to hinder his incisive and prccise mind. We dedicate the confere~zccand this two-volurne book to Fhyd's memory and to his u n i p e combination of lPcindness and exacting scholarship. Besides the original participants of Che Yak conkrctnce, contrihiutions by Patricia McAnany and Sh an It""lml?c,Simon Marth, and Matthew I-CestaU(his chapter is in vlrlulne 2, flrrthcclmimg in 2004) further enriched the book. Jobn Cfark expanded Hansen's chapter as coault.tor (i,nv o l m e 2). Mie regret that Andrew Apter and Richad Burger, who participatd in the conference as discussants, arc. not included in the book. Apter is a cultural anlhrqologist specializing in the lkingship of the Vrtruba in West Africa, and Burger is an Andean archaeologist. All the participants of the meeting greatly benefited from their irrsightful comments. The chapters by the orighal participants of the spposium; kxcept for the concluding chapter of volume I) were reviewed. by two anonymus ~ a d e r sas , well as by ourselves. Our hearty thanks go to the authors and reviewers of the book, who e~nduredour conthuous nagging and made timely publication possible, Karl Yambert of Mrestcriew Press enthusiastically supported our proposal fnr this book from the beginnimg. Antmia Foias careFutfy

translated the chapter by W d 6 s (in volume 2).7'he conference was held when lnomta was a faculty mern:ber at Yale. We note with gratitude that funding for the conference and book editing came largely from Yale, including help from the Department of Anthropology the :Kempf Memorial F d , the Council on Latin American S t d c s , the Martin A. Ryerson Lectureship ftmd, the Yale tfniversiv Art Gallery, the Peabody Museum of Nabral History, and the Yale Center for I~~temational and Area Studies. We are particuiarly grateful for assistance from Arline F. McCord, Yale associate pmvost; K. David Jackson, the chair of the Cow41 on Latin American Studies; Louisa Cunningham, associate director of Yale Art Gallery; and Nancy L. Ruthex; associate director of the Yiile Center for Tnternational and Ama Studies. Brigham Young Unisersity and Clayne Pope, the dean of the College of Family, Home, m d Social Sciences, provided, travel hnds fos Floust..onfsparticipation in the conPcrence t h m g h a university professorship; a generous sabbatical leave during the 399H-1999 schcrcrl year gave Houstm additional time for editing. Yale students and staff, especially Mark Child, Robert Clark, and Nancy Phillips, took cam of Ilogistieal matters for the meeting and book preparation and respcmded cheerfulty to ever-mountkg demands. Inomata also thanks Daniefa Triadan for k r help and support: in vasious stages of this project. Lowland site names in this book follow those used in the Corptds of Maya Fliivrugfypkic Ins~riJ7fiu~2s (Grahm 19759, 23-24) and Futzction and Mculzi~rgi ~ 1Classic Nlnya Arcl.litccbul.tr (Mouston 11998). During the final editing processt we to& the liberty of changing alphabetical spellirtgs of s o w Maya words, including ajaw and snjal, to ensure consiskncy from chapter to chapter. The adoption of these spelfings does not mem that- all authors are comdtted to this phonetic reconstruction of the Classic Maya language. Emscriptions of glyphic texts were left as they were submitted to the editors bp eaeh contributor: Chapter 117by Braswell, uses the orthographic system proposed. by the Academia de las Lenguas Mayas Be Guatemala.

Takeshi Inol~iafaand Stephen Idozlston

References Graham, Tan. 2 975, C c ~ f ~ [email protected] Irtscriptions, vol. 3: Introduction to the Cof~zis.Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Haward UniversiQ Houston, Stephen D., ed.. 1998. Fzlncfion and Mennizzg 2'12 Classic M~!jraArcllitecCltre. Washingtcm, DC: Dumbartc~nO a k Research Library and Collection.

Obituary, Floyd Lounsbury

Floyd Glenn. Lounsbury. (29161998) On May 14, 1998, the study of writing systems lost one of its g ~ a t e s t practitioners. Prof. Floyd Clelrn I:,,ottnsbury,Sterling Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University, dicd at the age of 84, after sufferhg fnr many years from heart disease. H e left behind a wife, daughter, and many nrtot~rnhgstudezzts who revered this exelnplary scholar m d largesouled man, In serninaf papers published from the late 1961)s thrcrugh the midf99Us, Lounsbury set a new standard of precision and rigor in Maya glyph studies. But his beginnings as a scholar lay much earfier. Born on April 25,1914, Floyd gravitated to the study oE the Oneida, an Iroquaian language, in his home state of Wisconsin, hvorki,ng u11der Morris Swadesh with s q p o r t frOm the Works Progress Administration (WPA). His B.A., from the LIniversity of Wisconsin, 1941, was in mathematics, a fact that explains the care with which he constructed epigraphic arguments. Not suspriahgly, F%oydalways described, a decipherment as a "pmof," with an emphasis on orderly easoninl; and tidy reviw of data. Durhg World W;;rr 11, Z,ounsbury achieved a stratospherie score on an intelligence exam and was accordingly assigned nut to InteUigencethe htgical step, one would think, despite the dominion of m-Roydian characters such as W d Rill Donovan-but to m e t e o r o l o ~which ~ r e q u i ~ da prodigious memory for station codes. Sent to Brazil, Lounsbury also inddged in linguistic research on the Tert7lna and Borcrro, a little of M;hich he discussed in his classic article "Maya Numeration, Computation, and Calendl-ical.Astronomy" (1978). (&ring the war, his knowledge of Gcrm m led him into peculiar difficdlies, as at least one patricrtic Irclquais thought it likely that Ftoyd was a spy sent by Hitler to monitor the Oneida! Those who knew Floyd would understand how very strange and comical this accusation was.) After the war, Lawsbury resolved to study linguislics in the preemine~ztprogram with the preemine~ztfigure of the time, Leonard. RloornfieXcf, enr4l-in.gatYale on a special scholarship for gifted veterms. But it was not to be, Bloomfield sufkred a series of

strokes within weeks of Lounsbuffs arrival, anci Floyd ended up working closely with other students. fndependmtly, he m d a contemporary at Yale, W r d Goodcnough, p i o n e e d the field of cornponential analysis. At the time of his death, Ftoyd was the unquestioned doyen of Iroquoian linguistics. Me also had considerabk experience in the Mayan languages, including hcatec, Tzeltal, Tzotzil, and Chartif the last of which he studied with his student, John Fought. The only t h e I ever saw intpaticnce in FLoyd was with ljngujsts who had failed to master their languages, He seemed to dislike noisy, sociolinguistic theories that skirted grammaticai learning, scrmantic nuance, and long-term commitment to the Xang~~ages 21question. He loved neatly presented, ""cem'krguments that could. be stripped down to an elegant minimum. This affection for concke writing could make his own prose difficult to read, dlhoug-h the rewards were gsrr;at- for thosc? who persevered. His paper "On the Derivation and Reading of the %en-Ich" Prcfh" (1373) remahs a work of unparalleled, if dense, virtuosity. In Mapa epi,grapby Lounshury helped fashion an approach that had been prcsaged by other scholarsf principallq. Benjamin W b r f and h r i Knmtwov, but not in a coherent, programmatic manner. More than any other person, Floyd made Mapa epigraphers take account of languageits grammr, methods of maXysjs (includQ distributional study), range of meaning, and rhetorical stmcture. For Floyci, Maya gIyphs were an orderly system that- codd be decoded thnlugh compari.son to other writifig systems (he had studied cuneibrm. at Yale durlng the 1960s) and through recourse to linguistic concepts; stuciclmts working with Floyd soon learned that Eric mompson's retimce on s e ~ ~ a n tassociations ic and magogir truths in deciphering Maya script was unlikely to be productive. In ~trospect,Ffoyd's only weakness was fn the field of historical and cornparative linguistics. Mis use of elemmts from different. languages, s o m from the Maya Lowlands, some from the Highlands, was not always disciplined by historical undastanding and could l e d to decipherments that have not: stood up well to further ksting. Floyd"s best-known work in Maya epigraphy was his study of hieroglyphic texts at the site of Palenque, which Hoyd studjed intensively with the yom-rger team of IJindakhele (nokv deceased) and Peter Mathews. Their cofla.borative work in the 19ms energized Mapa epigraphy and w a t e d what mfght be described as the modern romance of cieciphermemt, which forever removed Maya studjes front the stully academic world and transported it to the limelight of public attention. Methoeis of distributional anaiysis, formalized by Lounsbury and combhed with close regard to meaning, elngineered a powerful approach that Icd directly to all. fuktre successes in Maya epigraphy Such research led also to a deeply detailed view of a courtly wlrrld that has now disappeared;

for this reason alone, Floyd deserves to have this book dedicated to his memory It is tmly sad that Floyd was una:bte to see to full publieation the copious work done at the tjme. (Mathews, the sole survivor of this Patenque "triad," hopes to complete the work of his friends.) F l ~ y dadvancd Maya epigraphy on another major fror~t:the detection and explanation of Maya numhers, coqutation, and astronomy. His interest in such matters [email protected] from his first publication, in 1946, of "Stray Number Systems Among Certain Indim Tribes" and, clearll;; from his undergraduate major in mathematics. Numbers meant something to E'loyd and, as he pmved, to the ancient Maya as well. Dates w r e anciently manipulated to link mythological m d historical. events; correliations between Maya and European calendars could be decisively shown by ingenious pmofs discoverr-?dby Ffoyd in the Mayan codices; and numbers had properties that Floyd successfulfy discerned, perhaps the only scholar with the right training to do so. Possibly his most exciting research concerned the Maya obsession with the'l'enus cycle, timed to ctr incide with wars. This rclsearch proved to be an exhilarating vantage on Maya concepts of the sky and its inRuence on h u m n destiny We must member that Lounsbury was not only the Sterli-ng Professor at Yale but a sterlhg human being. l;o alX who h e w him, Floyd was the kindest, most generous of men, a true saint in a field where most of us, d e w t e our best efforts, m a i n sinners. Raised in a hndamentalist sect, which he rejected after a difficult journey that inv&ed x u t e p e r s o d pain and parental estrangement, Floyd nonetheless retained the best of Christian wirtues: surpassing modesq, a giving spirit, and a lovable sweetness of temperament that could, allnw for differemcc ol opinion. His pleasure at new discoveries had a childlike innocence ("Oh my!" he would say, with a breathy sigh of admiration), as did his joy im meetimg and bdrknding younger scholars. No matter what his schedule, he would set aside hours to instruct and listen. (l can personally attest to wasting untoid hours of his time, in what was, for my part, the most stimulating, ongoing tutorial of my life,) Ideas he had little use for would be treated with respect and gentleness if offered by a student, and then molded into a form that i q r o v e d immeasurably m the ol-iginal. Two questions operated in his mind: not only "ls it true?" but "What is the best way of constructing your argument (even though X know it to be wrong)?'TEloyd always found smething to praise. The most: gratifying feat.ure of thcse conversatio~zs would be the opportunity to see Floyd at work, His near-mathematical rigor, attention to detail, the cmsuming need tcr push as far as miztd and data wlruld go, were hmbling to those fortunde enough to work with Ffoyd. In his presence, one tended to become more careful of speech and less boiskrous, mort. neutral with claims. Self-policing around Floyd sl.rarpened the mind in

Ohifltn~y,Fluyd bunsbzrry

xix

innumerable ways. He served as principat adviser on relativeIy fw Ph.D. theses, hut: his students, visiting scholars, and postdoctoral, colleagues included the top specialists in Mesoarnerican studies: fmet Berlo, Wlliam Fash, f ohn Henderson, David f oralemon, John f us teson, Jeff Kowalski, Peter Mathews, Mary Miller, Lhda Schele, and Karl Taube. Maya epigraphy would have been a very different, less linguistically oriented d i s c i w e without him. With Floyd and felktw professors Mchael Coe m d George KubXer, Yale achieved a status in the 1970s as the foremost place in which to study prc-Cofumbim art and writing. Moreover, respect for Floyd, garnered from his peerless research in linguistics, brought serious and positive atterntion to recent developments in Maya epigraphy. Floyd's prestige gave the new work heightened credibility, especialry for the research buflding on discoveries by the Swiet scholar Yuri f(norosov, who djed a pear later than Floyd. Floyd was a marvelms correspondent. A ""ttter" from.him could grow to dozens of page" typed m d rt.ty-ped m his museum-piece tinderwood, laced and fdigreed with Floyd's beautifut, sinuous handwriting. After multiple revisions, the letters w o d d be sent in, installments to the amazed and slightly awestmck recipimt. One such ""ltter,'"his study of Venus-related dates in Maya inscriptions, reached thirty-eight pages in length, shgle-spaced. A letter from Floyd was a rase thing, but also, one could be surt?, a communicatim that had absorbed many hours. These letters formd the fomdatim for his eiegaw, definiti\re papers. Later in life, FXoyd achieved a mastery over c o q u t e r s that confirmed, if there were any real need to do so, the suppleness and grandeur of his mind.. Epigraphers still use versions of his prograrn for calculating Maya dates. Et was not always clear that Floyd regarded Maya epi.graphy as an entimly healthy interest: "It's a disease, an addiction!""hc;said m more than one occasion, wamhg me to termper my interest else 1 fail my doctoral exams. As his life drew to a close, Floyd. pulXed away from Maya glyphs and to his first love, the Cheida Impage. 11%a sense, Floyd was one of the last near-native speakers of that demanding, agglutirnative tongue, having acquired. an unmatched fluency durQ his early years as a scholar. The a e i d a nation invited him to teach the language of their fore?bears, a task he djd willjngly and gra.t.efully We in turn are gmteful, that fate gave us a chance to know Ployd Glenn Lounsbury, whose like will not be seen again soon.

This note w a s improved by comments from Michael Cm, Harold Conklin, Mary Miller, and Karf Taube, Another version of this obituary is to appear in the journal Writing, l;nrlt;.tiage, alzd Literacy,

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

This page intentionally left blank

Opening the Royal Maya Court

The English word eorlrt has two basic meanings. The first is that of a group of people, ir7cluding thr srrvereip and the individuals who surround this high personage. The second describes an architectural cornpound where the royal family lives and where a significant portion of court activities takes place. The focus of this book is very firmly on the forxncr, that is, on the cowt as a group of peope- The latter, t-he architectural c o q l e x , serves oi necessiv as a primary source of irrformatim, Architecbre remains are not mere materid rczsidues of past behaviclr, but they probably played active roles in shaping the concepts and acts of court members (McAnany and Plmk, this va2ume). We, nonetheless, are far m m interested in the long-lieceased people who lived, worked, and died in such locatims. Moxeover, all courts change through time, if in a manner conditimed by the inertia of courtly pmtocol, hhitual practice, and monumental setting-what David Webster (this volume) has called the ""hrmit-crab" effect, but from which these royal crabs could not so easily extract themselves! To look at change, this book ennbraces the Maya area of southeastern Mesoamerica, from t-he Late pm-Classic, Classic, and post-Classic periods (Figure 1.1,).Because of their rich and cornprchensive evidence, the southern lowlands during the Classic period constih;lte the core of many papers. 'I'he chaptes that follow art? eyually attentive to Early Colonial mention of pre-Hispanic courts and to their survivals dter Spanish contact, Each of the contributors makes clear how much is k n o m , but also haw very much more needs to be done before a full history of the Maya court can be wrimm. 'This inl.roduction, then, is a beginning to a beg ing, as we slowly uncover the royal Maya court to modern gaze.

Gulf of Mexico

FIGURE 1.2 Map of the Maya Area with the Locatian of Major Sites Discussed in the Vc3lrrrne

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

5

The Study- of Royal Courts in the Maya Area To date, the study of the ancient Maya court has been limited haim and unfocused in a p p a c h . Some of the most rewealing work has concentrated on the post-Classic period, for which detailed ethnohistorieal data exist (Casmack 1981; Rays 1943). Monethekss, the royal court was peripheral to these inquiries, being addressed somevvhat ineiirectly as an adullct to political organization, elite lineage systcms, and other matters of relevance to synrhrmic, society-wide reconstructions. The study of 'Thfs Classic Maya courts (ca. A.D. 250-850) has hem even more. ~stricted. is not surprising, considering that only Ihirty years have passed since scholars fully recogized the presence of rulers and courts in Classic society A f er the brrak&rcwghr; of Proskouriakoff (4960, 1963, 1964), developments in hiem$lyphic &ciphermeat brought the history of rulers and dynasties to light, yet in surprisingly delayed research that did not reach fruition until the late 1970s and 1980s. (The delay probably resdted h m the small number of practicing glyph specialists and the meager quantity of accessible texts, Coe 1992:19>217,) At this time, the nature of Maya kingship and the recmstntction of dynastic history became major subjects of investigation (e.g., CulE>ert1991; Freidel and Schele 1988; FZouslon 1993; Schele and Freidei. 1990; Schele and Miller 1986), but with relatively little attention to the web of relationships that constihnted the court. Such h m a n intersections were barely conside~dfor the simple reasnn that a significant portion of hieroglyphic inscriptions seemed to refer mostly to ruiers and had scant inforr~ationon other people. More &tailed views of courtly life came into eltistence with the decipherment- of nonregd titles, the study of icmography, and. the detection of court scri:bes (e.g., Coe 1973; Miller 1986; Stuart 1987; Reents-Budet 1994).One sf the few sbdies targeting courts was Schele and Miller's infIuer~tialThe Blood of k'ings (1986), which did, more than any other work of the period. to evoke the ritual life a d liynastic interplay of the ancient Maya. Archaeology has been just as slow in opening the royal court. Excavators have long, known of large build.ings that they temed palaces, a label used with a pronounced diffidence about what, preciselyI a patace might be @ge,Satterthwaite 1943:17),Chly with systematic excavation, particularly by Peter Hasrison (1970) in the Cmtral Acropolis at Tikal, did, it become clear that some sf these strucbres were residences of rulers and other high dignitaries and that such buildings served as the locus of courtly activity. Data on numrous elaborate residential structures and rich bufials indkated that there wercl. a significant number of high-status individuals at each center"'These hdividuals appear to have closely assisted the rulers and functioned as members of the court, Nonetheless, anthropological archaeologists, especially those in the United States, cm-

tinued to address highly abstract issues such as political organizaticm and social stratification (e*g.,Demarest 1992; Houston 1993; Marcus 1993)-Royal courts as analytic entities barely registered on academic radar screens. People who lived in elaborate rttsidences were generally called elites, to be delined as separate units of andysis rather than as groups of agents with strategic objectives qualified by a s h a d worldview (Chase and Chase 1992; Palka 1905).Alternativelyr a ~gicentricfocus looked narrowly at the stratagems of historically ider~ti,fiedrulers and their peers (Schele and Freidel 1990). In this milieu, S d e r s and Webster observed incisively that "since so much of the anthpological literature on early state development has stressed Ihe ernergence of formal bureaucracies, it is w r t h remembering that the less format court dimensions of centralization may also be extwmeiy Fr.nportantf"(Sanders m d Webster 1988:524). In our view, the analysis of royal courts cannot be subsumed under the study of kingship, pofiticd organizatim, administrative systems, and social stratification, thou* these themes surely have much in comanon. Court studies involve dimgasions that are quite dissimilar yet still nodal in understanding theoretical concepts of class, polity, and Lncipient bureaucracy. For example, cottrt mern:bers are not necessaril,y indjviduals of high status (muston and Sbart, this volume; Inomata, this voluxne), Nor can a royal court be studied oniy throu* its administrative functions, since its internal power relations and symbolic properties dernmd equal scrutiny Tn the following section, we dlscuss these theoretical issues in more detail.

Theoretical Issues The first and mast essential questio~~ might be, How is the court to be deh d ? At the outset we admit to great reluctance in offerir\g a rigid, a priori definition that may eventually prove misleaeiing and unproductive, A quick review of royal courts in various parts of the world makes it clear that there exist numerous types of courts that vary significantly from each other in terns of composition, function, meaning, and organization. Ralhel; cou,rts m s t be studjed withjn specific culturd and hjstoricai contexts, accordhg to the research interests of indjvidual scholars, The m s t effective kind of definition &odd be flexible and jointly sensitive to indigenous precepts and present-day analytical requirements. Yet court does need to be djscussed heuristically as a type defhition that can be modified a d altered to i~~dividual taste. 111 our judgment, the pivotai feature of the royal court is that it hcorporates an orga~~ization cer~tered around the sovereign, be this person a king, ruler, empem, or monarch. The people vvho sufround the ruler may inrlude his c ~ her r family mem-

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

7

bers, advisers, retainers, guards, assistants, craftspeople, and servants. These cot~rtmelnbers are bound by mutual understmdhgs and obligations; their interactions generally take place in culturally ordered spatial setti~tgs. Poweriul nobles may also form their own courts, and the royal court itself may originate in the patterning of wealthy households (Webster, this votume). A potential pr"blcm oE our defhitim is that it exciudes these s e c o n d q courts. We aehokvledge that consideration of nonroyai, c m t s leads to productive lines of reseal-ch, and this problem should, be dealt with, again flexibly according to the =search vestion and strategy of each scholar (Armstrong 1927; Jaeger l985:28; Evans, this ~ r o l ~ ~ mStill, e), we =iterate that the central fcicus of this book is on the royal court, One =ason fnr our rczgicentric definition is tc:,preserve tight focus on the specific research issues. h o t h e r reason is Chat dlhough secondary courts may duplicate the estiential o~anizationand functions of the royal court, certain fcabres, particday those of symbolic. name, discussed fur&er on, remain uniqve to the latter. W e n nonmyat courts appear in this book, they do so in a supporting, comparatke role.

The inclusive and vague definition we fawor helps to avoid ethacentric bias but leaves a difficulty in defining court boundaries, Argmbly, even a state or polity can represent m organization centcred around the sovereign. We beliewe the crucial element here is physicaf proximity to the ruler. Spatial i,ncilusiveness and exclusiveness serve to define the mcmbership of a court in many societies, In his pioneering sociological inquiry into the court, Elias (1983:4143) noted that the court of the Frttnch ulzcien [email protected] was the vastly extended house and household of the king and his dependents and that all or at least a considerable segment of courtiers had bdgings in the king's house in Vctrsailles, as well as at residences in the city of Paris. In such a cme, court mmbership can be dei4ned by the right or duty to reside or to be present in the court as an arentity. This ccmflation of the two meanings of ccnrrt in English chitect~& derives from the European tradition. Nonelht.less, it is cross-czxlturdly true that spatid settings provide critical parameters in defining the court at; a group of individuals. Wten we appfy this concept universally, the spatial settings of a court do not necessarily involve physically fixed hcalities, The cmrts of Moroccan kings, for example, were in continual, if episodic, movement (6et.rtz 1977). "Thus the physical prcrsence of the king, not permanent architecture, anchored the court, Even European monarchs sometimes moved between different palaces and locdities, and so did their courts (ISrom and Elliott 1980; Dickens 1977:17-18; El-

liott 3989:154; Jaeger 1985:19). An exceltent illustratim of this is fie Elizabethan ploy of hanknxpting nobles by visiting them for interminde, demandhg stays: The cost of housing the royal entourage would tax the wealthiest peer (Loaeies 1984). II a vast majority of historically m d ethalogically h~own.examples, the sovereips and their c a t s tended to stay in fixed localities for prohtnged periods, ~ o u g this h evidence does not preclude their occasional moves (Ball and Taschek, vol, 2 of this book, forthcoming 21)Cfl).'These fixed localities were usuatl_).marked by an imposing built environment with pronounced attention to physical elevation and horizontal scrparation from other residences. In pre-Hispmic Maya society, it is most likely that some of the so-called palaces were the places where royal househdds resided and a large portion of courtly activities took place. In cmsequence, many of the contributors to this book place their strongest emphasis on architecturd complexes with myaX residential functions. The degree of control over access to the royal palace or s o v e ~ i difp fers from one society to anothez Accordingly, the defhition of the b o u ~ ~ d ary of a court diverges to a tremendous degree?, In many historically known societies, the batdnce betwwn the prudence of tight control over access and the convenience of easy comunication was clne of the primary concerns of the courts (Loades 1986:45). The power, prestige, and authoriw of the king and courtiers over the rest of swiety hinged heavily on this balance. IIMing- and Qing-period China, admjssion to the royal p&ce was tightly restricted, as its namef the Forbidden City, implies, In such irzstances, the boundary of fie court as a social group is rczlatively clear. IIother cases, the boundary of the court may be inherently bl~xrred, or it may even shift from t h e to time. For example, the English Tudor court apparently did not have clear-cut rules as to who should not be lodged in the palace. Thc nzlmlcler of- people that *sided at cowt fadlities fluctuated grcally with sessions of parliament and other events (Loades 39811:3840).In Spain under the Ilabsburgs, there was a large but indeterminate body of people loosely associated with the coust, besides court officials with accommodation in the palace or the town (Brown and EIZiott 398(3:36). The ve"ion of where the ancicmt Maya fell in thjs continwm of court boundedness can be determined only through empirical research. (We see intriguing variation in the degree of isolation of palaces: At some sites l w palaces sit adjacent to smaller pluzzteln groups [e.g., Dos Pilas, Gua.t.ennalaJ,w h e ~ a at s others varnlted palaces are acutely separated. f m other residences [@*g,, Piedras Negras, Guatemala]; see Martin, this volume.) Another complicated matter is how to treat occasional visitors of the rulers or royal palaces, including pocverfrll nobles or feudal Zeds who generally stayed in provinces outside the capitaf, or highranking bureaucrats who worked in administrative b.taildint;s separate

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

9

from the royal palaces, Whether to conslder them as part of the court depmds on the research questio~zsand analytical procedure of each investigates, not on ernic defhitions of courts in specific societies. Built envircmments and oher setti~ngsof the court are not mere physical, delimiters or containers of courtiers. Spatial arrangeme~ztsexpressed in physical settings inlnerently touch on the composition, patterns of behavior, and ways of thinkixng in the court. Elias (1983:4,7)noted: Far every kind of "being together" of people has a corresponding arrangement of space, where the people belonging together adually are or can be to>gether;i f not as a whole then at least In small units. And so the precipitate of a social unit in terms of space and indeed, more narrowly, in terms of rctc~ms,is a tangible and-in the literal sense-visible representatim af its special nature. In this sense the kind of accommodation of court people gives sure and very paphic access to an understanding of certain social relationships characteristic c ~ court f society,

In the case of the Japanese imperial, court, the architectural prosperity and decay of noble houses closely reflected shifts in power among political, competitors (Hall 1974:19). F~~rthermore, we believe that the built ellv i r m m n t shapes human intesaction and serves as a mnemonic device that i17Vokes and recalls thr cosmology of kingship, royal history, and court etiquette (see Houston 1998; Mouston and Taube n.d.; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Rapoport 1991)).Royal compounds may also materialize the symbolism and official ideology of the court (Ashmore 1992). Such architecture loaded with symbolism, i d e o l o ~m~d cultural meanings exerts active effects on courses of action taken by those who live or work there. For example, Reese p996) points out that the extraordinary conservatism of the Vatican court comes, at least in part, from its mcient, imposing quarters, The Royal Court as a "House" and Houselzold

In some societies, architecturt? may function as a vehicle for categoridrtg and contermplating social institutions. Li.vi-Stmuss (1982) noted the presence of houses as key terminological elements in smieties Irom medieval Europe to Japan, with profound implications for the study of courts in a broad sense, including the elusive matrt-er of nonroyal courts. For tkviStraws, the house could supersede tmd.itional anthropological terms for descent and kinship, which never seemed quite to match the loose and s ~ ~ p porganizations le that anthropologists and historians discerned on the ground. For example, noble houses of medieval, Europe strike many as problematic sociat units, sixlce the transmission of membership,

names, and wealth seldom fullowed clear-cut principles of descent or kinship. Voilh, the "'house"Cfa corporate body holding an estate made up of both material and immaterial wealth, which perpetuates itself through the transmission of its name, its goods, and its title down a real or imaginary line, cansidered legitimate as long as this conthuity can express itself h the language of klnship or of affinity and, most often, both" (t4viStrauss 1982:174). 'I'he house is an fnstitutionai creation that permits fie coc.)tistence of contradictory ta~dencies,such as patrilineal &scent and matrilineal descent, filiation and residence, hypergamy and hypogamy close marriage and etistant marriage, and heredity and election (Le%Strauss 1982:3184). Carsten and Hugtn-Jones (1.995)further examixled the relation between the house-as-architecbre and the house-as-social-instibtion, noting that buildings expressed not only social units but naturalized differaces in rank. Although the original formulation of LPvi-Skauss refers to noble houses, tbis cclncept m y be useful i r ~the study of myal colarts. fn some soci.eties, noble houses constitute primary subgroups within the royal court, or they provide social and economic bases for competing noble courtiers. The concept of house may even apply dircctly to some royal courts. For the study of the ancient m);&, where glyphic and ethohistoric evidence suggests that the ancestry and grouping of royalty and nobility were sometimes referred to as houses (Housto~~ 1998:521; Carmack f981), I:.,hvi-Sfrauss"~ concept of house offers an attractive theoretical model (see GiXlespie and Joyce 1997;Chmce 1998;foyce 1996,1999;Joycc and Gaespie 2C)t)Q; also see the Braswefl and the :Ringle and Bey chapters in the forthcolning volurne 2 of this bnok). A related issue is the nature of the royal court as a household. Clearly, the ccnart discharges many of the same roles, Like other households, t-t-re rnyal court involves daity practices, operating as a place ol production and reproduction, both social and physical. Xt is a site where weafth and rights are transmitted. For courts across the world, inctuding those of early modem Europe, intermingling of royal household and polity administration was quite common (Brown and ElZiott 1980:35-36). Following Max Weber, Elias (1983:4143) argued that the authority and power of the Frenctn kings developed from tht.ir domestic aulhority as masters of a house, The k i n g s h l e over the countfy was an extension of their rule of the court yua household. Sanders and Webster (19813:524) suggested that among the three types of centers-regal-ritual, administrative, and mercantiledeveloped by Fox (1977), the regal-ritual center could be conceived as the expanded household of the d e r , 'I'hat is, the administration of the polity is in mnny respects an extension of household administraticm. Nonetheless, it may be that this definition of the royal court reduces its hterpmtivr usefulness, since it effectively encompasses

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

12

all settlement anci poputation within the urban ey>icenter. The naturr of the couft as a household merits further inquiry (Mchanp and Plank, this volume).

Slrahs and the Dynanzics of Power itz the Royal Court In terns of the composilion of courts, we need to emphasize that the d e h ition of corlrl through thc pbysjcal proxhity to the sovereip does not necessarily imply that all the members of the court esljoyed high status. European courts, such as that of Louis XIV in France, were largely occupied by high-status figures, and Eljas (5983:17-18) called court people an elite p u p . Sisnilar situations can be found. in many other societies, yet we cannot assume that this was always the case. Some historically and ethnographically h o w n cotxrts hcluded i-ndividuals of humble orighs, those with physical deformityI especially dwarfs, and criminals (Amino 1993; Evms-Pritrchard 1948; Houston 1992;Mitamura 19"i"a;also see b~omata,this h some cases, these hdividuals gained great power and eco~Tol~xnne). nomic weallln through their intirnacy with the sovereip and by controlling access tc:,the king. It should be remembered that the catcufus of power, p~st.ige,and weallh was likely to have been ki&ly complex even h societies where the courts consisted. mainly of high-status hdividuafs (McGuFre 1983; Paynter 1989; Palka 1995). For exam* the pditical power and eco~~omic wealth of s o m highly rtzspskd hdividuals, such as religious personnel, may have been rather ~stricted.3311s it is misleading simply to characterize all of the court membas as e1itt.s (for problems in definirzg elites, see Howton m d Skart, this volume). The wide variety in the composition of courts means that organizaticmal principles and the dynamics of internal power achieve singdar prominence in any anthropological or historical investigation. In some societies, the position, power, and duties of each court member follow fnrmat laws and sumptuav codes; in others, such prescriptions are less clear. Despite such variety duties and relations among individuals in courts under discussion here are generally less clearly defined &m in most i~~dustrial nations. In other words, relations between courtiers tend to be personal and fi~x,idratha than professional and prcdefined (Elias 1983:1), Moreover, even in societies where the positions and. ranks of court members are hierarchically determined, some courtiers of low rank may gain profotrnd influence through their personat friendship with the sovercrign. Thus, our scope of study should encompass nut only noble courtiers but also kw-ranking members, all potentiaify impmtant players with distinct personal objectives. This also means that the court must always be interpretable with rcspect to human agents and their influence on institutional structures (see Giddens 19M).

The court is an arma of keen competi.tion m d the negcrtiatim of pwer. Such competitiw~can weur among different classes and factions \zrirhin a court, as well as beheen a ruler m d subjects, some more subsexvient than o&ers (see Bmnmfiel 3994; Gailey and h ~ e r s o n1987). The impiications of such competition are so~~etirnes quite complex. Inthe Tudor cou&,the sove d g n often took advantage of coslfGcts among nobles, for they served his or her purpose of weakening the nobility (Loades 1986:89). Nonetbeless, rulers in many societies are &tell manipulated by their dose &endmts, particularly by those who handle the flow of critical information and suppkants. Courts can, in a sense, be places of qualitative imprisonmat of the ruler, where the lord can be mnre v u h r a b . m d impotent. than alf-powerful. The vuh~erabilityof sovereips to manipulation may depend on their personal characters, as well as m their physicrti condifir,n and mental state. This observatio~n, reiterates the fact that courts are sahrated not only with hstitutionalization but with idiosyncratic, individual touches (see Reese 1996:185). The Heian court of Japan provides a suggestive example. &rhg this pwiod, the power ol'names s u q a s s d that of the emperor, and coIBpetition among courtiers eseal.ated.Nobles, however, conthued to rely m the courtly order as the s o m e oE ultimate fegitimkaticrn for their authority The stackre of the court served as a franework hvhesein such cmpetition tmk place and helped to keep conflict under control (Hdl 1974:19). Alll h all, courts are at once adwantageous and dangwous places for aspiring political actors (Anglo 197233; E,oades 19%:1"30).

Fanetions of the Coud and Its Relation to Society Tn most prcjndustrial societies, a court performs essential, administrative, judiciary ce~mcmial,and diplomatic functions of the state or polity. For many scholars, the administrative functions are of particular interest. In the case of the pre-Hispanic Maya, we can reasmably assume that the royal couft was the central ruling body of each polity Yet, like many siznilar societies, it is probable that Maya polity administration was not segregated frm o t h r fcatures of the court but was eznbedded in the muftifaceted entity that we call the court. In p~industrialsocieties, functional differentiation between administration and the judiciary was genaally undeveloped. Ad~ustablepersonal relations, not fegal injunctions, may have served as important:ch els for etecisionmaking and the execution of tasks. In addition, some of administrative and diplomatic functions may have been carried out in elaborate ceremonial contexts, In an extreme and perhaps owerinterprtrted case, Geertz (1980) descriZles Balinese h g d o m s as "theater states'bwhere theatrical performme of royal courts, not syualid political ends, was the ulthate objective of court activity. Again, we do not want to overgeneralize thrse aspects of courts in

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

13

noting the immense variety in examples known to us from the anthrflpological and historical literature. The composition, organization, functions, and symbolism of the court are nabrally formed througl~their rczlaticm to the rest of swiety*The administrative functions of the court &odd be undcrstood &rough Itcal political structures, Despite the tendency toward centralization represented by the court, a sipificant segment cJf administrative and judiciary fuxzdions h many traditio~zalsocieties is carried out by disparate sectors of society, in.cluding councils at the level of local, or kin groups (see Sanders and TvVebster 1988; Southall 1988; Tarnbid 1976). The existmce and continuation of a court natura:lfy depe~zdedon material and personal resources extracted from society Securing these revenues had to be critical for every court, although doubtless these overtures were not always successful against thc "wcapons of the weak" and a potentially obdurate peasantry (Scott 19%). The use of numerous sewants at court can, bowever serve as a mechanism for distributing wealth and prestige to lower classes of society Armstrong (2"377:58-59) pobts out that such processes iostered the security of the court of Burgundy because so many people had a stake hseeing it cmthue and thrive. The scale and size of: a polity and its popdalinn are just as important (Feinman 1998; Houston 1997). TThe operation of the court depends heavily on face-to-face contacts among courtiers. For many small- to mediumsized Maya centers, such face-to-face contacts m y have been possible between the central authorlities and the rest of the population at important political a d ceremonial occasions. At large centers such as Tikal, CalakmuL, and Caracol, interaction may have bee11 quite differat, of an austere remoteness that accentuated differences behnieen ruler and ruled.

IMeaniag in the Royal Goud Another saiient aspect of royal courts concerns the symbolic meanings they possessed or reprtlsented. %n most swicli,es, the court appears to represent two contrasthg me gs, One ernghasizes the court as a syrnbd of societd unim and as an exemplar for the rest of society CC;eertz 1980). The other stresses the external origins of the king and court and their detachment h r n others (SaEtlins 1985). n e s e notions pertain to the [email protected] contradictory na&e of kingship: at once remote and close, sacwd and secular, protective and dangerous (Hornton and Stuart, this volume). The klng is a distant personage who intercedes with the supernatural (Houston and Stuart 1996) anli a close fig- who met;llphorically equates with the .father/mot)ler of the state qua household.; the king reigns as a transeendental, serritdivine figure and governs md,administrata the mundane; the king comects with the sky and its supernahral forces and also with the fe-

c u d earth &at supplies food; in s ,the king resides both at the cmter of society m d outside it. It: is by this symbolism that the royail court disthguishes itself most substantially from the secondary courts of nobles. S o w symbolism m d idedogy may serve to legihize the power and authority of the ruling dass fE)ctnarest 1992; Codelier 197ff). Yet it is naive-and unwittingly reflective of currcnt thinking-to considcr that these ideologies we= created by cyniral indivjduals htent cm exploiting a gullible underclass. ",m whcn ideologies refl.ect the int.ercsts of rulers, it is more likely that royal symbolism transformed and appropriated previortsly existing patterns (Bloch 1986);this symbolism atrtains its greatest resonance when fashioned from broadly held beliefs or a cmmon idiom of collective understandings (Houston and C u m i n s 1998). We need to remember &at irm many cases the mlers themselves are born liefs (Claessen and Oosten 11990). Royal i d e o l o ~ and syntboli ways be tmderstood as frmctional or pragmatic devices political purposes. Patmtly the composition and organization of a court has *7iXed elements: s m e that prftject the royal ideology and symbolism, ot he explained in terms of political functionality and pragmatism, others that are &aped for collective or personal political purposes. Resides such long-endusing symbolism, the royal court constantly recreates its own images in, the shorter term, either consciously or unconscicrudy This process is deeply rooted in the ~ l a t i o nof the court to the rest of society; in internal competition among court members, and in rbalsy with other courts. In other sections of society, high culture embodied by cowtiers serves to distinguish the privileged and to prompt a h i r a t i o n by others (see Bourdieu 1,984; Baines and Yoffee 1,998).Thus the cultural ideal and aesthetics reprcsentczd by the court need to be maintained and enhanced incessantly by the proper education, behavior, and de~neanorof its members. Conspicuous consumption and theatrical spectacles by the s o v e ~ i g nand courtiers in the form of elaborate ceremonies, courtly attire, opulent banquets, magnificent ~ s i d e n c e s , and rare commodities obtained through long-distance trade is a typical means of generating glorious images of the court. The acquisition, maintenance, and monopoly of skilled artists and artisans who materialize elements of the cultural ideal and aesthetics are of vital interest to the court (momata., this volume). Courtly culture developed. and maintained in this manner can have strong effects on the rest of society. The court may assist the "civilizing process"-civilized in this case may be specifically defin.ed in each society from the pojnt of view of court members-b y imposing its discipline on society (Etias 1978; Elliott 1989:146). It is irnpmtant to note that at the sarnc time, noblesse obljge can b e c m e a burden for courtiers. Court culture, disciplirre, and decorum may lixnit their political options. Courtiers are usually expected to maintain adequate lifestyles, which may impose ponderous economic strains fEIias 19831,

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

15

As to competition among courtiers, the refinement of rhetorical strategies of spewh and posturing is a nearly ubiquitous process stimulated by the Merent competition incourtly settings. The emphasis on courtly culture may reach tbt-!poht where political and civic activities of courtiers become performance or a work of art (EIias f 978; Jaeger 198593-44,258). Under extreme circumstances, rhetorical and theatrical excellence may weigh more than progress toward admi~tistrativcobjecthes. 'This is one of the reasons some historically known states that sought to govern thruugh militaristic power or effective bureaucracy saw the [email protected] culture of the court as an obstacle to successful rule. The Kmakura and Tokugawa shogunates of Japan, for example, m d e conscious efforts to differ-. entiak themselves frm the emperor's court and to maintain Spartarn discipline. Yet their attitucie to imperial-court c d t u r t ~often remained ambivalent, and theyr too, developed their own courtly culture, though based on somewhat different stmdards of aesthetics and refhement, With regard to foreign rivalry, thr splendor of courtly practices can serve as a means of outsf-rhhg otbcr courts. kceptions for forc-.ip envoys can be occasions fnr both ragpmhement and intense competition, New or lower-rank courts may import practices of promhent dynasties, thus prontoting the difft~sionof simibr courtly culture beyond pditical boundaries, For this reason, well-documented practices among medieval and mod- European courts (e.g., Amstrong 1977; Elliott 1989; Jaeger f 985) appear highly szlggestive for the study of Maya courts Althougln court culture is based largely on mutual undcrstmdings oi the members, it may be strmgv influenced by the pesmality oE individual rulers (see previous text). At the Spanish court, such monarchs as Charles V and PhiIip EI did overcome prcvious court protocol and etiquette and established new patterns (Elliott 1989:151). Likewise, images of the court hctd by the rest of society oft- depend heak~ilyon the charisma of specific rulers. In the case of England, Elizabeth was particularly successful in generating powerfui and compelling images of supremcy and primacy, whereas her predecessor, Mary was not (I.,oadcs 1986:1,34)+ Specific Questions and Data Sets We hope that the foregoing djscussion demonstrates the ixnportance and potential of court studies. Courts are fascinathg in their oMin right, but

they also retate to issues of traditional inlerest to Mayanjsts..'These include the nature of kingship, administrative system$ political osgmization, and social inequality. The compo";ti"n and symbolism of the court are closely related to the nature of kings&. Without proper consideration of the former we cannot fully understand the latter (Houston and

Shart 1996). Administrative systems, craff production, and pcritical organization need to be reviekved with respect to the symbolism, rituals, and internal dynamics of the court. Momover, a quick review of royal courts r e m i ~ ~us d sthat the nabre of social hequality is far more cm* than a simplistic view that labels the cowtiers as an elite. The specific focus on the court helps to bring together different strategies and approaches: a social-scien.tific approach that a d k s s e s the abshact models of political organization, a humanistic approach that focuses on dynastic histories and people, and an analytic approach to institutions insofar as they can be rr.constructed horn available i n f o m t i m .

With these p o i ~ ~h t smind, we plmned this book so that it would examhe a variety of questions rczgading royal courts of the ancient Maya. M i c h srtbgroups constituted a royal court? Werl, its oqanizational principles bascd mah:ly on kinstnip or other instihtional bases, or did, they cllnsist of more fluid personal relations (Smders and Wetaster 1.988)? Were the dead considered a part of the court as in &c. case of the Znka? Is I,$vi-Strauss's concept of "house society" an appropriate modcl (L6vi-Strauss 1982; Carsten and Hugh-Jmes 1995)?Irr what way is the royal court comparable to or dgferent h m other households? These questions lead to the issue of p u p dynanics. M a t role did each member and s~lbgroupplay? What role did court artisans and, scribes discharge (Coe 1973,1977; H e h s 1993; Reents-Budet 199411 How can we malyze power ~ l a t i o n sm m g court members and between the court and other sc~ctorsof society (Gailep and Patterson 1987)?How was gender ideology perceived in a court? The questions cclntinue. What k k d of admi~~istratrive functions did a court carry out: and ho\y? What- %stained the court hmaterial terns? (In basic terms, how did p e ~ p l ein the court eat?) What was the mechanism of tribute extrxtion? Should a Maya court be viewed as an e x e m p l q center for the rest of society or as a focus of a theater state (Geertz 15380; ?Bte 19"62)?Or did it emphasiz transcendence and external origjns that contrasted with a d were detached from other parts of Maya society (Evans-Pritchard 1948; S&1ins 1985)?Are there any common cosmologicaI themes that shaped, the royal comts of dihrent polities, including tropes of centrality, quadripartition, landscape, and mythic conflation with heroic or c ~ a t obeSng;s r in, rcmote time?

Data Se& Tn addressing such questions, this book and its companion volume bring together data from archaeology, epigraphy, icmography and e ~ ~ ~ o h i s -

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

17

tory. As mcmtioned, thr royal court as an architectural entity is a primary source of information. In the case of Che ancient Maya, large-building cmplexest often called palaces, most likely served as royal courts in this sense (Kowdski 1987; Harrison 1970. [email protected] pdaces are among the most conspicuous remnins at Maya sites, our understanding of their iunctions and meanings has been rather limited. ¢ excavations at various Maya sites are providing detailed information about pdace architecture and activities conducted in these complexes (Ball 1993; Chase and Chase 1996; Folan et al. 1995; Hansen 1998; Shares, Miller, and Traxler 1992; Vald6s and Fahsen 1995). Palaces, however, were not the only locations where court activities took place. Some court members probab%ylived and conducted part of their duties in buildings outside of myal palaces (f?ouston et al. 1998; fnclmata 1995; Webst(L"r1989). 11% acldition, the ruler and his or her entourage may have possessed morc than one residence and may have visited other locations for administratke, diplomatic, and religious purposes (Geertz 1977; Houston 1993; Struart: and H o u s t o ~1994)" ~ h o t h e r important set of data derives from epigraphi.~and iconographic studies. These prment vivid fmat;es of ac'tivilie fn royal courts and. of the people who participated in them. Such people are not easily accessible h the archaeological record other than as the occupants of rich but mnregal graves and as the probi\ble occupmts of smller palaces. Until rc-tcently, epigraphy and ico~~ography primarily provided evidtmce of mlers, largely because these figures formed the principal AetoricaI emphasis of stone monuments exmined. by Proskouri&oM. New deciphments of titles and other glyphs substantially augment Che drarnatis personae of the Maya court (Houston 1.993; k g k 1990; Stuart 199%Schele and Miller 19236). En addition, caamic painkgs often depict numerous indivjduals engaged in cot~xtlyactivities and offer abrlndant hf~rmationfor the study of comts (Coe 1973; Reents-Budet 1994). The study of this particular type of media has been hciIitated trmormously by splendid roU-out picbres of vase painthgs by fusth~ Kerr (1989--1997).Mural paj-ntkgs, too, represent some of the most detailed h a g e s of court life (Miller 1986). Finally, ethnohistoric d o c m n t s from the Early Colonial pericrd provide debiled informtim on the court that is unavailable for earlier periods (Braswell 1996; Carmack 1981; Hill and Monaghan 1987; Restall 1991i;Roys 1943). Important in themselves, these data also serve as sources of andogy for Classic courts.

Organization of the Baok This effort consists of two volumes, The present Volume 1 includes two parts: "l'heoretical and 'l'hematif Appmaches" and ""Cornparathe Mews

and Concksions." Volume 2. pmsents chaptcrs etiscussing royal courts at specific centers m d areas. In Part 1 of this volume, thc theoretical and thematic section, contributors present theoreticd frameworks for the study of courts and itemfze fmportant issues to be examined. 11%addition, epigraphic and iconographic data arc s'y'nthesiZed from across the Maya region. First, fnomata deals with the identity and roles of nonroyal members of the court from a comparative perspective. The t h e w of Houston and Stuart's cchapter is the power play between rulers and secundary lords, who are identified by title and by context. McAnasry and Plmk discuss the questions of the c o ~ &as a household and the role of domestic space. In the foilowing chapter, Wcbster exarnirres s p a t d aspects of Ihe court by anabzing the layout of palaccs at major Classic Maya centers. Martin also analyzes arct-ritectural settings of the court and discusses their implications for the understanding of court organization. RcentsBudet reviews court scenes depicted, in ceramic vase paintings, focusing on their architectural elements. h the first chapter of Part 2, Evans examines the Aztec royal court and buil.ds on her long-standing archaeological.and ethnohistorical research (Evms 1994). Rich ehohistoric information m the Aztec court p s e n t s valuable malogies for Maymist readers. In the last contribution, Coe presents his concluding remarks, refrzrring to the entire book. He makes a =sounding plea for closer attention to hlfaya iconographli, *ere couftly life comes alive like nowhere else,

Many of the ideas presented here were developed and refined through cmversations and dixussion with the padicipants af the cmference and the cmtributors to the volume. We are particularly indebted to David Webster and anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments an earlier drafts of this introduction,

References Amino, Yoshihika. 1993. lgyono Oken [in Japanese, Kingship of strange appearance]. Tokyo: Heibonsha. Angia, Sydney 2 977, ""Te Caurtier: The 13enaissance and Changing Ideals," In A. G. Dickens, ed., The CoilrZs of Europe: Politics, Ptztrer~age,and Rupafdy, 2 400-1 800, pp. 33-53, London: Thames and Hudson. Armstrong, C.A.J. 1977. "The Gctf den Age of Burgundy: Dukes That Outdid Kings," h AA.G. Dickens, ed,, The Courts of Eur.ape: I")olitit=s,Patronage, and Royalty, 1400--1800, pp. 55-75. London: Thames and FTudsc~n. Ashmare, Wertdy. 1992. "Deciphering Maya Architectural Plans." In Elin Danien and Robert Sharer, eds., New Tlteouies on the Anclrtant Maya, pp. 173-184. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

19

Baines, John, and Norman Uoffee. 1998, ""Ordel; Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ane eds., Arcient E a p t and Mesopotamia." h Gary Feinman and J ~ y c Marcus, c h i c Slates, pp. 199-260. Santa Fe: %boo2 of American Research. Ball, Joseph W. 1993, *'Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and frolitics: Some %cioeconomic and Political Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Industries." h Jferemy in the Ei8Fit.h A. Sabloff and J o b S. Henderstm, eds., Lowland M a p Civiliz~lio~t Cenfztry A.D., pp. 24S272. Mshington, DC: Dumbarton Qaks Research Ljbraq and Collection. Btoch, Maurice. 1986, Fro.crl*rtBlessing to Violenw: Hiskoty atzd Ideology in the Circzimcision Rittdtrl of fhc Merina of- Mndngnscnr. Cambridge: Cambridge University 13ress. Braswelt Geoffrey E. 1996. ""A Maya Obsidian Source: The G~archaeolc>gy, Settlemrtnl:History, and Ancient Economy of San Martin Jilotepeque, Guatemala,'" I""h.l>.dissertation, Tulane University. Brown, Jonatl~an,and J. H. Elliott. 1980. A Pahmfur a Kitzg: The Biicn Refim t k ~ dthe Court @P.hili;pIV. New Haven: Yale University Press. Brrrmfiel, Elizabeth M. 1994. "Factional Competitic~nand Political Development in the New World: An Introduction." In Elizabeth M. Brurnfiel and John W. Fox, eds., Facfioiolzat Competitiorz alzd Potifienl Development itz the New World, pp. 3-13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social GriCiqzre ofthe Judgenzeniof Tasfe.Transbted b y airhard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Haward University Press. Carmack, Robert M. 1983. The Qtricltt Mayt~sof Utnfldn: The Evoltltion oJa Higltland Guntemnla Kitzghm. Ncjrman: University of OklaFLc>maPress. Carsten, fanet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds. 19%. Aboztt the House: Ldzli-Strnuss alzd B q o ~ z dCambridge: , Cambridge University Press. Chance, John K. 1998, "Descent and the Nahua Noble House," Paper presented at the American Anthopafogical Asst~ciation,PhiladelpKa. Chase, Arlen E, and Diane Z. Chase, 1992. "Mesoarnerican Elites: Assumptions, Definitions, and Models." h I[nP>ianeZ . Chase and Arlen E Chase, eds., Mesoalrzerican Elites: A n Arcl2neaEogiml Assessnzent, pp. 3-17, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1996, "The Organization and Composition of Classic Lowland Maya Society: The View Erc3rn Caracol, Beiize." h Mrulfia J. Macri and Jan McHargue, eds., Eighftr Palenqz~eRoztr~dTable, 2993, pp. 243-222. Merle Creene Robertson, general editor. San Francisco: Pre-Coturnbian Art Research Institute, CLaessen, P-ienri J, M,, and Jarich C. Qosten. 1996. "Disrrssion and Cc~nsicleratians." h Henri J, M, CXaessen and Jarich G, Oostm, eds., Ideology n ~ the d Formation oJ Early Stales, pp. 359-405. Studies in Human Sc>cietyvol. 2.1E~iden:E. J. Brill. Coe, MichaeX D. 1973. The [email protected] Scribe and His World. New York: The Grcllier Club. . 1977. ""Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes and Artists.'' h Norman Hammancl, ed., Sockt Process in Maya Prehistory: Essays in klorzor of Sir En"c Ttzo~rtpson,pp. 327-349. London: Academic Press, 1992, Brerakirzg the h y t r Code, London: Thames and Hudsan. Culbert, T. Patrick, ed, 1993. Classic Maya X"3olz'ticnlHistoq: Hieroglypl2ic and ArcltaeologimZ Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

20

Tak~~flli Inomnla and Stqlzen D. HousFon

Demarest, Arthur A, 4992. ""leology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolutiim: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities." h Tnrthur A. Dernarest and Geoffrey Mr; Conrad, eds., Ideology and Pre- Col~nzbia~ Ciz?ili;zations,pp.135-158. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Dickens, A. C, 4977'. "Monarchy and Cultural Revival: Courts in the Middle Ages." In A. G, Dickens, ed,, The Courts of Europe: Pc~litics,P~tronnge,and Royalfy, 14UO--1800,pp. 8-31. Lc>ndon:Thames and Httdsc)n. Elias, Narbert. 1978. Tlze Ciailizi~zgP W ~ S New S , b r k : Urizen. . 1983. T?le Cozrrt Society [Die hiFfiscIze Gesellscizafi, 19691 Ranslated b y Edrnund jephcott. New York: Pantheon, Elliott, John H. 1989. ""Te Court af the Spanish Habsburgs: A Peculiar Institui n Ifs World, 1501b1700, pp. 142-161. New tion?" In John FT. Ellie>tt,ed., S ~ ~ aand Haven: Yale University Press. Evam, Susan "1: 1992. ""Architecture and Authority in an Aztec Village: Farm and Fmction of the Tecpan," In H. R, P-ial-ciey ed., Ln~zda ~ Politics d in the Valley of Mexico: R Two Thousand Year Perspective, pp. 291-319. ALbuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Evam-Pritchard, E, E. 2 948. Tke Divitze Ki~gshipof the Slzilzlk of trlte Nilntic S u d n ~ . Cambridge: Cambridge University 13ress, Feinman, Gary M. 1998, ""Scale and Sclcial Organization: Perspectives on the Archaic State.""n Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, eds., ArcI-ral'c SCntes, pp. 95-1 34. Santa Fe: khsoX of American Research Press. Folan, WiXliam X., Joyce Marcus, Svphia Pincernin, Maria del Rosario Uomhguez Carrasco, Laraine FXetcher, and Abef Morales Edpez. 2 "395,""Calakmul: New Data from an Ancient Maya Capital in Campeche, Mexico." Lati~zRmcricnn Rntz'quify6: 310-334. Fcm, Richard . 1977. Urban Anfhropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentlce Hall. Freidel, Bavid A., and Linda Schele. 2988. "Kingship in the Late Preclassic Lowbnds: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power." A~lrtericanAntlzropologist 90: 547-567. GaiXey Christine W., and Thornas C. Patterso)n. 1987. ""lxwer Refations and State Formation." In Thornas C. Patterson and Christine W. Gailey exis., Pt~zuerRelrd Forfmtion, pp. 1-26, [email protected], DC: American Anthropological tions n ~ State Association. Ceertz, Clifford. 1977, "Centers, King$ and Charisma: Reflections an the Symboli c of ~ Pc>wer." In Joseph Ben-David and 'Terry Nichols CXarkc;l,eds., Gzlldu~and Ifs Crenfors: Essays in Wonsr of Edzuard Shils, pp. 150-171. Chicago: tmiversity of Chicago 13ress, . 1980. Rlegam: The Tlzcater State i12 Ni~2etectzf/2-CentztryBuli, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Giddens, Anthony 1984. Tlw Conslilufion c$ SocieE-y:Ozrlline cf the nteo1y of Struetumtz'otf.brkeley: Universiq of Califc>rnjaPress. Gille~pie~ Susan B., and Rcrxmary A, Joyce, 1997, "Gendered Goods: The Symbolism of Maya Hierarchical Exchange Relations." h Tnheryl Claassen and Rosemary A, Joyee, eds., Worneft itz Preilisfuq: North Amel-icnn and Mesutrmcricn, pp. 189-207. Philadelphia: Universiv of Pennsylvania Press.

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

21

Codeliel; Maurice. 1978, ""Ecc~nomyand Religion: An Evolutionary Optical IIlusion.'?n Jonathan Friedman and M, j. Rowlands, eds., The Ez?olufz'onof Social Systents, pp. 3-12. London: Duckw-orth. Hall, John VV, 1974, "Kyoto as Historical Background." In John ttl, Hall and Jeffrey I"". Mass, eds., Medieval japan: Essays in Institutional Histo?, pp. 3-38.. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hansen, Riichard. 1998. "Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic Antecedents of Classic Maya Architecture." In Stephen D, Houston, ed., Fur?ctl'orz n ~ Meani~zg d i1.2C ~ Q S Sa ~yGa ArclziCecture, pp. 49-1 22. Washington, BC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Harrism, Peter D. 1977. "The Central Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: A Prelixninary Study of the Functions of Xts Structural Components During the Late Classic 13eriod.'"Ph,B. dissertation, University of 13emsyfvania. Austin: UniHelms, Mary W 1993. Craft alzd the K i ~ g I yMeal: Art, Trt~cle,and Pozo~?~. versity of Texas Press. Hill, Robert M., II, and John Mcjnaghan. 1987. Confi~uitiesi~zHiglglllland Mnyn Social O r p ~ i z n t h Efhrzohistuly ~: in Sawpulns, Gzratemnta, Pl~iladelphia:University of 13ennsylvania 13ress, Houston, Stephen D. 1992, "A Name C1-h for Classic Maya Dwarfs." In justin Kerr, ed., Tale Maya V ~ s Bad, e vol. 3, pp. 526532. New York: Kerr Associates. . 19%. Hieroglyphs and Histoy nb Dos Pilns: D!inasfic F"ulitic~of fhe Classk [email protected]: University of Texas fyess. . 1997. "Eig Ts Beautihl: I""iedrasNegras and Z,owland Maya Urbanism." Paper presnted at the Complex Society Meetings, University of Arizcma, . 1998. "Finding Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture." In Stephen D, Houston, ed,, Fur?ctiorz and Meani~gin Clnssk h y a Architecture, pp. 519-538, Washingtcm, BC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Callcscticjn. Houston, Stephen, and Tom Curnmins. 1998. "h+, Presence, and Space in Andean and Mesoamerican Rulership." "per presented at symp~siurn""Ancimt Palaces of the New World: Form, Function, and. Meaning,""Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, mshiington, B.C. Houston, Stephen, Ff6ctor Escobedob Mark Child, Charles GoXden, Rene Mux?ic>z, and MBnica U r q u i z ~ .1998. "Monumental Architecture at Piedras Negras, Guatemala: Time, Histo% Meaning." M ~ y a b11: 40-56. Housttln, Stephen, and Davicl Stuart. 1996. "Of Gods, Clyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic Maya." Antiquity 70: 289-312. Houston, Stephen, and G r l Taube. N.d. ""An Archaeology of the Snses: Perceptual Psychology in Classic Maya Art, Writing, and Architecture," Unpublished manuwript. Tnornata, "hkeshi. 1995. "At-chaeological Tnvestigatians at the Fortifid Center of Aguateca, EX Pet4n, Guatemala: Implications for the Study of the Classic Maya Collapse."Th.D, dissertation, Vanderbilt U~versity. Jaeger, Stephen C. 1985. The Qrigizzs c$Courtliness: Civilizi~zgTrends and tlze Fornzatic~rzojCourZIy Ideals, 939-2210. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Joyce, Rosemary A. 1996, "Social Dynamics of Exchange: Changing Patterns in the Honduran Archaeological Record.""n Car1 Menrik Langebaek and Felipe Cardenas-Armyo, eds., Chieftcril-zs,Pozuer nud Trade: Regional Interactimr izt the bt-

termediate Arm of thc Americas, pp. 34-46. Bogc~th: Departamentcr d e Antropolcrga, Universidad de los Andes. . 1999. "%~ciatDimensions of Pre-Classic BuriaXs." h Tnavid C. Grcjve and Rosemary A. Joyce, eds., Social %l t terrzs ilz Pre-Classic Mesoanrericn, pp. 15-47. Warjhingtcm, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Z,ibrary and Csllection. Joyee, Rosemary A., and Susan D, Gillespie, eds. 2W0. B q o ~ t dKi~slzip:Social and Material Repmdrcction izz House Sociefics. Philadelphia: Universiv of Pennsylvania Press. Kerr, Justin. 2989-1997. The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus of Rollout Plzofograplzs of M y a Vaslrs. Vols..1-5, New York: Kerr Associates. Kowaiski, Jeff Karl. 1987, Tke Hotase of the Governor. Norman: University of Oklahoma. Lkvi-Straws, CXaude. 1982. The Way of the Mask. Translated b y Sylvia Modelski. SeattXe: University of Washington Press. Loades, David. 1986. The E ~ d o rCozirt, London: Batsford. Marcus, Joyce. 1993. ""Andent Maya Politicat Organization." h Jererny A. Sabtoff and John S. Henderson, eds., Lozulntzd Mayn CiviEizntic~tzin the EigJzEk Centuq A. D., pp. 111-1 84. Washington, BC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collectic>n. McGuire, [randall H, 1983. "Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and Hetero>geneiv." In Inishaef %lhiffer# ed ., Adclances i n A rcizneologid Meflzod and Ttzeo~y~ vol. 6, pp. 91-141, Mew York: Academic Press. Miller, Mary Eilen. 1986. Tlze Mlamfs oJBonanzpak. Princeton: Princeton Universiv Press. Mitarnura, Taisuke. 1970. C111'nese E Z I ~ U CTlze ~ E SStructztre : of I~?Ci?nfe Politics [Kilngan], Tramlated by Charles A, Pomeroy. C. E. Rutland, V E C, E, Tuttle. Palka, Joet. 1995. "Classic Maya Svciaf Inequality and the Collapse at Dos Pilas, Peten, Guatemala." 1""h.D.dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Parker Pearson, Michael, and Cotin XGchards, eds. 1994, Arc1"zitectureand Order: Apprcjtnc!~to Social Spce. London: Routledge. Paynter, Robert. 1989, "The Archaeology of Equaliv and Inequality." Annual Re71i~~w ~ ~ Atlz~pritlogy I z 18: 369-399. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. 4960. ""Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates at P-iedrasNegras, Guatemala." Americ~nAnliquify 25: 354-4175, 1963. ""Historical Data in the Inscriptic~nsof Yaxchifan, Part 4," Esfudios de Cultura Maya 3: 149-167. Mexico: Universidad Aut6noma Be Mexico. 1964, ""l-listorical Data in the Inscriptic~nsof Yaxchitan, Part 2," Esfudios de Cultura Maya 4:27?-201. Mkxico: Universidad Autrinorna d e ~Vkxicu. Ragoport, Amos. 1990. ""Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings." h Susan Kent, ed,, Dolrrestic Arcltitecture and trlte Use of Space: An Xnterdisciplina7-y CrossGzllfuml Study, pp, 9-20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. : Politics and Orgalzizntiorz of fttc Catttolic Reese, Thomas. 1996, Inside ttw k l i c a t ~ The Cambridge, MA: Haward University Press. Glzlil~l~. Reent$Rudet, Dcrrie. 4994. Pailtling tttc Mnya Unizrerse: Royal Ceramics of tfze Classic Perisd. Durham, MC: Duke U ~ v m s i t yPress. Restall, Matthew, 1997. The h y n World: Vzrmfec Culture a~zdSocietyf 1550-2850. Stanford: Stanford University Press,

Openi~zgkke Royal Mnyn Court

23

Ringle, William M, 4990, "Who Was Who in Ninth-Century Chichen Itza." Ancie~zfMesaalrzericn 2 : 23S243. Roys, Rafph L. 1943. The [n!nAh;rn, Bnckgrcjtund I?J:Colonial "I"um5nn.Washington, DC: Camegie Institution of [email protected] Sahlins, Marshail. 1985. Islands cfHisto~y.Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sanders, Williarn T., and David Wbster. 4988. "The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition." A/"?inzerz'can Anlrlzrqologist 90: 521-546. Satterthwaite, Linton. 1943. Pitdrras Nrgrns Arc/zneolt7gy: ArcI~itectur,Part 1, No. 2, hittroduction. Philadelphia: University Museum, Unhersity af 13ennsyfvania Schele, tinda, and David Freidel. 4990. Forest of Ki~zgs:The Unfold Story of the Ancielzt Maya. New York: Morrow Schele, Z,inda, and Mary EIIen Millez: 1986. The IZEtlod #Kings: Dynasly and Ritltal irz Maya Ark, New York: George Braziltler. Scott, Jarnes, C. 1985. Weapons cf the Weak: Eaeyldny Fornzs I?J: Peasnnl Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sharer, Robert J., Julia C. Miller, and Loa Traxler. 1992. ""Evolution of Classic Period Architecture in the Eastern Acropolis, Copan: A Progress Report," Ancienk Meso~mericn3: 145-159. Southall, Aidan. 4988. "The Segmentary State in Africa and Asia," Cumpnra"nliiz7e Studies i ~ zSociety nnd H k t o y 30(1):52-82. Stuart, David. 1987. Ten Phonetic Syllables. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 14. Wshington, DC: Center for Maya Research, . 1995. ""A Study of Maya Tnscriptions." ".E>. dissertation, Vandehilt University. Stuart; Ravid, and Stephen Houston. 1994. Classic Mnyn Place Mantes. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Arehaecjlogy. Nshington, DC: Dumbartc~nOaks Research Library and Collectiron. Tambiah, Stanley j, 1976. InkarM Conq~dcrort k ~ dWorld Re~~ozalilcer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tate, Carolyn E. 1992. Y~xcitilan:Tlze Design ofn Mnyn Ce~enzoni~l City. Austin: Univmsity of Texas Press, VaIdGs, Juan Antonic, and Federico Fahsen. 1995. "The Reigning Dynasty of Uaxactun During the Early Classic: The Rulers and the Ruled." A~cienkMeso~merica f7: 197-21 9. Webstel; David, ed. 4989. The House of the Bncnbs, Copnlz, Hondirms. Studies in PreColumbian Art and Archaeology, no. 29, Washington, B.: Bumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,

This page intentionally left blank

PART ONE

Theoretical and Thematic Approaches

This page intentionally left blank

King's People Classic May Courtiers in a Comparative Perspective

Developments in epigmfiic deciphement, iconographic studies, settlement survey, m d extensive excavations since the 1950s have drasl;ically changed our view of Cl.assic Maya society We nllw know that it was headed not by priests who were preoccupied with astrunamical cakulaticrns hut by kings and nobles MIho fought and competed with each other.' It is equally clear &at tht Classic Maya had royal courts with nwBerous cour2iers. Yet we an. barely begimhg to unlterstand the composition m d fmctions of such m entitSx, The rulers, Mxho were the center of the courts, are relatively visible in the epigraphic, ico~~agrizplhic, m d archaeological record, but other members of courts are poorly understood. These courtiers, howwer, probably played sit;nificant mles in the ad reiiginus, and djplomtic affairs nf the polities. The study of these cottrt: merrtbers is mitical for a better understmding of Classic Maya sociew, As discussed in the introduction of this volume, for my purpose a court is rather loosely deflrned as a group of individuah, including the mler and those who assist and atltend this person in physical proxhity, generally in culturally ordered spatial settings. These spatial spheres may also be refcrred to as cousts in English and other lmguages, SpeciCic Minitions of cotrrt depend on the research questions and interests of each scholar, In my opinion, unfversal, a priori definitions are unproductive. A more detailed view of a court emerges only throu$h the examination of data in the context of specific cultural and historical situations. Within this defhition of court, fie focus of my chapter is on court mem-

bers, excluding dose family members of the ruler such as spouses a d children. I use the terms ccjurfier and cozrrt member synonymously; including not only high officids but also low-status hdividuds without official rank. They are assumed to have spent significant time i~~siete or near the rnyal palace, and s o m ol them probably accompanied the ruler when he or she left-the palace. As discussed later, X believe that access and physical proximity to the ruler art. important factas that affect the power of in&vidmls, particukrly hvhere the ruler claim djvhe authority In this chapter, X address three major questions rcgading the Classic Maya courtiers. What did they do? Who were they? And where did they live and work? X do not htend to give exhaustive treatments to suck large problems. The main objective of the chapter is to lay out theoretical issues invoked in these questions, as seen from a cornparathe perspective, First, I briefly revkcv types of work carried out by Classic Maya court members, Though our d e r s t a n h g is still limited, some information concerning this vestion is readily available from mhaeology, epigraphy; iconography; and ethnohistory. 'Thus, this sectio~~ provides a necessary basis for discussion, Our understanding of the next questions is even more limited, and direct evidence is yet more scaxe. As to the q ~ e s tion of who the courticzrs were, I discuss theoretical problms involved i,n the origins and recruitment of court members rather than trying to give direct answms to the question. These theoretical problems art? closely related to the power relations between rulers and courtierii, as well as to the nature of kingship. :l then examine the spatial settings in which courtly acthities and interactions took place. As discussed i.11the intrcr ductory chapter of this volume, such spatial patterns inherently rcflect the orgmization and behavior of courts, Work at the Cau& I'he Maya court probably consisted of numerous individuals who wert. responsible for various types of cot~rtlywork. Their prhcipal duties may have included polity administration, adjudication, diplomacy, ritual and ceremonial activities, artistic and scribal production, and attending to various needs of the royal family, ranghg from food and clnlhing to em.ent. Although s o m of their activities are depicted or reflected in the epigraphic, icmographic, and arcrhaeological record, many others are o111y subjects of speedation. By listi.ng these possible types of work, I am. by no means suggesting that they are distinct categories, Xt is probable that an individual often klfilled more &an one of these duties and that some cerel~onies,for example, had admhistrativc3, diplomatic, and religious functions at the same time, Yet such cmcqtualization is a crucial step to decoding the organizaticm and operation of the court.

King's Peqle

Royal Household Management The royal court serves in part as the household of the ruler (Elias 1983:41; Sanders and Webster 1988.,%e also Inomata and Houston, this volume; M c h n y and Plmk, this volurne). 'Those who looked after daily needs of the sovereign and the royal family must have been m essential part of the court. According to Landa, an official called a calulrc was respclnsible for the mmagement of the ruler's household 21Contact-periodVucatm: [A catunc] kept account with the towns and with those who ruled them; and to them war; sent notice of what war; needed in the house of their lord, such as birds, maize, honey, salt, fish, game;?, cloth and other things, and the mluac always went to the hcjrase of his lard, in order to see what was wanted and prc3vided it immediately, since his house was, as it were, the office of his lord, (Tozzer 1941:26)

It is possible that Classic courts had similar officials. Morcaver, the court must have jncluded those who cooked fnr the royal family and servants Miho took care of other domestic needs, 'Ilhere may also have been royal guards and entertainers for the ruler.

Po Eity Admi~istraE-ion The centrd question related to the r y d court is its administrative Function, Historically kncrwn courts of preindustrial societies handlcrd polity admirzistration in a variev of manners. Befare I aclidress this asp& of the CIassic Maya court, a discussion of essmtial parmeters is inorder. Axl important problem that we need to consider is the dation beween the royal cotxrt and bttreawracy. T'he latter is a social instibtion specidized in state administration and related affairs. Its organization is clearly defined by laws. This means that at least in the ideal, duties are associated with respective posts rather than with persons, and the pattern of interaction among its members is shaped by predciined pmcedurczs between ogicial posts rather than by personal connections. Bureaucracy is supposed to operate h official and co1lective interesb, whet%lesof the entire society or of the ruling class. However, the royal court, as mentioned, is first the sovereign's household, into which polity administration and other functions may be hcorparated. Its orgmization may be mare fluid, and the relations among its members tend to be more personal (Lnomata and Houston, this volume). Idiosyncratic: and egocmntril: interests of its members, as opposed to officiai ones, may sitgnificantly affect the operation of the cotrrt, .A good e x m p l e of the development of bureaucracy can be seen in China. The Chinese bureaucracy which developed ower a period of mil-

lennia, culminated in the Mir^lgand Qing dynasties (1368-1912), in M;hich bureaucrats were selected from ~rariousparts of society through rigorous state exams. Those who survived this process formed the body of the Chinese atlministratke apparatus. An ehttorate system of rninistrirs and offices was ddined by legal codes and was leaded by the emperor as the suprem leader (Miyazaki 7.992; Tox-rami 1998). Osrly a s m l l number oi these state officials stayed tempomdy inside the Forbidcien City, or the rnyal palace. n o s e wha rcsided inside the palace on a p e r m e w basis were the m p e m , his untjtled sons, and a large number of females and eunuchs (Mitamura 1970). These =$dents of the Forbidden City formed the essential part of the royal court, that is, the court as a royal household, fn other words, the Ming and Qing dynasties of China represent one end of a crrntinulnm among preinduskial societies *ere. the royal court and bureaucracy were relatively well-separated. We need to remember that the royal court m d bureaucracy are not necessarily mutuatly exclusive, Even in Ming- and Qing-period China, bureaucratic orgmization dependcd heavi,ly m persollal relations cvith the emperor, and( burczaucrats were not well-specialized in specific tasks, as hdicated by Weber (49rjti). Momcwer, the fomalked bureaucratic stmctul-e was in reality o&enthreatened and compromised by intervent.ions of court eunuchs, who sought power mainly through informal resources such as personal favor &cited from the emperor (see further on). An example from Japan. also illustrates a complex relation between the court m d bureaucrxy. Jayan adapted, the elaborate bureaucratic system of China in the seventh cmtury. Yczt unlike in China, the burczaucratic: structure: in Japanwas hcorporated into court orgmization with its high positions occupied by court nQ13les.Efforts toward the establishment of an effective bureaucratic system centered on the emperor failed during the Heim period (794-.1192), as the power of noble houses grew and eva~kattysurpassed chat of the emperor. ALthough bureaucratic pusitions cmtinued to function as the s o m e of ultimate legitimization for nr>bte cclurtiers, political initiatives c m e fro^^ noble houses rather thm from the central state institutio~z.'The bureaucratic structurt. served primarily as a framework within which political strruggle among noble houses took place and as a means to keep such co~~flict mder control (Hall 1974:7.Q,19; Htzrst 1974:54). Many prcjndustrial societies lacked a formal buseaucracy, and the state administrative mechanism was undifferentiated from the court as a hausehold. In other words, the rnyal court functioned as Ihe cenkal body of polity admististrati.on. Politjcal decisionmaking and the execution of administrative tasks may have proceeded less formally with personat connections and situation& discretion weighing more than predefined procedures. Examples of these societies include some traditional African kingdoms where rulers clai~neddivine authority (Kupw 1947; Mair

King's Peqle 3977). b r m a l court ranks and positions usually existed in tbrse societies, although they may not have been so el,aborate as in the Chinese bureaucracy and may not have been so exp1iritl.y geared to pragmatic functionality. As in Hcim-period Japan, such court ranks and positions may have provi,ded a kamework for po:[it.ical struggles. Mrhm the adnnixlistrative section and the court as a royal household arc undifferentiated, pofity administration may be understood in a sense as an extension of royal household mmngemetnt (Sanders and Miebster 1988:5%). The auth0rit.y of the king may be based on or developed from the patriarchai or matriarchal authority- in a househcrld. In additicm, the conceptual and procedural distinction between polity administration and royal household mmagcment may be blurrcd, In other words, the same official may deal simultanecrusty with polity administration and royal household rnanagentent without makhg any conceptual djstinction between the two kinds of work. This characterization may even apply though in lesser degree, to larger monarchical states with a b e a u cracy Elias (1"383:4144) has argued that even the authority of preRevolutionary French kings was based on domestic authority as the ma* ter of a house. The administraition of the country was an extension of the management of the royal househoXd. It is important that there is no categorical distinction separating Chinese-sty le bureaucracy, the Japanese-style fusion of bureaucrat y and court, and the cot~rtwithout bureaucracy I would rather regard them as parts of a conthuum. By saying this, X am not suggesting that cornpIex questions of bureaucracy and court can be colapried into one dimensicrtn. Vct the relations between burenacracy and court discussed previously represent one aspect of polit)l administration. X believe that such conceptualization is useful in guiding our inquiry into Classic Maya society, where direct evidence is limited. Where does the Classic Maya admixlistrative system fall on this continuum? Direct evilience for administrative work in Classic Rcraya society is scarce. Such practical work was not a very attractive t-herne for gvphic and iconographic representation; nor did, it leave clear material rmains for axhaecrlogists. Despite this paucity of data, I am imciined to think that in most Classic Maya polities formal bureaucracy was u~ndevefoped(see Sanders and Webster 1988). Although epigraphic studies indicate that there were various titles (Houston and Shart, this volume), they do not appear to represetnt clear definitions of brtreaucratic duties..Spatial patterns of Maya courts, discussed further on, also provide evidence, albeit circumstantial, for weak bureaucratic deveiopmmt. 'I'he royal court was probably the main body of: polity ahinistration. A1though we do not have direct evidence, I suspect that the operation of the Classic Maya court was based heavily on personal relations ammg

courtien;~,not just on legatly defined h c t i o n s of court positions. The conceptual and proced~rraldistinction between polity ad~ainistration and royal household. managemnt may have been rather blurred. Likewise, there may not have been clear differentiation between administration and adjudication. Landa indicated that in Contact-period liitcatan both administratit.e and judiciar). affairs were handled by [email protected] officials, whiclh he called p~incipales,or "leading men" (Tozzer 1941:87, 123; see also Roys 1,933:190).Pmcedures during the CI:lassicperiod may have been similar. X further speculate that c a t organization with various titles was geared to somethi~~g more than mere adnlinistrative functionality. It probably served as a frawwork and arena of competitim among court members and as a source ol: legitimation for competing individuals and groups. I will c w e back to these vestions as :Iertanline related theoretical issues"

Diplomatic affairs are among the essential functions of many historicaIly known corarts. Even in modern nations, fncluding Ex~glandand Japan, the primary prag~mticlunctian of royalty is diplomacy. This is partly because royalty, even in an industrialized state, is the ultimate symbolic ~presmtationof the entke society. At the same time, fn tradi.tiona1 societies, fctrcig~~ relations developed and reinfnrccd through royai visits and courtly cemonies can be critical sources of prestige, authoritJs power, and even economic gains for rulers, :Inthe case of the Classic Maya, the importance of covlrts in diplomatic affa,irs with other centers is well represented in the epigraphic and iconographic record. Rulers appear to have played a central role, visiting different ceders and receiving d e r s and elnissaries of other dynasties (Houston 1993; Reents-Budet 1994:25%255). Various retajners probably accompanied. and assisted the rulers in these events. :Insorne cases, errtissaries from distant centus may have occupied importmt positialzs h royal courts. For example, Panel 19 of Dos Pilas denicts a possible emissary from. C a l a h u l particiyathg in an important ritual of the local dynasty*He seems even to have operated as a tutor or guardian of a local royal scion (Houston 1<393:115).

Another form of Iforeim interaction is was, Militaristic themes are conspicuous itl egigraphic and iconographic ~prczsentationsof the Classic Maya and were deeply ingrained in the Maya idcotow of kingship. Like many trad.itimal societies, the Classic Maya probably did not have standing armies or military command structures clearly differentiated hnl

King's Peqle

33

abinistration anci other polity functions (Hassig 1992). It is likc?ly that s n m court members plqecd. leadkg miljtary roles at the time of- war, as suggested by Bmampak murals and other epigraphic and iconographic data (see Miller in the for&coming volume 2 of this book).

hang the prixnary concerns of the Classic Maya royd cowt were rituals and ceremonies, whjch are clearly documented h the iconographic and epigraphiuecord. In many of these events, d e r s appear tc:,hiwe played a central role, if accmpanied by numerous cot~rtiers.Activities carried out by court members probably included the pl ing m d iogistical ortjmization of ceremonies, priestly duties, musical performance, and dance. Some of these activities are also reflected in archaedogical remains, such as temple buildjngs, i~zeensnrius,and bloodetters, ReentsBudet (this volume) describes such matters in rich &tail, and I shall keep my d-iscussion to a mhirnum, went-S-Budet, this vdume; Miller, vol. 2, iorthcomixlg). Important questions are how royal hornhold. rituals and state ce~monieswert. articutated and Mthether courtiers played different roles in the two types of ritual. Many rituais, such as those related to royal ancestor worshlp, had both memings, but others, induding pesiodending ceremonies and the sacrifice of war captives, may have been of a more p.ublic nature. The f u s i o ~ of~royd hous&crld rituals and public ceremonies may also have underlain polity administration as an extension of household management and kingship based on the domestic authority of the master of a house,

SeribaE and Adistie Work There is abundant evidence indicating that artistic m d scribal WO& was common among royal courtiers (Coe 197'7; Coe and Kerr 1997; Fash 11391; Inomata 1995; Reents-Budet 1994; Stuart 1987). It is also likely that those who painted codices and kept astronmical =cords worked in the social and physical proximity of the ruiers (Coe and Kerr 19517). Many of them may also have been responsible for administrathe duties and religious tasks, and. their artistic products played an important role in, gift exchange eiufing diplomatic occasions (Reents-Budet 1994).

Saclial Identify of Court Members Who were these Classic Maya courtiers? How were they appointed to these positions? Direct data regardjng such questions arc even more Limited. Some courtiers probably belonged to royal bloodlines; others may

have been hrwditary mbles. We also need to consider the possibility that certain important positions in the court were not hereditq, and sorxle of them may have been filled, by individuals of hurrrble origins. Two important theo~ticalissues pertain to these questions. &e is the set of power relations between the ruler m d nobles, as well as among court me~abers, and the other is the syxnbolic maning of the court.

Power Relatio~zsBeZ-zueen the Soverelp and Nobles h important factor affecting the p o w r of the ruler in ~ l a t i o nto other myalties and hereditary nclbles is how the right to court positions is deh e d (Mair 1977:62). In mmy traditional societies, polygamy is a co prac'tice among the myalty, anli their descmdants pmcreatc-1quicW.y These royal descendmts c m becme sources of inter~nalconflict m d feud. Likewise, hereditary nOblles are often conpetitors of the ruler, although they can at the same tirne be assistants to the sovereip, The power of nobies may be bascd on their o w independent resottrces, s ~ ~ as c hexclusive landholdhgs, d&ts to tribute collectionFand, their own nehork of personal relations. Yet prticipation in the royal court and proximity to the ruler, as well as attendmce at riknals m d access to foreig~~ dignitaries throu* the coud, can be important sourcm of autl.rority, prestige, m d political power. Csud officials recmited dirczctly by the .ruler rather than c0 by birthright may become the most loyal aides and can be a measzlrrt to protezct the power of the ruler against competition from. other royal tines and hereditary nobles. Courtiers who work close to the ruler share? and handle vital i,nformatio~~ abovlC the sovereign, polity administration, and ioreim diplomacy. It may be more desirable for the ruler to have loyal aides rather than competitors on his or her side. A good e x q l e of how the balance between social stratification and mobility affects the power of the sovereign can be seen FR p=-Revoiutiltnary fiance. Although hereditary nobles occupied important offices in the corlrt of Louis XIV, Cheir power was restricted by the legal pmhibitim to engage h any commercial enterprise. In addition, a certain level of social mhility was maintained, since prosperous bourgeoisie could buy a title. Arcnrding to Elias (1983:68-75), this codination of rigidity and mobility of social stratification was an important component of myal absolutism. Keenly aware of threats from nt,btes, Louis Xlb' deliberatcfy controlled social: mobility in the interest of royal. preemhence by distributing titles to rich bourgeois familis and by alleviating or preventhg the impoverishment of noble families t h u g h the warding of court offices (Elias 1983:68-711, In some historicaly known societies, the ruler chose individuals he or she held in high personal regad as members of the court. Some of these

King's Peqle

35

favorites c a m from n m o b l e groups. In the Dahomey kingdom of W s t Mrica, councillors and high officials were appointed by the lcing exclusively from commoner families (Lombard 15367:82). Evans-Pritchard (1974:183,1&4)noted that Zande kings sdected commoner boys tc:,be his pages, for they were required to keep the king" secrets and serve as the kings spies. Tn the Song dynasw of China, the emperm himself chose bureaucrats from various social classes &rough the device of state examh~ations, also filling the corlrt with emuchs of hu1nb1.e origins. As a result, the noble class that occupied, important bureaucratic positions in the Tang *nasty lost power durhg the Song period (Tonami 1998).fn other sncieties, certajn court positiorns were hereditary or ofiicials were chose11 from noble classes. In the Yamclto dynasty of Japan, important state offices VV~IL" filled by hereditary nobles, and the p w e r of the emperor was often thrcaterned or surpassed by that- of nobles. Other societies fall in the middle of this continraum. For example, in the Hausa kingd.om, certain offices were hereditary, and others werr nonhe~ditary(Smith 1967:1(15). How were Classic Maya court officials chosen? Although we do not have explicjt evidence regarding this question, circumstantial data suggest that hereditary nobles possessed strong power and occupied many of the court offices, Excavati.ons ol large elite residerntial structures at Classic Maya centers often show long, continuous histmies of occqation. In some cases, textual infarmation indicates that the residents of these buildings enjoyed a close relation to the ruler (Webster 1,989). It is most likely that the inhabitmts of many so-cafled elite residences were hereditary ntdles who also occupied important positions in the royal court. 'This situation may be cornparable to that of the Contact period in ayparcntXy occuhcatan! in which hereditav n&les called nl f~lef-zenob pied many crucial court offices (Roys 4933; ?i,zzer 4941:62). Among these elusive courtiers, royal scribes and artists l& us a wasonable amount of information about themselves (Figure 2.1) (Cm 1977; Coe and Kerr 1997; Fash 1989; b~amata1995; Reents-Budet 1994; Stuart 1987, f 989). T%ey often, inscribed their names in hieroglyphic texts, and sorne of h i r activities resulkd. in arctnaeologicaljy recognizable material mrnains such as ink pots, pigmat grh~eiers,and refuse from arZistic prduction. Epigraphic evidence suggests &at some scribe-artists were of royal or noble origjns (Closs 1992; Stuart lcf89a). Excavations at Copm demonstrated that Str. N9-82, an elaborate residence, was occupied by a noble scribe (Webster 1989). mese scribe-artists were, in a sense, the intellectuals of Maya society and held t b esoteric knwledge of mtigion, m)ltEt.s, astmnomy and the caler~drical system; pres ably they went &rough a tong period of training (Coe and Kerr 1,997). It is likely that most scrlibe-artists we= born into the royal or noble classes, This pattern was not lhited. to the Maya area, since in mmy other parts of Mesoamerica scribal duties

FIGURE 2.2 Shell ornament found in Str*M8-2 0 of Aguateca. The glyphic text recc~rdsa perscjnal name fof luwed by the scribal title 2'fs"anl..The cax~ingon the other side probably depicts the scribe. Brawing by Fernando Luh. Courtesy of Vanclerbill University Press.

were discharged by nobles. The religion, calendar system, and other howledge transmitted and developed by these scribe-artists, along with the products they made, such as stone m m u m e n t ~were essential for enhancing the prcstige m d autlnoriv of the myad and noble classes and for maintaining tbr unity of a Maya polity, Classic Maya scribe-artists we= nut powerkss "'atbehed specialists" "mmfiel m d Eark 1987; Costh 1991) who simply produced artistic goods at the behest of the mler; they were cenhal players in the royal court who competed for high status and power by using their scarce skills m d knowledge,

NOnnobEe and Fernale Memhep-s @the Court and the R ~ l e r % Pozuer Even though nobles may have occupied important positions in the Maya court, this does not mean that all court positions were hereditary. According to Landa (Tozzer 1941:112-113, 122-1231, a pramineM office of the Contact-period Yucatan-the nacom-was filled by election. It is likely that Classic Maya courts included similar positions. We need also to consider thc possjbility that some c a t officials were chosen from nornoble classes. In particular, dwarfs depicted in Classic Maya art may generally have been court members of nonnoble origins (Figure 2.2) (Houston 1992; Miller 1985; Miller m d Taube 1993:s). In many historically known societies mled by divine kingcincluding Classic Maya politics-some of the ruler's close attendants were of rather

King's Peqle

37

unusual naturt. or origins, such as eunuchs, foreigners, criminals, and hdividuals with p h y s j c d deforn^lities. As mentioned, Chinese courts were filled with emuchs, who were originally of lower classes or from criminal or foreign backgrounds. Likewise, the kings of Bcnhz of West Africa kept numerous dwarfs and deaf people FR the court, Dwarfs and hunchbacks also enjoyed privileged status in the Aztec court ( t i n n k 1943; Sahagfin 19W1982: Book 8, ch. 10, ill. 62; also see Evms, &is vdm).In Ottoman Turkey, eunuchs of Eumpem m d black Airican orig4ns Kcupied importimt posts in the court of the suttm. In the D&omey kingdom of West Africa, many members of the myd court, hchding the king's guards, weJ-e females, m d mast others were eunuchs (Lambard 1"37:8% h the Vomba kingdom, leading officials were eunuchs (Morton-Wliams 1967:6243). Zn some other Afrjcan kingdoms, foreigners were r e c ~ t e das courtiersThat these hdividuals are less likely to cause prvblems with the ruler's wives and harems is probably not the only reason they were recruited to courtty service. T h y protect and enhance the power and authority of the snvercign h the foltowing ways. Rsst, eunuchs, dwarfs, and foreigners do not have strong kinship bases for their FIGURE 2.2 Dos 13ilasStela 14 depicting a dwarf support or are unable to produce their accc~mpanyinga ruler. own descendants. Thus, they are unDrawing by Stephen likely to become threats to sovereign Hcluston (1993: Figure 3-24), power. Having these individuals as close aides may he morc advantageous for the ruter than having nobtes Miho are nrra~orcompetitors. Second, they buttress the divine naturc of royal authc3rit-y In traditional societies, the divine nature claimed by the rulers was often the prinripaf basis of their

authority and p w e r (t-touston and Stuart 4996). Kings, however, were h m a n beings who had to conduct ordinary h u m n activities, s~lchas eating and sleeping. This contradiction betvveen the belief of divine kjngship and the reality as human beings had to be dealt with. This may be one of the reasons why divhe Engs often s~~rrou~zded themselves with taboos, fn many African hgdorns, rulers were not supposed to be seen while they w a eating. Attenclants from outside the kingdom or with marked physical abnomatities proved effecthe in fashioning a veil of mystery over royal activi.tjes and irt maintaining syrnbolic distance from srabects. Whereas s m e dwarfs depicted in Classic Maya art appear to be mythological (Houston 1992), others arc clearly historical figures, fn particular, Burial 24 under Str. 5D-33 af Tikal contained the remak~sof a dwarf who may have accompanied his defunct ruler fCoe 19963:540-543; Coggins 197,5:371). They are often depicted with rulers, indicating their importance in the court. Some authors suggested that royal inbreeding led to dwarfissn, s s such individuals might well be of royal origizzs (Miller 1985; SclrteXe and Miller 1986). Xt is equally possible that such individuals with rare physical characteristics were ~ c r u i t e dh r n various social classes (Miller 1985). Depictims of dwarfii appear to emphasize their physical characteristics rather than their origins. Given the relatively common appearance of dwarfs in Maya art, E am inched to think that at least some of them came from outside royal blodines and the predncts of p w e r and prestige, Evans (this volume) points out that dwarfs and hmchbacks af the Aztec court were recmited from various classes. It is probable that Classic Maya dwarfs served to protect the power of thc ruler in tthe ways previously discussed. Cross-culturallyI femalcs are pivotal figures at royal court. Ir-t sorne cases they may simply constitute a harem, but in others they occupy prominent courtly positions. As mentioned, members of the Dahomey court, including the king's guards, w e mostly females (Lomttard 196283). Women commonly appear in depictions of courts in Classic Maya ceramic paintings, Some of them seem to have performed important roles at colart. Questions regarding kmales in the Maya court are discussed in more detail by Houston and Stuart:(this volume). Nonnoble and femde members of the court not only serve the purposes of the ruler brat also are themselves important navigators of court politics. For the melnbers of the royal court, their physical proximity ta the ruler and his or her favor can becorn even mnre important sources of power and authority than birth or education. Thus p w e r relations at court camot be understood solely in terms of the rigid order of official court ranking and titles. Fur exam*, in China disrespected and poorly educated eunutlhs from unpriwileged groups often had greatcr power

King's Peqle

39

than hereditary nobles and highly educated bumaucrats. Chinese political scenes were often criharacterized by power struggles between bt~reaucrats and eunuchs. Bureaucrats used a wide range of formalized res o m e s for political competition, including bureaucratic po"itims, high social status, and their education and culture demonstrated through state exams. Eunuchs, h contrast, relied heavily on informal resources such as pusonat rtttations with and favors from the powerful, particularly the emperor (Mitarnura 1970).In the case of the Classic Maya, we may never learn such historical details m$ subtleties, Yet we need to remember the complex and fluid naturr of court politics. Courts are often arenas of htense cnmpetitim m o n g those who aspire to power and high status thrwgh the affection, mgard, and propinquity of the ruler. We need to consider not m l y static, structural aspects of the court-a necessary fom~dationfor our analysis-but its dynamism resulting from the interplay and motivatjons of hurman agents.

I'he organization and composition of a court concern not only practical f~xzctionnitybut symboljc meanings. The symbdism of a cowt is c b e l y related to that of kingship. Syxnbolic meanhgs associated with the court and kingship can be understood at two levels. One refers to emic meanh g s given in each society, and the other deals with themes that c m be discerned cross-culturally,The former magi be related to myths narrathg the origin of the dynasty, the order of the universe, or the composition of the pantheon. Such rneanings of court and king are deeply embedded i,n the cultural tradition of each society. With respect to cross-cultural patterns, noble members of the courts may represent high culture and aesthetic and thus be exemplars of societal ideals (see Baines and Voffee 1998; Geertz 1980).Conversely eunuchs and physicalfy deformed indlviduats in the court seem to represent the opposite of noble elegance. Eunuchs, dwarfs, and hunc_hback,as well as ioreipers, symbolize 'kontraries" to the ordinary and to the norms of society Faey make the court extraordinary and foreign to the rest of society. These apparently contradictory tkmes associaled with royd courts can also be seen in the symbolism of klngship (see Tnomata and Houston, this volume). I'he king resides at the cmter of society, rr-?prt?sentint;societal 1980). At the same time, the k g remains outside of sociu n i o ~(Geertz ~ ety, stressing external origins m d detachment from others (Shlins 1985). In this tight, noble courtiers, alnng with court etiquette and ceremonies, may embody the cultural idea1 of society, whercas dwarfs, forcig~~ers, and others create and reify the court as liminal space that transcends and detaches from the remahder of society. Nabally, there is wide variation

in court symbolism m m g differcsnt swieties, a variaticm likety d a t e d to organizational and colnpctsjtional differences in roy at courts.. The forcgoQ observations also apply to the Classic Maya court. Noble crrurtiers in Classic M v a society were rmpcmsible not only for ceremonies and other courtly activities but- &so for c ~ a t i n gartistic objects, recording astronomical observations, and transmitting esoteric knowledge. Classic Maya noble cctuftiers appear to emboeiy high culture and aesthetics h a more direct way thm those in many other societies. The presence of dkvarfs and hunchbacks in, the Cfassic Maya court, in contrast, represents a symbolic theme that stands in contradiction to the presence of noble courtiers. The Classic M a p certahly gave their okvn cultural meanings to dwarfism, as do the modern Maya (Houston 1992; Miller 1985; khele 39W151). There should have been emic explmations for the presence of physically deforlned individuals in the court, although these are not easy to recover from available evidence. Chase and Chase (1"394:58-59) have suggested that dwarfs were believed to have free access to the undCrwrld and that in some cases they served to lay out corpses and goods in burials, going through, tomb entrances too small to admii. a normd-sized human. Miller and Samayoa (1998:SMO) have pohted out. that: dwarfs often accompany the maize god in Maya art and have suspected that they may be personifications of the stunted second ear commm to maize plants. '%hep m m c e of dwarfs in the Maya court may have recreated this mythicat theme wjth the king personifying the maize god. At the same time, Classic Maya dwarfs and.hmchbacks may rt;flect the symbolism frequently seen in other courts around the world. Classic Maya dwarfs m y have worked as mecaiators with the underworld, but t h y may also have served to make the entire court a liminal space t-hroul;h their mere prc.sence.

Spatial Settings of Court Activities As I consider the physical proximity to the sobrereign as the p r h a r y parameter in defining a court, spatial, settings, in which court members live and work, become critically impmtant in investigating the nature of rnyal courts"Such spatial settings m y even reflect the degree of cer~tralizatim of power and of the buseaucratic formdization of administrative functions. h example from Japan is suggestive fn this rczgard. During Ihe sixth and early seventh centuries A.n. in Japan, the bure?aucratic admjn.istrati.ve system was still.mdercievetoped. State pditics wert. strongly affected by intewsts and schemes of powerful noble clans, and we= shaped throt~ghpersand and kin connections among nobles and the royal. family, Political activities were spatially diffused arnung different noble houses. Drastic change took place thrclugh the Tajka rebrm in the seventh cezztury; during which the Chhese bureaucratic syste~nwas h-

King's Peqle

42

parted and efforts toward the irnperial centrakation of povver were ing was also adopted, and state offices made. A a i n e s e style of city pl were placed. in the royal palace complex. Ministers m d other bureaucrats were required to commute?between their residences and these state offices. The official rmking system of courtiers esthlished &ring this period was also defined in spatial terms. Rankings referred to the seatjng order in the court: n o s e who sat closest to the empemr were in the highest rank, m d those who stayed farthest knrn t-he s o v e ~ i g nwerc in the lowest. These rankings directly determined the status of courtiers. Among this welter of bmaucrats, a small number of highest-level nobles b r m d the core of the state administrative system. They were also defined in spatial terms: They were called teitzjobifo,wblch literally meant "those who were allowed into the imperial rc.sidencef"Yamaguchj 1994). As the power of noble houses threatened imperial authority during the Heian period, spatial, settings of political activities also changed. Although state offices in the imperial palace complex and formal political portion of political acprocedures in these offices remained, a sig~~ificant tivities was dispersed into the house headquarters, or mndokuro, of powerful noble families. As a result, the bound- between state administration and the private affairs of noble houses, such as the mnagemetnt of theis lands and retainers, became substantially blurred. Hall, (1974:19) states: "The constantly changing p"ttern of power-hoiding within the court group can be traced architedurdy, Chertfortl, by following the rise and fa11 of individual families as their residences flourished or decayed and by identifying the shifting locus of prime influence as it moved f m one residential headquarters to another." I do not mean that such patterns of spatial concentration m d diffusion of poZirtjcal actfwities cordate dircrctly with the concmtratim of p w e r or the fmalization of administrative mechanism..Still, spatial settbgs of courtly activities, which may be addressed more easily through archaeology than art- other featurczs of the court, pmvide important dues as to the nature of p&ty adntiniskatim and pocver in cowtly systems.

To examine spatial settings of Classic Maya courts, I first discuss an example from the relatively small center of Aguateca, Guatemala. Aguateca provides unique data on the royal court in two respects. One singular fact is that Aguateca was occupied for a relativeXy short period.. It is probable that the center of Aguateca was founeied in the hte seventh or early eighth ce11twy as the twin capital of Dos P h s . The royal family of Dos Pilas and Aguateca may have stemmed from Tikal wouston 1993; Houston and Mathews 3985). Aguateca was probably abmdmed at the beginning of the ninth century (Tnomata 1995). Most excavated structures at

FIGUM 2.3 Map af the central part of Aguateea with the lacation af the Palace Gmup and ather structures mentioned in the text.

Aguateca had only one major construction. phase, This lack of buildup may be ahmtageous in lhking architectural remains with s m i d organization and behavior at a given time. At centers with long occupation history, such patterns may be b1urrc.d throu$h a series of rebuilding. 'The other point refers to the fact that Aguateca was probably attacked by memies, at which time its epicenter was burned (Xnomata 1995, 3997; Inomat-a and Stiver 1998). 'The excavatim of rqidly atoandoned structures with rich floor assemblages provides uniyue evidence about those who lived in and around the royal palace.

King's Peqle

43

The possible myal palace of Awateca, the Palace Group, is sipificmtly larger than other residentid compkxes, reflecting either the power or the symbolic importance of the myal fmily (Figure 2.3). The salience of the myal fmily is alw suggested by the layout of defensive walls. &ring the intensjfication of ~varfaretoward the end of the Late Classic period, deknsive walls were constructed in a concentric pattcm. The center of this pattern, or the most heawily defended part, was the PaXace Group. Walls Mcxkcd the farmer causeway and ran xmss the patios of clite wsidential compounds, This pattern also signals that the royal family possessed significantly stronger power or l~ighersyxnbolic value than nobles. Within the Palace Group, Strs. M7-22 and M7-32, which were excavated in 1.998 and 1999, appear to have contained the main living yuarters of the royal M y (I~~omata et al. 1998). These structms are significantly mare elaborately buillt than other elite residences outside the Palace Group. Although Str. M7-32 with its complex r o w arrangements may have primarily served administrative purposes, the floor plan of Str. M7-22 is sirnilar to other elite dwelljngs. Most other structures of the Palace Group do not seem to have been residences, Str, M7-26, on the eastern side of the Palace Group, is a long building with a series of pillars and open halls. It appears that this structure was used for meetings or ceremonies. Str. M7-31, which occupies the western side, sits on a pyramid-shaped base and may have been a temple. Thus, it is possible that only the ruler and his close farm* membcrs lived in Strs. M7-22 and M7-32, and other individuals of royal bloodlines, if they existed, resided outsfde fie Palace Group. Some ~taimersvvho attended the myal famfty may have lived in the Palace Group, but many other clourtiers probably occupied structures surrounding the royal compomd. A test excavation next to Str. M7-9, located to the north of the Palace Croup, yielded several arge fimestone malzrts. These grinding slones are larger than most manos found in other elite residential structures, and it is prohabte that Str. M7-9 m a nearby building was a kitchen for the Palace Group. The excavation of Strs. M7-35, M M , M8-8, and MG1.0, to the south of the Palace Group, revealed rich floor assemblages (Inomata 1995; h a mata and Stiver W98; fnomata et al. 1998). Mmy excavated objects were. for domestic asld utillititrian purposes, indicating that these buildi,ngs were residences. S m e materials point to the high status of the residents. For example, the glyphic text carved on a human skult found in Str. cerelBorry accampmied by the ruler, sugMS10 mentions m accessio~~ @sting the close relation of the residents to the king, At least, the residents of Strs. M8-4, M W , and M8-10, cvhich are. reXatively large, multic h a d e r e d buildings, appear to have been hereditary nobles. In particular, the continuity in the use pattern of Str, Mg1.0 is indicated by burials and associated midden materials. Str. M7-35 is anomalous in that

--

--

-

West Backroom

---P

antral Backroom

East Backraom

FIGUM 2.4 Axonametrie drawing af Str. M7-35, Note that the center mclm is larger than others and its public nature is implied by its floor plan with the entrance facing forward.

it is located on the causeway and that it contailled a relatively small number of ob~ects.It is useful to consider that this bujldirng may have been occupied by an elected official like a Contact-period nncom, perhaps without his family (see Tozzer 1941). Excavation data also de~aonstratethat these buildhgs were not only living spaces but also places for various types of activities with possible connections to the life of the court. %e of them is scribal m d ar-tis~c work. Numclrous xribd hplements were fowd in Strs. M 8 4 and MGIC), and Strs, M7-35 and M M contained varjous 0-pemf polished axes. It is probs artistic and ritual objwts im these buildable that the ~ s i d m t pmduced hgs for courtly use. Str" M7-22, the probable royal reside~zce,contahed various types of royal passef;sions, inrludling ceramic masks, pyrittlr mirmm, carved bones and sheus, some of which were p"&* made in elite rclsidences surrounding the royal palace. It is t?lsn possibe that these houses were used far meetkgs. The cmter rooms of these elite residences are sZightly larger or moro ehborately built than the side rooms, but they co~ztaineda smaller number of mtifacts (Figtzres 2 4 and 2.5).

I

I I

FIGURE 2.5 Distributionof ceramic vessels in Str.M8-10.Note that the center m m contains a rrlatively small number of vessels and some open space is preserved.

Spaces maintained in these center rooms wew probably used for m e t ing~nd receiving vi,sitors. A slnali number of ceramic vessels found in these rooms hclude jars for stmillg and c a r r y e lic~llidas well as bowls and vases for serving food and drink. These assemblages of cerarnic vessels corroborate the assumption that the center roams were used for gatherings, Et is suggesthe that the abundant ceramic vases found in the M a p area depict scenes of feasting and gatl-reringsin buildings (Figurc. 2.6; see Reents-Budet, this vol~xme). Architectural features and cermic vessels depicted in these pahtings are similar to those of the domentioned center rooms. E suspect that many of the gatherings and the feasting shown in vase paintings took place preciselqi in these rooms of noble residences, The association of scribal implements and of an exteneied m& burial with the cent= room of Str. M8-10 suggests that the center rooms were also used by the head of the household, for his daily work, possjbly including some administrative duties of the court. ktifact assemblages found in Str. W-34, as well as its arch,itectural ieatures, seem quite different from those in the noble residences so far discussed. I have hypothesized that this building was of a more public nature, possibly related to feasting m d gdherings (Inomata et al. 1998). The number of ceramic vessels found in Str. M7-34 appears to be smaller than those in most residences. However, this building was associated with at least six, and probably more, large, basin-shaped limestone mefates, whereas most residential structures appear to have only one or two such artifacts. It is likely that this type of nzetllte was used for grinding corn. IS so, the large numher of these mefafcs associated with Str. My-34 inzpfies the processing of corn in a quantity significantly larger than would have been cmsumed by a single househdd. Moreover, excavators unearthed one reconstructible itzcensarr'u and one itzcensario fragment, whereas no z'nce~zsnrioshave been fomd in the aforementioned elite ~sidences.These data support the assumption that Str. MY-34 was not a private dwelljng but a place primarily used fos feasti.ng and gatherings,

ImplicaE-ionsofilpdateea Data Et appears that courtly activities at Aguateca were spatially dispersed. Various court functions may have been carried out both inside the royal palace and in the residences of courtiers surcot~ndingit. Noble courtiers m i e t have conducted part of their adminish-atke duties and produced ritual and artistic objects in their houses. They may also have held meetings in the celzter roams of their houses. h other words, state- or polityowned office buildings specifically designed for administrative duties were not well established. Although Str. M7-34, discussed earlier, might

FIGURE 2.6 Polychrome vessel found in Str. M7-35 of Aguateca. The painting depicts the scene of a gathering or of the reception of visitors.Also note the presence of possible dwarfs. Drawing by Femando Luh. Courtesy of Vanderbilt University Press.

have been o m d by the pdity, there is no clear evidence of this. It is equally possiblt Chat it belonged to a group of subroyai elites. Thus, the spatial boundary oi the court was blurred. This pattern seems compara" ble to the situation in Early Colonial-F>eriod Yucatan, as efescribed by I:.,anda.Me commented that the ruler's ""leading mcn," who wen. responsible for most state business, settled these affairs in their houses (Tozzer 1941:87). He atso indicated that the calsruc, who was respons&le for royal household a%airs,used fiis house as the oMice of royal homehold management (Tozzer 1941:26). Such sp"tia1 patterns accord with the hypothesis that the center of Aguateca d"l not have well-developed bureaucratic systems. Under such conditions, the conceptual. and procedural distinctions betvveen the official basilless of polity administration and the private affairs of courtiic?rsf houses are likely to have been obscwe. Personal. and private interests oE courtiers m d their houses may have hterfered siwificmtly with official or collective ones of the potity and dynasty, tikewix, personaf relations doubtkss functioned as important channels for pditical maneuvers. Court titles recorded in glyphic texts may have provided a framework fnr pofitird competiticm, serwing as sources of legitimation for competitors but not, i,n any clear sense, deflrning bureaucratic duties.

Similar situations may be found at many other Classic Maya cmters, particularly those of small to medium sizes. At these centers elite residential structures and o&r buildjngs usually crowd the innmcdi.at.e vi,rinities of royal palace complexes, and the spatial boundaries of the court arc not clear, at least on maps. A smatl number of large centers, however, may have hnd different spatid settings of the court. At centers such as Tikal, Caracol, m d Paltrsrq~le(Marrison, this volume; Chase and Chase, vol. 2, fnrthcoming), royal palace c o m p t e x e ~ r eto , a pronounced extent, isolated frnm other buildings, and their spatid bottndaries appear to be well defined. In particular, the royal pdace complex of Caracol, described by Chase and Chase (vol. 2, brthcoming) clearly stesses its boundaries and debChment from the rest of the settlements through its elevated location and tight control of access. It would be interesting in the fctturc to examine vvhetha these spatid patterns reflect the presence of mom formalized bureaucratic systems or develiapments toward them., In such studies, we need to consider the possibility that the size of the polity and its pupulation was a critical factor affectiw the adlninistratiwe systems of these centers. At small centers like Aguateca, wit.h a population betwee11 5,000 to 10,000 in its poliv, face-to-face contacts between the ruler and the population on special occasions might have been possible (see Houston 1997).

King's Peqle

Most administratiwe affairs may have been managed through some sort of personal relations betwee11 the central political authorities and each sector of society, Wth a population of over 50,000, maintajl~ingface-toface contacts and perst>nal ~ l a t i o n with s various sectors of society would have become exceedingly difficultl Certain levels of: form,ali,zali.onof: administrative mechanism may have been required (see Bemad and Kiflworth 1973,1979; Feinnnan 1998; Kosse 1990).

Conclusions The royal court was most likely a central body of administrative hnctions for a Classic Maya pdity At the s a m tirne, mernbers of the court appear to have carried out various other activities, includhg judiciay work, rituals, and scribal-artistic work. Thc court probably inclrnded royal family members and hereditary nobles. Many elaborate structures at Aguateca and other centers were apparently occupied by such importmt court m e ~ ~ b e rHowever, s. we need to entertain the possibility that these were some court members who came from lower classes, Some dwarfs depicted in ikfaya art may have had such origins. 'I'hese dwarfs may also have been related to the liminal nature of the court. Although examinkg the role of lower-class court members is particularly difficult, the paucity of data on them does not necessarily mean that they were unimportant to the court. A court provides a unique social arelza where individuals of humble origixrs can gain strung power through the favor of and closeness to the ruler. It appears that the spatial organization of court ac.livities at Aguateca, as well as at many other small- to medium-sized centers, was relatively hose..Various court functions may have been carried out not only inside the royal palace but also in courtiers' residences surrounding it. These patterns may reflect certain aspects of the administrative spterns of these centers, which may have lacked formatized stmcture and relied hewity on personal ~ l a t i o n sAt * some larger centers, however, spatial dcfinjtions of court activities may have been clearer. In future research, we need to consider the possibffity that these spatial patterns at s o w larger caters reflect more formalized ahinistrative systems. The study of the royal court pmvides critical ixrsights into the nature of kingship, administrative systems, social inequality a d power relations. Inqwi.ries into this suhject jn the Maya area, hokvcver, have been rathcr undeveloped, pastly because the study of such complex and fluid entities is not easy whert? textual information is timited. Yet we should be able to draw importmt clues through the further accumulation of solid evidence and through the imaginative use of data. In fubre study ixryuiritzs into the time of change and disintcgraticm oE the court may shed light on crit-

ical aspects that may not be visibte from the examilnation of evieience reflecting its heyday. In this regard, I would Like to reler briefly to the dmise of the Apateca court in light of mmerous crucial questions discussed prewiously. The royal family of Aguateca probably took rc-rfuge outside the Aguateca center, as the irnrninent Chreat of enemy at;la,ckwas felt strongly Many courtiers li\rixlg around t:he Palace Group stayed in the city and witnessed its tragic end. A room of Str. M M 2 was sealed and housed numerous possessions of the royal f m i l y indicating that the royal family expected or hoped to come back to Aguateca. This room dso shows that the royal family was neilther ousted by other Aguatecans nor taken away by enemies. This evidence Leads to m n y questions. W o accmpanied the freeing r q a t familywert. those courtiers who stayed at Aguateca not: important tcr the royal family, or were they essential for t.he defense and administration of Che center in the absance of the sovereig~n? 01- we= courtkm close to the ruler those of hrrnnble origins, not the nob l e ~who lived in large resilientid stmctms around the royal palace? E believe that continuing reseasct-1 into these questims Will provide vivid and penetratjng insights into the nature of the Classic Maya court.

Notes 1 thank Steeve Houston and the bvo reviewers for their thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. Arlen Chase and Wary Miller direded my attentic~nto important sources on Maya bwarics. My research at Agrrateca was cmducted under a permit granted by the Guatemalan Institute of AntXIrc>pologyand History 1 am grateful to Dr. Juan Antonio Valdks and other personnel of the institute, as well as to Dr. Arthur Bernarest, the director of the Petexbatun proiject. Funds for field and lab research were provided by Vale University; the National Science Foundation, the National Geographic SQciefy, the Foundation for Advancment of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., and the H. John Heinz 111Charitable Trust. 1. T am aware of a go~tentialgender and cuftural bias in the use of the term king, Yet anthropology I-tas a long tradition of using this word in the study of symbolism related to kingship. 1 deiiberatefy use the term kizzg in the title of this chapter to emphasize symbolic as well as pc~liticalaspects of such a person and office.

Ref erenees Baines, John, and Norman Vaffee. 1998, ""Ordel; Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.""In G a v M. Feinman and foyce Marcus, eds., ArcImk States, pp. 199-260. Santa Fe: % b o l of American Research Press. Bernard, H. Russell, and Peter B. Killworth, 1973. "On the Social S t r u c t u ~of an Ocean-Going Research Vessel and Other Impc~rtantThings." %ckl Scietzce ResearcIz 2: 145-184.

King's Peqle

51

. 4979, "Why Am There N o Social Physics?" "lour~zalofthe Stezuard Anttirapological Society 12 : 33-58. Brumfiel, Elizabeth N., and Timothy K. Earle-.1987. "+ecializatic>n, Exchange, and Complex Societies: An Introduction.'"n Elizabeth M, Brumfiel and T i m ~ thy K. Earle, eds., Specializntkn, Exclzaizgc, and Cnntplex Societies, pp. 1-9. Carnbridge: C a d r i d g e University Press. Chase, Arlen E, and Diane Z. Chase. 1994. " M a p Veneration of the Dead at Caracol, Belize." In Virginia M, Fieldg ed., Seve~zEttPalenquc Rour2d Table, 4989, pp. 5S60. San Francisco: Pre-Colurnbian Art Research hstitute, ; Part3l"pttsWere Scribes. Research Reports on CLoss, Michael P. 1992, I A m a h l ~ a tMy Ancient Maya Writing, vol. 39. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research. Coe, Michael D. 1977. "'Supernatural Patrc~nsof Maya Scribes and Artisb." In ESSGIYS i~ Honor of Sir Norman Hammond, ed., Social XJmcess in Maya P~111'Sto~y: Eric TI:zorrtpson,pp. 327-39. London: Academic Press. Coe, Michaet D., and justin Kerr. 4997. Tke Art of the Mnyn Scribe, New York: Harry N. Abrarns. Coe, Williarn R, 4990. Eknl Report NO. 14: Excnr~tratiorzsin t h Grmt Plaza, Norttz Termce alrd Norflz Acropolis of Tihl. University Museum Monograph 61. Philadelphia: Unit~ersityof Pennsylvania, Coggins, Clemency C, 1975. "Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and Icono>graphicReconstruction." l31.D. dissertation, Haward Universiv Costin, Cathy. 1991, "Craft Specialization: Issues in Defining, Dcjcumenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production." ArcIzlaeol~~icnI Melhod and Tlzcroy 3: 1-56. Elias, Nohert. 1983. The Court Society [Die FsbFscIte Cesellsci'lnfi, 19691. Translated by Edmund Jephcott..Mew York: Pantheon. Evam-Pritchard, E. E. 1971. The Aznnde: Histoq and Political X~zstitutions.Oxford: Cf areadon Press. Fash, WiXliam L., Jr. 2989. ""The kulptural Facade of Structure 9N-82: Contenl; Form, and Significance." in David Webster, ed., The House I?J:file Bncnbs, Cqnn, Hondums, pp. 41-72. Washington, BC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Golf ection. . 1991, Scribes, Writ-riors, and Kitlgs: The City of Copkn and C k A P ~ C ~hCy Pa Z, ~ London: Thames and Hudson. Feinman, Cary M. 1998, "Scale and Sclcial Organization: Perspectives on the Archaic State.'?n Gary M+Feinman and Joyce Marcua eds., A ~ l z n i cStates, pp. 95-134, Santa Fe: khr>c?lof American Rexarch Press. Geertz, Clifford. 2 980. Negar~:The T'hmter Slate in izlirzeteent-ll-Centu~yBali. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Hall, John W* 1974. "Kyoto as Historical Background." In J o h ttl, Hall and Jeffrey I"". Mass, eds., Medieval japan: Essays in Institutional Histo?, pp. 3-38.. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hassig, Ross. 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mcsoamcricn. Berkeley: University of California Press. Houston, Stephen D, 1992. "A Name GIyph far Classic Maya h a r f s . " h Justin Kerr, ed,, The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus ofRolluut PtzaCogmpli?sq f m p a Vases., vol. 3, pp. 526-531. New tCork: Kerr Asmciates.

. 4993. Hieroglyphs and kll'story al Dos Pitns: l;t;yrtastiePolitics of the Classic [email protected]: University af "fexasPress. . 1997. ""Big Is Beautihl: Piedras Negras and Z,owland Maya Urbanism." Paper presented at the Complex Sciety Meetings, University af Arizona, Houston, Stephen D., and Peter Mathews. 1985. Tke Dynnsfic Sequence ofllas Pilns, Guntemnla. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Manclgraph 4. San Franciscc~. Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart. 1996. "Of Gods, GXyphs and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic Maya." Andiquify 70: 289-312. f-lurst, C, Cameron, TIX.1974. ""Te Structure of the Heian Court: %me Tihou$ts an the Nature of Tarnilia1Authorityyn Heian Japan."?n John W Hall and Jeffrey I? Mass, eds., Xbledz'e'c~alfat~an:Essays irz Irtstitmtiofzal Histoy, pp. 39-59, New Haven: Yale University Press. Tnornata, Takeshi. 1995. "Archaeological Tnvestigatians at the Fortifid Center of Aguateca, EX Pet4nI Guatemala: Implications for the Study of the Classic Maya Collapse."TP".D.dissertation, Vanderbilt U~versity. . 11397. The Last Day of a Fortified Classic Maya Center: ArchaeoXc>gicalInvestigations at Aguateca, Guatemala. Ancienl Mesoamerica 8: 337-351. Tnornata, Takehi, and taura Sliver. 2 998. "Floor Assemblages from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya klouseholds," Inurr-zalof FieM Arclzneolaa 25: 431-452, Inomata, Takeshi, Danlela Triadan, Erick I""c>nciano,Richard E. Terry, Harriet E Beaubien, Estela Pinto, and Shannon Coyston. 1998. ""Residencias de h familia real y d e Ia &lifeen Aguateca, Guatemala." M~clnyab11: 23-39. Kosse, Krisztina, 1990. "Group Size and %cietaI Cr~mplexity:Thresholds in the tong-Term Memoxy " "lournlrl cfAnl.lzropologLc~1Arclzdllology 9: 275-303. Kupel; Elilda, 1947. An A f ~ c a nA risfocracy: Rank Amorzg the Szuazi of Bcchun~alnizd. London: Oxford Universiifry f ress. tinn4, Sigtrald. 4943. "Humpbacks in Ancient America."TEfjllrzus 8(4): 464-486. Lambard, J, 1967, "The Kingdom of Dahomey.'Yn Daryil Forde and I? M. Kaberry eds., Wesf Afil'can Kitrgdoms in Clte Ninetcelillz Genlzt.~,pp, '78-92. tondon: Oxford University Press, Ma jr, Lucy 1977. African Kingdo-1.rts.Oxford: Cfaredon Press. Miller, Mary, and Marco Samayoa. 1998. "Whel-e Maize May Crow: jade! Chacmools, and the Maize God." RRES 33: 54-72 Miller, Mary, and Karl Taube. 4993. The Gods and Sysnbols ofAncier~IMexico and the [email protected]:An Xllzistrnted Bictiotra~yof Mesoanrerican Religion. London: Thames and P-iubsctn. Miller, Virginia E, 1985. "The Dwarf Motif in Classic Maya Art." h Elizabeth I? Benso>n,ed., Fourttz Pnfenque Roztnd Table, 1980, pp. 141-153. San Frandsco: PreColumbian Art Research Institute. 170litics [KanMitamura, Taisuke. 1970. Cl~ineseEznnuchs: Tlze S1ructztl.e of I~?ti?nl.e gm], Tramlated by Charles A, Pomeroy. Rutland, VT: C. E. Tuttle. Miyazaki, Tchisada. 1992. Kulzizzhnjinho no [email protected] [[inJapanese, A study of Chinese aristocracy]. Tolsyc~:iwanami, Morton-Williaxns, Peter, 1967. "The Vsruba Kingdom of Oyo." h Daryll Forde and P. M* Kaberry, eds., West Afiicatz Kitlgclums in the Ninefeenth Ce~ztliy,pp. 36--69, London: Oxford University Press.

King's Peqle Keent$Budet, Dorie. 4994. Painting ttic M u p Universe: Royal Ceramics of kfze Classic Period. Durham, MC: Duke Un;ivmsity Press. Roys, Ralph L. 2933. The Book cf Chila~nBnlalrz of Chztntnyel. Washtngtc~n,DC: Camegie Imtitution of Washingon. Sahagllrn, Bernardino de. 1950-1 982. Flolrelztine Codex: General Histo~yI?J:tlze 5rhizzgs of New Spain, Mo~togrnphsof- the Sclulol of American Researclz 14, Translated b y Arthur J. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. Santa Fe: School of American Research; Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. SahXina Marshall. 1985, lslazzds of Hisfoq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Sanders, William T., and Davicl. Webster. 4988. "The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition." 'Arnerimn Anthropologist 90: 521-546. Schele, Linda. 1997. Hidden Faces of the Mnya. Pcxvay; CA: Atti. Dynasty and Rifzkal Schele, Linda, and Mary EIlen Miller, 1986. Tlze Blood c?fKi~zgs: ill Mayn Art. New York: George BraziHer. Smith, M. G. 1967'. ''A Aausa Kingdom: Maradi Under Dan Baskclre, 185475." In L)ar)~X1Forde and P. M. Kaberq &S., West Afiica~zKi~gdorrzs2'12 the Nirzeteenth C c ~ z t n ypp. , 93-122. London: Oxford University Press. Stuart, David, 1987, Ten Pl~oneticSyllables. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 44. Washington, DC: Center for Maya Research. . 1989a. "Hieroglyphs on Maya Vessels." In Justin Kerr, ed., The lLlnya Kzse Book: A 6 0 1 ~ 2 1of~R~EIQIIJ. Photographs of Mnya Vases, vol. 1, pp. 149-1 60. New tlork: Kerr Assuciates, . 198fab. "The Maya Artist: An Epigraphic and Iconographic Study" BA. thesis, Princeton University. Tc>nami,Mamoru. 1998. Tono gyosei kilii~tokczn~yo[in Japanese, The administrative system and bureaucrats of the Tang dynasty]. Tokyo: Chuclkoronsha. Tozzer, Alfred M. 1941. Lnnda's relaciiin de las casns de Vrlcntan. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, uoI, 18. Cambridge, MA: Haward University. Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society: A n Ozrtline of Interpretive Sociology [Wirfsdzafftilzd Gesellschaff: Grundviss der z~ersfehendenSoziologie, 1956l. Edited by Guenther Rcyth and CXaus Wittich. New Ycxtc: Bedminster Press. Webstel; David, ed.. 4989. The Hozase of-t.F~eBrawbs, Copan, Hortdzkrus. Studies in PreColurnbian Art and Archaeolctgy no. 29. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Colledion. Uarnaguchi, Hiroshi. 1994.Ocho kizokgj monogafari [in Japanese' The tale of dynastic nc7blesl. Tokyo: Kodansha.

Peopling the Classic Maya Court

The slate . . . is not tk Ittnmogeneous etz tity bul a cluster ofpofertfi~lly e0nfEictizzg priorif ies. -Gaitey

and Patterson 1987:7

The concept fojell'fe]rCf:ers EC?C SO mz-lell Co lthe catego~yofpersons . . . as to fheir patferns ojt'nternctioz~~ coo;1erntlitn, atzd coorditznlion of corporate act2itifiss throztgh commzrnnl relntiorjships.. X o h e n 1981:232

Two questions in particz~larcrollcern us in this chapter: M o composed the royaI court? and What was the articulation of these people? These questions address what we would describe as nonrepal efites, meanhg those high-ranking members of Classic society (ca. AD. 250450) ~lrhodid not hold the uiltixnate ofiice of "holy I.ordP"(ICTathews 1991:2526). Non~ p aelites i are. more than a hypotktical set of Maya living off the labor of shadowy underljngs and peasants. As we shatl see, they are people identjfied by hieroglyphic titles. References to these individuals arc datable, atlovving us the possibility of h a t i n g changes t h u g h time and attempting an approximate quantification of their appearmce in hieroglyphic texts. Our objective is to help scholars populate the Classic Maya court with flesh-and-blood actors and, beyond that, to ir-tterpretsuch personages t%rroug%lcurrelrt epigraphic and an.t.hropologicalItnowledge, It is incorrect to view these actors as occupants of static roles. Rather, holders of titles shaped such roles through their actions. The singular quafiq of Classic-period evidence cannot be overstated, since it provides the only secure textual. data m nobles from the New Miorld prior to the post-Cla* sic period.

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

55

AI1 Power Is Local Power

Maya mydty and nObility must first be viewed according to the problem of power and power ~lations.Power can be conventionality defined as an &solute term that helps to isolate and refhe comparative patterns of coercion and obedience. But it also exists within local idioms in ways conditioned by cuttural pattemfng and historical contcxt. We see the royal court as a vortex of intersceting power rdatinns, operating at a level of intensity and high stakes like no other node in a Classic golitJv-.fn another context, a historian of Tudtn Ex~glandcalled the court a ""point ol contact,'" '""palitical institution, a cdtrtral centre, m d a mrket-pface of patronage m d profit." (Loades 1986:192; see also Eltm 1983). The head of a litneat;e or other social unit may exercise power, but thmugh decisims or negotiations that involve relatively few people. Some rnelnbers of a court interacted incidentally or casually with the ruler, perhaps while tendcring fntermittent service to the court. However, the c m of the court probably exjsted in daily interaction around the persol1 of the lcing in a setting at once potentially beneficiai to aggrandizers and iherently dmgerous becaux of the risks fnvolved: High stakes in terns of grcrstige and material betn,efit also ixnply commensurate hazards. As in Afsica, the ruler may inspire dread more than other emotions, This dense, quotidian contact a d productive and reproductive activities (see further on) made the court into a kind of megahousehold, if in ways not yet fully understood or adeguately distlinguished from. other households. But how did the Classic Maya conceive of royal power? In thinkix~g &out the topic, schdars tend to focus on the Hunt weapon of coercive threat. A more subtle perspective rczlates power to the pan-Mesoannerican play of vital essences. It is tme that as a spcies of communication, power has to be discursi\je, jnvolving both assertim and acceptme of clairns to autl-tority*Although eventually codified into law and customary regulation, it coalesces through individual acts that employ power, not as abstract generality but as a set of highly specgic applications that test its limits. Yet this is only part of the picture. Far the Classic Maya power was airnost a unilaterd quality of the lord, a fiery essence, hotter than the hearth, courslng through the blood m d scorhing the breatln. (Houston m d Cummhs 1998; Houstm m d Sbart 19%). P e h a p h i s fmm of power was linked to the epigraphic and ethnographic term ip, a near-sexual potency inspiring awe, projecting gravity, and .fortifying the self (Laughlin 1,988, 1:14;a; see royal names, such, as BUTS'-yi-pi-yalCIHAM-GHA:Kf Naranjo Stela ZC1:RX-B2). The sun does not wish or intmd to bum-it s h p l y bums, through alergy gemrated by its very bei_tng. The tkeory of vital: essences, amply documented in ancient and modern sources, serves symbolicaily as the ultirnate naturalizatim of power.

Such force comes from fie ruler yet entails no special will or effort m his part. A vitalistic notioll of Classic rulership may expla,in a s t s i h g pattern in glyphic accounts oi royal actjvity ifb an overwhelrnixlg extent, the actions oE rulers seem indirect or loosely sponsored. The d e r "cultivatesf' actions through an agrirdtural trope for supemisian (Houston and Cummins 1998; Stuart 1998); he binds the year-stones (Stuart 1996);he dances, probably as a f o m of prayer or sacrarization of movement (Grube 1992; J o h Monaghan, personal comunication, 1993). Rut does he brtild, capture, or sacrifice? No. Such events occur hieroglyphlcally but in passive constructions curiously distanced h m royal participation. It is imagery more thm text that: depicts active and socially htegrated rulers.To this conception of royal power-from-presence can be added another: the court as both arbiter and emhodiment cJf an aesthetic theury of rule, much like that suggested by Ceestz for Indonesia (Geertz 1980. For the Maya and other Mesoamerican peoples, the ruler was clearly held to be mow poetic, fragrant, and fined than others and thus well deserviw of tribute and obedie~~ce. Again, the most effective sygem of rule is one in which rulers and ruled predicate their relations on shared preccyts.' by Such etherdzations of royal power have been vigorously ~ s i s t e d s n m archnealogists who object that surface justifications unduly ohscwe the g r h y and "authentic" world of self-intercst that squirms underneath (William Sanders, p w o n a l comunication, 1998). In our opinfon, the makes two arc ineseapabl.y interwoven. The worldview (Weltansclzczzru~zg) things fit through a process of ~trospective,intellectualized commentary The world of 'kveryday, immediate social existence" (kbenswelt) with its complex interlacing of immediate weds, morality, emotion, and practicd consequence does not so much "conserve and perpetuatefr worl&iew as change it through minute actions and pertleptions, resulting in yet new commentaries oackson 1996:6-7). The comme~~taries are not so much superfluous as vital in organizk~gand codifying mality for new social e~~counters. Others might object that obedience in some pre-Colul~bianpolities was motivated not by a shared worldview but by sheer terror: an extreme, mmc_lrselessfear triggered by thr arbitrary selection of victims and Moody displays of Cheis body parts (Nelson f 999, Oae can p i n t to the excesses of the Aztec or Maya m d see the validity of this &sewation but fnr one fmpo&ant ~servation.Being funeiammtal:ty unproductive and sociopathie, systems of terror rapidly becolne unstable and consume themselves, as in Kampuchea or the French :Revolution; in uur own historical experience, the removal of key ""pthogens," sociopaths such as Stalin or Robespierre, reconfigures such systetns into ones of surveillance and tight control, LogicaIly, in the long term unsocial practices undermine sociality. Moreover, m o n g the Maya terror may have been hflicted

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

57

less on the ~lativelysrnail populations of most cities than on enemies in other polities, That power has to be understood in part through local idioms raises another issue. ikfost contributors to this volume rightly emphasize the impossibjlity of dcfhing royal courts outside of local hjstory and local developments. n e r e is, fnr example no single plan or layout that houses ail courts. Such houshg grows insteaci firtlugh small adjustments bdanced against master plans, both resdting from innummahle decisions by patrons, designers, masons, and support staff. Those hjermhies of decisions-"Let us build a palace. . . . Let me shape this stone just soffhave yet to be understood n~anjzat.ionailyor accordi,ng to any systematic study of decisionmlaking. Even more relevant here is that such decisions must result from a histcrricai frame~iorkthat varies from p f x e to place. Similar design principles may exist, brtt their precise exprest;ion will never be the same because of different, branching decisions-thus the drmatic variety of M a p palaces observed by contrihuton; to this book (see Chase and Chase, Ball and Taschek, vol. 2, forthcoming), So too with power: Given the antiquity of some polities, practices varied according to &aditionat usage within particular communities. And since power, like experience, has to 0perat.e on and thmugh individuals and as jndividual acts, it must be locally expressed and focalty understood. Our challenge as Maymists is to weigh these pattmmagainst broadty distributed ones, between hlrhat. it means to be a mcmber of a particular royal court and a participant in Classic Maya civilization. What Is an Elite? The noticln of Classic Rcraya etites is less an a priori category than the prol?l,ern before us. Elite is an jmperfectly defimed term that must be shaped and reevaluated against available data. Wc are not even convinced that it. fdfy captures the nature of cleavages and self-interest within the higher ranks of Classic society (see Rudolph and Rudolph 1983:19&195, on oligopolistlic campetitinn between elite lkeages in Rajthat such voups or suhgroqs operated anciently as blocks of put I~~dia), unified behavior, or that. ellites (at least. those visible in iconography and glyphic texts) cannot be variotlsly (and inconsistently) defined along dyadic, hierarclhirai, or segmmtay lines. Anthony Giddens, for example, has dissected distinct kinds of elite p u p s based on the amount of intemd integration, relative openness of ~cruitment,and varieties of power such as "issue-strt?ngthf" that is, whether power "can only be exercjsed inrchtion to a range of restricted issues" "iddens 1994:173). :In th Maya instance, issue-strength might involve competing clailns to cont-nrl over agricul.ktral pmefucticzn by high-

ranking rnembers of scx3ieq. However, the premce of plex terrachg among the Ifuga,o in t-he PhiZippines argues against the assurnption that such works m s t be centrally organjzed by managerial elites (Gonklin 19irX1). Mmca suggested that rt.sh.icted priestly knowledge, such as, in this eonnectio11, the post-Chssic blaya ""language of zuyha,'" migtnt have served to limit recruitment or validate such restrictions to priestly membership (Mssca 1994:158). Classic Mayan, an ancestor of Ch'orti" that- appears to have been the courtly language of this period (Houston, Robertson, and Stuast am), potentially played a sidlar role. In contrast to Giddem, Mosca viewed elites as inherently governed by an impulse ""t act in concert,'khereas non-elites, "who are not in accord," are in consequence dominated, and controlled in an ""iflevitabtef' fashion (Mosca 1994:156-157; Bottomore 19434:3). One wonders Mxhe&er Maya elites ever exercised such uniform, concerted donnination of otLhers, or, instead, whether they had "to work di~ctly,daily, personally to produce and reproduce coditions of domilnation which are even then never entirely trustworthyf"(Bourdieu 1972189-1"3, cited in G. Marcus 1983:45). Accoding to Bourdieu, such "work'hould invdve direct enslavement of others or an affirmation d authority thmugh "outstanding cdormity to the values of the group, the source of all symbolic valuetf (Botlrdjeu 1977:193-194), hence, perha ys, the n u r n e r w ethahistoric ~ f e r m c e sto slaves or comic conceits cJf Maya rulers. Cohen, too, remarks that the "cult of eliteness" "quires "not just an ideological formula" with static propoktinns; it is ""alsoa way of life, manifesting itself in patterns of symhdic behavior that can be observed anci verified"" (1981:2; see Reezzts-Budet, this volume). 'This cult of behavior and refined living surely encapsulates the aestheticism of Classic elites. h a more historical vein, Mosca noted that change in elite system is unending, consisting of" " e d i c t between the tendency of dominant elements to mnopolize political power m d trmsmit possession of it by ~ e r i t a n c eand , the tendency tcrward a dislocation oE old foxes and an i n s q e n c e of new forcesf"Mosca 1994:160; see G, Marcus 1983:42, on the "succession of elites" in which "doctrines outlive their creatorsf'). Another vexing problem is the disparity between official nomenclahre and the actual role and status held by someone within a myal court at any one time. As yet, recent discussions of Mesoarnerican dites have not fully clarified this issue. Joyce Marcus divides Mesoamerican societies into "two cfass-endogamous social strataf"(J. Marcus 1992:2iCO; see the cmplexity noted by Restall, vol. 2 of this book, for.thcmjng), whereas George Marcus sees the very notion of elite as one that is narmwly rooted in modernity, the European experience, and critiques of houcgeois dmocracy (G, Marcus 19(32:295; Bottomore 1964:4-5, 9-10). Elite can be extended t s other contexts, but only with a new set of defhing criteria.

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

59

Others, especiatly archaeologists, find an imprecise or blurred fit between Che &te-nonclite distinction and the evidetnce they have cornpiled horn survey and excavation (Kowalewski, Feinman, and Finsten 3992:26l). We heartily agree. Access to resources, as determirred from material rcsidue, does not equate to ~ e r i t e d status i,n an easily predictable iashion, The subtleties described by Bmce Lincoln for encoding rank at early Irish courts may accorci better with Classic ikfaya evidence than a reworking of tke Marxian notion of class m d its deela,rali.ve assertion of intragroup solidarity (Lincoln 1989:79), Regna'l and Nanregnal Titles in Hiemglyphic Texts

M&,then, are the relevant titles? m a t are our epigraphic data, and haw do they relafx to other .features of arcfiaeoloa? Evidence Trom later sources, especjally from northern Wucatan, pojnts to the presence oi varying titles in some Maya communities and perhaps t h e classes with s o m sfiadings in between (Roys 1957:5). Rtles held by limited numbers of people cor~spondedto functions that may have been ceremonial or nomhal (Rcrys 1957:7). Pokomchi data coltected by Miles indicate '*"cassf" restrictions on certain professions, occupal.ions, or trades (Miles 11957). To a striking extent, such classes cmsscut lineages, especially in post-Classic Yucatm, and the most exalted nobility accrued from "rensmed descent on both sides of the farnily""(fioys 1957:5).

Among the Classic Maya, ellites were described by a nramber of titIes (Figure 3.1). The first is that of rrjaev, ""l&' prhaps derived from the form aw (Common Mayan: *aj-a:w,Kaufman and Norman 1984:116,139), "he who shouts," a term c m p a r b l e to the Nahuatl title tlnillo$ni, "one who speaks," and later, "great lord" (Karttunen 1983:26(j).We suspect that this title, with its agentive clfitie, began as a reference to the hetoricd suasion necessary h some socicties to msure compliance with a leader"^ wishes; aiternatively, it may have sipaled that someme ""spoke for" supernatural behgs, as may have been the case in celntral Mexico (Gruzhski 11989: 22, 23). The title appears to date from the tirne when Common Mayan was spoken, centuries if not d l l m n i a before the b e g k ~ n i ~of~the g cornman. era. At- an early time in the Classic period it seelns also to have been the titk of rdcrs. As with many titles, its meaning doubtless changed through time, starting with far more modest associations than divine kingship (cf. Freidel and Schele 11988). e)nl,y toward the end of the Early Classic did it begin to take on the &'uhulh'l-~h~al '%holy" prefix as a means of distinguishing the principal lord from the offspring of rulers. On pre-

+

NAW Patenque, Temple 19 FIGURE 3.2

K UW Uku"WATEfJm"-NAW-w Naj Tunieh, Dradng 34

Slectian of royal and noble titles.

sent evidence the ajnw title appears to have been of a nonexclusive nature: hn h~diviciualcould hold severai titles simultaneclusly and the epithet Q ~ N Wcottld be used with other nonregnal titles. Anolfner title, hlo:mtr., often associates with large polities, but its meaning remains in doubt. Before we leave the title of ""hly lord," it is useful to consider another feature of its shif through time. On present evidence, this title would seem to involve a paradox. As singular bejngs, bow coulcjl so many holy lords exist within the pditical landscape of the Late Classic period? Wouldn't their competing claims to spiritual saliel~cebe met with increasing incredufity? TOan intriguing extent, the title begins to abomd. at preciscclly the time that popu1at;m skyrockets in the Maya lowlands and as polities pack the countryside, extending even to il-thospitable areas with poor soil and. hadequate water supply By this tjrn Early Classic period-the title cJf aja-io no longer carried august crmnotations, so hrther ranks were needed. But far more pertinent to our paradox is an appropl-iateconceptualizatiltn of Classic Maya polities as "ethnic kingdoms'" rather like t.he mltqetl of Central Mexico (Locfiari: 1992:1&58). Kkgdorns may speak the same language and share similar customs, yet they appear to have based their collective ide~~tity on proprietay mediations with certain gods or local mat-erializations of dt?jties nou us to^^ and Stuart 19"3tj),fntrinsically the title of holy lord may designate a titk that accrues maning througfn ritual practice, with such rders serving as supmaturn1 mediators and protectors of godly effigies. Ui&rmt sacerdotal functions can easily permit the coexistence of l a d s with the same title. On a broader levet, the apparent dear& of priestly titles in Ctassic Maya inscriptions may be highly misleadi,ng (the standard phrase, uh-k'ilz, occurs with great rarity, as in a deity reference at Xcalurnkh Campeche). It is likely that what we regard as dynastic or pditicai titles held ritual frxnctions as well. Perhaps our diffi-

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

61

culty in lietecting fusitrns of secular and sacred authority stems from the discovery by Proskouriakoff of dyniistie hi,story in Classic Maya texts; hereditary mle often seemed antithetical to the priestly interpretations of an earlier school of Maya epigraphers, What this discussion does not resolve is the conthuhg paradox of a mler who foms a collectiviq with his people and yet is existentially distinct. The special nature of the ntler doubtless springs from this u n ~ s o l v able ternsion, wl?ich, nonetheless, hardly affected him alone;?. The paradox of like and different characterizes many other dyads FR smiety (male/ female, infalts/elderly, freeiunfree, ritually adepvinadept). Royal courts may have formed zones of paradox and inversion where the exotic and anomdous nature of the ruler was broadly indulged by the inclusion oi varimt modes of living as well as musual soresidents such as slaves and the physically deformed (see Xnomata,, this volume). It is also possible that some of those connected to court went unnuticed even by those in putative control. Words applied to another court .might be relevant here: With its enormous scale and leaky contml of provisioning, the court resembled a vast cornucopia, and.was a standing invitation to the inhabitants of that twilight zone between service and vagabondage'" (Loades f 984:87).Far this reason, the Maya court could not, by definitim, operate as an exemplum or paragon of other households, Its special symboljc and political properties undermined the pos"ibility cJf truly mechanical segmentation in @IassicMaya society. A problem before us in this book (and in future research) is determixling the relations between courts royal and n&le as housed in disparate sectors of cities such as Carard, Belize (see Chase and Chase, val. 2 of this bouk, forthcoming). Did these noble courts house cadet members of the royal family or queens and. children (as in the so-catied Lady of Cancuen group at Dos Pilas; Wcllley and might 199(1)7 Werc royal courts excmpla that introduced a style of livifig that was rapidly reproduced by nobilityI or did directions of influence operate in rr-?verse (Loades 1984:fti5)?

A second title is found largely in the western Maya hwlmds and dates exclusively to the Late Classic period (Figure &l). To judge from other nominal inflections, it reads sajal, possibly "one who fears,'" although this gloss is far from certain. A o n g with the ujrrw title, it is one into d i r h a lord-always a subordinate lord-may be '%seatedffor ""boundf% inoffice, to use a Maya idiom. To phrwe this differmtly, a sajal may be born into his stahas but acquires its essence, its "'sajal-ship" ((sujlrl-$1, only trhrot~gh rituals of enthrmement. Initially, epigraphers had thought that a sajal served as a kind of "governorf3at smatler sites near a larger city*Tl~epat-

tern around cities like Ylzxchilan alld Piedras Negras exemplifies this arrangement, and Houston has used such evidence to suggest comparisons with cadets in '"segmentary polities" "(~ston 1993:147-148). But the pattern is mow complicated than that. We now know that sujuls often appear at court, so they are not always li~nitedto some corner of the "provinces."' There are s o m hints from the tisumacinta region that a noble might be at once an @W and a s+{, or that one may shift from one to mother (this occurs with a name at Bo~~arrtpak m d LacaAa, Bonampak Murals Room 2 door jamb, and Kuna-LacaAa Pmel1:DI-62). At the risk of sounding &terministic, we wonder whether the tight correlation between the saj~lpattern. and strongly broke11 terrain in the Usurnacinta may be more than fortuitous. A political arrmgemnt that bdmccs fragmentation with centralizatim may arise nah;lrally in regions with poor communication and mobility More intriguing still are the clues that some sajnl d g b t have had greater autonomy than others and that power ~ l a t i o mwere constituted differctntly rcgadess of shared tit;les..In the cluster of sites linked po:liti-. cally to Piedras Negras, a sajal does not depict himself with the overlorb, In the area aromd Yaxchilan, such nohles =em to have focused textually m d ico~~ographically on the intense local hvolverne~~t of the "holy lordff (Chinchilla and Houston 1993). So far, we have indulged in the nomentells us someclatufal conceit of thinking that the sajal title intrinsic* thing importrmt about a Late Classic noble- Yet the Maya sculptors give us hints of far greater subtleties based, respectively, on dyadic and. hiemuclrical orderings. I'he dyadic pattern invoIves a body metaphm ("headff) and implies not only title-as-group-descriptive but primus inter pares. On a k w ~ c a s i o n sa, sajal is termed the Era-sajal, or ""head sajal," This expression cltoes not refer to an ordinal within this category-"first sajal"as many scholars used to suppose, Rather, it invokes a metaphor very much like our "had waiter," Apparendy, the Classic Maya specified indit, vidual salience by employkg the term for the seat of sight, ~ ~ o u g hpersonal difference, and commu~nication.(ParenlheticalSy, a very few ajaw are also described as h - e z u , or "first lord.," although never in reference to the ""holy lord.'") Presumably, tbrw c d d be only one "head'ht a time. Thus the implied dyad concerns a djstinction between " h e a d ' b d "nothead," the former consisting of one person, the latter of many. The second subtlety recalis M i ~ e aEliade's remark that ""farreligious man, space is not homoge~neous""liade 1959)-We wodd rephrase this to say, "For .Flornu hierarchicus, space is not homogeneous but relational, even hierarchical." As mentioned before, Lincoln describes extremely fine distinctinns made at Celtic banquets. These reflected and determhed differences between nobles and, not irtcidmtally, provoked endless disputes over placement with revect to the d e r (Lincoln 1989:77-78). One

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

63

can imagine the pleasurt. of the king in viewing such internecine squabMes an?ong potential rivals for his authority. He is the necessary pivot of such indiuidmlktic relations, of a web drawn around his person, of a system that requires a central point of reference else the web will snap. Court factionalism is not necessarily something a ruler wishes to SLIPpress, since it serves the useful purpose of weakening the nobiliv (Loades 198&89;cf. Brumfiel1998). This pattern relates broadly to Edward Shils" concept of deference, which includes both ""positive deference" (expressed to a eh'uhtrl ajaw) and ""negative lieference" or derogation (expressed to a cwtlve). Such acts, \zrhicln form the interartional essence of a myal court, reflect an individual"~"dekrence-position," whieh derives from ""deference-entitling propertiesfkconstih;ltedof "objective achowledgments of deEerencef"titles and ranks), proximity to leaders, kin comections, and so on (Shils 1968:104108).With this description Shils reveals the inherent cmplexiq of d&rence-positions. Our Maya data do not always show bztlrv ~ l a t i v e rmk at c o ~ ~was r t determhed; what the evidence does show is how ranking~ were made and how those rankings became c o n c ~ t through e spatial disposition in court thleaux. Deference systems also inform groups of captives, as on Piedfas Negsas Stela 12, where one captive retai,ns the right to wear certain jewelry and is seated above others, The subtle gradations implicit in defemce systems serve to e h a n c e fncJividual aggrmdizement, mute group consciousness, and reduce the possibility of group sedition, fleference systems might counter the tendency of potential faction leaders to form clientage networks, although as Brurnfiel notes, Chese coa:litions can often penetrde into m n y djsl-inct sectors of society according to "past or futurc patronage, proximity of kinship, a common religion or e t h i c identity, etc." "rumfief 1994:4). Hierarchical space, or, rather, space defined by rclative proximity to the holy lord, clearXy existed among the Classic Maya-at least insofar as we can extract such evieience from R/laya art. Many codes, often based on the body orientation of the ruler, informed such space: The ruler's right belongcrd, to a high-rmking interlocutor; the ruler's left tenlted to belong to family a d courtiers. l-hose slzjul on the same level as the holy lord were honored bp that plxement; those belokv were not. This description could be fleshed out in further detail but the point is made: Relative rank correlated with spatial disposition around the holy lord. The a r m g e ment of people accorded with a carefully tuned stmcture of relative ranking, Relations between people, especially in the cmtext of feasts or tributary offerings, ftctwed along that structure as expressed visibly by the placeme~~t of peopl in short, a placement that recalls Giddenfs formulation of ""'position-practice" relations'>nd his assertion that "all social interaction is situated interaction" in the form of ""ruthized encounters"

(Giddens 1984:83,%; see Wbster, this volume). W would go so far as to say that this regicentric emplacement of individuals c d i g u r e s space within and around monumental architecture (Houston and Taube 1999). That such tableaux were meant to be seen by others maSi, p d a p s , be studied arckaedogically through sight lines of terraces or paXace rooms.

Queens, Col"tsoes,and Roya E Children It is by now a commonplace observathrz in gender studies that understanding~of what women are anci what womm do &ey cultural schema more than they reflect biological universals (Ortner and Whitehead 1981). More rcrmtly, Linnekin has criticized. what she feels are '"simplistic""chararterizatiom of "the stabs of women . . . as high or low, valued or devalued," pr&rring less of an emphmis on scxlaal aspmetries than "the holistic exarnislation of gender ~"elations" (L ekin 1990:4, 232). Silvehlatt, too, perceives that high-ranking IRka women coutd control their own resources and exercise "considerable hdependent authorityf"Linnekh 1990:23; Silverblatt 1987:67). These ubservations raise iznportant questions for Classic hlfaya women: What was their role in the Classic Maya court, and d d they contrcll their own rcsomes? 'There are some difficult methodoIogkaX issues here that may be impossible to overcome. The pcwsibility of alternative gender ideologies, or '"eneir paralleiism,'" as SilveTblatrt- describes it, camat be discounted, although our evidence has presumably passed through a male Hter (ail known sculptors of the Classic period were [email protected] What Classic art does show is an extraordinarily rich tradition of textile production. Presumably, these represent the antecedents of: female weaving and errtbroidery ammg ethographic Maya with a high probability that only a fcw ite~nsof textile production durjng thc Classic period were made by men (Pmcake 1992:82; Clark m d Houstm 1998:34). 11%addition, a crucial element of tribute was the cotton mantles bound and presented wjth exotic materials such as q.iletzal feathers and shells. Agajn, the likelihood is high that these textiles were woven by women (Joyce 1993:%3). 'The Aztec data, including references in Sahag~n,poiM to the conventional linkage of such production With royal iadies (Brurnfiel 1991:224).4From these m d other data, it would seem that Classic ladies, even those of elite status, may have served cruciat roles fn the politicd economy d the period m d that t h y had positions less of dependence than interdependence wilfnin the elite system of gender relations, The texts illustrated in Figure 3.2, kindly drawn to our attention by Justin Kerr, are qraite explicit i,n this rclgard: They describe a set of bones as Ihe U-pu-tsfi-ba-ki, $1 pars' h:k or "weaving bones" of a queen.s Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that offerings of textiles are apparently between

FIGURE 3.2 Hieroglyphic captions an weaving bones belonging to queen (after Kerr 8019).

men with women as marghalized participants or completely absent (e.g., Kerr 3,96363329 E1(1728]"). We can also inagine that- not a few buildings within the Maya pdace may have served the needs of such production and of bmusing the womenf some of njaw status, who helped to sustaiz~it. Early Colmid soutces refer clearly to "communal hottse(s) where Ihc Indian women go to weave" ((Clarkand Houston 1998:37) A diff-icultprOblem for understandhg the Classic court is the evidmce for polygmy It is widely assumed, on relatively little information, that this practjce was routine among elites in the Maya Xowlanbs. Presumably, such ladies would have played a role in political alliances or, mom subtly in incscasing the productivity of the court eiches thmugh food prcparation or textile production. Such motivations are openly voiced in the Aztec sources (McCaffczrty and McCafferty 1998:217-218). High mortality in increasingly crowded Classic cities and waclike milieus may have transformed polygamy into a disguised form of social charity as widowed noblewomen we= absofbed into the court.' Finally, a trlzpe of royal pote~ncyand insatia,ble aypetite may also have played a s w o l i e rnle in [email protected] Classic seraglios (Houston and Cummjns 1998). For the Aztec and olhrr Mesoamerican peoples, elite polygamy is well -attested; s o m rulcrs boasted of having 250 wives pregnant at the sarnc time (Lcipez Austin 1988, 1:302, 6M). However, this pmcreative pmwess could be fnconwenient in that too many nobks and members of the royal .family were see13 as redwing m d diffusi,ng the privileges of such groups. ?i, a suvrising extent, it is difficult in the corpus of Classic texts to distinguish easily between sequent and multiple wives. (Even the term rufe is problematk, for concubinage, either sustained and formal or sporadic and informal, may have been quite common.) Our suspicion is that the practice of elite pofygamy was relatively c o r n o n but that only a few womrn w r e erntitled to moslulnental representation, thus diminishing our ability to detect other members of their connubium. This matter raises another feabre that relates more broadly to chonological trends in rclferences to elites, What high-ranking women provide, of course, are offsprirzg. Among the royal families of the Aztec, these maternal comectiltns often led to the formation of factional groups: Frevently, mothers came from other dynasties, and thus dynastic tensions derived in part irom external political inklgue (van Zantwijk 1994:109). Cousinhood, emphasized by Cohm for other elifres, may have forged bonds that cmsscut other loyalties (Cohezn 1981:222). Still mderstudied in Classic Maya material is the nature of elite childhocrd. h m m g tbe Aztecs and post-Classic Maya of the Uucatan peninsula, ch,ildrfjnwere enjoined to undertake diligent trainng in the careers determined for them. at birth. Deviations from these expectations were punihed ruthiessly, not least because they endangered the domestic

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

67

ecmomy on which survival depmtfed. Puberty seems to have been RCog~~ized in a variety of ways. In the Classic corpus, one puberty ritual may be mentioned for a royal girl (at Piedras Negras), evidently an act having to dcl with "woering'" (tr~ahk-4,perhaps of the privates, during menstruation (see Chforti', maki a chfii:k'cr, "stop her blood"");this ritual may also have been linked to betrothal. At Dos Pilas a royal heir-this status is probable, although he does not seem to have ascended to the throne-is assided h his first bloodl9tting b y an adult f gure with an undeciphered title, (Bob here, on Dos Pilas Panel 19, m d on Piedras Negras Panel 3, depictions of young heirs were mutilated with special vigm by Terminal. Classic vandals.) All such youC-hs arc identifiable b y their ch"ok title, meaning "youth, immaturef"see Figure 3.1). In the main, they participated in actult activities, including sculpture., as on a recently uncovered altar at El Cayo, Che should not presum fiat all youths at Classic: courts were local lads. h hpmtant text, now in two fragmmts and perhaps deriving frctm tbe gemrill region of La Corona, Petan, Guate~nala(Graham 1997; Schuster 1997), contains the remarkable story of a Ctassic youth (see Martin, this volume, Fit;~lre6.8). From another text also unpmvmanced, we know that this child was born on "310,12,4,8(February 18, A.D. M5) the Maya Lo~zg Count system (Ringle 1985:151-152),Wt 9.11.11.7.12 (January M, %4), when he was nineteen, he "wentff (MX-na) to Chifitk Nub, mostly likely a p ~ c i n cotf the major dynaslic capital, of Calahul. Withh a few years b d h his mother and father bad died, at 9.11.14.9.1 (January 27, 647) and 9.11.15.0.5 Uuly 30,667), respectively. The heir was su oned back, arriving a few days after his father's death (9.11.15.1.11, August E, 667). E-Ie ascmded the throne a short time fater (9.11.1.5.2.16, September 19,663,Y m a t are we to make of this accomt? Since Calakmul is a vast city, and the number of references to Chihk Nab abundmt, it would seeln clear that the royal heir of a relatively mhor center was sent to this metropolis, probably as a hostage of or in smvicr to its dynasty. 'This pattern is found throughout the world, as in the highly prestigious court of late medieml Burgundy (e.g., Armstrong 19777:). But some mysteries remah. As the eventual ruler, was the youth in the text a free choice of his family, or did he rather accede to rulc at the expre?sswish of a reginnal power, as a person made pliable by three years of service in the court of Calakmd? h d what was the nabre of his stay at the regional court? Was he a warrior, a courtier-h-trainhg, an intimate of the overlord's fitmily, a hostage, or, to judge from Roman parallels, afl of the above (Heather 1996:59; Luttwak 1976:38)? Courtly service of this sort was mostly a good thh~gbut could also be uncertah in its ultimate consequences, On the positive side, the yOUth might acquire a fine courtly polish, ritual knowleae, notions of gover-

nance and aesthetic comoisseurship, deepened literacy, and an acquaintance wikh Classic Mayan, the prestige langmge of Maya cottrts (Howton, Robertsm, and Sbart 2000)-in short, a U?orough steep;ing in the '"cult of eliteness" (see earlier text). Potentially, he would meet and befrimd the p ~ s e nand t future r&rs of C d a h u f , ,over who^^ he might. hope to cxercise some sway in favm of his own dynasty As in the courts of Bmin m d Burgwdy the young page mi&t also hope .for an ad\rantageous marriage arranged by the ruler (Kradburq.1973:hl; Armstrong 1,977:hl).Some pages might even be ""new men" in irre sense that the mler himself had elevated &ern over ~ t a i n e r with s hereditary claim to high service (e.g., Rradibrrry f973:64), It is telfing that in traditional Benin, youthfttl retainers often served their masters by spying on intriguers at court and by heIphg bypass burt?aucraticr Hocks that obstructed liirect contact between the mollarch and less-favored subjects (Bradbury 1973:61), Yet without question, there could be negatiw consequences to court service. The youth who resided at Caldmul lived of necessity in a somewhat anxious position, as a wry real hostage to his f m i l f s good behavior. Time away from h m e might also have weakened his own grip on succession to the throne, as he became d i ~ n g a g e dfrom local intrigue and factionalism (a distancing that- mi&t also have played to his benefit). Nonetheless, for all the negative or positive tactical consequences, such contacts with major caters, either through corn ser\iice or intermarriage, likely operated as the very engjne that disseminated Maya cottrtly practice and tempered a tendency to local idiosyncrasy."" Otlzer Courtly Personages I h e myal court encompassed many other kinds of people, most, m e presumes, in a service or productive capacity that would leave few vestjges in art and writing. S o m of these include a possible scribal title (Coe and Kerr 1997:91-971, although alternative readings are stilt beilng considercrd, sttch as, roumy, "'servant of (the) god""(see F i g w 3,11)."It is in the Usumacinta drain.age and in the western lowlands generally that the large" stock of titles c m e into use. Some titles appear to involve tributaries, especidy those high lords wearing a distinctive outfit of Sptr~dylus shell m d white mantle with colorfuL1 selvage (see Figure 3.1). At Bonmpak alone a number of hitherto u n k n w n titles appear systematically: Some clearly r&r to singers and musicians, marked with a title with a youthful head emitting fiowery scmlls; even the guzzling fan dancers, ers seem to penetrate thre,ut_r;htheir genltafia, are identifkd by distinctive titles (a-If('?-TI" '"he of the black mu*?"; see Figure 3 4 , This epithet =calls another, enigmatir title in this zm+Ti;' Srak H u : ~ 'kdge , of the white paper,'>perhags in reference to those MIho hold or present the

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

69

royal headbad (swk-bzu:n)h i n g royat accessitm rites. The vast number of titles in the Ronampak murals give a glirnrner of the nontetnclatural richness of the court, involving minukly circumscribed roles even within small poiities, The nurnemus twts at Palenque hint at yet other subtleties, including subordinges linked to fire rituals: This title reads y-afiru-k'nk' ("the fire's lord'') and appear"o be m office to whicln lords can be elevated or "wrappedf' in Classic idiom (kfahwI.trc:~z, tzrlfiwh tayajawk'ak"i, Palenquc New t'langed Head:CI-C4; see Figure 3.1,). The Rayat Court in Action

A list of drmatis personae such as that supplied so far is rather like a list of characters L\rithout the gripping novel or play itself; that is, it rr-?prt?setnts a boring m d pohtless item without a cogent historical setthg. Hieroglyphs and iconography show far more behaviaraj nuance, The most important scenes are tbose of interacrion hetcveen lords and inferion; whether visitors or locals is sometimes hard to determhe). In large part these concern triltlute, often represented by Spandylzrs hells attached to heaped mantles--& product of womanly skill-and enumerated quantities of cacao beans (Houston 1,997a). pot explicitly relates who the tribute corns h m and how it is received: ts'ahp-aj u-patnn 3 lahm y-ich11121, that is, "the tribute of the 3 Lakam is beint; heaped within view of the ru:ler" @(T"ure3.3; Kerr 1992:640 EJC4996f).Other scclnes show preliminaries to such offerings, including heaps of tamafes and bowls of pulque (cltih) or other savory drinks, 'Il-reMaya lievised a term for ""ftlast,"a logogram showing two, sty),izccf faces stut'cld with tarnale and &ink,but to our knowledge, it occurs only once in the southern Classic corpus, on a stylized hearth and crrmal with mytrhologicai refermts (Figure 3.4; Rohicsek and Hales 1981,:1190; see Garcia Campillo 1998:299, for an wgural interpretation of this sign). Such metings, in obvious palatial, settings, cmcapsulate Classic Maya notions of acti\lities at the heart of royal courts. Piedms Negras Panel 3 is one of the most vivid illustrations of cot~rtly behavior (Figure 3. The congregation around the seated ki-ng recalls throne scenes on pottery, but a wider array of court members and associates is portrayed on the panel. Its lexrgi%lyinscription provides a more detailed historical context for the event, and numerous secondav hieroglyphic texts and captions are interspersed throughouf;, offering importmt &formation on. titles and the varied roles of the participmts. In general terms, Pane1 3's s a h inscription records three events: (1) the k'at~tzanniversary of Ruler 4's accession to offlce and a ritual dance occurring two days later, (2) Che death and bwrial of Ruler 4 aAw about eight years, and (3) over twenty p a r s later, the culminating record, the dedication of Ruler 4's tomb as owerseen by Ruler 7 . (This t m h was

FIGURE 3.3 k e n e of tribute (after Kerr 1992:64O IK49961).

Dresden 14c

Unprovenanced Stone Ball (hearth replica)

FIGURE 3.4 Glyph for "feast."

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

71

FIGURE 3.5 Piedrar; Negras Panel 3.

probab%ydiscovered in 1997 by the Proyecto Piedras Negras; Houston et d.4998)- Dates inscribed directly within the scene suggest it depicts a gatrhering of court members just eighteen days before Rules 4's demise. Proskouriakoff was the first to point out the unusual political setting of the scene, il-titiafly suggested by the prominent mention of a Yaxchilan holy lord i r ~the panel's nnain [email protected] This foreig~zn a m appears in conmctim with a "canoe" hbieroglyph, which led Proskouriakoff to posit, incorrectly, that this inscription records a visit of a k c h i l a n emissary to Piedras Negras on the k'atzcn mniversary (Proskourjako&f1963; see also J. Marcus 1376:85-87); in point of fact, the canoe glyph forms part of a n m e . Anoher prominent foreip name cm Pmel 3-in an incised text placed withh the sccnc-is "Bat Jaguar," suggest-ed by Proskouriakoff as an alternative spelljng of the name of Bird Jaguar fV. This mler assumed the Vaxchilm t-hrone on 9.3t1.3.(3.0., nearly six years before the time of the scene and after a decade-long gap in the Vaxchilan dynastic record (Proskouriakoff:1963).Oddly, we read on Panel 3 that Bat Jaguar was "installed fn the lorcJshipf%on 9,1(i.he9.1hunder the authority of Ruler 4, just weeks before the tatter's own death. But as lord of what? VtJas the Uaxchilan king placed in temporary authority over Piedras Negras during a time when the local king was ailing and soon to die? It is difficult to say given the coqlexity of ~fercnccsto lords of Yaxchilan on this monument. But we can nevertheless agree with Proskouriakoff" assessmnt that the Panel 3 scene depicts a close interaction of rurbles at a speeific moment when much was in flux throughout the Piedras Negras kingdom, Marcus (1376:87), echoing Prosknuriakoff" views, saw the sccne depicting the k c h i t a n lord hdding court at Piedras Negras to resolve

ambigltfties in succession. Other interpretations seem possible, and we cannot be certain of the etnthroned f gure's predse idmtification. As we shall see, several of the secondary figures are of n d o c a l origin, suggesting that the greater political contat of the event had rttpercussion well outside the confines of Piedras N'egras.. The figur~ss u r r o u n d e the large thrme number fourteen in total, Prominent among these art? the seven nobtes seated at floor level before the throne. 'They are arrmged in tu.o files that meet before a lidded ceramic vessel, perhaps boiding chocolate drhnk, According to Maya conventions of spatial representation in two dkensitms, we art. probably to understmd that these figures arc facing the throne in two paratlel mws. The enthroned mXer seems to be engaged directly with them. h a n g these seven seated f i g u ~ we s find several different titles and hierarchical positinns. In the left-hand file, the first figure is n m e d f('ar2 Nik-te' ("Yeillow Plmeria"') and is identified by the inlportant title ba-sa$1, discussed before. 'This is one of only two hewn examples of thr title, the other appearing on Stela 5 of Piedras Negras in connection with the very same person. The figure behinct him appears to be mmed Ts'unzdntr"('"E-(ummingbird Tive"), but he bears no title. 'The next noble is named as a sajaf, but in an interesting twist he is said to be kom the regiotn, of Lacanfia. me last of the four in this left-side l h e is named with two smaller tjlyph, including the still-mysterious desipaticm a ~ a or b mib. The line of nobles seated at right and facing left are similarly varied by title. me initial figure facing the throne seems to carry the Ti' Snk Hu:n title, although a break in the stone makes the idenl;ification somewhat mcert,zjn. 7'he second figure is another sajal probably of local origin. T%e people who stand to the sides of the throne seem to have more 'bnlooker" mrorts of roles, yet most if not all are specifically named as important nllbles (some captions may be effaced). Ti, the left of the throne, three men stand with a m s crossed or in [email protected] if in conversation. The middIe figure is accompanied by a captim namilng him as a Vaxchilan ajaw. Mis pemmal n m e comes before but is unkt~ownfrom other exafngles. We can posit that his presence is a reflection of the intimate association of k c h i l a n with Piedras Negras pofitics at this time. At right, the fnur standing figures include two children, pr&ably sons or grandsons of the seated king, Appropriately, two of the personal names below &ern are marked by the ctz'uk designation for ""youth.""The child standing at the front may specifically be the d e s i p t e d heir, as he takes the junior royal title ch'uk yuh-ib ajaw, "the young Piedras :Negras lord.'Te cannot be certain of this, as his name does not seem to correspond with later h g s . The other child, by contrast, remaiins an ixnportant member of the Piedras Negras royal court, portrayed as an adult on Stda 12 nearly forty years later.

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

73

One of the remainhg two adult f l g w s is, at rear, a person named Jasaw Ckzan ECRawi;l,who holds the important &ordinate title uh kkn:rz.Contrary to earlier published statements (J. Marcus 1976:182), we feel this is not a ~ l a t i v eof the Tikal ruler with the very lime name (Buler h), who reigned some years before this date. The other adult figure carries the Lacanha area place gbph with his n m e in conjunction with t h bird-andhead scarf title we find at I'alenque and Dos I'ilas, a m g other sites. C)n the hvhole, the arrangement of the audjence mennbers on Panel 3 can be divided into three gmups, each possibly defined by distinct roles in the court setting: (l)the seated nobles, who seem directly engaged with thc seated ruler. These includc. a head sajal and other slxjal from the neighborirrg kingdom of Lacanha. (2) A less fomal grouping of figures at left, at least one of MIhom is a h e h i f a n 1 4 . They may a11 have been visitors, but not ail n m e s m d titles sunrive, (3) The standing figures at right, who are at lcast in part mmbers of the Piedras Negras royal family, including two c h i l h , one of whom later figurrs promfnently in the local historical record. O f all of these subordinates, the sajal are clearly the mmt importasrt class. Ihe event dqicted on Panel3 is really between them and the enthroned king, wi& others wit-nessing the pmceedings. The pattern reflects the basic importance of sajal as political officers under the mler, as well as their probabk importmt role in interkingdom dipiomacy As rulers of subodinate border sites inthe region such as El Cayo and La Pasad-ik, sajalpmbabfp had important roles as contacts between royal courts throughout the area in addition to their possible milimy functions in t h e s of war.

Discussion It is at this juncture that we wish to integrate the data on the Classic Maya nonrepal etites who predominated numerically at the royal court. In describing relevant titles we have pointed only sIit;ZItly to a signal pattern in their distribution. With scant exception, all references to women date to the Late Classic period (ca. A.n. 600 to 800);all. Mesoamerican references to sajal date to the same time with a clear unimodal curve, and the same holds true for other nonregnal titles. There are several ways to interpret these data: (1)the pattem is spurious, reflecting little more than a vastly inwased sample of monuments from the Late Classic; (2) the pattern is real,, reflecting a shift in rktorjc-the decorun? of cont.ent thought apprclpriate for monumental recollection; and (3) the pattern is real and records the actual instihntion of new kinds of nonrepal nobility, We believe that numbers 2 m d 3 are closer to the mark. The diagmms presented bere demonstrate two patterns (Figure 3.6). The first shows a massive increase in population during the Late Classic

period after a time that probably (although not certainly) expcrlrienced a dramatic clecline in pre-Classic levels of popdation (Santley 19"30:Figure 16.2). The second charts the FRcreasing appearance m d eventual peak of by the mid-years of the Late Classic pe~ferencesto n o n ~ g n anobles l riod (ca. A.D. 750, m m t o n 1993:Figure 5,4). we do not believe these are coincidental correiations. Consider the follows scenario, which we believe is consistent with epigraphic: data: (1) the nascent dynasties of the Early Classic period (and we do have some independent inkling of their origin at the beg ing of the Early Classic) started with relatively small famifies; (2) as the cadet branches began to ramify, candidacy for highest office becalne more open, or, rather, there appeared more possifiiilities for alternative candidates and their coditions; (3) at the beginnhg of the Late Classic women began to be reccnded with greater frequczmcy htexts, a l o ~ ~with g increased use of the so-called parentage statement-this expression highliets not only the predecessor of a ruler in sequence --ofaccession (the Eariy Classic pattern) but the parentage of the rulrtr (a pattern also found with suklsidiary lords). That is, by the Late Classic period nortr e p 1 elites had become obtmsive both numerically and rhetorirally; bilateral descent achieved greater sipificance as there occurred a need to restrict candidacy for holy lordship and other offices to the purest possjble standard (a process expficitly attested for the post-CSassic Mixtec), By the Terminal Classic period, parentage statements, nonregnal lords, and womrn had faded in textual prominence as populations begin to shift and decline in the southern Maya lowlands. Another question of elite demography is wwth mcmtioning. If cmsorts wcre poterntially so fecund, what would happern to elites and royalty thruugh time? Many of these offspring would die of natural causes, since Maya cities were unlikely to have been healthy places (Houston 199%). k t a simple pat-i;c.mof slight increase kvould, over very few generations, result in a large overclass of people claiming descent from exalted members of society The strategy of emphasizing both parents%blodlines reprclscnts one response. Another strategy would be to spin cadets off:to h u n d or p ~ s i d over e new settlements, a process attested in the sudden prominence of provincial sub[. (Nonetheless, same of thrse figurtts may stem from ancie~ntnohle fmilies jbsorbed into Ihe poitical orbits of holy lords.) In fine segmentary fashion, such eilites woufd be sent to dangerous, marginai places where, at hest, they might he killed by enemfes or be expceted to retain some family loyatty. The worst-case scenario would be fissiming and political ruyturt., such as may explain th ubiquity of royal titles arclu11d Tikaf in the Terminal CIassic period. The pabce a1-d court, too, may have played a rote im dealing wieh the problem of defining elites. Conceivably, somewhat like a protocol machine, the royal court could determine through individual grants of relative access whether

Population in Centml Maya hwlmds (mausstnds) 9,0,0.0.0 - 10,O.O.O.O (aRer Tuner f99lI)O:Fig.115.1)

LC Date

Tempor& Distribution o f Y j [email protected] Sajal T~ties Pafenque, Tonim, Yrurchilan,Piedra Negas, Copan

-

9.0.0 0.0 10 0.0.0 0

O O ~

~

O O ~

~

O O O

O O

g

O ~

O

~

~ O

a

c

O O

a

h

g

O O

O

n

o

a

.

O O O

m

r

O O O

m

z

8

O O O

z

O

z

LC Date

FIGURE 3.6 ChronuXc>gicaXtrends in population and title use during the Classic period: (a) Population in central Maya lowlands (thousands) 9.0.O.Q.O-40.Q.0.0.O (after Turner 39510:Figure 35.1); (b)Temporaldistribution of 'nj k'lthun and sajal titles: Patmqrte, Tanina, Vaxchilan, Piedras Negras, Copan, 9,0.O,Q.&10.Q.0,0.0

o

someone belonged to the elite. Such royat access, as filtpred through court etiqtzette m d smction, could be adjusted as need be. An alternative possibility, nut completely inconsistent with this scenario, is one in which hegemonic polities had begun to jockey for control precisely dttrj,ng the middle years of the faateClassic period (Martin and Grube 1995). Such external forces would have accentuated the role of women as alliance builders G'~rnu$ marriage and the need to fortify cmnectinlls with undcrljngs Ihrough a heightened emphasis-a njmlclus extended to nonregnal lords-in surviving examples of monumental art and writing. 'I'he rise of the subsidiaries, then, was also a premonition of their fall, a suggestion of communication and consensus portending conflict and collapse. If the Early Classic Maya focused m few people, usuaily males in lineal seyuence, the Late Classic focused on the ma"L; in dense historicat accounts that reveal more of the Classic Maya court than any other available evidence,

Notes The authors thank Andrew Apter, John Clark, "fkeshi Inornata, KarX Taube, David Wbster, and ivvo anonymous reviewers for their helpful remarks. Tfakeshi desrves special commendatian for hosting the lavish confermce at Yale that led to this chapter. Justin and Barbara Kerr graciously altowed us to do the renderings af royal weaving bones discussed in this chapter. 1. The precise nature of gtyphic "events" i s understudied by specialists in Maya script. One classification far events might include Vendfer's (196F97-121) well-known set of ""stuation types," "including states ("own something'", activities ("sing"), aceamplishments (""capture sc>meone'"),and achievements ("be born, die," Eeischrnan 1990:20). In glyphic texts, "activities" without "teelic" or natural endpoints are rare; accomplishments and achievements seem difficult to separate. Very clearly, gJy&"lhicverbs d o not cover the full span of human (or even Maya) experience but limit thernrjejves to a fixed repertoire of action. Many glyyhic verbs are what w e would define as summative because a single verbal reference usually connotes other preparatory and cmcluding acticyns that are selusually dedom if ever specified glyphically. To illustrate: "is capture8,'khz~hk-~j, scribes conflict remlved to the patron" advantage, but we do not have glyphic references to preparation for battle, the play of lances, siege and arnbuseade, or the adornment of cap"rves in the raiment of subjuptian (riven cotton with numerous circular perfc>rations). 2, Another trope that deserves further scrutiny is the use of a term for ""binding" (hf~clahl-nj)both for royal diadems as the quinteswntial act of royal accession and for captives (Tanina Monument 99:Bj; Craham and Mathews 1996:422). This usage recalls widespread African cmcepts of ""ruler capture and arrest," in which the burdens of high office are charaderized as a form af arrest or cmfinement as much as exaltation (AbblPs 2 "381:4; Blier 1"38:28-29). However, we believe it more

PeopIl'zzg kke Chssz'cMayn Court

77

likely that the ccjncept pertains to the nation of something being completed, that ig the collmtion and bhding of all relwant attributes or features, whether of the king or of units of time. 3. Excavatiom at 13iedrasNegras, Guatemala, in 1999 revealed p o d circumstmtial widence for a sajnl residence and m o r t u a ~stmcture in and around Structure C-13. An erc-dedpmel, fully an inch of its surface blasted by a millemium of exposuret strongly resembled the m o r t u a ~ panels known to c~)mmemorateLate Classic snjal burials in the region of Piedras Negras. The panel had probably fallen from a stairnay outset on the central axis of Stmcture C-23. Trenching in the buildkg uncovered well-pre*r\PeB terraces with at least two c o l u m altars and, near bedrock, a burial cist with massive r m f h g slabs. The bady within is likely to have belonged to a s a j ~ fThe . structures to the north and west prc)babXy sexved as his residence. The plaza in front of C-13 contained at least four intad or robbed burials, suggesting the presence of a famity cernetew going back to Early CXass;t;ictimes. 4, Ethagraphic evidence indicates that many women spent six to eight hours a day in grinding maize (Brumfief 1991:238). The abwnce of manos and metates in palace contexkI as at Pidras Negras, Guatemala (personal obsei-vation, 1997), suggests that royal and noble ladies were releasd from such fabor, leaving more time for the ceremcrrties of statecraft and, perhaps for tzreavirrg,One of the few scenes on a Classic Maya vessel to s h w make grinding is a mytholo&.ical setting in which apparently human seni-itorea malef female pair-tend tc3 gcds seated abcyve them (Ken. 2 "389329 [K6311). ""Egendered archaeology'"imperils itset f by focusing on gender to the exclusion of class or status divisions. It is n0tewort.h~too, that Erurnfiel emphasizes that detstitute women sold vegetable% fi~wctcd,and salt in Aztec marketpiaces (Brumfiet 1991:244). We suspect that the humiliating exposure to public view was more distressing than their sale of gtmds. Release from a clc~wting purdah (or same other, less acute form of =clusicm) m y have reflected a profound mducgon in familial for2mes. After all, Aztec girls were "to ggc~nclwt-rei~"WcCafferty and MKafferty 1998:218),Simibrly, the shield& spaces witMn May a palaces potentially served to isolate royal females. lt is not at all clear that such ladies could move about freely Indeed, one vessel scene shows ladies seated d e r n u ~ l behind y a curtain while tribute is being received by the lord and his nobles (Kerr 19%:297 [K2914]). A rare "arririal"%vent by a royal lady at Naranjo forms part of a marriage event involving a princess frcm a distant politr)r (Stirluart.and Houston 194:53); presumably she came to stay. Accordingly a signal marker of nonelite females may have been their greater flexibili9 of movement a necessity for the economic survival of pmmr hausholds. 5. We caution, however, that such name-tagging fails to tell us whether the queen actually used such devices. Equal15 the bones may have operated as symbolic accoutremnts of gender or as expressions of the queen" idealized domesticity The pzlls' blfi:k reading was first drawn to our attention by Kari Taube, whc) noted its occurrence on a weaving bone excavated at Dzibilchaltun ( b r l Taube, personal communication, 1996; see also Taschek 1994: Figure 32a; other examples have been detected by Taube at Mirador, Chiapas, and Uaxcatun, Guatemala, and in ethnographic contexts from highland Guatemala). Many display hands or body parts on the carved end away from the pctlihed point. Taube's suspicion is that on closer inspectiron, many bcme objects in Maya excavatiom will prove to be

weaving needles. Recent excavatiom by Brigham Young University and the Universidad del Valle at the Classic city of Piedras Negras have found even finer, '*eyedr'needles, including a delicate example recovered in flotation. These devices were probably used for embroidery. 6. The number in brackets is the Kerr archive number, fc~undin the Kerr Maya Vase Photographic Archive an-tine at http/ / www,FAMSl.clrg. 7. Spinsters and wicxlcjws are knc>wnin other contexts to be [inked with unusual residential practices. In the Spanish court of the Hap";"burgasame women were of too high a status to marry with anyone other than imperial cousins, requiring their tong maintenance by fathers and brothers (Parker 1995:64), Similarly, among nineteenth-century Mormons, widows were incorporated into polygamous families as a form of social welfare under harsh frc~ntierconditions (Ernbry 1987; Van Wagoner 1986). 8. All Eurc~peandates are in the Julian calendar: The correlatic>nused here f d lows the scl-called astmnomieal cmstant of 584285, 9. The panels apparently specify the amount of time involved in constructing a burial pyramid (muk):403 days from the time of the ruler's death, 10. For more distant sites, it appears that anol-fier mode of irrteractivn existed: the betowal of tutors or guardians by averlc3rds, as in the example of a courtier sent from Calakmul to sesve as warden to the heir to the Dos Pilas kingdom (Ho~uston 1993:115). Hc~wever,this arrangement would have been a palliative, without- the same impact as full submersion in the major centms of Classic civilization, 11. It is important to avoid any misunderstandings. Dt~ubtsabout the reading a-k'uh-ll-rt:~,"he of the holy boc~k,"do not affect Coe and Kerr's iconographic argument, namely that scribes with distinctive attributes employed this title, Such evidence is convincing, Rather, our reservatic)ns concern the glyphic reading. Without exceptian, early aamptes of the compound fail to include the "book'" or ""paper" glyph (hzr:~l)-instead, they invariably suffix na, suggesting that "book"" or "paper" do not bear on its decipherment. Our long and difficult experience with code-breaking persuades us that sign development deserves a centrat place in any d i ~ u s s i o nof glyphic readings, Marewer, the "weak'" aspirate of the (h)u:n raises the strong possibiiiq that -u:n was intended. These threads of evidence indicate that sozirjds, not meanings (e.g., ""beak," "paper"), interested the Maya in this context. Tnterestingiy, there are a number of expressions in Classic Mayan that append -V:n suffixes (e.g., che-[glottalle-na),These may well be parallels to the a-K'UH-na title.

References AbklPs, Marcr. 1981, "Sacred Kingship and the Formation of the State." h Tnenri Claessen and Peter Skalnek, eds., T!E Sfzrdy of ttw State, pp. 1-14. The Hague: Mouton. Armstrong, C.A.J. 1977. "The Golden Age of Burgundy: Dukes That Outdid Kings," h AA.G. Dickens, ed,, The Courts I?( Eur.ape: I")olitit=s,Patronage, and Roynlfy, I400--1800, pp. 55-75, London: Thames and Hudsc~n. Blier, Suzanne P. 19138 The Rupal Arts of Ajrim: The Majesty of Form. New York: Harry N. Abrams.

Peopll'zzg kke Chssz'c Mayn Court

79

Battornore, T, B. 1964. Eliles and Society, New York: Basic Books, Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977, Oz-ltlineofn T1zeory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bradbury, R. E, 1973. Beni~zStlldl'es, London: Oxford University Press. Brurnfief, Elizabeth M. 1991. "Weaving and Cooking: Women" Production in Aztec Mexico." In Joan M, Cero and Margaret W. Conkey eds., Elngertdering Arci'taeolugy: Wonten and Prdlisfoy, pp. 223-251. Bxfc~rd:Basil Blackwell. . 1994. "Factional Competition and Political Development in the New VVorXd: An Introduction." h TnElkabeth M. Brumfiel and John W" Fax, eds., Factional Competition and Pofiticnl Developme~ztin the New World, pp. 3-13 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1998. "HujtaiIopochtiXi'~Conquest: Aztec Ideology in the Archaec~Xogical Record .'"Cnnzbridge Arci'z~eakoghl\otarrzal8(1): 3-1 3. Chinchilla, Bswaldo, and Stephen Houston. 1993. "Historia polftica de ]a zona de Piedras Negras: t a s inscripciones de El Cayo," In Juan Pedro Lapode, H&ctor L. Escc~bedo,and Sandra VilXagrhn de Brad y, eds., V l Sz'mposiij de hzrc~esti;ncio~lcs:es Arqzimldgicas etz Guatemnln, pp. 63-70. Guatemala City: Ministerio de Cultura y Bepurtes. Clark, J o b E., and Stephen D. Houston. 1998, ""Craft Specialkation, Gender, and f2ersonhuodAmong the Post-ConquesI. Maya of Yucatan, Mexico.'Yn Cathy L. Costin and Rita P. Wrigfnt, eds., Craft and Social Identity, pp. 3146. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Asmciation 8, Washiington, B.C. Coe, Michael D., and Justin Kerr. 1997. The Art of the [email protected] New York: Harry Abrams. ExpIoraCions in flze D r y of Cohen, Abner. 1981. The 170liCics I?J:Elite Cultz-tiv~: Power I'n itlt~derr-2Apican Sochty, Berkeley: University of California Press. Conklin, Harold C. 1980. Etlznograplzic Atlas ofqltgno: A Sttcdy of Etzoironment, Culture, and Socictij in Norttzcnz Luzorz, New Haven: Yale University Press, Eliade, Mircea. 2959. The Sncrcld and the Profane: Tlze Nature of Religion. New York: Harcourt Brace, Elton, G, 8, 1983. "Tudor Government: The Points of Contact, III: The Court." 1x1 Stzrdies ir-z 7jaGE0r and Sfunrt 170titl'cs and Goz?ernmenl Ill, pp. 38-57. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Embrry; Jessie. 1987. Mormon F"ulygamo~lsF~mz'lies:LFe izz flze Prizzci~2le.Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, FXeischman, Suzame. 1990. Tense nud Narrafz'zlify:From Medieval I;3Pformnuce to Modern Fkfior?.Austin: University of Texas Press. Freidel, Bavid A,, and Linda Schele. 1988. "Kingship in the Late Preclassic Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual POW-er."American Anllllwpologis1 90: 547-567. Gailey, Christine, and Thornas Patterson. 198'7. " h w e r Relations and State R~~R~~UIZ Formations." In Thornas Patterson and Christine Gailey, eds., P~~roer and Stale Furmntians, pp. 3-26. Washington, DC: American Anthropolctgical Assaciation, Garcia Campillo, Jas4 Miguet. 2998. "Textos augural= en bs tapas de brivedas elhsicas de Vucatrin,"Ynh d r 4 s Ciudad Kuiz, Uofanda Fembndez Marquinez, Jos6 Miguel Garcia Campillo, Maria josefa Tglesias Ponce de LeSin, Alfmso La-

80

Steplzen D. HousFon nlzd David Stuart

cadena Garcia-Callo, Luis T. Sanz Castro, eds., Anntumh dc Unn Civilizariibcilz: Apmximacr'ones Xnterdiscipli~lnriasn la Cultura m y a , pp. 297-322, Madrid: Sociedad Espai-Ltolade Estudicjs Mayas. Geertz, Cliffurd. 1980. Negam: The 77Jzeatre State in izlirzeteentll-Centu~yBali. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ciddens, Anthony. 14984. The Cunsfilutit~tzof Society: Outline of the Tlzeoiy of Stmctumtiotf. brkeley: Universiq of Califc3rnia Press. . 1994. "Elite and Power." In Davicl GrwE;iv, ed., Social [email protected]~?: Class# h c e , and Gender E'E Socior;-tlogicaEI;3Prsp~tiz7e,pp. 170-1 74, Boulder: Weskiew 13ress. Craham, Ian, 1997. '"Mission to La Corona." Arclmmlogy 50(5): 46. Graham, Tan, and Peter Mathews. 19%. C c ~ f ~ofu sMnya Hz'eroglypl~icInscriptions, Volzlnte 6, Part 2. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum, Haward Universiv. Grube, Niknlai. 1992, ""Classic Maya Dance," AAnent Mesanmen'ca 3: 201-218. Gruzinski, Serge. 1989. Mnlz-Cods in the Mexican Higlflands: Indian Fltlzuer and Cul~znbl Sc7ciet.y. Stanfc3rd: Stanford University Press. Heather; Peter. 1996. The GsClzs. Oxford: Blackwell. Houston, Stephen D, 1993. Hieroglyphs alzd Hisloiy at Dos Pilas: Qrtastic Politics of the Classic Maya. Austin: Universiiv of T'exas Press, . 1997a. "A King Worth a Hifl of Beans." Arclmmtt7gy 50(3): 40, . 199%. ""Big Is Beautiful: Piedras Negras and Lowland Maya Urbanism.'" Paper presented at the Complex %>cietyMeetings, Universiq of Arizcyna. Howton, Stephen D., and Tom Cummins. 1998, "Body, Presmce, and Space in Andean and Mesoamerican Rulership." "per presented at symposi urn Ancient Palaces of the New World: Form, Ftmction, and Meaning, Dumbartcm Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washingtc~n,P.C. Houston, Stephen D., and Davicl Stuart, 1996. ""Of Gods, Cfyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic Maya." Antiquity 70: 289-312. . 1998. "The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and Pclrtraitttw in the Classic 13eriod.'"RES 33: 73-101, Houston, Stephen D., and Karl 'Taube. 1999 ""An ArchaeoXoYgy of the Senxs: Perceptual 13sychology in Classic Maya Art, Writing, and Architecture." Unpublished manuscript, Houston, Stephen D., John nobedson, and David Strtart. 2000 "The Language of Classic Maya Inscriptions." Current Anthropology 41 :321-356. Housttln, Stephen, H&clmrEscobedo, Dc3nald Forsyth, Perry Hardin, David Webster, and tori Wright, 19%. "On the River of Ruins: Explorations afliedras Negras, Guatemala, 1997."%exicun 20: 16-22. Jackson, Michael, 1996. "htroduction: Phenomenology, Radical Empiricism, and Anthropological Critique." In Iniehaef Jacbc?n, ed., TftI'tzgsas Tlzey Are: New Directz'ons E'IZ Phe~o~~enoE~gical Antltrc)ipalogy,pp- 1-50. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Joyce, Rosemary. 1993. "Women's Work: Images of Prclducticjn and Reproduction in Pre-Hispanic Southern Central Amen"ca." Cuwent AnClzmpology 34: 255--2%. Karttunen, Frances. 1983. An Analytical Dicfioiolzay ofhrahzmtl. Wcjrman: University of Oklahoma Press. Kaufman, Terrence S., and William M, Ncjrman. lli38iI.."hOutline of Protu-Cholan Phonoio&.y, M o r p h d o g and Vocabulary," h John S, Justeson and Lyke Camp-

Peoplizzg kke Chssic Mnyn Court

81

bell, eds., Phurjeticism in Mnya~zHiemgtyplzic Wrilirzg, pp. 77-166. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State U ~ v e r s i t yof New York at Albany, Publication 9. Kerr, Justin. 1989. The Mayn h s e Bunk: A C u ~ u ofs Rollout Photographs cf M n y a K-zses,volt. 1. New York: Kerr Associates. . 1990. The Mayn Vgse Book: A Garpzts of Rollout Pkologmplzs of Mayn V ~ s e s , u d . 2. New York: Kerr Aswciates. . 1994. The Mnyn V G SBook: ~ A Corpus of Rofloz~tPkologmplzs of Mayn V ~ s e s , u d . 4, New York: Kerr Aswciates. Kowaievvski, Stephen A., Gary M, Feinman, and %aura Finsten. 1992, "The Elite' and Assessment of %cial Stratifieatim in Mesoamerican Archaec)logy." h iniane 25. Chase and ArXen F", Chase, eds., Mesoanrerica Elifes: A12 A ~ h c o l q i c a l Assessmenl, pp. 259-277. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. LaughXin, Robe& M. 1988. Tfze Great Tzofzil Diefio?znfyI?f S a ~ t o13omirzgo Zinacautdn. 3 vols. Smjthsonlan Contributions to Anthropology 31. Washlngto>n,DC: Smithsonian Insti trttion Press. Lincoln, Bruce. 1989. Discuzrrsc and the Construcfion of Society: Corztptarative Sfudim ofitlytk, Ritual, and [email protected]~t, Oxfctrd: &ford University Press. Linnekin, Jcsceltyn. 1990. Sncred Queelzs aud Women of Ga~sequence:Rank, Gender, arzd Colonialism in thc ki~zoraiiarzIslands. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan 13ress. Loades, David-.1986.77~e7jdGE0r Court. London: Batsford. s ~ : and Crlltural Hktory Lockha&, james. 1992. TfzeNnhuas After tlte G o M ~ z - AI ~Soerial of f lze I n d i ~ ~of z sCentral Mexico, Sixteenilz TI:zrc;tlrghEliglzfwszllt Cenluries. Stanfc>rd: Stanfc~rdUniversity Press, L6pez-Austin, Alfredo. 1988. Tlw Human Body and Ideol~~gy: Concepts of tlze Ancient Nalzzrns. 2 uds. Salt take City: University of Utah Press. Luttwak, Edward N. 1976. T7ze Cmnd Strategy of the Rorrtan Efrzpirefro~rz:fhe First Ccrztn r;y AD. to flip Tfzird. Baltimore: Jnhns Hopkins University Press, Mareus, George E, 1%3. ""Eite Communities and Institutional Orders." In Gwrge E. Marcus, ed., Elites: Ethltagmpllic Tsszies, pp. 41-57. School of American Research Book. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1992. "The Concern with EIjtes in ArchaeoXc>gicalReconstructions,""Tn Diane Z. Chase and Arlen E Cl~ase,ebs., Mesuermericn~~ Ellifes: An Alz.luteott7gicnl Assessmenl, pp. 292-302.. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. d itz tlic Clnssic h y r a Lowtands, Washingtcm, Mareus, loyce, 453%. Eft?blema ~ Sfafe BC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Caftection. . 1992, "Royal Families, Royal Texts: Examples from the Zapotec and Maya." In Biane Z , Chase and Arlen F, Chase, eds., Mesonmerictau EEiles: A n Arcltaeol~gicafAssessntenC, pp. 221-241. Nctrman: I;niversi.e;@.of Oklahoma Press. Martin, Sirnon, and Nikaltai Grube. 1995. "Maya Superstates," Ar~Izlaenlo~ 48(6): 41-46.. Mathews, Peter. 1994, "Classic Maya Emblem Cfyphs." In X Patrick Culbert, ed,, Clmsic Mnyn Political I-lislo~y:Hierqlypbzic nnd A rcktneofogiccaf Evidefzce,pp. 19-29.. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. McCafferty, Sharisse D,, and Geoffrey G. McCafferty. 1998, "winning and Weaving as Female Gender Identity in Past-Classic iVexico," In Kelley Hays-Gilpin

82

Steplzen D. HousFon nlzd David Stuart

and David S. Whitley, eds., Reader in Gerlder Rrc/zneott7gy, pp. 24S230. London: Routledge. Miles, Susan W. 1957. 7"ke S h f eenlh-Centzt~yP t ~ h r nMkyn: A Documcnlnry A rzalysis $Social Strzdcture and ArcIzaeologicrail Setlirzg. Earnactions of the Amrican Phifusophical Society 4'7, pp,731-7231. Philadelphia. Mosca, Caetano, 1994, "The Ruling Class," In David CruskyI ed,, Social SfmtFcatiolz: Class, Race, and Celzder in Sociol~girnlPerspecfive, pp. 155-361. Boulder: Wesbiew Press. Nelson, Ben. 1 998. ""Eite Residences in West Mexico." "per presented at symposium Ancient Palaces of the New World: Form, Functic~n,and Meaning, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Cot lmtion, Washington, U.C. O ~ n e sSherry, ; and Harriet Whitehead, eds. 1981. Sexztal Mennitzgs: The Czllfzsrar! d Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Unir~ersity Cmstrzrct.inlz of Gender n ~ Sexuality. Press. Pancakej Cherri. 4992. "Gender Boundaries in the Production of Guatemalan Textiles." In Ruth Earner; and Joanne E;. Eicher, &S., Dress nlzd Cenc3t.r: Mnkiug and Meaning in Cultural Co~ttext.,pp. 76-91. Providence: Berg, Parker, Geoffrey 1 995. PItilip 11.3~3ed, Chicago: Open Court. Pr>llock,Susan. 1%4. ""VVomen in a Man's World: Images of Sumerian Women," In Joan M, Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, eeds., Engenden'r~gA~hneoEogy:Worrten nlzd Fret1 isloty, pp,366387. Oxford: Basil Blackwef l. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. 1963. "Historical Data in the Inscriptions of Vaxchilan, Part I." "Eslzldius de Cznltzlm Maya 3, pp. 147-1 67. RingLe, Willam, 1985. ""Notes on Two Tablets of U n h o w n Provenance." In Virginia M. Fields, ed., FCth Pnlelzque Roztnd Table, 1983, VOX.'7, pp. 151-158. San Franciscl-r:Pre-Cctlumbian Art Rexarch Institute. Robicsek, Francis, and B ~ n a l dM. Hales. 1981. The lLlnya Book of the Dmd: The Ceramic Codex. Charlottesviile: University of Virginia Art Museum. Roys, RaXph L. 1957, Tke Politz'ml C q m p I t y oftilte Y ~ e a f aMayn. n Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 613. Washington, D.C. Rudolph, Lloyd I., and Susanne Hoeber Rudollyh. 1983. ""QligopolisticCumpetition Among State Elites in Princely India." h George E. Marcus, ed., Eliles: Elht~ographicISSZ~CS,pp, 193-220. School of American Research Book. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Santtey Robe& S. 19%. "Demographic Archaeolc3gy in the Maya Lwlands." In 71, Patrick Crtlbert and Ban S. Rice, eds., Pr~colunzbhitlzPoljulation History irz the Mnya Lowlands, pp.325-X3. Atbuquerque: U~versityof New Mexico Pr-s.to here Schwteu;Angela M.H. 1997, "R1e ;?arch for Site Q.'" ArcltneoEogy 5015): 42-45. ShlXs, Edward. 1968, "Deference." h J. A. Jackson, ed., Social Sfraf~icntlion,pp. 104-3 32, Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press, Silverbtatt, Irene. 1987. M C I Q Sznn, ~ , nlzd Wifcllcls:Ccnder Ideologi(>sand Class i~zl ~ n c ~ alzd Colonial Peru. Princeton: Princetc3n University Prss. Stuart; David. 1996. "'Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in Ancient Maya Etraal and Representation." RES 29-30: 448-471. . 1998. "Dynastic History and Politics of the Classic Maya." In Peter S c h i d t , Mel-cedes de La Carza, and Enrique Nalda, eds., Mrayn, pp. 321-335. Venice: Bomiani.

PeopIizzg the Chssz'c Mayn Court

83

Stuart, David, and Stephen P-ic~ustcm.4994. Ckassic h y a Place Nnmcs. Studies in Pre-Colurnbian Art and Archaeology 33. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research tjbrar?p and Collection. Taschek, Jennifer T. 1994, Tfze Art q ~ c t osf Bzibilclznltz-ln, "Vucafan, Mexico: SI-terfl,Polislled Stonef Bone, Wood, and Ceramics. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, TuLane University, Turner, B. L., T1.199530. ""lplaticm Reconstruction of the Central Maya Z,owlands: ICN)O B.C. to AD. 1500," In 7: Patrick Culbert and Don 5. Rice, eeds., PreoIumbiatz Popzklatio'on History i ~ zthe nilnya tozulands, pp. 301-324. Albuquerque: University af New Mexica Press. hlygnmy: A History. Salt take City: SignaVan Wagoner, Richard, 1986. Mar~rzo~ ture Books. Van Zantwijk, Rudalf, 2994, "Factional Divisions Within the Aztec (Colhua) Royal Family." In InEXizabet11 M. Brurnfief and J o b W Fcx, eds., FactbnnE Cornpetiliun a~zdPoliticat Development in the Ncw World, pp. 103-140. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Venedler, Zeno, 196'11,Li~zgzrislicsin PIzilusupF~y.Ilrhaca: Cornell University Press. WolXey, Claudia, and tori krright, 1990. ""Qperacibn DP7: Investigacianes en X e grupo t4-4." In Arthur A. Dernarest and Stephen D. Houston, eds., ""Pclyeeta arqueolbgico regional Petexbatun, informe preliminar:442: Segunda temporada, 1990," pppp,44-65 Unpublished report submitted to the Ilnstit-utc~de [email protected] e Historia, Guatemala,

Perspectives on Actors, Gender Roles, and Architecture at Classic Maya Courts and Households PATRXCXA A, McANANV SHANNON PLANK

A central problcnt plaguing the interpretation of royal cotrrts hinges on the difficulty of re-c~atingthe lived, space of these impressive, built environments,.Often cmtaining scant evidence of mundane daily activities such as c o o b g and craft production, royal courts have proven as challenging to decipher as their associated corpus oi himf;lyphic texts. Archaeologists strilling to uneierstand these architecmal complexes contend with both the sheer mass of royai constmction and the pervasive, ancient ethic of arnpEifying the antiquity and resonance of a regal locale through periodis programs of structurr. renovation, burial, a d expansion. The mag~~itude and complexity of royal arcfiitecture translate into fragmented views of early building programs. As a logical antidote, this book focuses cm t-he totality of socid actors interacthg within the power matrix of a royal court ruled by a sobrereign lord or lady. Admirable in its intent, this focus nevertheless requires that our data sets (and analytical tools) contain srtfficient rigor to extrapolate .from m t e d a l pa.t.tern to h m a n action and that o~trconceptual fsameworks be precise enough to minimize common interpretive problems such as equifinality (mirnetic form from disjunctive functions). An emphasis 811 the hurnan court rather than its architecharal setting also runs the risk of failing to mcognize that many Classic Maya buildings were court actors in their own right. X~~scriptinns and archaeological evidence

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

85

reveal that buildings in royal completies acquired personalized histories and played special roles in corlrtly life and ritual practice. M a p actors must be brought together with Maya spaces, particularly in court contexts, where buildings are often kaviiy loaded with imagery events, color, burials, caches, m d buried structures. This chapter examixles actors, praxis, and place frm two perspectives: first, by an investigation of both court and househotd with an eye to general similarities and distinctions; second, by a case study of epigraphic and architectural evidence horn the royal court of Yaxchilan. The first section explores a question o f en asked by Maya archaeologists: Were royal courts simply gargantuan Classic M a y a households? Deceptively simple, this query drills to the heart of our understandmg of social and political arrangements in Classic Maya society If a similar a r r q of activities was undertake11 at both royal court m d nonroyal households, perhaps Maya social distinctions were not so great and.pditkal 0rgani.zati.m not so centralized in Maya society. hn understartding of one, the royal court, for instance, could s w e as a blueprint for the otber, the household. However,if royal court and household are th loci of very different activities, each must be understood on its own terms. To address this issue, information is gleaned from archaeological, epigraphic, ethnohistorical, and ethnographic sources. Primary emphasis is placed an social roles and ritual padice wit-hin the two differing contexts rather than on architectural form (for reasons discussed further on), Contrasts in leadership and gender roles are found to be particuhrly strmg between househ o d and court, dthourgh the ramrfs edge between overgeneralizaticm and recognition of significant variation in both court and household is acknowledged to be a chaknging aspect of this investigation, The second sectim explores the notion of courts as royal households by examinhg the interface between cowt actors and aschitecture made explicit in the hieroglyphic expression y-lalo:t "his house," a term almost alin Classic-period inscriptions by a named court personways pow"f"s~d age.%scriptio~~sc m t a h h g this expression are physically attached to at least thirty structures h major Maya cities, including Palenytle, Copan, Cbirhen Ztza, Oxkintok, and Xkalumkfin,but we will focus here on possessed otu:t structures at Yaxchilan. Of the five structures at that site dedicated as cllo:l of royal personages, two ""belong" to royal women.2This distribdon of otcl:f ""clwnership" represents a unique oppormity to explore, hocvever prchinarily the gndet. dynamics of the Yaxchilan court and to compare them to what we h o w about nonroyal households. Refognizing that buildings as well as persons are essential to court action closes s w e of the distance betwee11 the social.and arhitectural courts m d remhds us agaill that spaces and places are not voids to be filled with actors but social and experiential phenomena in their own right.

86

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

Royal. Court and Household Extrap.olat.ing from the Bonampak murals, Mary lLliller (vol. 2 of U?is book;, fnrthcoming 20131f asserts that the concerns of royal courts centered on Ribute cdleclion, myal accmsion, rit-ual sacridice @o& auto and captive), and victory in warfare. These concerns seem far removed from the perceived goals of households--successhl hawest (and fie mobiliza~ond a bor necessary to achieve it), redraction of infant morbidity, efficaciotts propitiation of deities m d ancestors, and the thwarting of encroacbent on lmds and resources of the household. These conbastive states may be clarificd by definitional criteria. Chzr use of the terms royal cotlrt and Ilnonstthuld include both the social actors and the physical stages upon which their dramas unfolded. We follow the lead of hornata m d Hauston (fiis volume) in deflrring a royal court as orgmized arom~da ruler and contahhlg a variable social composition that general2y inrludes famify as well as servants, assistants, guards, artisans, advisers and admiz~istrators.Royal cotxrts are ~ e r e n t l ypolitical entitiew sb~cethey embody, in a very literal sense, the polliv Households, in contrast, are generally composed of real or fictive kin md, d e p d i n g on the level of affluence, may alw contain co~~texts, households are o&enconservmts m d artisans. In no~~hdustrial ceived as action-oriented, economic entities (see Wilk and Netting 3912$:5-10), since the engine driving the success and long-tern duration oE a hot~seholdgalerally pivots on agricdtural and cm&e~~terprises. Given these key distinctions in purpose, what did Maya royal courts and households of the Classic period have in common? From an architectural perspective, Maya palaces bear rcse~nblanceto the large, extendedh i l y residential compounds of the first millennium A.D. Both feature long, ~ctangularbuildings d e n frcmting an open courtyard and sometimes, but not always, incorporating a shrine structure on Che eastern or northern side, .A comparison of two architectural complexes from the Tirmina1 Classic city of Sayil, Yucatm (the south court of the Southern Palace complex and a household group, N6781, E5599) illustrates the morphological similarities (Figure 4.1; Sabloff and Torartdot 1991). The buildingwf both complexewar aarranged around a central, ambient: vac", although the djmensions of that space and its elevation above the surroundjng terraixr arc more d h i n u t k e at the huusehold, level. Both units feature a northern roomed structure fiat is situated on a buildhg plaectrm elevated abovc t-he ~nnainingstructures. Both complexes contain possible shrines on their eastern or southeastern side (a truncated pyramid in the south court and a single, unusually large room in the household). Wter-storage cisterns (clrztltun), essenlial facilities at Puuc residentid locales, were constructed at both complexes, although the south court feahtred two cisterns to the one of the household (Figure 4.1).

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

87

r

Chuitun

u

Stone

Basln

Foundation

90UTW

BraCB

COURT

FIGUM 41 The South Court of the Sayil Southern Palace Complex (left) and SayiZ Household Complex N6781, E5599 (right after Sabloft and Tour-teliot1991).

A similar ratio exists in relation to ritual features. ALtars-upl-ight c$nders of stone about 50 centimeters h diameter-are twice as common in the court. Architectural elaboration, signded by vaulted rooms, occurs h three of the buildhgs of the sou& court, whereas only the eastern structure of the household complex reveals evidence of vault stmes. The one katurc Ihat enjoys better representation in the household complex is the stone basin-a key indjcator of domestic activities. Often approaching a meter in lengtl~,the stone basins of Sayil vary in depth from those with shallow depressions-presumab1y metates-to those with depressions over 20 c a t h e t e r s in depth, which prohabl; were used for water storage. Eight basins were found at the household and mly one fn the court. If: overall location is considered, the djfkrences are enhanced. Sayil's south court is bounded on the north by a ball court and on the west by a compact, two-story, twenty-one-room building that may have been administrative h function. h contrast, the household, located 675 meters southeast of the Southern Palace Complex, is bordcred by sirnilar or smaller residenl;ial units.

88

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

Close cornparism of plans of a court and a household, then, yields some qualitative distinctions but many more that are quantitative and can be explajned simply by rekrence to scale and architectural etaboration. Since architectural comparison alone does not seem to be particularly efficacious in discrimhating between court and houxhod, we turn to a comparative analysis of social roles and ritual practice within the two contexts.

Social Roles a t Court and in the Household For the putpose ol this exmhation, four types of social roles, not m t u ally exclusive, are discussed. They inciudc positions of authority and administration as well as male- and female-gendered roles. Each is discussed in tersns of its lcnown state and variability for both court and household with an eye to evaluating t h differences between household and court (Table 4.1). Far each cross-tabulatio~~ of role wi& type of domicile, m evaluative statement is offered. in the3 corresponding cell of Table 4.1. Contents of this cell represent a synthesis of information derived from multi* somes. %me of Ihe evaluations are wdl-grounded empirically by refere~~ce to epigaphic and archaeological data; otEters are based partly on archaeological and epigraphic p a t t e m m d parEly on extrapotation f r w ethnographic or ethnohistoric sousces. C)ur narrative supplies a revicw of the evidence in order to provide the mader with an independent basis for conctusions,

Posifictlzs ~(Aathority. Pmbably the most c o n s p i c u o ~contrwt ~ between court and household resjdes in positions of authority. Both instituticms were hierarchical with well-defined leadership positions at their apex. Many Maya kingdoms were ruled by hereditary dynasts who claimed divinity by virtue of their ancestral, pedigree and perhaps ultimately, their foreip origirrs (see Restall, vd. 2. of this book, forthcoming 200"[). This divhity is attested to by royal titles such as k'ulz~rlajaw (divine or hdy losd) and by the ability of rders to take on the aspect of deities (Houston and Stuart 1996:295-2.99). W l l documented epigraphic* is the tenkncy for rulcrship to be pass& patritineaily within the myal cJynasties. Rulership patently diverges inpower and praxis from the leadcrship pmition of head of household, although same basic similarities art. apparent. The latter position was refcrstld to as utz ct2ochtmI h Yucatcc ethnohistoric sources (see Ringle and Bey, vol. 2) linking its occupant to m essential social space, the t,for:lz (Yucatecan copate of crtcl:t) and the petr ple who inhabited it. As Hanks (1990:98---1110)has shown for contemporary Uxkutzcab, the position of household head is equally patrifocal in role and patterns of "heir desipatim" (if one may use this tern in refer-

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzitecture

89

TABLE 41 Principal Roles of Members of a Royal Court and a Househc>ld

Court

Hozrsehold

ruler

head of household

Diplomacy Adjudication Record-keeping

important activity role as adjudicators important activity

indirect evidence role as supplicants limited evidence

Agricultural production Athletic performance Military activity Craft prc>duction(nontextile)

no evidence important activity important activity limited evidence

defining activity scant evidence limited evidence irnpc,E"cant activity

Fmd preparation Spinning and weaving Ritual practice Successon

scant evidence defining adivity important activity active role

defining actkity limited evidence indirect evidence no direct evidence

ence to a household). More to the point, coded linguistically into modem Yucatec Mayan are asymsnetrical relatians of social status that =Inforce the authority of the household head (Hanks 1990:115-119). Archaeologicalv, the presence of a head of household is often sipalcd bp residential configurations that contain one exceptionally large residential platform (often on the north side of a compound) that appears to have been the dwelling of the head of household (e.g., Hawilmd f 988:122). At the northern Belize site of Kaxob, such Classic-period flatiorrns (Structure 54 providing an example; Schulz 19971742) generaq contain multiple construdim phases, a sequence of m i d burials (PRdominantly of adult males), and a materia: inventory of pottery and stone items that i s more elaborate than the surrounding platforms (Shulz 1997). As McAnany (1895:133-139) has discussed elsewhere, the emcentration of wed& hthe dwelling of the household head may be related to the administrative demands of this position, which during Early Colmid times included the mohftization of goods and services in fulfillment of taxation and tribttte demands. In ather words, the heads of households were directly involved in the supply side of the political ecmomy fn addition to their particripation in exchange relationships with

90

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

individuals external to the household. As both Reents-Budet and Miller discuss in their c h p k r s of this book (Mikr is in v d . 2)' the prcsemtation of tribute was an important activity of Classic-period courtly life. Whet.her painted on the walls of Ronampak Stmcture 1 or cm cylhdrical pottery vessels, the courtly perspective on tribute depicts the accqfance of tribute i t m s such as cacao or cloth; as such, it =presents the demand side of the pcritical economy. At the scale of the poliv, both ruler and head of household played key roles in administering the mobiizatio~zof goods and sen;icesf albeit from different ends of the spechum. Based on iconographic and hieroglyphic evicience, divine ruliers (and their families) played a sipificmt part in the r i b 1 life of the court. Mouston and Stuart (1996:300) bave described some of these ritual. perfarmmces, which included conjuring deities m d fire ceremonies. It is not cibvious from archaeological informtion whether a head of household enjoyed an q u a l v central rde in ritual perfumance, Limited. support exists in the form of accoutrements cJf rituai dance, such as Ofivllspecies shell "tinkless,'' which generally arc found associated with more elaborate dkvelllings, arguabQ those belonging to a head of household (Xsaza and i?nchnany 1939:12%12.2). Leaders of residmtial units likely presided over domstic rikrals such as house dedication, ancestor entombment, and agrimlhxral fertility. tlnfortunately, only kahres produced by the first two rituals have been recopized a r & a e o l o i c a Further support far the ritual role of a household head c m e s from Lands" account of sixteenth-ce~zknry Yucatan (Tozzer 1.941.:1.42-166) and Vogt's (1993:5140,97-190) analysis of tJle rihxal cycle of tvventkth-century Tzotzil. both cases, agricultural fertility, lineage deflmition, and ancestor cornmetnoration werc well represented in the ritual cycle of households, Heir desipation and rituals of succession were elemental to the transgezzerational maintenance of dynastic power at Maya royal courts. But were such rituals also a part ol: the trmsfermce of power betvveen the generations within hous&olds? 'The texts, sculptures, and paintings that have permitted the idcmtific&ion alld interpretation of these rituals in Classic Maya courts are absent horn most household contexts. When interwoven with evidence from archaeology, the fine-grai~~ed analysis of texts and iconography has demonstrated that at some courts, rituals of royal succession were enacted a g a h t a backdrop of a trmsbrmed built environment. Illat is, cmstmction of a new palace or ancestor shrine, or refurbjshmemt and expansion of an old one, often coincided hvilh Chc Wcession of a m w ruler. Examples of these practices incliude the construction by Hasaw Chan K'awif of an ancestor shrine to "Stormy Sky" at Tikal, the compfetion of the text-f tled structure on top of the RmpXe of the Enscriptims at Palenque by Kan Bdarn, and Bird Jaguar" refurbishment of the Early Classic oto:t (Stntcture 22) of the sevmth king of Yax-

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

93

chilan upon the wcasion of his accession. Cl~angein leadership within a royal court engendered transfor~nationin the physical court that expressed renewed vitality and estahllshed not only the power m d legitimacy of the new ruler but also &rowties with previous ntlers. Similar modificatims to l.he built enviroment of Classic-period household compollnds have been detected. Such transformations often wrurred in the form of mortuary interments coupled with the construction or expmsio~zof a structure. Haviland (1988:Table 6.22, jn particular, has documented this archaeological pattern and suggested that ikould be lhked to the sequencing of the household leaeiership role at Classicperiod Tikal. A similar linkage between mortuary ritual and building construction has been detected in the ancient dkvellings of Kaxctb and in the construction sequences of Holmul and Altun Ha (McAnrxny l998:264-276, 280; Pezzdergast 1"3gFa, 1982). lis surmise that this pattern expresses the passage of power between gmeratiosls or the accession of a new household head is not mreasonable. Upon close jnspection, the two positions of leadership-o~ze of household iand the other of polity-differ h some fundamntal: ways while also exhibiting key similarities. Rooted in an ideology of divinity, the power of a Maya ruler was of a nnagnitude far greater than that of a househol$ head. Clalms to dvinity also mgendered ritual performances, such as deity impersonation, that have not been documented at the household Ievcl. Ruler and househo:ld head sat at opposite sides of the political economy, al.t%loughboth can be characterized as key players. The size fin terms of people and strucbres) and pageantry of the royal court rendered it qualitatively different from the household. Nonetheless, rulers of both polities and households enjoyed great deference from those of Ictwer st&s and were instrumental in the performmce of rituals key to the maintennnce of ljnks with ancestors and to sustained krti,:lity

Adl-~2irzislmtiue Roks. Defhing characteristics cJf LlRaya royal courts included cliplomixcy, adudication, and various hrms of record-keeping that included writing and painthg m bark paper and leaves. Direct evidence of these courtly roles exists in the scmes painted on polychrome vessels as debiled by Reents-Budet (this volume), hieroglyphic texts alluding to interpolity diplomatic visits as described by Martin and Grube (1995:45), and depictions of bark-paper books or codices paifited on Classic-period polychrome vessels* In contrast to the interpolity scale of courtly dipiomacy, household diplmacy operated on an interhousehold level and included visits to arrange marriage contracts, to settle lmd disputes, and to forge cmse~zsusover a number of community concerns. If householcjl diplomacy proved inadequate, there seem to have been welldefined up\nrard paths of recourse. The rnany petitions submitted by

92

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

Colmid Yucatec Maya to the C m m (see Restall in vol. 2, forthcoming) suggest that the tradition of bringhng unsettled disputes, especially those over land or harsh treatment, to a fiiigher authority had deep antiquity. Palace scenes painted on Late Classic vessels that &W a d e r sitting on a throne sufmunded by lower-status supplicants only serve to =Inforce the likeliptoad that rulers, or members of their court, needed to be skilled orators and adjudicatrrrs (see Houstm and Stuart, this volume, for an etymology of the term qnwf or ruler, as "he who shouts"").m e r e a s household heads adjudicated disputes wit-hin and possibly between households, at t-t~eroyal court the household head would have been involved in the adjudication process as a supplicant. In the royai realm, household and court played very different roles hdeed. A defining activity of thlJ court in both pre-Hispmic and Colonial times was writhg and record-keeping. Literacy h Classic Maya society gcrnerally is thoughl to have been sharply limited to the elite and perhaps only to the royal sector of society (Houston 1994:38-39). Those of the court possibly spoke and wrote in a language that was distinct from those residing in the majority of households distributed around the Classic-period capitals (Houston, Robertson, and Stuart 2WQ).Wtnereas hieroglyphic texts have been found carved into stone and bone and painted on pottery vessels, bark-paper books probabty represented the most effective medium for courtly scribal use. Althcrugh the books themselves seldom survive archaeologically, the stosze bark beaters used to produce paper are nearly indestructible and are widely distributed. across households of varying sizes. From a Middle Formative midden at K"ax& fMcAnany and LCjpez Varela t994:Figure 7) to the Late Classic households of the Sibun River valley, bark beaters are present in low frequencies but nevertheless clearly signal the activity of papermaking outside the royal court. M a t cannot be determined at this time it; whethcr the produced paper was used for househld records, worn, ritually burned, traded, or "offered" as tribute to a local ruler. h sum, Classic-period households yield limited or indirect evidence of three of the defining administrative roles of meznbers of Classic Maya courts--diplomacy, adjudication, and record-keeping. Ethnohistoricaf and archaeological evidence does exist of households as supplicws in the adjudication process and as actfie producers of bark paper.

Mule-Cenlkrred Roles" 0C)utsidc of authority psitions and administrative roles, male-gendered roles include agriculturaf production, athletic performance, the waging of war, and craft production (nontextile-based). Whether these roles were equal,l,yactualized in the household and at court requires fnr.ther exploration, In the realm of Maya ethnography farmfng is specified clearly as the domain of males. The high population

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

93

levels sustained through the 600-year-lmg Classic paiod suggest that .farming was also a significant pllrsuit nl Cassic Maya males. Atthough rituals of fertility and impersonations of the young, handsam maize deity undoubtedly were part of courtly life, there is no indication that the royal court took m active role in farmhg. Royal texts do contain a trope for governace (kab) that translates literaHy as manuring or planting a .field (Houston and Cummhs 19%).But depictions of the r&r as f m e r extraordislaire (something comparable to Guaman Parna de Ayala's woodcut of the Xnka initiating the sowing season by turning over the first clod of earth with an Andean foot plow) are. missing from the corpus of royal iconography (Images d o exist of royal males engaged in deer hunts.) In terms of tenureskip of land, there is little doubt that royal families were wefl endowed, but the economfc arrangements by which lands were cdtivated are not specified in the hiemglyplhic corpus and have not been illuminated by archaeological investigation of court locales. The r d e oE athletic performance in cmtrast, is specified iconcrgraphically, hiemglyphically, and aschitecturatly at Classic Maya royal courts.. From the Sepulhxras zone of Cvan, furthermore, bd-court paraphernalia we= recovered h m Group 9N-8(Smders 19891, m d osteological analysis of male burjals from this complex rc3veaIed unusu,ally robust musculahre such as wuuld, have rczsulted from ball-playing (Lee 1996; Widmer, Storey, anci Lee 19"36).Given the metaphorical character of the Classic-period ballg m e m d its asociatio11s with death, sacrgice, m d the mderworld, it is unclear to what extent this athletic periormance constituted a sporting c Because t j m e as oppowd to a dynamic, larger-than-12e c o s ~ metaphor. of the cosrnic and sacrificial significance of ball-play'ing, ball courts inevitably are associated with pyramid and patace precincts, In the Maya lowlmds, they rarely are found mong house mounds. tikewise, ballgame paraphernalia have rarely bee11 excavated from na~~elite hotlsehold cmtexts, This statement does not rule out the presence of ball-playing among males of lower-staks households, but only the athlet-icdrama of the ballg m e as exmplaxy of cosmlogical prhciples Over t h e , the d e of warfare in the Classic M q a court has been perceived varhusly as nonexistmt to all-encompassing The Blrnampak murals, as described by Miller in Volume 2 (fortkoming), arc certainly Ihc most vivid rendering of a Late Classic Maya battle in the style of hand-tohand combat. AIthcrugh many Late Classic stelae show rulers with spear in hand, in fact, few "died with their boots on,""whieh is to say that thcy were not buried with their weapons in the style of warriors of second mill,ennium B.C. Europe (Kristiansen 201)0). fn the absmce of warrior burials, it is difficult to characterize the f ~ q u e n c yof military activity among Ctassic Maya mafes of either the myaf court or households. That a wasriar ethos pervaded Classic-period royal courts is indicated by etepictims of van-

94

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

quished and mutilated cay>tlc.es;Room 2 of Bonmpak and Stela 2. of Aguateca come rtladily to mind. .h significant nwnber of Late Classic texts rcfer to hostilities betvveen polities, such as the great battle of the titans in AD. h95 that pitched Ekal against Cai ul and resulted in the captuw of Jaguas Paw of Calaklnd (as related on Lintel 3 of E k d , Ternple I). The pmc~ceof naming and numbering caytkes in the title statements of victors also suggests that military prowess factored into fie gmder role of royal males, even inthe absence of a traditiorz of warrior burial, Limited supgort fnlc the participation of nonelite males in warfarcl can be mustered by examining trends in tool production in the stone-tool workshops of Colha, where Lateto-Termhal Classic debris piles corztain increased freyuency of stemmd blades, an effective weapon in hand-tohand combat (Masson 1999). Additional evidence for a mititary rdc for males fsom hous&olds has been garnered from an analysis of the seasonality of recorded military events that revealed dates of e n g a g m n t coinciding with agrkultural downtirne (Child f9"3(3). A. recelzt survey of Colonial Maya dictionaries and Classic Maya inscriptions reveals &at lixrguistic expressions for nearly all craft production roles, excepthg textiles, cclntahed m& prefixs (Clark and Houstm 1998). Given this hformation, thc question then becornes one of status and membership. Were the producers of pottery, stone tools, shell ornaments, and other goods members of a royal court or a household? 7'he answcr is not as easy to arrive at as the westion. From an al-chaeological point of viewf evihnce of craft production in royal courts per se is scarce, but such production is often well represented in the scrcmd-.tier household complexes such as Group 9N-8 at Copm (Webster 1989) and Structures M8-l0 and MZ-35 at Aguateca (Inomata and Stiver 1998:435, 7). Although these residential cclmpouncis are separate from the rnyal cou,rt, the i&abit.ants ol these households m y have worked as artisans under the patronage of the ruler, Many such artisans no doubt we= perceived as members of the royal court, although only a fw types of artisans-mainly scribes and painters of polychrome pottery-appear in the palace scenes pairrted on cylindl-ica.1vessels, 'Tb the extent that it is possible to discern, male-gendered roles in Classic Maya society varied significantly between the royal couct and the household. The role of agricultural pmduction was seated in the household, and that of athletic perfomance centered on the c w t . Military pursuits and craft productio~zare more difficdt to djchtomize, although the former appears to have been more pronounced at court and the latter in the household.

Female-Gendered Roles, Une oi the most intriguislg and enigmatic ar;pects of royal Maya court life is the role of royal women. Underrepresented in the hieroglyphic and iconographic corpus from many Petern

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

95

capitals, strongty presented in the same media from Llsumacifia River kingdoms such as Vilxchilm, assulned to have been pawns in royal dynastic LalZimces, h o w n to have been pivotal to the resuscitation of kingdoms such as Naranjo (i.e., Lady W-Chanil-Ajaw), royal women played many; often co~~flictive roles in Classic Maya society. 1x1 teasing out these roles, clear contrasts between court and household emerge. As with male-gendered roles, status or &ss was a key element in the constitution of female gender; no nnonolitkc femde role appears to have existed. Specifically, investigations at Maya royal courts for which adequate standmds of archaeological excavati.011 were mintained are nearly u r n imous in recording a low frequency of features and artifacts atltributahle to food p~paration(see Chase and Chase, vol. 2 of thjs book; Clark and Hansen, vol. 2 of this book; Harriso~~ 1970:29%302, among others). Nonroyal Classic Maya households, in contrast, althougtn not exactly yielding a pletrhora of intact ""kitc:hen'"eabres, generally contain burned sMffaces and middens rich in food-production debris. As Hendon (1'39237) and Joyce (1992:66) have observed, n m e r o u s iconographic media depict women shddering the burden of food p~paration(generally kneeling over a metate);h t ~ were t these women of royd cot~rts?This q u a y camot be a n s w e d with ethnoh.istorlical data because such accounts generauy lack clear specification of class structure. For instance, during the sixteenth century, the time-consuming and dcfiming aclviv of maize pmcessing was noted and interpreted (a bit oddly) by Bishop Diego de t m d a : ""Thecontinual gincfing of maize and not keeping their breasts tightly pressed m k e s them have very large ones, from which cause it happens that they have a great deal of milk" (Tozzer l941:1.28),Maize, in particdar, is a crop that requires extensive pmessing to be transfomed into cuisine. Archaedogical evid,en,ccindicates that much of this processing took place outside the royal court. As such, the role of courtly females in food production may have been of a more. remote, supervisory naturc., possibly including a significmt leadership role in rituals related to cooking m d cuisine. The lack of evidence for a hod-proceshg role fnr royal females is offset by strong indicators that royal women dcfirred themselves in terms of textile production (see Houston and Stuart, this volurne). As Joyce (1993:2(71) has noted, when females are shown im Classic Maya iconography, they ofeen wear elaborately entbroidercld haipiles, like those worn by Lady Xok of Yaxchllan on Lintels 24, Z 1and 26. f l c n d d s (1.9924143) analysis of the distribution of spinning and weaving implements from the elite Sepultusas zone of Copm, mreover, shows a clear spatial correlation between the dcnsity of textile pmductiun tools and size and elaboration of the ~sidentialc m p o u d . The large cornpound 9 N - K produced the li,nrs share of tools with decseashg freqrxency in the maller 9 W 2 2

96

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

compomd and a virtual absmce in the smatlest compound, 9M-24. The clustering of textile implements in the larger compound concurs with Landa's observation that femde weavers tcnded to fnrrn work groups and ""hve the habit of hetping each other in w e a v i ~ ~or g spinning"' (%=er 1941:f27). 'This observatim conjures an imagt3 of stnall groups of royal females path young and old)hitched to backstrap loonns, spinning, weaving, and errtbroiderillg in the myai courtyards, perhaps shaded by the awnings discussed by Mifter (invol. 2, forthcoming 2Wf). After th sixteenth centuq Spaniards were quick to discern the superb quality of tetitiles woven by Maya womm anrl used the term hito (linen) to describe the long nralztas WOVC?IZof fine cotton thread (Barrera Vhsquez IY80:633). Key items far tribute and gift-giving duritlg both Cot.oni.al and earlier times, twtiks represented a materialization of the pmductive and cseative efforts of womm and their substmtial contribution to a po:[itical e c m m y in which cotton manfas ranked second only to cacao beans in value and convertibilit?i,In post-Classic Oaaca, the primacy of textiles in allimce-building and gift-giving, and the h k s between textiles md prestige among royal women, have been discussed pointedly by Hamann (1997:lhZ). But was textile pmeiuction also a defimk~gactivity of nmelite kmdes? Arch,aedogical evjdence suggests Ihat it was not. There is an underrepresentationof stone and c e m i c sphdle whorls in many Late Cfassic domestic contextti, suggesting that the bend at Copan is not atypical for the Maya lowlands. S t t h e n t excavations at Rarton Ramie yielded only five &er-spinning implements (Willey et al. 1965:902,187), those at Seibal only nine tWl1ey 197X:4Z), and invesfigations at Dzibffchaltun uncwercd another five (Taxhek f 994:215). Although woven cotton c S o ~ h g gcrneralty is assumed to have been worn by Maya of all ranks and statuses, clothing of bark fiber, such as Tazzer (190229)mted among Lacandon Maya living in remote areas, could have been very common among nonelites. The presence of bark beaters in nonelite household contexts lends further support to this idea, although it must be noted that w e w a and s p h n h g tools could have been fabricated from perishable mterlals such as wood or unbaked clay Regardless, the frequency of this activity jn htwer-status Classic-period households appears to have been liepressed to a point where durabl.e toots for textile production are almost invisible archaeologically. Sb equate females of both royal courts and nonelite households with weaving may be ~ d u c i n gstatus-linked nuances in gender roles to a shgle untenable stereotype. The mnst cursory examination of Classic Maya iconography confirms the notion that females of the comt were important actors in ritual practice, alrhough the visibijity of their role varied by rcirgior?and time period. A case study of inscriptions and iconography from Structures 23 and 11 of the royal court of Yatichilan (presented further on)imdicates the role of

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

97

the royal woman Lady Xok in oto:f-dedication and conjuring rituals. a c e again, information on the ritual life of royal women is delivered via texts and ictmography which am in scant supply for nonroyal househdds. Some concrete evidence can be mustered for the participation of wornell of all households in mortuary ritual as objects of that ritual. U'sh g published excavation data, Welsh (1988:217),for instance, found overall sexual parity fn Classic Maya bmial pattcms. fituai practices described by Lmda yield additionai support for womm as propitiators of gods and ancestors: "They were very devout and pious, md. also practiced many acts of devotion beforr;, their idols, burning hcense before them and offering them presents of cotton stufb, of hod and drink and it was their duty to make the offerings of food and drink which they offered in the festivals of the Indians" (Tozzer 1941:128). In his relacz'6~2, I:.,andadid not diBemntiate between womn of royal courts and women of households of lesser status, so we are left to our own interpretations as to the uniwersality of the rihxal practices he described. The final gemdcr role to be consdered involves participation in the succession of leaders and heir designation. Texts and iconography from Palenque, Yaxchilan, and Naranjo, in particular, indicate that royal wornell were more than passive receptacles for the production of an heir. The twin male-femafe cartouches of hxchilan (e.g., Stelae 1, 4, and 10) carved over the heads of royalty indicate that the contribution of females to Che status of a bloodline became crucial cluring the IdateCiassic period as the ""playing field" "for dynastic succession became increasingly crowded. If'he pofiticat machinations of the royal women of Palencyue in regard to heir designa.t.ion arc legelldary (Schele m d Freidel 1990:221-222) m d need not be reiterated here. There is no direct evidence of female involvement in leadership succession at the household level, although it is hard to imaghe that they played a passive role. To recapitulate, women of the royal court led, a very different Xire from those of households. Food preparation and textile pmduction provide the most starkly cmtrastive examples of the difference in roles b e w e n the two contexts. Archaeological evidence from nonroyal, elite househdds at Copan reveals the gradational nature of this contrast; the largest complex, 9N-8, contajned a pleLhora of both textile-working tools and hod-pmparation debris. MIomen of nonroyal elite status, it seems, embraced mmy roles.

Xitaal Practice ad Court and in the Household Examindion of ritual practice provides another perspective on court and household. If we embrace a ""catlnolic'"definit.im of rikral, practice, as per Bell (1992:7.1), ritual can be pexeived as ""a way of acting that is desiped

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

98

TABLE 4 2 Ritual Practices of a Royal C'rturt and a P-iousehc~ld

Ritual Pmctice

Court

S-lozrsehold

MorZuary /Ancestors

important activity

impc~rtantactivity

"House" dedicatian

important activity

important activity

Agricultural /Calendrical

important activity

Succession/Heir daignation

important activity

Military/ Ballgaxne related

important activity

impc~rtantactivity scant evidence scant evidence

Del imitation of Territory

gc~ssiblyimpadant:

possibly important

m d orchestrated to disthguish and privilege what is being done in comparison to other, usually more quotidian, activitks." l t u a l practice need not involve the pageantry and orthodoxy of the royal court, although such performances may have been viewed as exempkry in the same manner that Geertz (1980:13) describes for the ""teater" state of nineteen&-century Raii. Six categories of ritual practice are c o n s i d e ~ dhere: fl) mortuary /ancestors, (2) house decllcation, (3) agricttlturat/calendrical, (4) successioniheir designatian, (5) militas)i/ballgame related, and (6) lielimitation of territoryWhm crass-tabulated with cot~rtm d household, the logical entry for each paimise cell is noticeably redundmt (Table 4.2). For the first three entries-mortuary, house dedication, agricultural/ralendrical ritualthere is m p l e evidence, much of which is cited previously, to support the importance of these rituals both at court and withisl households, As described previously from the perspdive of social rdes, househdd and cotxrt part ways with respect to successio~~ rituals as well as those related to military matters and the ballgame. There is littIe evidence of the latter three types oE rittlal in househcrld contexts. The h a l category of territorial demarcation may be refere~~ced h Classic-period texts that describe scattering rituals at neighborhg centers. For instance, Stairway 1 of Seibal contains a &scription of a scatterhg ritual that Ruler 4 of Dos Pilas perf o r ~ ~ eatdSeibal and then at Tamarindita two days later (Stuart and FIoustm 1994:92), Such royal circctits suggest but by no means prove a concern with territorial d a m s o n . There is no archaeological evidence to support the existez~ceof a riknal of tecs3orial deijfnitatian in Classic-period households, althougln the k'in b u s rihal documented elhnographicaily by Vagt (1993:97-116) provides a tantalizing analog for the past. Despit.e the ilnportance to both household and court of the rituals listed in Table 4.2, the ritual performances were radically different in scde, costumhg, accoutrements, and presumably contmt. Mmy rituals

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

99

at court were for the benefit of the kingdom even if access tc:,the performance was highly restricted and the pllrpose of ttne ritual directed to the dedication of personalized places within a court. The cosmic forces assuaged by courtiy ritual were liivine in their munificence, and so too were the actors. Some of the most vivid irnages of court ritual come from bxchilan-Structure 23 in particular-whe~ stone carvings and text combine to provide an e x t ~ m e l yrich and provocative glimpse into the power ol ritual, the importance of place, and the formidable status of certain royal kmales. At Home in the Yaxclrtilan Rcryal Court

I-lwing provided an assessment of the current stilte of understanding of the rrlaticlnships between royai court and nonroyal houS(ZoLd, we now offer m example of a concrete approach to the question of social roles in each ccmtext. 'This approach takes up the themes of the first secticm, the mast salient being the role of women in court settings. m e of the difficultks in assessixzg the relationship between royal households and nonroyal ones lies in the identification in each contcxt of relevant units of comparison; these units are typically delheated analytically by the archa-ologist, A potent-ially complementary approach is now becoming accessible for some Classic-period royal contexts because of the ongoing decipkrmetnt of Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions, and consists of isolating native classifications in both royal and nonroyal contexts and using them as a fondation for comparison. In some of the cases in which hieroglyphic inscriptions can be lhked to physical remaiins, we c m begin to use Maya ways of classifying objects in concert with archaeological ones to assess continuities and discontinuities in their use over t h e and space (see Houston, Stuart, and Taube 1989), Qne native category pmsent in both modern Maya contexts m d in hieroglyphic mes is y-clfo:f, "hifierlits housef"(f:[email protected] 4.2). For the purposes of this study, it provides the link between the s p h e ~ of s court and nonsoyal household, As noted earlier in this chapter, the expression identifies structures belongkg to royal Maya at a number of sites. 'The structures called oi"o:fat Uaxchilm have bee11 chosen because there are five of them, because they all belong to human beings rather than supernaturals, and because their inscriptions and the personages involved have received a significmt amottnt of study*A further interesting charactesistic of Yaxchllan "buses" is that two of them (Structures 23 and 11) are "ovvned" by women. (Cencier and gmdered space are little touched upon in this book, with the exception of Stuart and Houston.) Looking at stmcturcs glyphicali!, laheled oto:i is a promising way of organizing an a p p a c h to the differences between the Maya court and nm-

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

FIGURE 4.2 Examples of the y-ato:t glyph from Yaxchiltan: (a) Lintel 23, underside (from Graharn 1982:336);(b) Lintef 31 (fmrn Grabam 1979:i"l);(c) Lintel 21 (from Craham and Von Euw 197249).

royal households. In both contexts, the ofn:f is a distinctive kind of space. Both Classic-period inscriptions and a nulnber of modern Maya lanp q e m a i n t a i n two expressions for "house"-oto:f and nnh-which carr)i distinct memings in both ancient and modem usage. As 5tuart has pohted out (1998a:376), nah i,n Classic Maym usage oAe11 functions as a general term fnr ""structure," whereas oto:t may have the more specific sense of ""dweU.ing.'ThL1ar1y in those modem languages that use both oto:f and nah, ofo:f gei~eralliyexhibits the sense of "home," whereas ~sahis the morc generic t e m . T h e oto:t was unquestionably m important space in Classic-period n o n r ~ y dccmtexts, just as in royal ones: the w d t,to:t and its cognates are fomd in at least eighteen Mayan lmguages With examples occurring in all of the major language groups (Dimbart 1997).4 This distribution of the term oto:t and the circumscribed nature of its meanhg point to its antiqity Twenty yean of household asctnaeology i,n the Maya area have undoubtedly provided us with excavated examples of Classic-period oto:t belonging to people of a wide range of social statuses. In modern Maya communities, the space f r m e d by an oto:t is central to household, life, Hanks's work on Maya lived space characterizes the otclch (the Vucatecan cognate of Cholan oto:f) as the ""sleepinghome of tbe indiliidual nuclcar family" ((1990:315). In C)xk.utzcab, where most of FIanks" research was conducted, the s p h e r ~of the otockz heludes the kitchei~of the female head of each nuclear family in an exknded-family componnd, or sohr. The otocft is a place Ml)nere very p a s & activities such as open brcast-feeding may be carried. out, even in the prcsence oi strangaq whereas they would not be carried out in the ofacbz of another reside~~t of the same solar (1990:188). Hanks discerns three cancentric circles in Oxkutzcab residence patterns, the first being the marriage pair with their offspring a n d possessions. He describes this inner circle as "the il-tdividud's 'ccore' home, his enduring-ikml place," and continues, "This is where he is when he is home, or as the Maya say it, kuld'arz 'seated."' (1990:109),

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

101

This seme of otoch as a pIace where an individuai or a fmily is most at home, and where a persol1 is seated, is important for understanding the way the term is used, in Classic inscriptions: Given the clear importarncc and residential nature of the oto:t in modem contexts, we must ask what sort of role sinti,larly identified buildings played in the life of ancient Maya courts. The specificity of the modern referent of the term makes it tempting, as Stuart notes (1998a:378),to classify any Classic-pericrd structure referred to as y-ui"o:t, ""his, her, or its house," as the residence of ""hm, her, or it" nnamed in the inscription. It is, however, pmblematic to assume that ail, buildings whose inscriptions include the phrwe y-do:t are royal residences..Stuart notes, for example, that in the Palenque palace complex, several structures are c d e d y-ufo:f m d that at least one of them, I-louse E, was probahly a &rone mom associated with the king and his successors (199Wa:378). Other buildings or compol~entsof buildings associated with the y-ufo:t expression are identified as belmghg to gods, Further, the otcl:t that figure in the inscripticms of certain structures may not refer to the structure in wl.ricfi the inscription is plxed but to some othcr buil.ding at the site. Finally, as Houston has pointed out in his study of the "sweatbath""sanctuaries cJf the Palenyue Cross Group, the ancic?nt Maya were applykg terms to buildings tha"cid not necessarily or literally support the h e t i o n s assocriated with those terms; that is, the Cross Group smchtaries, called pih-lznh (sweatbath) in their fnscriptions, wert. probably not functionnl sweatbaths (1996:1,38),merefore, althoLtgh thc Classic Maya elite called certain structures y-ufu:t, they may have been cailing u p m a rmge of synzbolic, metaphorical, or ritual associaticms that may or m y not be present in ethnographic or ethnohistoricd sources. If royal buiXdings called otu:f in their inscriptions are not patently residtmces, then what is meant by designating these buildings in such a way? What associations are evoked, and are these associations lhked to those in nonroyal contexts? This section confronts the distinction between the social and architecturalcourts noted by the editors in the introduction by explicitly recognizing buildings as sites of, participants in, and shapers of social, action in the court.. This approach softens the distinctim between the two kinds of courts m d allows us to ask how some Yaxchilan court m e ~ ~ b eacted r s on, h,and through buildings.

Wofnenand Fe~~zaEe Space in the Texts of Str~etzkres23 and f l The following discussion uses epigraphic evidence to make a series of points about the nabre of worn& space and women's roles in the court of Yaxchilan, namely, that Structures 23 and f l as olo:t are unequivocdly &male spaces, that they are described in their inscriptions as special and central kin& of spaces in the axhitectural court of the king who built

Pntricin A. McAnarly and Shannon Phnk

FIGURE 4.3 Central portion of the Yaxchilan site center with structure numbers indicated (redrawn from Graham 19775').

FIGURE 4 . U P I a nof YaxcKlart Structure 23 with lintel nun~bers indicated (redrawn h r n Tate l992:207).

them, and that, at least in the case of Structure 23, they are probably loci of female agency in the social court. Following this, comparisons will be made with ethnographic data on women's space and lived space in general in Maya households The inscriptions of Structure 23 (Figures 4.3 and 4.4) are the primary source of evidence on women's houses. Tne three front entrances of this

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

103

structure supported a famous set of carved door lintels (Lhtels 24,25, and 26) depicting autosacrificial ritual at a rare Ievel of detail; they are iurther u n i p e because a woman, familiar as Lady Xok, figures p m i nently in the carved scenes and texts (Figure 4.5a-c). She is paired cm these ljntels with a man usually described as k r husbmd, the Late Clasah Bairn (Shield Jawas), during whose reign the structure was built. A fourth, e n t i ~ l yglyphic, lintel (Lhtel 231, inscribed m both its underside and front edge, is mounted over the southwest door of the structure (Figure 4.5d). This lintel remains poorly understood, but revisions proposed herefn regarding the interpretation of key glyph cornpounds in its text do away with s o m of the con?plications engendered by readings that are no longer tenable, and pertain to the nature of the place as a h a l e locale. Togeber the lintels record eight dates spannhg .forty-fve years, from Xtsamah Balam's accession in AD. 681 to a cc=many involvisrg a dedication of Structure 23 on the summer solstice of A.D. 726 (Table 4,3), Schele and Freidelfs influential treatment of this structure (199M62-305) portrays its monuments as "a carellrliy orchestrated pofitical message critical to Shield-Jaguarfs[ltsamnah Balam's] ambition and to the future he hoped to create"' (5,990:266). In this view, the building functioned as a coqromise between two crucial but mtqmistic concerns of the king and his court. On the one h d , the building was a means of publicly recog~ziziingan important local Lineage to whom ItsamnaEt Bdam was d i e d by bls marriage to Lady Xok, al~nostuniversally characterized as his principd but son-less wife, On the other hand, it was meant to satisfy a foreign atliance with Calakmul by less directly commemorating the future heir, Bird Jaguar, Etsamnah Baiam" s m by a junior wife who c m e fmm that city.j Little is usually made of the six different dedication evezzts contained in the texts of Stmcture 23. Dedications of the structure as the oto:t of Lady X& occupy all of the three extant front edges of its tintels (Lintels 23,25, and 2%) and the mdersiclte of htel 23 and probably occupied the destroyed fmnt: edge of Ljntel 2.1.. Mthough Structure 23 undoubtedly constituted a political statement in Itsamnah Balam" court and m y have referenced extrapdity concerns with respect to Cdakmul, it is nevertheless apparent that the woman's oto:f itself is a mgor focus of its inscriptions, h fact, Stuart (1998a) "ns noted in a recent paper that where= M a p texts can incorporate substantial historical information, many il not most of them invoive a dedication event as a n a r r a t h focus, suggesting that the vitalization and revitalization of place is a primary concern. It is importmt to emphasize first that Structure 23 is consistently descri:bed as Lady Xok's ofo:f on its lintels. The attribution appears in the (Stuart 1998a) context of dedicatory events, includhg two "fire-rntcrir~g~~ ceremonies, in four locations. In, one of these contexts (the front edge of

FIGURE 4.5 The lintels of VaxchiXan Structure 23, undersides: (a) underside of Lintel 24 (from Graharn and Vc~nEuw 19[7'7:53);(b) underside of Lintel 25 (Irs3xn Craham and Von EUW 1977:55); (c) underside af Lintel 26 (frc~mCraham and Va Euw- 19[717:5;7);(cl) underside of Lintel 23 (from Graharn l982:136).

Perspectives on Actors, Gender Roles, and Architecture

105

TABLE 4.3 Dates Recorded on the Lintels of Yaxchilan Structure 23

h4aya Date

J u l h Date

Monument

Event

9.12.9.8.1 5 Imix 4 Mak

20 Oct 681

L25 underside

Conjuring of k'awil at Tan Ha' Yaxchilln.

9.13.17.15.12 5 Eb 15 Mak

24 Oct 709

L24 underside

"Penance"of Itsamnah Balam and Lady Xok.

9.14.11.15.1 3 Imix 14 Ch'en

1 Aug 723

L25 front edge

Dedication of "carving," house of Lady Xok.

9.14.12.6.12 12EbOPop

8 Feb 724

L26 underside

Dedication of "carving" of named scribe.

9.14.12.8.9 10 Muluk 17 WO

16 Mar 724

L23 front edge

Doorway event, house of Lady Xok, with women participants.

9.14.14.8.1 7 Imix 19 Pop

26 Feb 726

L23 underside

Itsamnah Balam's 9th hotun accession anniversary.

9.14.14.13.16.? 5 Cib 14 Yaxk'in?

21 June726

L26 front edge

"Fire-entering,"house of Lady Xok.

9.14.14.13.17 6 Caban 15 Yaxki'in

22 June726

L23 underside

"Fire-entering," house of Lady Xok.

?

Lintel 26), the name phrase associated with the possessed house is almost completely lost to erosion. Although the surviving parts of the name and title phrase do not appear in Lady Xok's other name phrases, it is unlikely given the clarity of the other ownership statements that Lintel 26 records the name of a different woman. The identification of Structure 23 as a building with a special character rests on two kinds of references in its inscriptions-one to its location and the other to the kind of location it represents. The first series of references, to the location of the structure, are all located on Lintel 25 (Figure 4.5a). The figural depiction on this lintel and its accompanying glyphic phrase concern the conjuring, effected jointly by Lady Xok and Itsamnah Balam, of the k'uwil of their to:k'-pukal. This latter is a compound noun that has been interpreted by Freidel and Schele (Freidel, Schele, and Parker 1993:302-310) as a powerful Maya emblem of war and possibly a battle standard with a supernatural, ancestrally inherited potency and by Stuart (1995301-304) as a term for war and a symbol of the royal duty of warfare inherited by rulers. The front edge of the lintel (Figure 4.6) records the dedication, fortytwo years after this conjuring, of the carvings of the house of Lady Xok.

106

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

FIGURE 4.6 Vaxchiilan Lintel 25, front edge (from Graham and Von Euw 2 977:56).

FIGURE 4.7 Text passage fram Yaxchilan Lintel 25 (from Graham and Van Euw 19y;P7":56):fa) Gtypbti G1-G2; fb) Glyphs HI-13. 'Texts are flipped from original position.

Immediately followixlg the dedication phrase is the glyphic statement yoO:L-Xa TAN-na-12, TAN-HA" "Uax&ilan" y-cr:l-ta~-iltlln baTaxr:hilan, or ~ ~Tan-b' Vaxchilan.'"e suhject of this sen"he/she/it is the o : l - f u of tence is either the architecture, "itf" or Lady Xok, "he," h t is almost certainb the former, since Q:[-funis probabiy a locatictnal rekrence: In some Maym kngtlages, -fan can be suffixed to adverbs of :Iocalcand to names that si&nifythe four parts of the world feast, west, north, south) (Barrera Vhsquez 1980:770).CI:I is a pan-Mayan term with a series of related meanings, includhg ""middle," "center,'"'hea&'>nd ""sottl." Q:] as the center, the Ifamiliar fifth direction, can also take the -tan suffix and must be directional in some way that is related to fie "cmter" o'f the city or of

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

107

the cosmos. The sense of this phrase is ""Lady Xok's house is the heartlcenter of Tm-HaTaxchilan." Tan-Ha' Yaxchilan, ""l-the-cc~~terof/in-front-of-the-water-YaxchiImfMc m only refer to the locale withh the city where Structure 23 is located; that is, it refers to the architecbral epicenter of the city, the locus of the royal court. Stuart and Houston (1994) have documented a number of instances of locales within sites having specific names. The location Tm-Hay~axchilanis also specified on the front edge of the lintel as the site of the conjuring of k'nmil, depicted on its underside. The third and final reference to this location Xcurs in the fnscription nestled in the curl of a serpentine element on the underside of the lintel (Figzsrc 4,7b), \zrhich identifies the kneeling woman h the scene as f x K'abaE Xok, Lady Xok, and calls her the yo-7-let r k f Tm Ha' Yaxchifan. hlthough the meaning of yo-Y-le-te' is uncertain, it is nevertheless clenr that both Lady Xok and her house are associated with Tan-&' hxchilan in an intimate way; indeed, this epi.tbet for the epicentcr of the city occurs on no other monument at the site.. The association of Lady Xok m d her house with a heart or center are also evident in the short glyphic phrase (Figure 4.7a) set off from the maiM inscription on the underside, whick =ads U-bta(h)-IL-A:NIX-0:Lla wi-?-TEt=-PJGHU-bt7h-Z'Ia:n [X Q:E W i - ? - t e " N The n u ~ ~ b e r ebt7dhead, probab%yreaid A:N, has been shown to identify human personages as deity impermmtors (Houston and Stuart 1996:29K; Stuart et al. 1999:54). The name of the entity impersonat-ed takes a female prefix in front of the word fnr heart or center: this female pltefix makes it seem li.kely that the "crossed-bundies" "yph vvhich short passage refers to Lady Xok."e follows was originally identified by Schele and Stuart at Copan as a "founder" glyph." "uart (Stuart 2000: 192493), however, has recently pofnted out that this gIyph, which wcws at a number of sites, fncorporates an architeeturd referc3m.t.(nah "house") a d that it is strongly asscxjated in its earliest occurrences with Teotihuaran dynastic origins. If the phrase illdeed refers to Lady Xok, she may be impersonating a fernate being who is associated with a "'ce~~ter'%r "heat," which is probably Structure 23, h this hstance, however, the marking of Structure 23 with the crossed-sticks 'Vounderfrglyph tinks it to structures assrxriated with dymstic foundjng and foreig~~ origins. It is possible, in other words, that just as Lady Xok (or someone else) is masquerading as Ix 0:l W-?-te'Nab, so Strueturc. 23 itself is impersonating that Wi-l-teLNah origin-structure, It is probably not debatable that the Maya regarded and continue to regard buildjngs as animate entities (Stuart 1998a.:395; Houston 1998:521). Buildings as imperwnatorwf sacred or mythological places would be a natural extension of this idea. lady X& and her house are both identified with a potent locale at the literal, political, and ritual heart

108

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

FIGURE 4.8 u-knb-u-ehre:nphrases at Yaxchilan: (a) Z,intef 25, front edge (from Craham and Von EUW 197256);(b) Lintel 56, front edge (from Graharn 49"i"4:121); (c) Lintel 26,front edge (from Graharn and Von Euw 1977:58);(B) Lintel 23, underside (frc3m Craham 4982:436), Wrs ham now to the set of epigraphic references to the k i ~ dof Lcxa.t.ion that Structure 23 represents; they consist of a gtyphic phrase that occurs four times in the inscripticlns of kxchilan. The phrase i n d d e s a possrssed compound noun consisting clli the X(AR "earth""logogsaph and the glyph long known as the "hpinged bone," f01.1owed by the name and tiah Balm, the possessor of the noun (see arrows in Figure 4.8). Three of the occurrences are on the lintels of Structure 23 in the context of dedicatory statements 'for the house, The 'fourth occurrence is on Lintel 56 of Stmcture II,the other ofo:t at Yaxchih that belongs to a wornan. This instance too is appended to the dedicatory statement of Ihe house of that woman, whose name bas been read as Ix Sak Biya:n (Stuart 399Ka:386). In the examples on Lintel 56, Lintel 26, and Lintel 23 (Fil;urc. 4.8b-d), the colnpound is preceded b y a p o s s ~ s e dform, of a c o m o n kmale title at k'axchilan composed of an upturned kfin-markedvessel-minus the usual h-'sllz that accompanies it-and the ZXlK "woman" l~rrgo-

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

109

graph. Jones, Jones, and Marhenke (1990) pmpose that the two ccmsecutim possessczd nouns must have the general sense of ""his .~voman"and see the "earth-bone" glyph as a possible mlationship glypb specifying the natrure of the tie between the women and Itsa ah Batam. If this is x correct, it would mean that Lady Xok and the woman of Structure 1,1, X Sak Biya:n, have the same relationhip to Itsmnah Batam, presumably a marital one. This ""rlatio~~ship by Stuart and glyph" "S, however, been ide~~tified FIoustm as a location of rlncertairr reference, which they term the "earthbone" "yph (3"394:12-43). They pofnt out that Chaak stands on the "ear&-bonefr"yph h the Dresden Codex (38b, 40c, and 42b)-a typical way of representing a place in Classic-period iconography-and that the glyph appears in the captions h o v e tbr pictures, where it takes the locativc Ei (1994:1,2)..X17 each of the three Ya,xchi,lanexamples that m preceded by the possessed female title, the m a t m y of the phrase is as follows: U[upturn4 k"in vessel]-iXIK-IL - U-CAB-U-[impinged bone] - [Itsamnah Balam]. In each case, this phrase [email protected] follows the dedicator). expression for the stmcturc.. h t h e r well-horn ertample of this double possession is the Maya prartice of recordkg house names in dedicratory inscriptions, where the phrase" structure is, as on the front edge of Lintel 26: [house name] - U-K%BA - ya-to-QTQ:T-ti - [personal narnef This gives "X is the name of the house 01 U'I; similarly, the first exampte can be translated, "She is the ?-Woman of the kar.th-bme2ocati.m of Itsamnah Balamaff Givezz that the o111y tocational reference common to the three examples is the hollse of the woman, the ""czarth-bone" expression must be another way of refurkg to her house. In each case, however, the earth-bone locale is said to belong to ItsamnA Balam; that is, the house belmgs to the woman, but the woman also belongs to the house as a special kind of focation "owned" by or in the domain of Itsamnah Bdam. 'l'he example in the house dedicalion on tintel 25's h n t edge tacks the possessed fe~n.ate title; here we have simply "it i-s the 'carth-bonekf the captor of Aj-?-kitftah Batam, Holy Lord of Vaxcl~ilan.'" What is the nature of the "earth-bone" place? 'This noun compound, as noted before, appears in other contexts, both in post-Classic codices and in inscriptions at other sites, including Bonampak, Copan, and Quirigua.. C)n atirigua Ste1a C, the earth-bone place is one of the locdes assuciated with the eretltiosl of stelae by the paddler gods. One reading for the "impinged-bone" sign advanced by Barbara MacLead is ktm ""seatffwith associated meanings of residence, place, origin, base, and trunk (BassieSweet 1996:35, citing Schele 1992). Stuart (199%) has reccntl:y advanced the readhg ch'r.:n "cave,"' a place whose range of associations may over-

110

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

lap somewhat with that of ktrn. 'The cave ~ a d i n gis attractive given the iconography of the sign, which in its more pictographic forms shows a bone in a half-darkened place: Caves are well known in the Maya area as ~positmiesof bones and residences of ancestors. 'The reading of this collocation m y thus bc 21-kub-clzte:rz, or tr-hb-rr-ch'c:n, t h g h the meaning of the phrase is far from transpasentq7 E(lrb and ch'e:n are words with mdtiple meanings and associations. E(lzb clan mean "earth," ""land," "world," ""be," "honey" ""behive,'hnd "low" in most Mayan languages; and eh'e:tl can man ""cave," "mountain or hitl," "l-tr,le," "ce~tote,'~ '*well,'' or "ci~tem.'~ The fact that the conjurirtg referred to on Lintel 25 takes place at a location called Tan Ha' Yaxchilan ~ s o n a t e with s the watery nature of caves and cenotes, as well as with the fact that this area of Yaxchilan is situated s n the riverhsnt, At Yaxchdan, the term U-kah-chre:nis a~soeiatedexclusivcty with womeds places, bringing to mind both the sexual and the procreative associations of caves. Caves have been idmtified in a number of sources as metaphorical vagjnas or wombs, as settingdfor sexual behavior, as homes of beings with extreme or deviant sexualities, and as places of origin of people and of rain (Brady 1988; Hunt 19";71(17-109; Stone 1995). A fasdnating possibility, and the orle favored here, ernbraces the bee and beehive associations of kab: The famous "beekeeping" wction of the Madrid cordex depicts a bee emerging from a quadrangular enclosure underneath a thatched-roof structure, wfiich the captim h o v e describes as y-ola:ch kab ""the bee" houseu-a hive, in essence. Bassie-Sweet (1990:99) suggests that the enctosm =presents a Log contaking a beehive, a cornm m way of keeping bees in rnodcrn tc'ucatee Maya contexts. Mthough Kauf man and Noman (1984:117) have reconstrwted proto-Ch'olan "honey" as c h b , the Ch"olan languages, including Classic M a y m , do appear to borrow Vncdecan h b to mean "earth, land,'"nd it is possilbte that the Yucatecan kab ""bee, beehive, honey" meaning would hold for Classic inscriptions as it does for the post-Classic codices. It is of interttst in several Mayan languages translate as "'bee's that words fctr hee/~ivc.: hole'kor ""be" cave" "tza, Yucatec jobonz'l dwlb ""2rtl2ow/cave of the beef'). This possibility is sf course sp~ulative,but beekeeping does have some interesting gender associations: Reclifield and Villa w a s assert that heekeeping in Chan Kom of the 1930s was in the care of men only; but the domestic bees of the hives, kept on the house lots, were called cdelcab "lady bee" f1962:49). The comparison of a w o r n d s house or queet.lfs quarters to a beehive kept or owned by the king is a suggestive one. Restall, howem, in bis recent study of Colonid Vucatec records, intimates that beekeeping was a womm's occupation, part of the sphere of the salar, where the hives were kept (1997A26). Mrbatever its exact meanilrg, bb-&%:n as a tocation is consistently associated with women" places at Yaxchilan.

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

111

FIGUM 4 9 Uaxchilan Lintel 23, front edge (from Graham 1982:135).

Xjntd 23 u~zdthe Wun;anz of 14dy Xnk's Oto:t. Wr;. have shokvn that Structure 23 as a womm's ufu:t is described in its inscriptions as a central place in the Yaxchilan court and that it is a partirular kind of glace in the domain of Itsam& Ralmn. The inscription on the front edge of the all-glypbic tinteI 23 (Figure 4.9) Over the southwest door of the stmcture provides furthr evidence for the association of this space with womm and for their participation hcom~ectionwith one of its dedkation ceremanies. The Calendar Round date, reconstructable as 9.24,12.8.9 10 Muluk 27 WO,in March of AD. 724, falls in tbr middle of the spate of dedicatory activities that take place in this house between A.D. 723 m d 726 (see Table 4.3). Tbe date is followed by the "'dedicatory" verb, KfAL-wa-ni, a positiltnal verb wkose exact significance is unclear. 'The k'lrl verb with dii-ferent inflection is commonly used in conlexts that concern "stone-bindhg"-period-ending ceremonies and in accession expressions that invoke the bfnding clf a headbad (Stuart 19964. ?'he subject of the verb is U-pa-si-li ya-0TQ:T-Ci 21-pas-il y-ato:t "the opening/doclr of her house" (Skart 1998a:379). What exactly is being done to the door in this context is unclear, but the sense may be that it is framed or enclosed: 'f'he positional verb implies that some sort of modidicatio~~ is occurring. me glyph that follows at D2 names the owner of the house and hcludes the '*XokP' sign: it appears in &most afi of Lady XQk'stitle sh.int;s. This is an extremely brief reference to her, since her titles and name usually occupy several glyph blocks. 'f'he hterpretatiltn of the remainder oE this text is complicated because of the string of relationships and personal names that follows. Tfie inscription has in recent years given rise to a series of convoluted genealotjies for Lady X o k (Bardsley 1987; Jones, fows, and Marhenke 19%; Mathews 1988; Schele and Freidel199Q;Tate 1986) and has inthe process supported speculations about Maya royal marriage customs and the tenyear interrepum that followed Itsa &hBalarn's death. Since m understandjng of the nature of Structure 23 depends on replacing these inter-

112

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

pretations with a new one, a small amount of epigraphir detail witl have to occupy us briefly here. The basis of these interpretations is the "sibling" rreadjng, circlulated by Shart in 1988, of the yi-ta-hi glyph compound that wcurs at C2 and :IZ in Fig~~re 4.9,' All of the publicatio~~s that have treated this lintel have interpreted the two occurrences of this compound as the kirzhip term ""hes sister'" ;further, previous interpretaticms of yi-ta-hi and the other "relationship" glyphs in the text ("'her chitdff"'hhis child,'""h,is/hcr motherf') have concluded that all of these statements are anchored to Lady Xok as their primary referent, renderinl; the front of Lintel 23 an extended genealogy Machod, in contrast has szxggested that the sense of the yi-tahi glyph is simply 'kompanimship" of a formal kind (1991, cited in Martin and Crube n.d.). This latter illsight is reflected in Stuart and othersf recent reanalysis of the yi-ta-hi compound as one that is verbally inflected: It can be recognized as a verb of the same class as the "under-theauspices-of""gtyph (Martin and Grube 1993, though no consensus exists on its memhg. Most. important here is that the yi-ta-hi glyph, like other verbs of this class 'found in contexts subordinate to m a h clauses, indicates the involvement or participatim of its s&ject in the action or event of the main clause-here, a dedicatio~~. The revision of the '"sibling" reading transforms what would have been a complex genealogicat statement into a house-related cerernoy with two yi-ta-hi ""participa.t.ionMclauses, indicating the involvemnt of two women with the dedication of this doorway of the structure, The first woman mentioned after the yi-ta-hi clause is fomd nowhere else in the Virxchilan inscriptions; her name includes the jnmb sign (found also h the name of Pakal of Palenque) and the '"Xok"' sign found in Lady Xok"s name.Vt sseems likely that sht.is a relation of Lady Xok"s, and she is identified as an in- ajar4 a k d e lord. The parewage statement that irnmediately follows her name is usually thought to be Lady Xok"s; but it seems just as possible, giwen that the inscription is n w cut up fnto a main verbal phrase and two dependent verbal clauses, that the parentage statement belongs to this Ix Ajaw. Neither the mother nor the father is mentioned elsethrhere at the site. The father is a sujul lord wbose name, Aj K'an Te:l Nu:n Kkabul '"Xok'"j-F--lal(?)-Lib(?), takes up fully six glyph blocks on the front edge of this lintel; he is the third Xok person mentioned in the inscription, and the s e c 4 K'ubal X&. The other yi-ta-hi verb is followed by the n m e ol yet another w o m n named nowhere dse at Yaxchilan, Ix Tajal l--ni Ix k b , and.another relationhip statement ensues at L3. 'This ~lationshipg b h mcurs h other texts between the names of mothers m d sons, as on Lintel 1. of Structure 33, where it connects the names of one of Bird Jaguar's wives and her ah Batam 11; it has thus not unreasmably been glossed

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

113

as '"&h= of,"Ihe name that follows, the last one in the inscription, is problematic. It conl.ains the n m e Ix K'abal Xok, but- this element is preceded by an AJ agentke prefix and a nrambered element. It is not certain whether this inscription rtlpresents one or two names; nor is it cctrtain whose n a m is given. One possjbility, favored here, is that Aj-jnuntbered element]-fx-Kabal-Xuk is another fx K%abalXok entjrtlilp AItbough the ajprefix fn front of the numbered sign is usually described as a male agentive prefix, oher women at bxchilian use tides that incorporate it.'"The n m e Kkabal Xok is already known to appear in the name phrase of at least three different individuals at Uaxchilan, including Lady Xok; Aj Kan Te:l Nu:12 Kabal Xok, the father in the Lintel 23 parentage statement; md.Aj K'aabal Xok, k m Lintel 10, the grandson of Bird Jaguar. Although the interp~taticmof this lintel must remah fuzzy, it is nevertheless apparent that its focus is the dedication of the doorway and the i n v o l v e m t in this event of at least two women who are probably related to Lady X o k by Hood or marriage..'f'he only man on this lintel, atthough he is prominent in terms of the amount of space devoted to his name, appears only by the grace of a parentage statement ior a woman, This particular event seems to have been condwted by and for royal wome12. AS mentioned, one other lintel at the site, Lirrtel 56 from Stmcture 11, =cords the "fire-entuing'" dedication ceremony of an otn:t belonging to a wornan Figure 4.10).'1 Structure 11as described bp Tate (19"3:166-167) is a the-chambered building located in a s m l l courtyard behind Stmctures 10 a d 7'4, wbich face the Main Plaza (Figure 4.11). Three rooms open toward the courtyard, and two or three back roams once opened toward the river; an ancient modificatian apparently closed the opening between the two tiers of rooms sometime after its initial construction fTate 1992:IM). Tate suggests that it m y h e been a myal hahitation for part of its history, since it is one of the only stmctms at the site that has mdtiple chambers and faces a private courtyard (1992:122). The woman who "owns" the olo:t, IXSak Kiya:n, is, like I:,,adyXok, a "?-Woman of the hb-ch'e:n of 1tsamal.l Balam." One of the most interesting aspects of Lintel S6 is that 1x Sak Biya:n% name phrase refers to her as Ixik Ch'ok "young lady." This is an appellation commonly appended to the names of young lords and heirs, It is of note that Ix Sak t2tiya:n is the only individual, male or female, to use this title in the inscriptions carved clwing Itsmnah Salam's LiSetixne. The de&ea.t.ion of Strwct-m II took place on 9.15,&13,17 Imix 19 Zip in April of AD, 738, four years before the death ah Balm, when he was over ninety years old.The 7 Emix dedication date recalls and probably references the 7 Xmix ctch-kkk' "fire-enter-. ing" mremony into the only oto:t that Itsa ah Balam himself ever dedG cated- St-rrtcbre44,in April of A.D. 723. Tate &scribes Ix Sak Biya:n as a

114

1"niFn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

FIGURE 4.10 Yaxchilan Lintel 56, front edge (from Graharn 197"3:121).

FIGURE 4.2 1 Yaxchilan Structures 74, IQ,and 13 (from MaXer 1903:I 29).

"woman in the court of ltsamnah Balam" (1992:122); this she certainly is. It is, in fact, diificult to imagine that myone, male or female, who was not in the immediate royal family would dedicate a house in the royal and ritual epicenter of Itsamnah Balam's architectural court. Ix Sak Biya:n may have been a late wife, but given the ch'uk title, it is not impossible that she was his daughter. 011e wonders why Itsamnah Balam recognized this w m a n in the years just before his death and what role she might have played in the ten-year interregnum. There were evidently several powerful women h the court of Uaxchil m during the r e i g ~of~Itsamah Balam and at the time of his death, including Bird Jaguar's mother, with her links to Calakmul. Tate has noted that Bird Jaguar may have waited until his own mother died in Wrch of AD. 751 to accede and begin. his manmental pmgrms (1992:124), hut: it is rarely mentioned that Lady Xok, a womm whose stature is demonstrable darbty the reign of Itsamnah Balam, survived seven years into the interregnum and m y W& have acted as a regent.

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

115

Femle Spuw at Yizxchila.~. A number of points can now be made about Structure 23, m edifice usually hterpreted as m astute political maneuver on the part of ftsa aln Balarn. The first is that the house unequivocdly befonged to Lady Xok and may have been stlmefiing tike a queen's quarters or a women" house h general. Whether it was an adual residence canstot be decided until publication of the excavations, but its interior hyout is striking (Figure 4.4) compart-d with other buildhgs at Yaxchilan for the m o u n t of privacy it potentially provided. It contains four benchest none of them sikated directly in front of the doors to the house and all of them placed at the greatest possible distance from the exterior opemings, The two doors to Che rear charnbers are set off from the doors to the front chamber, and their entrances are given a more restricted aspect by the buttresses that jut into the front chamber from fie north wall of the bujldkg. The fmtastic subject matter and extraordinary quaXity of the Stmctctre 23 mmuments have overshadowed discussion of the building as a potent: place with striking female associations. The house itself was the subject of two Q&-kfak' c e r m m j e ~one , c e m o n y involvirtg a modjfication of its southwest doorway and three involwing dedications of its carvings. The second point to be made, then, is that Structure 23 must be .crhought of as more than a billboard for political advertisement; rather, the bulk of its inscriptions late to the woman's otn:f as a bcus of acthity. We must be careful to preserve the context of these fintels in discussing their meaning for the kingd.orn of Yaxchilan, The focus of the texts on all of the extant h t d fronts is the ritual activation or reactivation of some part of the house. 'Those events thought worthy of recording on the front doors were those that sacralized, renewed, or revitalized this locale as the seat of a powerful woman. Their prt?sence inside this struchlTe, Lady Xok's house, in a context that overwhelmingly has to do wif-;hthe vitalization of the place itself, loads the house with the authority of past ritual events and probably with the heat of myal souls (see Houston anci Stuart 1998). In this way, the lintels serve the locale rather than beiag servcd by i t These dedication events dso, as demnnstrated by the front edge of Lintel 23, pmvided a reason for fie gathrring or inclusion of women hnportant to the potiticd, social, or ritual hvell-being of the royd court: The dedication ceremony recorded on that lisrtel is dominated by women related by blood ar marriage to the owner of t-he house. One wonders if the cufiollsly abb~viatedh a l e title that follows y-i)fo:t in this inscription mi&t refer not just to Lady Xok but to all the Xok women named in this inscription. In this connection, the intevretatim of Lintel 23's front edge as a verbal dedication event with two yi-fa-hi subordinate clauses, each contahirtg genealogical information about its subject, becornes more attractive. That is, the relatimship statements may be included because they tie Ix Janab Xok and Ix Tajrrl ? - r ~into i the house as representathes of

116

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

the Xok/K'abal Xok family as a daughter and mother, respectively It is possible that the court of 1tsafnnaf.r B a l m contained an architectural, political, and social space for the women of this family and that they had a seat of power in both a physicd and a politjcal sense. Third, it is u11likely that: the figtxral scenes on Lintels 24, 25, and 26 record episodes that are unrelated. to the ofo:t as a woman" place. Although we cannot assert with certainty that all af the events depicted and dated on the lhtels took place here, it scerns probable that Structure 23 was indeed the site of these rituals, The small inscription inside the serpent curl on the untferside of Lintel25 Figure 4.7%) identifies the kneeling Lady Xok and relates her to the place called Tm-Haf Yaxchilm. The inscription on the front of the same lintel identifies the conjuring event depicted on the underside as taking place in or at 'fhn-Ha' Vaxchifm. It goes on to link the dedication of the house "carvkg" to the date of that conjuring and then relates the house itself to this s m e place, Tm h" Uaxchilan. If the rituats depicted m the lintels do indeed take place at Structure 23, this means that Itsamnat.1 B a l m approaches this kmale space for some interesting reasms. In this structure, he and Lady Xok conjure powerhl war devices, as on Lintel E.Ch-t Lintel 26 (Figure 4.5c), ltsannnah Balm is dressed in gear usually associated with warfare and holds a short spear or knife; Lady Xok carries a small shield and a jaguarhead h e k t . These are orjects carried and wlrrn by Itsa other monuments at Vaxchilan (e.g., Lintel 4), Schele and Freidel (1990:268) suggest that Lady Xok is helping him dress for battle; the helmet and the shield may be magical war tools or ernblcms. Lady Xok may have conjured and supplied important war devkes as a represent.ative of a family or lineage that provided criticat support in wartime-devices that she presents to the king when he visits her in her dwelling. That Structure 23 is a locale for women's ~ s i d a l c eand ritual performance may be reflected in certatn aspects of its texts. The main inscription on the underside of Lintel 25 (Egure 4.12) is carved backward, the gXyphs a mirror image of a normal readlng order. It is worth noting that the directionality of this inscription is the mverse of the circular direction the formal composition of each of the three lintels: h each that domi~~ates case, Lady Xok is to the viewer's sight, Itsa alam is to the viewer's lefb and a directional loop is forrned thro scenes by the figurcls" eyes, hands, and pointing fingers and the ohjects they hold. On k t e l 24 Figure 4.54, the loop runs diagonally across the composition thmngh Itaf-i Balann"s fiev spear and cmthues through Lady Xok's bad& fofhtwing the lines of the fringes of her robe and the rope she pulls throu$ her tongue, which in turn touches the ankle of Itsam& Balarn, claskg the loop. On Lintel 26 (Figure 4.5~)the loop is a small one created by the circk formed by the forearms of the royal couple around the jaguar hef-

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

117

FIGUM 412 Text passage from Yaxchilan Lintel 25: Cfyphs A1-F4 (&amGraham and Van EUW 1977:56).Text is Ripped

from original position.

met, their pointed fingers showing its discction, Ch the central [email protected], Lintel 25 (Figure 4.5b), the cirele is initiated by the line of Itsanlnah Ba1am"s pointed spear and that formed by the couple's eye contact, It: c o ~ ~ t h u e s thruugh the right arm of Lady Xok and writhes up through the body oi the serpent, contacting the butt of Itsa ah Balam" spear. The lintels are positioned in the structure so that the actors%eads are to the east. The loop therefore runs from east to north to west to south, mimicking the movement of the sun a d the direction of the ritual circuits traced out in ceremonies across che Naya area today. In G a y Gossen's (2979) description of processions of male and female saints around the church in Chamula, the male saints move ""crounterclockwisef~ around the church, beginn.tng in the west, and moving from south to east to north and back to west. The female saints move in the opposite direction. The male saintsf movement here, as on the Structure 23 lintels, mimics the movement of the sun as it rises in the morning; this dservation is accomptished by flipping the vertical djrection over on its side, remapping it as north (Gossen 191;79:120;see also Coggins 1980). h cmtrast to this solar movement, the text of Lintel 25 runs from east to south; that is, it m y be said. to mve in a female d i ~ c t i mWe . might entutain the idea that this reversed text is a way cJf rep~sentingfemale agency, or pahaps even female spwch. Hanks has described differcr~t conventions in h a l e speech as opposed to male spewh in his linguistic work on the Yucakc Maya. For example, whereas the head cJf a household is typicdy the eldest man, w o m n usually refer to the urge nl the senior man as the head of the household, Hanks further notes that entire h o u s e h d s c m be referred to by the name of the senior m m but that, for example, ''Toni rcfers to the household of her fr-ithclras naI innz2ant.ah 'my mother's place,kand Pilar refers to the home of her pamts-in-law as m E irtszukepa 'my mother-in-law's place.' 'l'hese usages artl typical of the in-

118

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

dexical pattern according to which women refer to households by way of the s e ~ ~ i woman" or "(1'390:99). h this light, it is perhaps not implausible that the inversion of the text and the attribution of ownership of Structures 23 and 11to women, unusud in the corpus of R/faya inscriptions, reflect a convention of female speceh in the Yaxchi1m court. How does the character and function of this kind of structure compare with that of a nonroyal ctta:f?Dif-Cerencesin scale and elaboration are obvious. Lady Xok carries out dangerous ritual activities of a seriousness and politicd significance probably not matched h nonroyal or commoner household contexts. It is also, as noted, unusual. that women are recorded as Ihe S& owners of otcl:t; this may be accou~ltedfor, in part, by the Observation that this way of referring to the dwelling is m artifact or characteristif of fernate speech, but it may also be a circumstance unique to a cowt context, perhaps related to royal mixrriage customs. We have examples of at least two houses "'owned" by women in Itsamnah Balam"s domain in his lifetime, and there may have been others not recorded in stone: Bird Jagmr's C a l a h u l mother may hnve had her ocvn oto:f with her own entourage or staff. Indeed, royal wives may have been effective e independence heads of their own smdl households with some d e g ~ of .from their husbands-particdarly if they c m fmm other dties. It is, however, difficult to avoid noting some general similarities to practices in modern household contats*In the case o f the royal ofo:f at kxchitan, wometn are possessors of specid buildings in the physical epicenter of the architectural, court of the king. En modern residenltial contexts, the oto:t is the seat of a nuclear family, located withill the bounds of l q e r , ext.ended-hily compounds. Although certainly not equivalent to a kitchen, the oto:t is the locus of m a y activi"riesVpically associated with women, such as preparing food, maintaining fie hear& fire, and childrearing. The kitchen a d hearth associated with the female h a d of a nuclear family may be located inside or adjacent to the oto:t structure. Recdling agaill that the houses d Lady Xok and Ix 5ak Biya:n are said to be the kab-ch'e:n of Itsamnah Balam, we find it instructive to return to Oxkutzcab and to Hanks" discussion of the lcitchen as a female space: Tnsc~faras the men build the domestic enclosures in which women spend most of their productive time, they can be said to be in an encompassing relation to them, perhaps the b e t symbol of which is the klodbe~fkitchen enct~mpassedby the solm walls and houses. Like the woman of which it is a metonym, the kitchen is private, wet (water is stored here), the ;?locusof domestic fire and food. The mn's fc'can ce' "sloctl" a n which he sits when eatirrg is loxated in the kitchen, just as the placenta that nourishes an unborn child, also called the k b y ~R', is 10cated in the woman's hobvrz %eIity"".li, a thirty-year-old mother af six, mobilized t h e aswciatictrts when she said, recomting her hrrr;bandps

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

119

sexual infidelities, 'orS( impuGl uk"n~1ce' "1 almast tossed out his stocal,"beaning, ""Talmost kicked him out of the house for gocd ." "anks 1990:112)

This excerpt brings out: some cJf the metmymical relationships between space, seat, and self and the ways in MIhich they may be gendcred. Lady Xokk soto:t, although unequivocally her space, is enclosed within ftah Balam's court space as his kab-&D:pz, very possibly a metaphorical beehive, a place associded with the pmductim of food and the rai,sing of offspring, It is also the s:l-tan, perhaps the heart, literally conceived, of his architectural court. Itsamnah EPalam comes to Lady X&'s dwelling not for food but for a kind of political m d milit.ary empowerxnent that perhaps only a royal woman can provide. AItbough an oto:t is not a kkdbberz ""ktchm," there are similar hierarchies of enclosure with regard to female space and male space. IIthe Yaxchilm royal court, I-tsamnah Balam" architectural court encloses the woman" sot:l, and Lady Xcrk's space in turn encloses Itsa ah Balm as he enters her domain to receive special items and to perfam special rituals. II a modem Yucatec Maya household, the solar of t-he male head of the extended family encloses the kitchen or kitchens of the female heads of nuclear families, just as t-he kitchens enclose the seats of the men who approaeh the female-dominated space for sustenance. The sphere of an c,to:t s e e m to be an important locus of personal identity in both modern and anciel~tcontexts. The modern uto:t is a place where a person is most at home, or knld'nn "seated." As n&ed earlier, seat and seff c m be metonymicatly ~ l a t e das , with a man% khnn ce' "stool,'" lacus g of Lady Xok" identity even afStructure 23 was certainly a s t r o ~ ~ ter her deatlll. Bird Jaguar, the next king, though not Lady Xok" son, constructed Stmcbre 2.1. m a major phase of it at a right angle to Stmcturt. 23.'" The inscriptions on the three lntels of Structure 24 (Lintels 27, 59, and 28) record, the deaths of Itsamnah Balam; his mother, Ix Pakal; Lady Xok; and Bird 'Jaguar's mothelr, The final sentence of the lintel records post-interment activities in the form of an och-k'ak' event-tzc-M UK-IL "into the tomb" "tuart P998a:397-399) of Lady Xok, The construction of Stmcture 24 is a referewe to LaLiy Xok" sctt:t, as is the fire-related ceremony that involves h a tomb. Mathews briefly recounts the discovery i,n Struct-ure 23 of several burials, the most elaborate of which was found in the front right chamber. 'This last contained a set of nine bones, some of which are incised with hkroglypbic texts identifying them as the property of Lady X& (1988~338-339).Although the= are ccstainly exarnples of tombs containing otTjects tagged with names fiat cannot bc- those of the tomb occzupmts (Tasclhelk and Ball 1"392),it seelns Likely that the tomb does contain Lady Xok's remains given that this burial was the richest found in the hwse so intimately associated with her. It is apparent that

120

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

an irnpmtant part of the woman's identity perhaps deriving from the ritual fertility of her blood and probably the power of her family inhcred in the stmcturc in a lasting way-as &own by her burial in it, by tthe construction of Structure 24 as a reference to it, and by the fiw-entcring cen3many in her tomb that was co~~ducted during the reign of Bird Jagznac That the owners of royal. structures called ota:f invested them with a special sort of ilientity that continued to be revered after their deaths, and that the oto:f was a place wherc a person was seated in more than one way, are rclflected in the appasent ancient practice of beixzg ""r;atedMas king in the otn:f o f previous kings. Palt-mque's M u s e E, calted the otn:t o f Pakd in the Tablet of the 96 Glyphs, is &so said inthat tablet to be the site of the seatings of three successive kings: It is used, as Stuaft (1998a:378) notes, as a t h m e room. Skilarly, one of Bird faguarfsfirst acts when he .finally accedes to the Ihrone of Yaxcihilan is to renovate Structure 22, reset Early Classic lintells inside it, and incorporate his own lintel. This last lintel, Lintel 21, records, first, a dedication rite for the house, an oto:t said to belong to the sevelzth king, "Moon Jaguar," and second, Bird Jag~~ar's "seating" at the same locale seven days after his own accession. 0to:f strucbres at Yaxchilan seem to be involved in significant spatial discotxrses, reflecting the social and po(iticd dynamics of the court. C)ne of these discourses, for exasnplle, is evident h the way Itsamnah Balam appears to parcel out space in his &main to irnportmt women in his court. h o ~ e discourse r may be evidenced by the fact that on 9.16.13.0.0, twelve F a r s after his accession, Bird Jaguar dedicated. his own ofo:t, Shucture 10, . the case of Struckro 24, near that of Ix Sak Biya:n (see Figurt?412)Unlike which w s b d t and illscrilned as a rekrence to St.mcknre 23, Bird Jaguar's house seems almost to give Ix Sak Biya:n%bbuilding the cold sh0uld.e~ Conskucted later and at a higher elevation than the acljacent Stmcture 74, Strucknre 10 m d its compmion Structure 13 partially seal Structure 11m d its small:cczurtyard off fmm the mixl plaza, Structure 10 has no doors giving mto that courtyard and, in effect, b m s its back m it. This might have becm a parlicularly pohted statement iIx S& Biya:n had anythbg fa do with Bird Jaguar" dehyed xcessim to the tkone of Yaxchilan. 'f"hese discourses recall the complex spatial negotiations that take place within O-xkutzcab solarcts: Elder d e household heads di,vi,de up their house plots among the nuclear families of their sons, and the boundaries between these spaces are marked not so mu& by physical barriers as by sight lines and bp daily behviors and performmces of the solar inhabitants (Hanks 1"30:295-351). Delineators of bomdaries between nuclear families range from family awas and between spaces shared by acljoh~h~g actual physical boundary mrkcrs to the "invisible axcs along \zrhich the house wallf canal and.gardens are aligned" to patterns of greeting other household mernbers at thresholds and the aggwssive hehavior of one's dogs (Hanks 1990:325).

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

121

Whereas some of the ideas presented here must =main speculative pendi,ng the publica.t.ion of the Yaxchiim excavations, it seelns that these oto:t: structures were active voices in the social and spatial discourse of the hxchilan court. W have tried, especially, tto expand the irrterpretation of Structure 23 as a building that mediated intra- and earapotity concerns by refocuskg attention on its nature as the locus of activiw and identity of Yaxchilan" royal wcrmm and on the role that it phyed fn the internal dynmics of the Vaxchilan royal court.

Concluding Thoughts This study of persons and bddings at Yaxchilan represents an approach to the royaf court of one large Maya center. As such, it constitutes a small window onto the Maya cowt as an institution. As the ehaptecs in this and the forhcoming (2001.) volume demonstrate, Maya centers exhibit signj.ficant differences in the architecmal environments and probably in the sncial cmposition of their respective cowts. For instance, the cities of the Usumacinta zone are notable for the heightened. visibiliv of Classic-period royal k a k s in their images a d texts. Whether this pattern genuinely refleds a tradition of accardbg greater status and political.power to Usumcinta royal females or whether it is simply m artifact of a distinct tradition of royal documentation is difficult to discern. The Yaxchil m corpus does indicate the influential role oE women at its royal court and the leadjng role played by hdividuals such as Lady Xok h ritual practices invoking cmjuring and stmcture dedications. The similarities encountered between women" roles and spaces in the Yaxchilan court and in nonroyd contexts are countered by other h&of evidence, discussed in the first section of this chapter, that highlight the contrast in gender rotes between wometn in these different: contexts. 'The royal costuming and elaborate huif-7ilcsworn by women such as Lady X& as well as the ritual performances undertaken by them, can probabty mly be imaghed in royal arelzas. Archaeological evidence serves to sharpen the distinction between royal females who were heavily vested in textile production and nmelitc kma1es Miho shouldered the burden of food prep"rati.un. Artifactual evidence has been shown to be basic and indispensable to the defhitim of the activities of the royal court, and here a caveat cannot be cJmitted: More care must be taken fn retrieving artifacts from excavations at royal campou~zds. The class-based distinctions in female-gendered activities that accentuate the differcsnces between household and court atso apply to male-gendered acrivities such as ball-playing and farming, which show clear patterns of segregation by status, h the lartger realm of polit.ical economy and judicidl process, household and court occupy oppokte ends of the power spectrum,, E-lowcver, role distinctions between members of a royal

122

Pnfn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

court and fiat of a househotd are softened by the common importance of the physical and conceptual space encompassed by the term ofo:f,or "houseu-linguistic variations of which have been shown to apply to residences of cmtemporary Maya farmers as well as royal builciings of f i e Classic period. 'This fact coupled wjth the hierarchicat social structure. of both the court and the household, both of which operated with clearly defified and generatly patrifcrcal leadership roles, pfays to the idea that rnyal courts are households writ large. This semtinte~~t may have ancient roots: One of the most intriguistg qualities of Classk Maya royalty was its =markable abf)ity to amplify and convolute basic tenets of Maya cosme logical armture and lived experience in order to create the perception that r q a l ritual and royal residence were the stuff of aliX Maya existence. We have attempted in tbis chapter to provide a baseline for future discussion of the reiatianship"etweem court: and hous&old and to give an in-depth example of an approach that may help to dcvelop mom f h d y nuanced ullderstandings of these ccmnecticms. As sbdents of Mesoamerica hocv, and as we hope to have shown, there will be no simple equivalence~between court and household or between ethnographic and ancient data. Both high-quality archaecrlogical information and epigraphic: studies will be crucial for a more fined wproach to these problems. It is especially to be hoped, that scholars will begin to pry into the spaces and disjunctions between understdndings provided by epigraphy and f i w e provided by archaeology. The decipherment of hieroglyphic texts should plunge Maya studies into the concerns of a hjstorical archaeologyf embryonic fi:[email protected] it currently remains. Exploring the pmbtematic crf the relat.i.onshipsbetcveen court and household. holds promisc not only for continuing to assess the relevance of ethnographic and ethnohistoric materials for ullderstanding fie past but for beginning to grasp larger issues of the transmission of cultarc3 over time and the durabiliv and Bexibility of core cdtural concepts.

Notes l . The colon in y-otn:t reflects the complex vowel indicated by the vowel disharmony in the glyphiie spelling y-o-6TOT-ti. The hypothesis that vowel disharmony in glyphic spellings indicates vowel complexity is advanced in Houston, Stuart; and Ro)bjnson 3998. 2. N o plural of oto:t is used in this chapter, since none is indicated in epigraphic contexts. 3, In at least ane case, that af Kanjc~bal,this relationship may be reversed: allit is the general word for house (Spanish cnsn), and na is specifid as the Ifogar de ur20, the place that contains the hearth (Andrade 1946:733,cited in Dienhart l%&'), X\Eeverthefess,the glyphic evidence supports the generic nature of ~znlzas opposed

17erspcefz'veson Acfors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd Arclzitectu re

123

to utn:!; and the fact that Kanjcjbal reverses the relationship but maintains both terms might be contitrued as additional evidence of a deeply seated copitive distinction beween them. 4. The proto-Mayan h r m has been reconstructed as ntyaoty (Maufman and Norman 19&4:1217). 5, Neither Bird jaguar nor his Calakmul mother appear anywhere in the inscriptions of Structure 23. The evidence for Bird Jaguar having anything to dct with this structure at the time it was ereded is indirect and cmsists of the date of the events depicted on the underside of Lintel 24, sixty-two days a f e r Bird Jaguar" birth. Lady Xok and Itsarnnah Balam are shown an this lintel as fi ch'nbil. A thoroughgoing understanding of the activity in which they are engaged evades us. Bloc>dlettingalmost certainiy occurred on the occasion of the birth of an heir, as attested by the lintels of Yaxchilan Struture 20. In the case of Lintet 13 in that structure, Bird Jaguar and his wife watch, bloodletters in hand, as the head of their young son emerges from a serpent that curls thrasxgh the %vomanfs arms and emerges from a ch'nb-marked bowt. The date of the son" birth i s recorded in the text above the scene. The themes of Lintel 13 and Lintel 24 are therefore very sinnilar, but Bird Jaguar" absence in the iconography and text of the latter is notable, Lady Xctk and I t s a m a h Balarn are then the o~zlyprotagonists of the figural scenes and the texts of the lintels over the front doors of Structure 23. 6. Bavid Stuart obsemed (personal communication, 1999) that it is odd that the phrase is not carved nearer to Lady Xok's kneeling figure, as names of carved figures often are, and we thus leave open the possibility that the passage refers to something or somectne else in the figuraf scene. 7. The phrase" occurrence on the front edge of Lintel 25, in which the "earthcave" compound appears with a single possessive pronoun, supports the idea that the phrase is read as a meaningful mit, rather than that the knb is pc~ssessed by the c/rfc:n,which is in tarn possessed by Itsamah Balam. It is undoubtedly a compound noun of the same species as to:k'-pnhl. 8. See the discussion of and reservations about this reading in Stuart 1993:346-348. 9. David Stuart has pointed out (perscjnal cornmrmication, 1999) that this woman cannot be lx Pakal, ltsamnah BaXam's smother, as she is usually identified-. The latter has a standard name phrase that appears in a number of emtexts at Uaxchilan and that nwer includes the jtzrznb element. 10. For example, Bird Jaguar % mother comistently takes the title IX AJ KVHHUN in her name phraws (see Stuart and Houstm, this volume, for discussion of the k'zrlz-lzun title). 11. There is some ambipity s u f " ~ ~ ) ~ n dthe i n garchitectural associatian of this lintel. Graham (1979:121) states that it almost certainty came from Structure 11: The dimensions of a plaster cast made from it (the original was destroyed in Berlin by bombing during World War X I ) match that of a lintel with a sawn-off face located by Graham between Structures 74 and 41, Graham also notes that Maudslay described Structure 11 (which he called House C) as having two inscribed lintels in place in 1882 (19";;7:7:9).Lintel 56 certainly dates fmm Itsamah Balaxn" reign; but, according to Mathews (1988:336), Garcia Moll, based on his

124

PniFn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

excavations, places Structure 11 in Bird Jaguar" reign. For the p r e s n t purposes, we will treat Lintel 56 as a Skucture 11 monument, since the only firsthand account of Its placement is Graharn%-with the caveat that it may have been reused or reset in that structure. 12. There is sc:,meconfusion regarding the date of this structure. Its inscriptions date tcr Bird Jaguar" reign, and both Mathews (1988:322) and Tate (1992:210) date the erection of the structure to 9.16.5.8.0. Mathews notes, howevex; that R~jberto Carcia Moll, the excavator of Structures 23 and 24, believes that it tvas er-ected late in I t s a m a h Balam's reign rather than in his son" ((1988:3E).Part of this confusion may be clarified by Tate's observation that the central niche of this building is a thick-walled structure with a tiered bench, which cautd have been an original structure later encased by Bird Jaguar's building with its inscribed lintels (19%:209).

References Andrade, Manuel. 1946. "Materials on the Mam, Jacaltec, Aguacatec, Chuj, Bachahom, Palencano, and Lacandr>nlanguages." Chicago: Microfilm CollecNo. IQ. tion of Manuscripts on Middle American CuXturall Anthropc~lo>gy Bardsley, Sanbra. 1987. ""Iaugural Art of Bird Jaguar IV: Rewriting History at Yaxchilan.'" Master's Thesis, University of British Columbia. Barrera VBsquez, Alfredo, director. 1980. Diccit~tzarioM n y a Cordemex. Merida, Yucatan, Mexico: Ediciones Cardemex. Bassie-Sweet, Karen. 1990. From Clle Moulll #the Dark Cave: Gotrztnen~orafiveSculptztre of the t n f e Classic ILlnya, Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. . 4996. A f the Edgc @ l k WorIcZ: Caves alzd Late Classic Mnya InkarIcZ View, NCXman: University of Oklahoma Press. Belf, Catherine. 4992. Rifuai Tbcoy, RiEzdnl Pre7clic.c~.New York: Oxford University Press. Brady, James. 1988. "The Sexual Connotatim of Caves in Mesoamerican Ideology." Mexicon 10(3):31-55, Child, Mark. 1999. ""CXassic Maya Warfare and Its Sociopc~lit-icalImpiicatic>ns." Paper presented at the Third Palenque Roundtable, Palenque, Mexico. CXark, John E., and Stephen D. Houston. 1998. "Craft SpeciaXization, Gendes; and Perso&cxld Among the Post-Conquest Maya of Yucatan, Mexicc~,"In Cathy L. Costin and Rita II. Wrigfnt, eds., Craft and Social Ide~lz'lty,pp. 31-46. V\rashingion, DC: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association N ~ I8, . Coggins, Clemency, 1980. ""The Shape of %me: %me Poltical Implications of a Frjur-Part Figure." Amel-imn Antiqt4i;Ey 45: "i"27-733. Dimhark J o h . 1997, "The Mayan Languages: A Comparative Vacabulary,'" electronic version. Odense, Denmark: Odense tmiversiq Press. Freidel, David, Linda Scheie, and Joy Parker. 1993. Mnya Cosmos. New York: William Morrc>w-. Ceertz, Clifford. 1980. Negara: The Tl~eatl"~' Stake itz Nin~tw~ztk-Cer~tury Bnfi. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

17erspeefives on Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd Arclzifecf ure

125

Cossen, Gary. 3.979, "Gmparal and Spatial Equivalents in Chamula Ritual Symbolism.'" In Evon Vogt and William Lessa, eds., A Reader in Conzyaratizre Religion, 4th ed., pp. 11&128. San Francisco: Harper and Row. Graham, Ian, 1979. Clnr.pzds ofxclr-ryn Hieroglyyl~icI~zscr+~fions, vol. 3, pt. 2, Cambridgef MA: Peabody Museum. . 1982, Corpzls of:M a p P"iierogtyp1zicInscripit>t:c7~ts, vol. 3, pt. 3. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum. Craham, Ian, and Eric Von Euw. 1977. Corpus of Mnya Hieroglyphic Inscriplit>:c712s, vol. 3, pt. I, Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum. Hamann, Byron. 4997, "Weaving and the Iconography of Prestige: The Rayal Gender Symbolism of Lord 5 Flower%slL;ady 4 Rabbit" F~amilly'jIn Cheryl Cfaassen and Rawmary A. Jc>ycepeh., Women in Prelzistoq: Riartlz Anzerica and Meso~lnericn,pp. 153-1 72, Philadelphia: University of 13ennsyl\rania Press. Hanks, Wiltiam F. 1990. Referential Pmcfice: Langu~geand Lived Spce Anzong the Maya. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harrisc>n,Peter D. 197%."The CentraX Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: A Preliminary Study of the Functiom and Its Strudural Cc?inrpc>nentsDuring the Late Classic 13eriod."".D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Haviland, William A. 1988. "Musical Hammocks at Tikal: Problems with Keccjnstructing Household Compositian." In Richard R. Wilk and Wmdy Ashmore, eds., I-luusek~ofdand Gommurzity in the Mesoamerkn Pmt, pp. 121-134. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Hendon, JuXia A. 1997'. "Women" Wcjrk, TiVc>men%Space, and VVomen" Status Among the Classic-Peric~dMaya Elite of the Copan tralley, H~-ionduras."In Chexy-2 Claassen and Ro?sernaryA. Joyce, eds., Womerz in Prdlist-aq: Nnrtlz Anzerica and Mesonmerica, pp. 3346. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Houston, Stephen D, 1994. ""Literacy Among the Precolumbian Maya: A Camparative Perspective." In Elizabeth H. Bcmne and Walter E). Mipola, eds., Writing Withotit- Wads: Altcmntiue Liferacr'es in Mesoanzerica and the Andes, pp. 27-49. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. . 1996, "qmbooiic Sweal;batk of the Maya: Architectural Meaning in the Cross Group at Palenque, Mexico." "Lnf ir-zAnzerimn Arztiquity 17: 132-151. . 4998. "Classic Maya Depictims of the Built Environmmt." In Stephen D. Houston, ed., Function and IVlm~zingin Classic [email protected]~ Archifeefure, pp. 333-3172. Washingtcm, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Howton, Stephen D., and %m Cummins. 1998, ""Tdy, Presmce, and Space in Andean and Mesctamerican Rulership."Tqer presented at symposium Ancient 13alacesof the New World: Form, F-tmction, and Meaning, Dumbartan Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart, 1996. "Of Gods, GEyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic Maya." A~nliquity7t3 289-332. . 1998, "The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and Portraifcuw in the Classic Period.'' RRES 33: 7>101. Houston, Stephen D,, Jc1hr.t Kobertson, and David Stuart. 2000. ""Te Language of Classic Maya inscription^.'^ Current An tftrnpology 41 :321-356. Houston, Stephen D,, David Stuart, and John Kobe&mn, 4998, "Disharmony in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Linguistic Change and Continuity in Classic Soci-

126

PniFn'ck A* McAnany and Shannon Plank

ety," In Andr6s Ciudad Ruiz, Yalanda Ferndndez Marquinez, josk -Miguel Carcia Campillo, Maria losefa Iglesias Ponce de terin, ALfonso Lacadena GarciaCallo, and t u i s 7: Sanz Castm, eds., A~lnlvfnirade linn civilliezcibitz: Rpruximncit>tzr.s irzterG1'isc;iylizzarinsra la caltt-~mILlaya, pp. 275-296. Madrid: S c i d a d Espafiola Be Estudios Mayas. Houston, Stephen D,, Bavid Stuart, and Karl Taube. 1989. "Falk Classificatian of Ma ya P o t t e ~ ~ " Americrarz A nthrc;lpologisf91: '720-726. Hunt, Eva. 19'7'7. The B~nsjorur~niFion of the Humntivzgbird: G~flFumlRoots ofn Zintlcanlan Mythical Poent. Ttliaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Inomata, Takeshi, and taura R, Stiver. 1998. "Roar Assemblages from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya E3ouseholds." )t?urr-ze;tlof Field A rcf~dlrology25: 431-452. Tsaza AizpurGa, Tlean Xsel, and Patricia A. McAnany. 1999. "Adornmnt and Tdentity: Sl~eltlOrnaments from Forrnatirfe K%axob." AAncl'ent Mesoamerica 10: 'I17-127. Tones, Tc>m, Carolyn Jones, and Randa Marhenke. 1990. "BLZlod Cousins: The XokBalarn Cijnnection at Yaxchil6n." U M111 Maytz 3: 99-1111. joyce, Ro~semaryA. 11i342. "Imges of Gender and Labor Organization in Classic Maya Society." In Cheryl Claassen, ed., E;rploriillg Gender Tl~roldghArclzneott7gyI pp. 63-70. Madism, W1: Prehistory Press. . 1993, "Mlomen" Work: Images of Production and Reproduction in PreHispanic Southern Central America." Current Anthropology 34: 255-274, Kaufman, Terrence S., and Williarn M. Norman. 1984, "An Outfine of I3rotoCfiolan Phonology Morphology and Vc3cabutary-" In John Justeson and Lyle Campbell, eds., Pf~an~Eicisru in Mnynn Hieroglyphic Writing, pp, '77-366. Albany: S U W Institute for Mesoamerican Studies Publication 53. Kristiansen, Kristian, 2000. "The Emergence of Warrior Aristc>craciesin Later European Prehistory and Their Long Term History,"Yn 5, Haas, ed., Leaders to Rulers: The Process of Political Cenkmlizntiotz, in press. New York: Plenum, Lee, Carfa. 1996. ""OsteofogicaX Evidence of Three Status Groups at an Elite Compound in Copan.'" Paper presented at the Amual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orlearn, April. Maler, Tec~bert.1903. "Researches in the Central Portion of the Usurnatslntla Valley: Reports of Explorations for the Museum. Second Part," Mefremoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Ardtneology and Efltnology 2:7&208. Martin, Sirnon, and Paikolai Grube. 4995, "Maya Superstates." Rrclzneott7gy 48(6): 41-46. . N.d. ""Eidence for Macro-Pr>liticalOrganization Amongst Classic Maya Lowland States.'" Paper circulated to archaeologists and epigraphers in 1994 and 1995, Masson, Marilyn, 1999. "The Economic Organization of Late and Terminal Classic Period Maya Stc~neTool Craft Specialist Workshops at Colha, Belize." Unpublished manuscript.. Mathews, Peter. 1988. 'The Sculpture of Yaxchilan." ".D. Dissertation, Yale University. McAnany Patricia A. 4995. Livittg zuith t h Ancestors: Kinsjziy alzd Kingship in Rnc i e ~Mayn f Society, Austin: University of Texas Press,

17erspeefiveson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzitecture

127

4998, ""Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Enviranment."9n Stephen D. Houston, ed., Function and Meanir-zg in Clnssk Mayt: Arc.chifeefure,pp. 277-298.. Wshingtcm, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. McAnany, Patricia A., and Sandra L. Ldyez Varela. 1999. ""Re-Creatingthe Fctrmative Maya Village of Mraxc>b:Chronolc~gy;Ceramic Complexes, and Ancestors in Architecturat Context." A~cienl?. Mcsoattzerica 10: 147-1 68. Pendergast, David M. 1979. E X C G D R ~at~Altun O ~ ~ SHa, Belrle, 39661970, Volume 2. Toronto: Rc~yalOntario Museum, . 1982..Excnz~alio~~s nf Altt~nHa, Belize, 19661970, Vofzrme2. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum. Redfield, Robert, and Alfonso Villa Rojas. 1962. Cfinrz Kt~tn:A Mnyw Village, Chicago: Pl-toenix Books. First published in 1954 by the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Restall, Matthew, 2 "39.The Maya World: "Vtlmtec Cult~lreand Society 2550-1850. Stanford: Stanfc3rd University Press, Sabtof-t, Jeremy A., and Gair Tourteflot. 1991. Tke Ancient [email protected] of Snyil: 7"ke Mapping [email protected] Pzluc Rqion Center. Middle American Research Institute Publication 60. New Orleans: Tulane Universily. Sanders, Wilfiarn T. 1989. ""Household, Lineage, and State at Eighth-Century Copan, Honduras." h Inavid Webster, ed., Tl~rzHouse I?J: the Bncnbs, Copan, Hendums, pp. 89-105, Studies in Pre-Colurnbian Art and Archaeology Na. 29. Washington, DC: Dumbartc~nO a k Research Library and Collectic~n. Schele, Linda. 1990. 'Wouse Names and Dedication Rituals at Palenque." In Inklora Clancy and Peter D. Harrison, eds., Vision and Rezjisiun in Mnyn Stxidies, pp. 243-2 57. Albuyuerque: University of New Mexico 13ress, . 4992. "The Founders of Lineages at Copm and Other Maya Sites.""~plcient Mesonmerica 3: 135-1 44. Schele, tinda, and David Freidel, 19%. A Forest of Kz'jbzgs: Tke Urttold Story of the Ancietzl Mnyn,New York: Williarn Morrow, Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews, 1998, The Code of Ki~zgs.New York: Scribner, Schele, Z,inda, and Mary E. Miller. 1986. Blood of Kings,Dy2aasl.y and Rllzrlali1-z Ma!fa Art, New York: Ceorge Braziller, Schulz, John. 1997'. ""Operation 14: Excavatic~nsat Structure 54." In Patricia McAnany ed., K'axob Project: 7nterim Report., 1993 Field Season, pp. 17-42. Report submitted to the Department of Archaeolog, Belmopan, Beiize. Stone, Andrea. 1995, Inzages fiotrt the Utzdenoorld: Mnj Elrzich aud the Tradl'tiou of Maya C"avePain li~ig.Austin: University of Texas Press. Stuart; David-.1986. ""The "zr-batXGXyph and Its Bearing on the Primary Standard Sequence,'" Payer presented at the Primer Sirnposio Mundial sobre Epigrafga Maya, Guatemala City. . 1993. ""Hiistc~riicalInscriptions and the Maya Collapse." h Jerremy A. Sabloi'F and John S. Henderson, eds., Lowland Mnyn 6-i.i~ilizlatianirz kke Eighflt Century A-D., pp. 321-354. Washingon DC: Dumbarton Qaks Research Library and Collection. 1 9 % . "A Study of Maya Inscriptions." ".P>. Dissertation, VanderbiXt Univc?rsi.ty: . 4WGa. ""Kings of Stone: A Consideratic~nof Stelae in Ancient Maya Ritual and Representaticm." RRES 29-30: 14&171,

128

PniFn'ck A*McAnany and Shannon Plank

. 1998a. "The Fire Enters His Hc~use":Architecture and Ritual in Classic Maya Texts," In Skphen B. Houston, ed., Function and Meaning in Classic Maya ArcltilecCltre, pp. 373425. Washington, DC: Dumbadon Oaks Research Library and Collection. 1998b. ""Cave References in Maya Inscriptions." Unpublished-. 2W0, ""Te Arrival of Strangers: Teatihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History" h David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Session, eds., Meso~r~tericaS Classic kicn"izigc-.:From Eotilruac~nto the Aztec, pp. 465-513. Boulder: Univmsity of Colorado Press. Stuart, David S., and Stephen D. Houston. 4994, Classic my^ Place Names. Washingon, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collectiron. Stuart, David, Stephen Houston, and John Robertson. 1999. Notebook for the Twenty-third Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas? March 1999, Part 2, Maya Wrktihop Fc)undatic)n, University of Texas, Austin. Plaoto>copy Taschek, Jennife~1994. The Art$zcGs of Dzz'bilchattutz, Yzrcata~z,Mexico: Shell, Pulislted S tone, Bone, Woad, alzd Ceramics. Middle American Research Institute Publication 50. New Orleans: Tulane University, Taschek, Jennifer T., and Joseph W. Ball, 1992, ""Lord Smoke-Squirrel" Cacao Cup: The Archaeological Context and Soeiil-historical Sipificance of the Buenavista "amcy V;zse.""'][n Justin Kerr, ed., Maya Vase Book, vol. 3, pp. 49M97, New York: Kerr Associates. Tate, Carofyn. 1986, "The Language of Symbols in the Ritual Environment at VaxchiXan, Ghiapas." ".D. Dissertation, University of 'Texas at Austin. . 4992. fixchilkn: Tfzc-.Desigtz ofn Maya Ceremonial Ciky. Austin: University of Texas Press. Taube, Karl. 1992, ""'fhe Temple of Quetzalcctatl and the Cult of Sacred VVar at Teot&uacan." RRES 21: 53-87, Tozzer, Alfred M. 1907. A Comparative Study of G k Mayas and the hmndottcrs. New tlork: Macmillan, . 1941. bnda's Rel'nrrion de los Gmas de Yzrmfan.Papers of the Peabc)dy Museum of American Archaeolom and Ethnology, vol. 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vilgt, Evon Z. 1993. Tortillasfor the Gods: A Symbolic Analysk ofZi~e;rc~nteco Rifzials. Norman and London: University of Oklahvma Press. Webstel; David. 4989. "The House of the Bacabs: Its Social Context," In David Webster, ed,, The Haz-lse of the Bambs, Copan, Ho~tdzlms,pp. 5-40. Studies in PreColumbian Art and Archaeology No. 29, Nshington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Cot lection. Welsh, W.B.M. 1988. An Analysis oJClnssz'c Lawland Mnyn IZti12111s. Internationat Series 409, Oxford, England: British Archaeological Reports, Widmes; DoXgh, Rdecca Storey, and CarXa Lee. 1996. "Internal Dynamics of Craft Specialization and Status, Copan, Hc~nduras,"h p e r presented at the Annual Meeting of the S o d e q for American Archaeolc>gy,New Orleans, April. Wilk, Kchard R,, and Robert M. Netting. 4984. "Households: Changing Farms and F-tmctions." 1x1Robert M, Netting, Richad R. Wilk, and E. J. Amould, eds., Households: Compnmtiuc arzd kikforical Skzndiss of the L)omesZic Croup, pp. 1-28. Berkeley: University of California Press.

17erspcefz'veson Aefors, Ccnder Roles, nlzd A rclzifecf ure

129

WilZey, Gordon R, 1978. Excav~tiorzsat Seibat: Number 2, Rrf~ncts.Memoirs of the 13eabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology vol. 14. Cambridge, MA: Ha ward University. Willey, Gordon I%.,W, R. Bullard, Jr., J, B, Glass, and J. C, Gigford. 1965. P~"~"l~l'storic Seltlemcnf izz flze Bclize River Valley. Papers of the Pealac)dy Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology vol. 54. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University.

Spatial Dimensions of Maya Courtly Life Problems and Issues DAVID WEBSTER

&e way to understand ancimt societies is throu$ the study of their basic kstitutions. It is fair to say that we have rcasonably djrect and &tan.dant information about only two Classic Mapa institutions: kingship and the household. Courts, m s t commcmly conceived as the households of h g s , existed at their htersectio~n.. The chaptas in this volume present a remarkable wealth of detail conceming M q a courts, including the names and titles of rulers and lesser elites and their rituals, prestations, and entertainments. Surprisingly, however, we have a hard tjrrre mapping many court activities onto the ents of the Classic Maya. Although we c m be confident that certain kinds d ritmls took place in tennples, chat burial ceremonies iocused on royal tornbs, and that people pXayed ball in ball, courts, we have dilficulty anwering the more mundane questions about Maya court Ik. m e r e did the king, his family, and his courtiers deep? Where was f n d prepared for r q a l or elite households? Where did the Maya store all the paraphernalia of elite life or the revenues from tax or tribute? M e r e were elite items crafted? Where were illustrious visitors accommodated? Mow were political or ritual spaces arranged? How did the establishmen t a d growth of court centers generate larger settlement form? h short, what do we h o w about the places in whi.ch court life was conducted, and how did they influence the distribution of people and lesser places on Maya landscapes?

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

132

That such questions remain largely unanswered is troubling, especially because archaeologists have long studied kvhat we now =cognize to be court facilities, My presentation differs from most of the others in this book because it emphasizes the naturl, of courtly places rather than the h m a n actors attached to them. Before proceedjrrg, however, I must reiterate my own definition of courts given in the original 1996 h e s i c a n Anthropological Association symposium.' Courts, in my view, are entouratges attaehed to rulers or olfner pokverful leaders that may include royal reiatives, lesser noblcs and their families, advisers and officials, military persomel, visit* dignitarks and ambassadors, prisomrs and po:[itical hoshges, scribes, scholars, physicians, religious spedafists, emtertainers, artists and artisans, sundry other mtainers, servants, dependents, guests, and hangers-on.* Some cottrt personnel provide broad societal adminiskative servkes as an extension of their duties to the royal household, and the concept oi courts as ruling institutions tied to specific kinds of places and facili_cies lies at the core of nny chagter. What. foljlows are my thoughts on how courts relate to other Maya places and some rclflections, based on recent research, about both royal and subregnat palaces. My presentation is pitched on. a quite general level because there is insufficie~~t space here to document the enormous variability present among Maya palaces, as many other c0ntribul;ions to this book demonstrate. I m indebted to the earlier work of many Maya scholars, m s t particula* that of Harrison (1970), Andrews (1980), and Kowdski (1987). A cautimary note is necessary before I proceed. A major t h e m of the 1996 American hthropological Association symposium was that, generally conceived, royal courts are person-centered rather than place-centered instituticms, ulti~natelyfocused on the ruler, wherever the ntlcr is. Courts consist of those people who are in daily, intilrrate contact with mlers or who are at times privileged to have such contact, As Houston and Inomata point out (this volume), our mail7 concerns are the attibdes, beliefs, and behaviors of courtly people. It might thus seem kwongheaded to emphasize place so beavily, but I thixlk we must do so for the M a p for two reasam. First, Maya rulers seem to me to be uniquely tethered to particular tentral. places,' In other royal traditions rulers sometimes had multiple palace facilities and wert- quite peripatetic, as in EIizabethan England faowse 1970) or Morocco (Geertz 1977). Early Japanese rulers abandoned one capital and established mother as circumstances dictated (Sansom 1958). By contrast, Maya kings, or at least well-established ones, appear wejghted down by their central courtly places. Like giant hermit crabs, successive rulers loaded themselves with solid accretions in the form of

tombs, temples, ball courts, and carved mmuments and with less substantial olles as well-the associations with the great people and events of the past and, of course, with the gods and ancestors. Cmters were not only royal households but also durable and obtmsive expressions cJf the cosmic order that Maya rulers professed to deliver to their kingdms and subjects, and arenas for the expression of the high elite culture so essential to any traditim of civilization (Baines and "icrffee 1998). Breaking free of these nodes of political, ideological, ritual, and cultural gravity seems to have been very difficult, and the main concern of Maya lords detached by war or arnbition from older centers was apparently to fou11d new ones as soon as possible. In short, the most respectable and.legitimate Maya khgs were those firmly ensconced in ancient places of impressive scale located on sacred landscapes hoary with dynastic tradition. Some subreg~~al nobles were cot~rtims,and their okvn establishments were closely tied to these royal places, which to some degree tbey emulated. To the extent that courts were person-centered and revolved around specific individuals, they fluctuated in their composition, Tkc ephemeral hrrman associations constituting ancient Maya courts had to adapt, in most cases, to durabl.e physical places, confomting to existing facilities while also alterirtg them to suit their new, situatimal needs. mere is thus a very dynmic relationship between court and place, each generating the other. The second reasm for eznphasizlng places is a practical me. m e m s t obtntsive evidence left for us on the Maya landscape conslsts of i m p s sive places, and it is on these places that archaeologists have traditionally expended their t h e and energy for well over a century. Places, for better or worse, constitute one cJf our most important windows into the attitudes and activities of courtly people-

Regal-Rihal Cities, Courts, and Households Egyptian archaeologists are fond of m a r k i n g that tombs are not mere places but rather instrummts for the transformation of the souls of the dead. In a sinti,lar vein, we can imagine Pafe~~que, Copan, l;ikd, and many other grcat Maya centsal places to be instruments of royal rule and presentation. Ten years ago William Sanders and I pubtished an article (Sanders and W s t m 19t";X)in hvhicln we asserted that most st~chinpressive Maya ccrntral places were gigantic royal households focused m the persons and actions of living kings, the tombs and mmuments of their ancestors or predecessors, and the facjlities for projecting royal authority and rule. Adopting a label from the urban anthropologist Iiichard Fox (1977), we called such @awdtregal-ritual'kities. Our intent then was to

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

133

contrast Mesoamerkm regal-ritual cities with centers such as the Aztec capital, Tenochtitlan, that- corresponded more closcly to Western conceptions of cities m d to account for these differencese4This idea was h the air, and Joseph Bal) and Jennifer Taschek shortly thereafter indepwdently came to similar conclusions @ail and %S&& 1991). I return here to the subject of regal-ritual centers, but from the pesspective of the theme of this book, Maya courts. Gntral tcr the logk of our f 988 prtlsentation, though not emphasized, was the idea Chat regal-ritual cities were centers of courtly life. :Few other ~ g i o n of s the ancient world presmt us with hndscapes so packed with court facilities as that of the Classic Maya, and undet-standing how such places were used and how they hteracted, as well as what they memt, is essmtial. W have three main lines of evidence for rc.emstructing the organization, hnctions, and meanings of May" courts. The first is inscriptions, which increasingly provide us with insights about the kinds of people gathered about the king, information cclncerning their titles or offices, detailed dynastic histories, and accounts of particular royal or elite events. The second is art, which frequentIy depicts &tailed palace scenes. The third line of ewiiIence, and arguably tbr most important, is the pbysical settings of cotlrts, the actual ruins of great Maya centcai places, following the regal-ritual arigument. Because of their abmdance, accessibiliv, and excellent preservation these have, after all, been fie main concern of archaeologists for more than a century and are the sources of most of the inscriptions and art just mentioned. Ironically, however, it is this veneras the weakest. ble class cJf evidence that in many ~ s p e c tis

Conceplinrts of Mn yn Palaces When he and his colnpanions finally set up canp at Palenque in f8iFO al". ter an arduous journey, John Lloyd Stephens (1%9:243-244) noted with satisfaction that they slept in the palace of dead kings, a conclusion based on sound crass-cult.ura1 cornparism that was long ignored by many later archaeoliogists. Both this conclusion and the logic behjnd it had their roots fn the sixteenth century, when certain M v a buildings wert? caikd "pdacios" by bbolh the nathe Maya and the Spaniards, who assumed thatcertain kinds of large, impresshe buildings must have been the residences of kings (bwalski 1987:76). 'I'he palace Iabel stuck not only because early scholars like Stephens reasoned that there must have been Maya kings and elitcs, who thus rcguired elaborate residences, but also becaux a term was needed to refer to the many imposing, muttiromed structures that were obviously not te~xplesor ball courts. Such buildhgs were solidly constructed of masonry and often had vaulted ccilings and elaborately decorated facades. They were usually set on low platforms,

but as the Chases and Willlam Folm remind us (hvolume 2 of this book, forthconning 21101), palace faciXities at Caracol and C a l a k ~ s dwere aXso built on high, pyrmidal substructures that, prior to excavation, resmbfe those of temples. In some cases, as at Becan Str. W, temple and palace facilities are inextricably fused (Potter 1977), and R o Bee palaces presetnt hcades with towerlike, fake temple elements (Andrews 1975). It is by no means clear that all, or even most, of the buildings labeled palaces served as royal residences in t-he strict setnse. In, fact, so difficult was it to document rclsidential functions that some [email protected],such as Linton Satterthwaite, rejected any functional fmplications of so-cailed palaces at all, regardi,ng them simply as a del;.iu,lt class of architectrrrc oE unknown function. En his early excavations in the Acropolis palaces of Piedras Negras, Satterthkvaite (1935) discowext-d what we would now regard as an obvious palace facility-an imposing set of rooms with a manumental carved bench, or throne, in Str. J-6 that was essentially similar to many of those shown being used for ritual, political, or recreational purposes in Maya art. Satterthwaite believed, however, that the Elnglish word palrtce esst3ntially meant "house" and thercrfore implied mundane domestic functions that f i g h t be arcl~aeologicatlydetected. H e insiskd that the objective behaviaral criteria of eating and sleeping had to be dmmstrated (Satterthwaite1935:20), and eventually carne to the cmclusitrn that the Piecfras Negras Acropolis buitdings were not ~sidentiatbecause there w e no cooking facilities and inconsistent evideince for sleephg functions, Patace rooms and tkrones, he believed, were instead audience facitities used by priest-administrators. Sensible (and testable) as Satterthwaitefs insistence on domestic behavioral correlates was, it overlooks m k p o r t m t feature of royal households (discussed in greater detail further on): They were not spatiafly organfzed the same as lesser househoXds because they were not jzrsi" domestic places. So difficult has it been to document royal residences In the strict sense of the w a d that Schele and Miller fl"S61, in the first lengthy treatment of Maya courts, suggested that the actual dwellings of Maya kings were cmposed of perishable stmcturcs m d detached horn the larger monumental site cores. In this m d e l there is physical separation of the plaiblic and private places of the king and the royal family-that is, of the palace as domicile from the palace complex. 1h o w of no exampks of this kind of arrangement. I also suspect that it might be imppropriate to draw a firm distinctio~n between the public and the private spaces of the k g , at least h terms of bel-tavior. Even in historically documented societies where royal space is, strictly speakfng, very seciueted or private, mundane aspects of the king's dajly life, right dokvn to the state of his appetite or his bowel mwemmts, are closely monitored by palace courtias,

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

135

W r & stressing befow going fur&er is the small comparative scale of

m);& my& courts in terms of the number of persons permanently or situationally around the ruler (see also the introduction by Enomata and Houstm). Diminutive scale in part reflects the very limited size of the elite compment of Maya plilies fpbatoly well under 10 percent of the total populalion), as well, as th mode of government, which I: thhk was very nonbureaucratic in character. Raines and Uaffee (1998:232) estknate that Old Kingdom Egypt, which had a population of about 1-2 million people and a complex ecmomy, was ruled. by only about 500 [email protected] officials (supplemmted, of rorarse, by ksser ones). My own suspicion is that the utilitarian governmel~talbushess of Maya kirtgs was not very compIicated m d was accmplished by giving specific assignments to particularly skilIed or trusted people in their courts. These assigrlmel~tsmight or might not correlate well with the functions implied by court titles. Tn other words, kings managed thhgs on a case-by-case basis rather than according to some sort of functionally specific and specidized bureaucratic system, although specific kin& of assignments probablp sometinnes gravitated repeatedly to individuals who proved particularly capable. Crucial to these issues of Classic Maya government is the degree of political centralization. In Egyptian political, thought all oificials derived their authority by delegation from the ruler. There we= no legitimate, independent rights to govern or to possess substmtial resources that were otherwise acquired. We da not h w if such centralization chwacterized the Classic R/faya.The related m d more fundamcmtal question, as Rames f19878h) has noted .for early Japan, is Ml)nether Maya rulers had unimpeded acccss to the commoners who provided most of the goods and services bore. centralized) or M"hether they fnstead had to work through other great nobles who retained such direct access themselves (less tentralized). [email protected] have no answer to this question either. ot closely specify the manqerial character or demands of any Maya kingdom, and in any case these were probably highf.y variable horn one polity to another g v e n difkrences in politicd and demographic scaie and in idiosyncratic local organjzational feabres. Except possibly for the largest Classic polities, such as Tikal, Caracol, or Calakmul, I believe Maya polities were comparativeb nmbureaucratic and uncmtratized and +us especially amenable to a comparatively undifferentiated, houschdd-focused form of governme. Hot~seholdrule probably r e q ~ i ~ far fewer specialisd filcilities than those of larger, morc in~fd ternally complex and bureaucratized polities, and much royal busi~~ess might of necessity have been accomplished ushg the household fadtities and retaisrers of senior courtiers themselves in addition to those of the

king. I suspect this was the case at Copan in the eighth c ~ early r ninth centuries (see further on). Of course, many or most of the people we codd. rcasonlably classify as courtiers were not in any m s e officials or managers, or even necessarfty of high rank, but even so 1 think those routinely around the royal person for any reason were probably very few in, nurrrber compared to other court-centered societies,

There are several reasons it has been kstoricdly so djfficult to understand adequately the establishments of Maya kings and their families, The most fundamental reasan derives from our deductive models of Maya society Beghnhg about the 1920s there emerged the ""vacant ceremonial, center" "model of M q a settlement, accompanied.by the themratic sociopoliticalmodel. If there were no kfngs and elites, then there were no courts or palaces; at best, large masonry structures served as temporary dormitories for priests when they congregated for collective ritual events, 'This mind-set, which Sattathwaite clearly bad, was surprisingly inhibiting m d tel~acious,as another early example shows. h I-he mid-1930s the Carnegie fnstlitution archaeologist A. L. Smih excavated Group A-V at the Classic center of Uaxactun (%i_th 1950). The group was a large masonry complex that had long been desigl~atedby the default term, pahcc. Et was the dominant set of buildings at Uaxactun during the Late Classic period and clearly haci a long hir;tory of use. Smith disco~reredthat the complex had bee11 rebuilt on many occasions and that its functions had changed through t h e . What started out as a small set of shrines or temples was graduaily mlarged into a set of residentjal facgities consisting of courts surrounded on all sides by what Smith called palaces (Figurt.5,la, b). h i t h noted many lines of evidence that led him to this conclusion, such as the addition of benches ta room interiors, remains of coolcil~gfires in sheltered corners, and the ma"y simple burials of men, women, and children under room md. plaza floors. We do 11ot know if artifact distributions would have also supported his resid,en,tiai interpretation because careful col:lection and analysis of artifacts from living surfaces and middctns was not the style of the times. Smith was camfu1 to point out that despite its clbvious residential charactez; Group A-V ncver entirely lost its ritual facilities. Reading Smith" report, one senses that he teetered on the brink of the obvious conclusion: A set of sacred buffdings had been transformed into a residence, or palace, for the family of a king. This was too far a =a& for him, howeverf and his final conclusion (Smi"th1950:a) was that ""drhg its last phase A-V served at-; Iiving quarters for priests or acolytes or high offi-

FIGURE 5.2 (a) Stage 1 of Str, A-V, Uaxactun; (b) Stage 8 of Str. A-V. From Smith 1950. Drawings by Tatiana Proskuuriakoff.

cials and their families, and that religious ceremonies there were for them anci nobopen to the general public." One reason for Smith's reticence might well have been the strong views of the directm uf the Carnegie Institutian ( m d his boss), A. V. Kidder. In his introduction to the very volume in which Smith's report appeared, Kidder (J950:II) stated: Having spent same far from agreeable nights in a "palace" 1 cannot imagine any sensible ruler having chosen to live and to install his family in such damp, gloomy chambers. And they are all alike, There are no specialized apartments, no fittings for domesticity. They are the most unhomelike quarters. And, as Mr. Smith makes clear, they contain unquestionably ceremonial features such as shrines and altars and stelae. So it seems tcr me unlikely that sbuctul-es of this type served as permanent abodes, but rather that they were used as temporary retreats, perhaps for priestly brotherhoods, far the housing of novices, or sc~methingof that sad.

In other words, because long abandoned, dilapidated stone buildings did not meet Kidder" twetztieth e11tur)i standards of cmfort or spatial arrangements and. because he could, not imagine that the range of elite Maya residential hnctions might include ritual observances, the AZi group could not be any sort of permanetnt palace-residence, much less the establishment of a royal family. f i r e he conveniently igno~edthe m a y archaeologists who found that abandoned pahces pmvided cmvenient and comfortabk field. w r t e r s , and the common experience of all those of us who have gratefully retreated from the n o d q sun into the shade and coolwss of a vaulted stone building. Kidder fl%50:11) went on to flatly assert that ""nothing outside the min groups at Uaxactm, or for that matter at any other Maya city, can be tJ7wght to be a palatial residence." Because many large, impressive groups of masonry ruins did exist outside the big core sites, these wen. si.mply relegated to the category of '*minorceremonial centers." 'Tbday it seems strange to us that this perspective was maintained in the face ol numerous descriptions of Contact-period Maya elite residences, such as the followirtg one by Cort4s (1986:30-35): There are houws belonging to certain men of rank which are very cool and have many rooms, for we have seen as many as five courtyards in a single house, and the rcloms around them very well laid out, each man having a private rc3om. inside there are also weXts and water tanks and rc3oms for staves and servants of which they have many. Each of these chieftains has in front of the entrance tcr his hause a very large courtyard, and some two or three or four [of the houses] raised up very high with steps up to them and at1 very well built,

C)ne could not fail to notice the correspondence betweetz w:hat Cortci;s described and what Smith found at Uaxactun, and in fact, Smith (1962:18SIM) bimself later quoted Clwigem" oobservatim that the houses of lords, and people of circumstances, were built of stone and lime; they consisted of two floors, having halls, large courtyards, and the chambers fitly disposd; the roofs were flat and terraced; the walls were so well whitened, polished, and shining that they appeared to the Spaniards, when at a distance, to have been silver. The pavement of the floor was plaster, perfect1y level, plain, and smooth.

U~~fortmately no early Spanish accounts describe in detail the composition of a sixteenth-cetztury Maya capital, nor how a royal resjdence mi&t relatct to such a settlement. Even more interesting, and. perhaps revealing, is that no Spaniards describe a royal palace in skkenth-century

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

139

&&m-namely, one that clearly eclipsed lesser elite residences by its scale m d sple~~dor." Archaeologists not only were aware of these Cmtact-period accounts but used them as part of a etirect historical appmach for devising research and interprethg preconqzlest structures. 'Their grt>blemwith hvider application of Contact-period models, however, was the conception of a profountf organizational ar-td culturaf chasm separating the purportedly heavily "Mexjcanized" post-Classic Maya from Che unique, theocratic, Classic Maya. J.E.S. nompson's work pmvides an interesting exan-tple of the effects of this conception. At Mayapan he and other Carnegie hstitnxtion archaeologi&s did extremely sophisticated household archaeology in the early 3951)s, using descriptions such as Gort6sfs to interpret the functions of elite household remairts. mompson himself chose to excavate a particular house group (Q-208) because it conformed to the ""stone house" descriptions of elite residences in the relucior~es("l'hompson1954). H e uncovered spacious rooms and benches, impressive masonry burials, and much household and ritual, material, s o m of it buried appasently FR situ beneath the rc-.maiz~s of collapsed h e m a d mortar roofs, anci he had no hesitation in ids~tifyingQ-208 as an elite residentid group. Twenty years earlier Thompson (1939) had investigated another set oi very similar remains at the small Classic center of S m Jose?in Belize. His excavatims there rcveded a wide range of astifacts and burials hln impressive buiIdings, all of which he described and classified in great detail. Yet he provided practicaily no behavioral or functional interpretation, and certai,nly no paralLels were drawn with the Contact-period Maya, 1 read the San Jos6 report first, and while later reaiding the Mayato make the ohviaus connectionpan one I kept waiting for R ~ m p s m the San Jos4 buildings were elite reside~~ces, just like the ones he later dug at Mapapan m d those described in ethnoh.istoricaccounts. He never did. Apparently this leap of intevretation was sfmply too great because it had to cross the conceptual fault line betwee11 the Classic and postClassic periods. A secmd problem in identifying pabees derives from a confusion of terms. As Peter Harrison f1970), George Andrcws (19811), and Jeff Kokvalski (9987) nuted long agof the term palace, so essential to ollr concept of cozlrt, has been used to characterize both single stmctures as well as huge complexes of buildings. Thus at Tittal, both the hvhole Centrd Acropolis (Figure 5.2) and irtdividual sectjons within it, such as MaXer" FPaIace, are labeled palaceAndrews'?isolution was to distinguiSh between myal residmces, or don^ricilesin the strict smse, and larger "palace complexes" that included other royal facilities,h d r e w s conceived of the whole Central Acropolis as the palace complex. H e used the Vatican, which contains

FIGURE 5.2 Central Acropolis of Tikal. Mahler’s Palace is Str.65.Courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

1.92

the private residence oE the pope as well as the much larger set of court, ritual, and bureaucratic fadlities as a non-.blaya exaxnple of this kiad of spatial organization, I expand Andrews" '""alace complex" to mean the whole set of court facilities &at maintained the royal family and its closest associates, as wC)I as the larger institutim of rulership in all its poltical, ritual, and ideological dimensions, and provided the stage for royal d r m a . We might h~steadcall these great concentrations of arcl~itecture, plazas, causeways, m d monuments "mourtr cmplexes." Such complexes include Lal the structures and spaces accommodatixlg the varied actjvities of the couft throughout its history with the actual domfciles of specific ruling individuals or families composing a subset of these. At s o m centers such compIexes [email protected] consist of "nested" places, in the sense that household facilities oE subregnal elites shared strong spatial pmpinquity with hj&er- level royal ones (sec the discussion of Copan further on). Andrews" argument is m c h the same that Sanders and I later advanced, except that it is unclear to us whetber he w u t d conceive of most of the monunental settlement corcs at 7ikai or Copan as maki.ng up a palace-court complex. This is our position: Regal-ritual centers are grandiose court complexes. b r us, the court complex at Tikal is the entire set oE rnyal elit+monu~nentalfaci:lities, wbieh colteetively cover several sytlare kilometers (Figure 5.3). The Main Group at Copan, although very differently configured (Figure 5.41, is the court cornpiex of the Copan dynasty In, thc l"rka1e x q l e the court fadlities are spatially rather diffuse and are apparently interspersed, especially on their margins, with nonroyal facilities of impresshe scale. This patern, elsewhert? historicatly common (e.g*,the dispersed royal palaces and other royai facilities of London) dilutes the spatial contiguity of the court iacillties, h The Maln Group proper at Copan has much m m spatial imtegrity than the central rnyal precincts of Xkd, taken he^ to jnclude much more than the Central Acropolis. I'rt_.columbianaltqetl centers in the Basin of Mexico provide a welldocumented ethnohistaric case of this patter~z,According ta Hicks (1986:41) the royal palace (called a ""big house" in some parts of central Wxico) "'included not only the residences of the king, his wives, and kis depelzde~ztkin, but most of the state's administrative facilities as well: courts and. council channbers, armories, guest accommodations, ritual strrtcmes, gadens, possibly a market plaza and a ball court, and often TXIQ~~.'' n e s e facilities couXd be spatially dispersed m d interestingly includcd as royal household possessions the market spaces and ball courts that Mesoamericanistselsewhere tend to defhe as more publk or civic places. Around. royal compounds were built the palaces of beads of noble houses, MIhich are said by s o m sources to have been specifically cm-

FIGURE 5.3 The central 16 square kilometers of Tikal, showing the monumental core of the site. Map by Carr and Hazard-.Courtesy of the University of 13ennsyfvania Museum.

structed for courtiers by the king (Hicks 1986:41). fn the smaller alrepetl centers these regal-nohIe household facilities probably dominated the "urban" iiandseapes, Only at- Rnucfnti-tilan,and psobahly at: Texcoco, were they immersed in larger us$m settings,

ZONE)

FIGURE 5.4 The Copan Main Group. Courtesy of Davici Webster.

W ~ amainly t distinguishes Maya =gal-ritual centers from the English and Tenwhtitlan exarnpfcs mmtioned previously is that Maya royal-ate hcilities (which we might also call '"big" or ""great""houses) were not eXements of larger, true urban envirt,nments--what Fox would call ""administrative citics'Yin his comparative terminology (see also Sanders and Webstes P988 for this distinction), Maya court and elite facilities were thus particularly obtrusive on their regal-ritual landscapes. A third rclason it: has been so Micult to docment royal or elite palace functions is also apparent from the Uaxactun example. There has until recently been very little pubIished documentation of how artiEacts or features =late to architectural or annbient space, a subject to \zrhirh I will shortly return. But what &out art, since the Classic Maya left us so many depictions of elite people doing things in architecturd and, particularly, palace settings? Coe (this volume) correctly comments that Maya icmography has hitherto been underutilized in andyscls of court behavior. Tbis neglect partly derives b m l.he fact that only comparatively rclcently h m scattered images been colilected, recorded in a sophisticated manner, and published as comprehensilie cotlections, most cmspicuwsly in the Muya Vase volumes of Justin Kerr. Equally important, however, as Stephen FIoustm (1998) has recentjy pojnted out, the emphasis in these scenes is mainly on the hurnm participants and their interactions. Alttlaugh details of the settings occupied by peopfc may be depicted, such as cllrtains or benches (see Dmie Rrrents-Budet, this volum), the general spaces are shown only in the most sketchy fashim, We have had some success h identifying the rooms portrayed in the palace scenes, such as the subroyal ones at Copan identified by their elah.orate throneIilre benches (FIgurc; 5.5). ?"ypically these rooms are in large, impressive, ~raultedbuildings that dominate surroundislg structures arwnd particularly spacious patios. Unfortunately, depictions do not help us much with other kinds of spaces, and of course the schematic representations on vessels, muraiis, and lintels probably also often show idcalked rather than real-life courtly bchavior, F-inaliy, as many subsequent papers makcz clear, palace arrangements were cvidely variable in their forms and t?ppa,rent uses, depending on topography, oariginal design, vagaries oi growth over tirne, and,local tra" ditims of wtilizing space.

The regal-ritual model posits that we can regard Maya settlement systems as hierarchies of households, from the small homes of rural commoners ta the care establishments of kings (an idea that Sanders a d I

FIGURE 5.5 Carved and inscribed bench from Str. 9N-82 center, Copan. Courtesy of Penn State University PAC I1 Projed. Drawing by Barbara Fash.

trace back to Edward Kugack). We are beginning to realize that the Maya themselves expressed this household continuity metaphorically in the2 inscriptions, as we11 as their house symbolism and imagery If, as seems litkellv;elite structurrs &emselves were objectifications of mcient patterns of swial organization, the study of household facilities invokes us with indigenous conceptions of kinship, alliance, authorib; status, and wealth (e.g., Carskn and Hugh-Jones 1995). It follows that we ought to "o able to identify at each Maya center residential facilities used by rulers, elites, and their families, or palaces in the strict sense of the word. Crucial to our regal-ribal model is the idea that the administration of Maya polities was essentially an externsion of royal household admini* tration (see Calnek E191781m d Carrasco [1982:35])for a similar conclusion g the "Mexica Aztecs." This gmeralizatim relates to a configurationai-functiond pattern we noted in 1988 for regal-ritual centers: They are not strmgly differentiated from other households except by scale, and in fact it is often difficuft to easily delimit the center from outiying elernernts of settlement (Tikal provides a good example). Such a pattern seems to dilute the special natum of court facilities as places, but one could turn this logic around a d fnstead say that it emphasizes the palxe as the politically, socially, econonnicdllli, and ideologically dominant household, in a larger field of settkrnent with wl-tich it is socially and adfi~istrativelywell integrated. m e n we get a firmer grasp of Classic Maya toponyms, it will be interesting to see to what extent the center is terminologicaly differentiated frm the hinterland, It fnllows from the household adminktrative argument that many functions of myal or elite households werc more complex and differently orga" nized than those of commoners, in addition to beirrg spatially dispersed., and so excavatil7g any partidar set of buildings rnight fail to capbre the range of actilrities we mtieipate, Satterthwaite correctly identified palace rooms and thrones at Piedras Negmms audience facili.lies for dignitaries. What he could not envision was the whole Acropolis as a court complex, a rnyal household that inclzlded fiis audie~zcerooms as specid poljtjcd features; nor of course did he have a sufficiently large sample of well-excavat& axhitecture that might have suggested this mttciel. As an exarnplc from hjghland Mexico of hokv di.stinctively organised royal palaces might be, consider for a moment an Aztec palace discussed by Mary [email protected] (1991). Accordhtg to written accounts, the palace of:the ruler of the minor dty-slate of Teolihmcan in the early sixteenth cclrtury recejved the following things and benefited from the followhg services, among many others, on a daily basis: (1)10.7 bushels of maize' (2) 30 loads of firewoad"(3) the labor of 7 water carriers"($) the labor of 79 w a r n for grinding maize. At greater intervak the palace was provided with woven articles of many kinds, reed mats, ceramfc vessels, and an arnazing variety of foods. This deseriptim emphasizes the palace as pri-

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

147

rnarily a place oE cmsumption of labor, as well as utilitarim and luxury goods, an importmt element: in our regal-ritual argument. Some of the consumption is devoted to the normal maintenance of permanent palace residents; the rest supports situationay prcrsent court personnel and fuxzds courtly displays. If we excavated this Teotihuacan palace (currently u n h o w n to archaeologists), we might encclmter some u n e x p ~ t e dand sufprisfng arrangements. Clearly, for example, there might not necessarily have been storage facilities for maize proportionate to the number of palace residents, or, possibly, for water or firewood either. Ch-te might also expect to discover large rooms or spaces With numerous grinding stones bwt few darmitory facilities for the servants who used them. So too, we would not necessarily expect to find evidence for many kinds of d t production carried out in ordinary households. Some anticipated househdd arrangements would thus be lacking, and others would be deceiving, If we codd excavate this entire 'leotihuacan palace considering just basic domestic indicators, we ntight find that kvhereas it was certa,inly a household facility, it was, given its extemal subsidres of materials and labor, just as cctrtainly not simply a grandiose version of a comrnoner hausehold. If we excavated just part of it, such as the nnaize-grinding facilities, we might be terribly confused. h particular we might jump to the conclusion that the paiace household was a place of production rather than consumption. .All households, of course, are places of consumption, What sets the palace-court apart is that in the rc;rgal-rituat model it is primarily a plare of cons~~mptio~z (see also Ball 19993for m elaboration of this point wi& respect to regal-ritual centers). Lest 1be misunderstood here, this statement needs some elaboration. Froduc~onlocales are certainly present at palace or court .faci,Xities.Obviously gmmd maize was being produced in the Teot&uacan palace precincts, m d much evidence suggests that at Maya cmters paiace women wove fine cloth, arGsms made shell or stone okljectt;, leanled people made books or sculpture?, and cooks frothed cacao into elite drints. Four pohts are crucial inunderstanding such production, however. First, much of it kpenderl on both goods and labor shnply =located from peasant hatlseholds, if women jn connmoner households mize in their fields, gromd it at home into masa, and then brought the ?Ttasato the palace, we would not hesitate to say that the palace "consumed" the labor and products of these womn. Just because the locus of activiv was shificd to the Teotihuacan palace does not render the palace a "poduconer households were. ingf%ousehold in the same sense that co Second, we would probably not find evidence for kinds of ut.ilitarian production that were assodated with cornmmer households. Proba.bip no one made reed mats or utilitarian pottery in the Teotihuacan palace precincts. M y else the kequent importation of such things?

Third, even the r w materials for rich hllayil woven garments, fur books, or for chocolate drbks were produced elsewhere by the domestic economies of commoner households (or FR s o m cases possibly by dependent workers directly attached to pahces). Elite women, artisans, m scribes might have made the finished products, but. their work was a special kind of elite transformathe process based. on earlier phases of production elsewhere--one that primarily produced ""weaith" 017jects encoded with elite values, meaniings, and fmctiorns* Fourth, m d most important, most of what was in m y sense produced at the palace was conswed by palace personnel. Some archaeologists assert that objects m d e by household persorlnel and conszxtned by peope of the same household are not prodwts of specialized production (Clark and Parry 199Q297).Even when a h e piece of doth or a book was given to motlner elite person living elsewhere, it was stilr used, or "cornsutned," at the palace level. In short, it: we turn our attention to d.irection and volume of energy flow in the potitical economy instead of to whew things art. produced, the palace-court was t-he nexus of the poljticd economy in a primarily crmslmi~gsense. If we raise our household sights a bit, at thr royal establishmentsof the gseatest Aztec kjngs at Tenochtitlan and Tezxcoco we wouXd find etnmmously elaborated facilities for administration, ritual, tribute, war, recreation, and amusement that consumed the fruits of empiT(3. Many of these were spatially dispersed, as Susan Evans (t%tisvolunte) =minds us. .All these feakres would be absent or much more weakly developed in lesser households, which certainly did not maintain zoos or hunting lodges as did Che masters of the empi=. In short, allhou$h it might be useful to consider royal palaces generaw in household, terns, they exhibit unanticipated spatial and functional arrangements unrelated to domestic .functions, m c h less those devoted to politics, ritual, m d indulgence. Tl~eseexamples from highland Mexico are crucld to my own argument. They show that royal court facilities artl not simply hypertrophied hnusehold compounds, as Satterthwaite predicted hvould be the case, and that in many ways they violate our expectations Labout spatial configurations. Let us now turn to two Classic Maya centers well k n w n for their palace facilities.

The Central Acropolis at Ekal (Fipre 5.2) has long been the largest and most well known myal palace compound, cclmbining ~siejentialprivacy wiCb political-rilual centrality"In, its Late Classic manifestation it forms the southern edge of a great ceremmial plaza., spatially juxtaposing its myal inhabitants with the burial places of p ~ v i o u sd e r s and with the

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

149

temples and carved monuments dedicated to them. Major access to the palace is via stairways from the Great Plaza and the East Plaza on thc north, and more private access is by stairways on the east side. Despite the stairvvays leading to tbr great public plazas, access to the inner courts was well conkoled, and they formed suitably secluded living spaces for privileged people who lived close to "ce major public space of the regalritual city. The palace compound war; long thought to be a royal ~ s i dence, and many its courts and buildings were investigated by Peter Harrison (Harrisan 1970, 1999) behnieen 1964 and 1967, one of the first such efforts following the dernise of the theocratic mod4 of Maya society. Harrison's particular =search goal was to determine the functions of the many rooms and courtyards of the Central Acropd4s. . . . Of the foryone Late Classic stmctures in his sample, Harrison tmtatively concluded that seventeen were permane~~t or te~sporaryresidences, actual domiciles where people slept or carried on other routine domestic activities. By t c m p o r q residences he meant facifities for special subgroups, such as young men's houses. Four wcre "oratories" or ritual buildings, thirteen had. storage functions, me was a kitchen, and.six had hdeterminate functions. UnfrrrbnateXy his conclusions were limited by the fact that the l;ikai project partitioned analyses in such a manner that- other data sets horn the Central Acropolis excavatims, such as artifacts and burials, could not be presented as part of a single integrated effort at explainhg the use of space. Gearge Andrews (1980:13) thinks that there were proba:bly far more different Punctions than Harrison's general categories imply, on analogy with those fom~din historically documented palaces elsewhere. Harriso~~ himself, to be fair, recognized the pmvisimlal nature of h-is identifications and was well aware that particular rooms might have had multiple functions..m e problent is the hewent constmction by the Maya of ~petitive, modular spaces, most of which had no functimaily revealing, durable, built-fn katures. Such spaces are evident both in the fnteriors and along the facades of the Central Acropolis. Another prolsllem was the flexible use of similar space%both contemporaneously and through time. For example, Harrison thinks that most vaulted rooms had perishable ceitirtg structures that allowed overhead storage of many items. Most serious was the gradual abandonment of the Central AcropolJis, which apparl the perishable furniture and loose paraently ~sulteclin the ~ m o v aof phernalia that Andrews rclgards as the best indicators of function. Even the currently unpublished artifacts from the Central Acropolis might not help us very much because many of them probably reiatr to reuse of buitcfings after the royal cotlapse, Une pattern is clear, buwever. Mrhereas in good Maya fashion the inhabitants oE the A-V palace at Uaxactull buried their dead in tbeir living

spaces, this was not the case in the Central Arropotis, where only a k w comparatively modest burials were recovered. The Central Acropolis was rebuilt and modified w e r five centuries, resdting in more densely packed room arrangemmts, shifthg functions, and more restricted access. Epigraphic andyses suggest a pattern of sequential. residences, according to Schele and Mathews (1998). S m e archaeologists believe (on the "oasis of a single cached vessel) that the earliest preservd building (5D46) was built bp a great Early Classic king in the fourth century A.D. [email protected] this building was never destroyed or buried by hter cmstmction (although it was moeiified), perhaps functionirzg as a tineage shrine ta a great mcestor-hg. Accordi-ng to Schele and Matlnews, a later ruler built a palace on the nurth side of Court Three about A.n. 700, and his grandson =sided in still another imposing building, sometimes called Maler" Palace, built: in the last h& of the eight-h century, These reconstructions, if correct, exhibit the residence-withinpalace-complex situation envisioned by Andrews- In the Central k r o p o lis some buildings appear not only to have been built by particular rulers but also to have been personally asswiakcl with them during their lives, and long A r w a r d as well. Central rooms in such builcfings are probably the settixlgs oi throne scenes shown m vessels, An interestirng feature of the Centrai Acropolis is the set of modular r o o m that faces out from the facade of the complex on the northwest and that could easily bave been viewed from the adjacent plaza. Such rooms are. even more. prominent at palaces such as Palenque and Sayil, where they compose much of the perimeters of the colnplexes, Thcir iunctims are unknown, but during discussions at the November 1998 conference an Maya courts at Vale, we s p ~ u l a t e dthat @en the Classic Maya penchant .for display, these m y have contained tribute itetns, objects of ritual paraphernalia, or other possessions that signaled the wealth, sophistication, and special functions of the palace to the wider community An in sitzl Late Classic midden with abundant food preparation =fuse, as well as six fire hearths, was associated with Str. 5D-131, a detached pole-and-thdch b d d i n g located on a terrace near the southeast corner of the Central Acropolis, where water was easily available. This building, although attached to the Centrd Acropolis, is certahly a p"xtipheraf kature, and other kitchens and outlying facilities w o d d probably be revealed by more excavations, Here is evidence for one of Satterthwaite's domestif criteria, but spatially distocated f m the dcrmicites proper. Perhaps, as in the Teotihuacan example discussed previnusly, the people who wmked in this kitchen facility did not live in the Central Acropolis but rather in outlying, moeiest residences.

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

151

Reveal%@ new excavations at Piedras Negras led by Stephen Houston and Hc";clorEscobedo szlggest a similar pattern (Escobedo and Flout+ ton, 1997; Houston et al. 1998a, 1998b).The Acropolis palaces partly excavated by Satterthwaite occupy the sumrrtit of a high hill, heavily alkred by Maya builders. Not only m functimai djMwnces begismi,ng to appear in the summit groups but ixr Late Classic times there were clearly detached ancillary facilities, such as royal sweat baths and probably food prepmation arclas or service barri~ts,arou~ldthe lower peripheries of tht. Acropolis.

Although tbr Main Croup at Copan @gum 5.4) is one of h e most well researched of gxat Maya regal-ritual cit.ies, unlil very recerltly thcre was no part of it that could be unambiguously identified as a royal domicile. m e n Sanders m d 1wrote our 1988 paper, we c0ul.d only speculate h a t the East Court was a private residential space and that other Late Classic palaces might be located in unexcavated parts of the complex. Subsequmt reearch beginning in 1990 by E. W y l p Andrews V and his colleagues fmrn Tulane University havc rcveded that after about A.D. QOO the actual domicjle facilities of the Copan rulers were located in Group 30L-2 (Figure [email protected], an imposing compound attached to the south end of the Acropotis (Andrews and Fash 1,992) .Although Grollp 10%-2 had been tested by archeologists lmg before 3990, it was not r s o p i z e d as a royal housttlhold locale until 1994, after lqe-scale stripping and, recovery of artifacts frrnm good contexts, as well as associated art and ixrscriptions, clearly revealed it to be a royal residence. At Capan we most clearly see the contrast between the palace as residence and the larger palace complex, allhough the separation is not spa" tially pronounced. I suspect that an kings made no strong conceptual distinction between their restricted residence and the larger Main Group cmplex and simply regarded the Main Gmup proyes as a huge extension of their housebold facilities. h interesting issue is where kings lived before A.D. 680. As Z,oa Traxler remhds us (in volume 2, forthcorning), earlier buried palace facilities dating back to the time of Copan's founeier lie deep beneath the Aeropdis or other parts of the Rcrain Group. Wkat is clear at Copan is that at m e or more times in the growth of the MaFR Gmup, rulers shifted the royal dmicile to new ground rather than simpty enlaqing it and a c c o m m o d a t it to other renovated buitdings or plazas, as was done at- T'Pfkal. Such movements had the effect of physically sepasating facilitjes origindly irt close pmxirnily. For example, Copan's ma& batl court was initially near vvhat Trader befieves to be the

FIGUM 5.6 Group IOL-2, Copm; royal compc~randattached to sc~rathernedge of Acropc~lis.C o u ~ e s yof E. Wyltys Andrews V.

residmes, shri,nes, m d tombs of the earlkst Copan rulers and other notables. For al.l practical purposes it was a part of t h i r househullds, both spatially and no doubt functionaily Group 1OL-2, by contrast, is far from the ball court, but I expect that the ball court: was stitl probably regarded emically as an irtdispensable facili-ty of the royal household, cliosely identified with the living king, his hmilly and his illustritrus prtrdecessors.

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

In a sirnilar vein, Eaxler tbinks fiat the dynastic founder was buried right: near his own house. Vax Pasah, the last king,jnskad built a tomb for himself high up on the Acropolis, much farther from his domicite. M a t we perceive as a spatial dislocatirm of mortzlary and household facili~es was probably not relevmt to Yax Pas*, for whom the whale Main Group was the palace-court complex. Hicks (1%6:50-51) notes that simjZar displacement of myal facilitic3s could take place in Aztec cmters over time. One effect of the shifti,ng of royal rcside17ces at Copm is that: much of the ""noise" of many centuries of growth is thus eliminated at Group 30L-2. Forthcoming puhlicatims by h d r e w s and his cdleagues will mdottbtedfy show in great- detait hokv space was utilized by the royal family and its retainers. Several other considerations flow from tl-te Copan researtlh. One of the most interesthg .crhhgs about Group 1QL-2 is that it is not sig~nificantly different in scale and elaboration from subregnal palaces in the surmuntfing urban core, such as Group 9N-K (Figure 5.7) extensively excavated by Perm State projects from 1980 to 19884 (Webster 1989).In fact, before its inscriptions and art were available, one could plausibly have i n t e ~ r e t e dGroup 10C-2 as simply one mom ~sidentialestablishment of a subregnal noble family, distinctive only because of its direct attachment to the Main Group. On the basis of what we have since learned, we might be tempted to cmclude that in the late eit;hth century the royal residence, as excmplificd by Group 10f,-2 done, did not significantly overshadow those of lesser nobles, But this ignores the point made a monnent ago: ff we include the whole Main Group as part of the royal housdold conmption, lcings immeasurilb:lyoutranked other Copan nobles in the scale and splendor of their establishments. A related lesson, if the household model is followed, is that we have been confused bp Che historiclal developme~nt: of seMkment archaeology. Archaeologists excavated the most atypi.cal (because of their dominant settlement rmk, specialized facilities, and art and iconografnhy) households first-lhe rnyal ones-and inndequately tested thern at that. Had we started with more modest household remains and acquired a firm. grasp of their features and variation, tke royal examples ~vouldprobably be more comprehensible. h d here the hmdreds of buildings and rooms of subroyal eiite architecture exposed in the urban core of Cogm (Figurt. 5.8) are particularly revealing (Hohmann 3995; Webster 1989,; Webster et d.1998- These bridge the gap betwee~nthe humtote but: compact c m pounds of commoners and the hypertmpt-iicd and spatiaIly dislocated court complexes of kings. I would argue, in fact, that the clearest pictrxre we possess of Maya palaces comes from these residential precincts of Maya nobles (Figure 5.9). We know that they contained roams with elaborate thrones like

FIGURE 5.7 Elite residential Group 9N-8 in the Copan urban core. Courtesy of David Webste~

those depicted in paitlted images and sculpbre and sometimes had irnprcssive carved altars in their main plazas. Some individual buildings were of extremely high quality#embellished with facade sculpture, and reqltired thousands of person days to construct (Abrams 1994). Patio groups included shrines, young men" houses, indoor and outdoor kitchens, and craft production facilities w b s t e r 1989; Sanders 398ti-3930). If interior benches were predominantly used for sieepiw and

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

155

FIGURE 5.8 The Copan u h a n core, showing Groups 8N-11,9N-8, and other elite residential compounds. Courtesy of David Webster,

sitting, then there was plenty of dmicile spare in the strict sense of the word. Domestic trash is commm, as are burids of people of alT ages and sexes. Abhough it is true Ihat much relnains unknokvn about these cornp o d s , t h q are clearly palatial, residences and, on some levels, mjnicourts in their own right (and as such foci of potential political rivalry). Fortunately for us, their occupants appear not ta have had the resources or inclhation to disperse their palace facilities, as is often the case with royal palaces. T h i s observation bci~ngsn?e to four fi~nalpoints about Copan. The first involves political, structure as it relates to architecture. At C ~ a there n arc indications that .rulers s h w d power with other extremely high-ranking

FIGURE 5.9 Isometric draw-ing of h - osets of buildings in the elite Group 8N44, Copan urban core, with rcmfs omitted to show p~~sition of skyband bench, Courtesy of Davici Webster. Computer draw-ing by Parnela Ryan-.

people. Stnart (1992), fnr example, notes the presence of the e n i p a t i c Persmage A, who not only was "'seated" at the s m e time that the sixteenth ruier, liax Pasah, ascended the throne but even sported the k2zrl nhnw title normally reserved for kings. We do not know exactly what to make oE Personage A. &e pomibility, as Stuart points out, is that tbis persnnage was a deity rather lhan a real person. If he kvas a real person, h w ever, whether heir apparent or coruler, in alt likelihood Personage A and his fmily lived in extremely exalted househdd facili.ties rivaling in some respects those of Vax P a d hirnself, m e possjble locale for Pasonage Ks household is Group 8N-11, which althvugh dlstant from the Main Group has not only facade sculyture of myal quatity but a skyband bench exuding symbols normally associated with rulers (Webster et al. 1998). Rene Viel (1999)has recently argued that there was an ancient, well-established, and to sorne degree regularized pattern of shifting access to Copan d e r s h i p among several exalted lineages or political factions. If Mel's hhypothesis is correct, it might accomt for something that has long puzzled me about eigh&-century Copan" ssettlement hierarchy-why a

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

157

feMI nonroyai dite households, such as W-14 or 9N-8, are so impressive, To my bowledge this pattern is u~~counmon or nonexistent at other majos centers. If we ollow up on Viel" line of thought, these great complexes plausibly housed not suhroyal nlbfes but rather situationally outof-power royal seg~n,entspossessing t k i r own past association with the thrune and pretentions oi occupyjlrg it in the future. At some Maya centers there may be, ir-1 other words, morc. tban one set of cmtempormecrus household facilities that appears to be royal from our perspective, The second point is an evolutionary one, Zb the extent that houses were symbolically or even literally one means by which nmegalitarian sncial organizatim was constituted, expressed, and socially reproduced, there must have been an importmt shlft at Copan sometirne in the late seventh m early eighth cmtury. Although we can dekct impressive residences outside the Majn Group before this time, around or shortly a h r A.D. 650 some of them began to inciude @er subplatforms and wellbuilt masonry superstructures, often vaulted m enhanced with sculpturlt. M a t 1 wish to e~nphasizehere is not so much their accoutre~nentsbut rather the permmency of t h s e constructions, which tended to both differmtiate them f r w the largety perishable structures of the common .farmers who h m e d the bulk of the popu,lation and make them much more like the r q a l structures at the Main Group.' If such permanency was formerly a royal household prerogative, it was eventually appropriated by others. Third, because we think of courts as involving close spatial propinquity of fesser pea+ to the ruler, we usualZy take for granted that the physjcal spaces that contain cotlrt activities are?royal ones. At Copan, onc may FRstead envision the whole usban core, with its thousands of people and nurnerous impressive ~sidentialgroups, as a huge court conurbation, no part of which is more than about 850 meters from the Main Group. But if we adopt this point of viCw, then Copan's court facilities were organized on several sociopoliticat levels and by multiple elite agmts or groups, many of whont werc not under direct royal. contrcrl and were capable of pursuing their own ends. As in the Tenochtitlan described by Cork45 f1986), many of the powaful cowtiers in daily attendance on Copan's k i l ~ kvent s home at night to sleep in their own palatial houses, from which some aspects of governance emanated. Following Michael Mann's (1986:l-18) general perspective on power networks, there were thus multipk, overlapping networks of pokver relationships and courtly places. As in many other complex societies, ammg the Classic Maya, royal palace features, courtly activities, and courtly conventions wcre emulated or even co-opted by lesser people, Several Copan researchers, myself included, have argued that the rapiQrowth of multiple, masonry

elite residences in the Copan ufttan core during the eighth c m k r y in part signals competitive processes m d the increasing weahess of the central dynasty (Fash et al. 1992;Wbster 1999;Webster, Freter, and Gmlin 200Q). Some suhregnal people or out-of-power myal segments were able to emulate closely royal cctnstruction and sculptural programs in their own cmpounds, and Capan" rulers seem to have been unable or unwilling to impose sumptuary mstrictions on these nobles, as Mexica kings eventually did for theirs at the time of Matecuhzoma 1 ( h r h 2994:209). Copan, then,seems to have been weakly centralized in political terms at the enci of the eighth century A.D. 70rc;liter;lte a point made eadier, the last kings probably had only impeded access to commoners and had to negotiate what access they did have with powerful nobles. It remains to be determined if this k i ~ of: ~ dstructure was inherent in the organization of the polity fmm the beginnings of the dynasty or whether it was a byproduct of: later demographic growth, resource limitation, competition, and expansion of the pofiticd elites. Fkally, however, as the Maya carried out their activities on Copan's politically and. ritually charged court landscape' one thing is certain: There was an immmse puli exerkd by the htcation cJf the royal court. I, along with many other colleagues, have noted the u n u s ~ ~concentration al of both elite residences and population in the Copan urban core, a djstribution that cannot be explair-red alone by the undoubted richness of:the local agricdtural environment, and that concentration scents at odds with any proprietofial or managerial articulation with the wider regional landscape. More clearly than at any other Maya center I know, the evolution of the royal Copan court generated influe~~ces that heavily determined the focatim of elite elements of the larger settlement system-another similarity with Central Mexicm centers, This cmcentration of elite places at Copan also relninds us how intim a t e the lives of people in the &an core were bound up with that of the king. From the tag of the Acropolis the ruler could literally hear and see what hir; nobles we= doing, and these in turn could monitor myd behavior. Given such prczpinquit)l, plus the staging of royal rituals in great plazas, Copan kings were certainly not highly rczclusive. 'The royal presence was frequentiy overt, rather than hidden, &hough certainty facilities existed for the episodic seclusion of th h g so necessary to political mystique. Future Research

"Buildings, although they may endure longer than the flesh, are made to serve the needs of a particular time and plare" "owalski 3.987:75). Students d urban spatial layouts distinguil;h between the blueprint princi-

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

159

ple', which emphasizes &sign, and the process principle, which emphasizes contingency and adaptation (Bourne 1"382). 'The great cellters of Tikal and Capan arc evolved pdace complexes in the sense that they are products of the contingent decisions of m a y generations of buitders acting on the dictates of their particurn dite patrons. As Andrekvs (1980:il) has pointed out, such aggrcgations are not the msult oi a y sort of master plm involving p~cfeterminedfinal forms, and, in fact, a theme of the 1998 Yale co~zferencewas the extraordinary variety displayed not only by individual buildings that presumably had the same purposes but also by the larger layouts of court centers. Each gewration of Classic Maya buitders might have rcgasded its additims as final, but Onfy il they were extremely unreflective about their own architectural traditions, W ~ awe t are left with is sjmply what existed when the builders finally stopped, rather lhan the origind form,. All this construction makes it difficult to infer intention from the arrangements of royal facirities because the final aggregatims were never in any meaningful sense desiped, although we can, of cotrrse, draov blueprint- design inferences from partieuIar buildings or spaces. One fmithl line of =search would be to investigate elite ~sidencesor palace cmplexes that retain the stamp of original intelztion as much as possjhle. ?i, do tfiis, however, W have to turn away from the most celebrated Classic: court centms and shift our attention to those with unique characteristics. Some very large celzters have monumental site cores of very short dumtionI such as La Milpa, in Belize, wherc the southern sectos of the site appears to be dominated by elite residential architechz~built between A.D. 750 and 850, then abmdoned very abruptly (Hmnond et a t 1998).La MiZpa palaces might themfore be particularly informative. An even better, aibeit smailer, example is Chacchob (Figure fi.lO), a Puuc center that I ksted and mapped many years ago (Webster: 1979)* Chacchob, :l am certain, was established abruptly by some smatl elite i?naya faction, then just as abruptly abandoned. 1 doubt that: Chacchcrb's buifdings were used for more than a shgle generation. Excavations there would pl.obabiy reveal a bare-bones, single-phase set of facifities, hopefuily with artifacts in situ, that werL. ail essentdly cmtemporaneous, a sort ol starter-kit vcrsion of a fledgling Maya court. Another .Feature ol Chacchob is its defensive wall, that so conveniently delineates the court precincts for us. As I argued long ago (Webster 3980), where such emic demarcations can be detected they are extremely revealhg about what royal or elite Maya themselves felt it was important to protect or to circumscribe with social barriers (see also =gle and Key vd. 2, forthcomfng). Takesfii Xnomata's (Inomta 1995,1997; Inomata m d Stiver 1,998)ongoing excavations at Aguateca provide a similar opportuni.ty. The wallcd Late Classic settlement was founded as a secondary capital of the Dos Pi-

meters

FIGURE 5.10 Flan of Chacchub, Yucatan, Mexico. Courtesy of Davicl Webster:

las polit_v and quickly assurned the charactttr of a fortified refuge on a landscape dominated by war. lnnrnata has already excavat.cd minor palace-like stmctures of elite scribes or courtiers. Interestingly, these are mainly distinguishable on the basis of tbeir floor assemblages rather than their architectural design or scale#probably because elite people did not have the time or labor to make thei.r establishments appropriate to their status. H e has atm turned his attention to what appeilrs to be a royal palace. Mere we have a good ekancc of finding designed court fadlilies where original forms and intentions are unusually clear. Piedras Ncgras, which also seems to have been precipitously abandoned in the face cJf a

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

161

military cdrontatiofi, might well yield royal palace facilities with flom assemblages in situ. Such deposits were apparently uncovered by the Universiv of Pennsylvania operations in the 1930s, but detailed information ccmcernhg them was unreported or has been lost (Houston et al. 1998a:47). .A third. alternative is to shift our attention away from the central and southern parts of the Maya Lodands and towarc3 the palace complexes of the narth. In those regio~~s comparatively short-lived palace complexes in good states of preservation abound, although only a few have been intensively ertcavated. An example is the =cent work at Xkipche (Reindel 1997). The comparative neglect: of these accessible northern court places, and indeed whole sites and polities, in part derives from the fact that they are generally not associated with inscriptions.

ong emic notio~~s of urbmization, noted Joyce Marcus (1983)' c o ~ ~ m e n t h that for Mesoarnericans t:he most important center was essentially the potitical and r i t d capitd. Howevc?r well or place where the king wa-a badly this paspective might appiy to enormotrs cities such as Tenochtitlan or Eot&uarm, I believe it certainly captures the Classic Mapa conception of great centem. If the center was the king's place (and I would go hrther than this and say the king's hhause), then Maya polities were court-cantric societies. Symbolically, as Stepl.ten Houstm m d David Stuart (1996) have sugge&t"d,rulers and their central places seem tc:,have epitomized order, with conce~ntriccircles of less ordered space radjating out until they eventudly met th wild, undmesticated, moralb ambiguous forest (although s of the by Late Classic times these peripheries in many ~ g i o n consiskd polities of other killgs and prnbably pr~iozlsLittle fomst). :Nor was there nnecessar.ily only one royal place, Whercr a single dynasv controlled multiple centers, as in the E'etexbatun region, kings probably had more than one palace complex. Subordi,nate centers, ruled by sajuls or other notables, were of course no fonger literally places where the h g was but rather places where the king might be; in any case they we= the courtly centers of his politicd proxies or delegates..And Joc RalI and Jennifer Taschek argue in volurne 2 of this book (forthcoming 2001), mliers in Belize might have established mltiple rczsidences for reasons that w a e as much sell-indulgent as political or symbolic. In cmclusim, bow Maya courts funcSioned in spatial terms remains poorly understood even if the larger issues xgarding pdaces and palace cmplexes t?s general dasses of architecture are muclh more clem Better understanding is partly a resuXt of bctter models of Maya sodety. Still, we need to li(l a lot m m careful settlement archaeology in and

Platform Complex F. N8127/E4948

FIGUM 5.14 Plan of palace at Sayil, Uucatan, Mexico. Drawing courtesy of George Andrews,

around site cores, bearing in mind the distinctive spatial partitioning of ancient royal households, before details become clear, The new research at Piedras Negras, Mthere patace-focused excavations were done long ago without much res~~lt, will be an interesting test of haw far our current insights and methods gleaned horn the lmg tradition of Maya archaeolow can take us. &m so, if h d r e w s is correct that most architectural arrmgements themselves are fnnctionally ambig~xous,we are likely to be frustrated.. What we really need is a stroke of luck, such as the discovery of a palace comglex that- like the much more modest hauseholds remains excavated by Payson Sheets (1992) at Ceren, EX Salvador-was destryed suddenly, leaving us with Pompeii-like prcservation. Just maybe e u a t e c a , or as-yet-unexcavaEc.d parts of Piedras Negras, will provide abundant: contexts of this kind. Still, the behavioral networks of courtly people map only imperfectly onto their durable facilities. No matter h w good the archaeologicat record mfght

Sf7aiFi171 Dz'menshns ([email protected] L$e

163

be, it will never unmbiguously tell us r n of the ~ things we want to know &out C:assic Maya courtly life. AZthougfn we have m d e a lot of progress in understanding royal and elite facilities, we should not congratulate ourselves on being much slnartrer thm our predecesscrrs. 'The risk we now face is that of overcmfidmce and overgeneralization-that is, glibly labeling m y hrge, centsal art?hitechtralcomplex as a palace or palace cmplex, As a final cautionary note, consider the so-called palace at Sayil (Figwe 5.U). It is centrdy Located, imposing in scale and qualiw, wet1 preserved, md. it has compasa" tively little time depth. Its highly symmetrical, clearly plarnned layout to a high degree reflects the orighal htentions of its builders. But as a royal residential.facility, it makes no sense to me. Unli,ke the Central Acrtlpolis, it is not organized for privacy. Its highly repetitive, gailery-liko spaces suggest a very restricted set of functions and are strange:ly oriented, facing the outside world along the perlmtcr of the structure, What the heck is it3 Dan~edif I h o w !

Notes 2 . Royal Courts of the Classic Maya: An Anthropological Perspective, organized by Stephen Houston and Takeshi Tnomata. Meetings of the American Anthrc~palagicalAssociation, 4996, San Francisca. 2. Note that this definition does not apply only to the entourages of rulers of states. I beliel~eone of the most fruitful dimensiom of the caurt concept is that it can equally apply to lesser notables in. such societies and also to the retinues and hauseholds of chiefs in sacieties ordered by rank. This is an impc~rtantc m sideration for studying the Classic Maya, both because the concept of court is germane to the emergence of the earliest pre-Classic phases of Maya political centralization and because the degree to which mature, Classic Maya polities confc3crrmed to our notic~nsof the state is unclear. 3, Here I mean central place in the simplest sens+a place central to the political, economic, social, and ideological workings of a polity-not central place as it I-tasbeen cmceived by geographers such as Cristaller. 4. Even in the Basin of Mexico, the most conventionally urbanized region of Mesoamerica, many city-state centers apart fram Tenochtitlan and Texcoco seem to have been dominated by court facilities (Hicks 1986). 5. Tones (1998) has recently summarized what we know about- Nr~jpeten,the capital of the Itza polity conquered by the Spanish in 1697. Che can read his account to indicate that this spatially small but populous "tcown" "of perhaps 5,808 people was primarlily a regal-ritual place dominated by the houses of rulers, lords, and offi'fidals, as well as by impo~singtemples. Royal palaces of No~jpeten were visited by several Spaniards, including Cortks; none remark on their particular scale or splendor, but they were apparently associated with monuments and assembly halls.

6. For a particularly well documented example of this dispersed pattern, see Berry" ((1982:183--205) excellent discussion of late-sixteenth-century Koyuto, at that time the dominant court center in Japan and the only city with a population in excess of 10,000 people'7. Although I have no space to pursue it herezI think, as other symposium participants suggest elsewhel-e, that the ccjncept of elite ""house" organization as propounded by L4vi-Strauss probably has relevance for Copan (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995).

References Abrams, EIliot. 1994. How the Mkyn Bzrz'lfThrnrWorld. Austin: University of Texas Press. Andrews, E. Wyllys, and Fash, Barbara. 1992. ""Continuityand Change in a Royal Maya Residential Complex at Copriin," Ancierlf Mesonmcrica 34,pp. 63-87, Andrews, Ceorge. 1975. Maya Cities: PEacenznki~gand Urbaniz~timz,Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. . 1980, ""Place Complexes and the Maya Elite: 13aXt3-nyueand Tikal." Paper presented at the Fourth Mesa Redonde de Palenque, Chiapas, Mexico. Baines, John, and Uoffee, Norman. 1998, ""Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in An.cient Egypt and Mesopc~tarnia."h friary Fernman and Joyce Marcus, eeds., Arcfmic States. Santa Fe: School of American Research, pp. 199-260. Ba If, Joseph. 1993. "Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioeconomjc and Political Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Idustries". In Jel-emy Sabloff and John Henderson, ects,, LowEa~zdMaya Civilization in the Eigtfth Centluy A.D. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oak+ pp. 243-272, Ball, Joseph, and Taschek, Jennifer. 1991. ""tte Classic Lowland May a Political Organization and Central Place Analysis: New Insights frc~mthe Upper Belize VaXley." A~ncientMesoamen'ca 2:149-165. Barnes, Gins L. 198'7. ""Tw Role of the Be in the Formation of the hrnato State." In Elizabeth Brumfiel and Timothy Earte, eds., Specli-klliatiun, Exchatzgc, and Corrzplex Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 86-101 Berry, Mary E. 1982. kiideyoshi, Cambridge: Haward University Press, Bourne, Larry S. 1982. Xnternal Structul"t7 of tlte City. London: Oxford University Press. Calnek, Edwal-8 E. 1978. "The City-State in the Basin of Mexico: Late Prehispanic I""eric>d,"h Richad P. khaeedel, Jorge E. Hardc>~v, and Norma S. Kinser, eds., Urbafil'zation irz fhe A nzericasfrom Its Begirznings fo flze Present. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 463--3[78. Carrascco, Pedrc~.1982, "The Political Ecconomy of the Aztec and Inca States." In George Collier, Renato Resaldo, and John Wirt.h, eds., 7"ke Aztec and Incu S tntes: 2400-1800. New York: Academic Press, pp. 23-39. Carsten, Janet, and f-lugh-Jones, Stephen. 1995, "htroduction." In Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jonesf eds., Abozit ttie House. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-46.

Sf?atialDimensions ([email protected] L$e

165

Clark, John E,, and William J. Parry. 195%. ""Craft Specialization and Cultural ComplexiCry;" Reseaxlz i z Ecmo~rticAn tlzropolocq12: 289-346. CortGs, Hernan. (Anthony Pagdon, ed.). 1986. Lrtt~tsfrom Mexim. New Haven: Yale University Press. Norman: Universiv of Duran, Diego. (1994). Tlw Histoy of the Indies #New Sf~ai~?. Oktah~maPress. Exabedo, Hector, and Houston, Stephen, eds. 1997. Proyecto Arqueofqico Piedr~s Mcgms: I~ZformePrelirnitzar MO, 1, Primera Te'cmporadn,Guatemala City: lnstituto de Antrvofogia e Historia de Guatemala, Fash, Bahara, Fa&, Williarn, Lane, Sheree, taric~ti,Kudy, Schele, Linda, Stc-tmpel; Jefkey, and Stuart, Bavid. 1992, ""Xnvestigations of a Classic M a p "Councif House at CopBn, Honduras." "rnnl ofField Arfltneology 19:4, pp. 419-442, Fox, Richard. 1977, Urbafi An trltropology. EngXewaod Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Geertz, Clifford-.1977. ""Centers, Kings, and Charisma: Reflections on the Symbolics af Power.""n Joseph Ben David and Terry ha'. Clarke, eds., Cuhrre and Ifs Creators.: Essays in Honor r?J: Edzuard Shils. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 50-171. f-lammond, Norman, Tartellat, Gair, Donaghey, Sara, and Clarke, Amanda. 1998. ""NoSlow Dusk: Maya Urban Development and Decline at La Milpa, Belize." Antiqar'ty 72:27&,pp- 831-837. Harrisc)n, Peter. 1970. The Cenlrtzl Acropolis, Tikal, Gz~atetnala:A Prekimizznry Study of trlte Funetiotzs of Its Central Components Dun'~zgthe Late Clnssic Perid. Ph.D, Dissertation, Dept. of Anthropolc>gy;Philadelphia: Universiq of Pennsylvania. 1999. The Lords c?fTikaI.London: Thamm and Hudson. Hicks, Frederic. 1986. '"rehispanic Backgrc>mnd of Colonial PoEitical and Economic Organization in Central Mexico". In Rortald Spc~res,ed., Et!~nohistarp: Suppletrzent fo trlte Ha~dbookofMiddle Atnerican Irtdians, vol. 4. Austin: University af Texas Press, pp. 35-54. f-lodge, Mary. 1991. ""Land and Lordship: The 130fiticsof Aztec Provincial Administration in the Valley of Mexico." h In. R. Harvey., ed., Land and Politics in the K-zlls7yofMexim. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 113-139. Hohmann, Hasso. 1995, Die A r c h i f e k f &r ~ ~ SepuJt~ras-Regio~ z?on Copdn in Hondirras. Craz: Academic. Houston, Stephen. 1998. "Classic Maya Depictions of the Built: Environment." In Stephen Houston, ed., Ckassic Nlaya Architecture: Form, Fur2clz'orz, and M(vn~2i~zg. VVashingtcm, BC: Dumbarton Oaks, ppp.519-538. Houston, Stephen#and Stuart, DaviQ. 1996, ""Of Gads, Glyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic Maya." Antiquity 70, pp. 289-312. Houston, Stephen, Esct~bedo,Hkctor, Child, Mark, Golden, Charles, Mufioz, lX;len4, and UrquizG, M6&ca. 1998a. Manumentaf Architecture at Piedras Negras, Guatemala: Time, History and Meaning. Mayab 11, pp. 40-56. Houston, Stephen, Escobedo, Hector, Porsyth, Donald, Hardin, Perryt Webster, David, and Wright, tori. 1998b. ""On the River of Ruins: ExpXctrations at Piedras Negras, Guatemala, 1997." Mexicorz 2Q:15,pp. 16-25!. Inomata, Takeshi, 1995. ArcI'wa~olqialIzzz~estigatz'~ns at the IfL'ortFedCenter of Agunteea, El I"ct.cn, Guafemnala: Implicatiotzs for fk Stzldy of the Classic m y a Collapse. Ph.D. Bisxrtation, Dept. of AnthopoXag. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.

. 1997. "The Last Day of a Fortified Classic Maya Center." Ancient Meso~mericn8:2, pp. 337-351. Inomata, Takeshi, and Stiver, Laura. 1998. ""Floor Assemblages from Burned Structures at Aguateca, Guatemala: A Study of Classic Maya H ~ ~ s e h ~ l d s . " Journal of FBId Arclzaeology 25: 4, pp. 4314 5 2 . jc~nes,Grant D, 4998. The G01-tquestc$ tlie h s l Maya Kitzgdom, Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. Kiddel; Alfred V; 1950, ""ltr~ductic~n."In A. Ledyard Smith, bxact?krt, Guafe~r~nta: Excnztntions of 1932-37. VVashington, BC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, pp. 1-12. Kavcralski, Jeffrey. 1987. Tke House of trlte Goz~emor,Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. CamLanda, Biega de (Alfred Tozzer, ed.), 1941. Relacion de Ins Cmas de "Vuc~fan. bridge: Papers of tl-ie Peabody Muwurn of Archaeology and Ethnology vol. 18, Haward University. Mann, Michaef. 1986. Tile Sources of Social Pozuer. New Ycfrk: Cambridge University Press. Marcua Joyce. 1988, "Chthe Nature of the Mesoamerican City'" In Evon Vogt and Ricl~ardLeventhal, eds., Pre/risl(oricSet tlemert f Pat Z-er~ts.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 195-242. Potter, Ravid. 19177. Mnya Ar&iteeture r;?f the Central Vtlmtan Pelzinswla, Mexico, New OrXeans: Middle American Resarch Institute, pub. 44, Reindel, Markus. 1997. Xkipche: Sc~nderdmckaus fleitrgge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Arch3r>lc>giet Band 47. Maim: 'Werlag Phillip von Zabern. Rowse, Alfred 1,.1970. The England of Eliz~beti~ Mew York: Collier. Sanders, W. l'.,ed. lli386-4990. Excfiuacrbptes :suet drea zkrbarzn de Copdtz, vols. 1-3. Tegucigalpa: Swretaria del Estado en e1 Despacho de Cultural y Turismo. Sanders, William l'.,and Websteq David. 1988. "The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition." 'Arnerz'mn An trltropologist 9Q:3,pp. 521-546, Sansom, George, 1958. A Hista~yo f J ~ p ~ iio 1 z1334, StanfcIrd: Stanford Universiv Press. Jr. 1935..Pglnce Sfruciures J-2 and J-6, witit Notes on Stl: S a t t e r t h ~ a l t eZ,inton, ~ ]-&2nd alzd otlier Bzlried Sfrticturc~sin Court 2. Piedras Negras Preliminary Papers, No. 3. Philadelphia: University Museum. : Schele, Linda, and Mathews, Peter. 1 9 8 , 2 % ~ Code of Kitzgs. New Y ~ r kScribners. Schele, Linda, and Milker, Mary. 11986. The Blood $Kings, Fort Wrth: Kirnhefl Art Museum. Sheets, Payson. 1992. Tfze Ceren Site: A Prehistoric Vilfage Buried by Irailmnic Ash in Central A merim, Fort TNr,rth: Harcourt Brace jovano>vich. Excavatiotzs of 1931-37. WashingsSmith, A. Ledyard. 1950. Uaxactun, Guatent~l~: ton, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. 4962. "Residential and Associated Structures at Mayap;m.""n Harry E, D. Potlock, Ralph Roys, Tatiana Prosk~uriakoff~ and A. Led yard Smith, eds., hynpnlz, Yzrcatnrz,Mmico, Waskingtcm DC: Carnegie Institution of Wshington 13ub.619, pp. 165328, Stephens, John, L. 4949 18411. Incidczzts of Traztcl itz Cerltml America, Clziapns, a~zd Vzicntdn. New Brumwick: Kutgers University 13rr?ss,

S!?aCial Dz'menshns([email protected] L$e

167

Stuarl, David. 1992. ""tlieroglyphics and Archaeology at Capan.""Ancitrnt Meso~mericn3, pp. 169-1 84. Thumpson, J. Eric S. 1939. Exc~zlrifionsnC San JosC Britiskt I-Io;rzd~lrt;ls.. Washington, BC: Carnegie Institution of Washington Pub, 505. . 1954. A Presumed Residence c$ the Mobility at M~yapllzn.Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution af Washington Current Report 19, pp. 71-87. Viel, Rene. 1999. ''The Pectorals of Altar Q and Structure 11: An Tnterpretatim of the Political Organization at Copriin, Hc>nduras."%tz"nAmericarl Antiquity 10:4, pp- 377-399. Webster, DaviQ, 49753, Cuca, Cllacchub, D Z U I RICE: ~ U ~Tlzree Watled Sites of ffzeNorftzerrz [email protected]~nds,Occasional Papers in Anthrapol%y 11, University Park: Dept. of Anthropology Pennsylvania State Univeniiq. . 1%Q."Spatial Bounding and Sttlement Histmy at Three Northern Maya Sites.'' Antericnn Anfiqzrity 45:4, pp,834M4. . 4999. "The Archaeology of Copan, Honduras." lourr-zatof Archnlrulogic~l Rescalrei'l'I":1,pp. 3-53. Webstel; David, ed,4989. TIze House oftlw Bac~bs.Studies in Precalumbian Art and Archaeology no. 29. ttlashington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Webstel; David, AnnCorinne Freter, and Nancy Gonlin, 2000. Cupan: The Rise and Fall afan Ancient [email protected]~zgdonz.Fort VVo&h: Harcourt Brace, Webster; David, Barbara Fash, Randotph Widmer, and kt>t-t-Zeteznik. 1998. "The Skyband Gmup: Excavations o f a Classic Maya Elite Residential Complex at GtjpAn, H ~ n d u r a ~lournlrl ." of Field Arcllaeology 2523, pp. 319444.

Court and Realm Architecturnl Signatures in the Classic Mnya Southern Lowlands SfMON MARTIN

All usban plans encode, however opaquelly, the functional requirements and spatid consciousness of the communities that devise them. 5hce religious, administrative, ceremonial, commercial, and resjdemtial needs gcrnerate the built environment, architecture is not simply a she11 or stage f i b d by ctrttural acti\lity; it is an embodiment of it. Yet arclhitecmal remains do not speak directly, and the degree to which cultural activity can be inferred h n raw plans alone is questimab%e,Xt is only where there is a meaningful dialogue with other soufces that convincing rc-radings emerge. In the case of the Classic Maya, ethnohistorical analogy pictorial representation, and epigraphic references can join archaeological and scrutiny of the buftdings themsekes to "flesh out" "these rr-?mair~s project viable views of their operatio~~. As new understandhgs emerge in these areas we can ask new questions of urban plans, Court architecture is a recurring and distinctive feature of ancient Maya cityscapes, and its form still has much to offer as a way of trnderstandlng the institutions that gave rise to it. Gi\ren this focus, it is the physical sense of court that most collcerns us here. Following the theme of dialogue, this stu* exmines the plans of court connplexes in the heart of four southern lowland. cities before exploring the ways in which these patterns reflect bark on questions of function and signilicance. The prelnise thmughottt is that court space, as the arena for decisinnrnaking and political fmctions of the state, forms an essential, signature of such activity.

Court and Rmlm

169

Approaches to Maya Urbanism Although Classic Maya architecture is rather limited in its basic Qpology, its cityscapes dispfay an mazing variety. Although there may be governing principles llndcrlying their arrangement, dearly no single template was employed. Wir might even say that Maya cities reveled in a cesta.in individualism. Within a culture that a d h a d to so many conventions and orthodoxies, cities sought and aelnieved distinct personalities.. Analyses of Mcsoamerican site plans can be broadly separated into those that emphasize cosmological determination and those cmcemed with sociopolilicai, function. The most detailed treatmelnts of Maya plans have been those of Wndy A s h o r e (1983,1992,1998), who has pursued their ideologicai underpinnings, detecting latent cosmograms among programs of royal legitimation and emulation. More specific geometric relationships bave also been expIored, with the suggestion that building placement can be tied to ancestral vmeration (Harrison 1989,49519). 0thers have used pldns to kfer social and plilical rclatiotnships withirr single sites (Fash 1983; Rivera 1997) and wider regions (Bat1 and Eschek 4991; Bullard 49ti$), as well as conduct% mow comparative studics of Mesomerjcan urbanism and society (Marcms 1983; Sanders and Webster 1988). Outside the Maya zone, a word must also be said about Teotihuacan, whose irnmense urban grid has inspired a similar body of literaturt. (e.g., [email protected]"383;Mmzaniila 1997; Millon 7,9765).Regarding Maya court cmplexes more specifcally, ehohistoric data fmm the southern highland rczgion have allowed quite adventurous identifications of individual compounds to be made (e.g., Fox 1989; killernin 1977; fclhon 1975; Wallace 1977). Most authors recopize the limited rc.lewance of this inferred symbolicseedar dichotomy espeeidy in a society so i,mbued with the ideals of sacred kingship. Some work seeks to bridge the divide directly by arguhg that social instituf;icmsand political offices can reflect cclsmological principtes, wfiich in turn determine theis placement k a built landscape (Fox 1994:165-1 66). A methodology that has seen cmly limited application in Mesoamerica is that of architectonics and the culture-neutral semiotks of buildings and built lacrdscapes. This appmach uvertly views plans, in hermneutie fast-ricln, as text. It examines, m o n g other things, issues of proximiy and distance, access and restrictio~n,comectedness and demarcation. To identify building arrangemmts as centralized, clustered, dispersed, radial, alig~ed,and so on is to .read a spatial sptax. Ultimately this approachis about significaf.ion, the hvays that buildings impart messages m d irnpose, reflexively, meaning on their users (Eco 4980; Preziosi 1979). Preziosi's (1983) work on the palaces cJf Minoan Crttte provides some-

thing of a model for how architectonic malysis could improve our understanding of the formal component of Mesomerican court spaces, Describing Maya Courts The basic elements of Classic Maya court complexes are well known (Andrews 1975:lic)-71) but none&eless worth speeciy review here. They gel~erallyconsist of vaulted stone s t r u c t u ~ sin the form of either connected gakries or individual: buildings aggregated to form clusters, both set on elevated platforms. Court c o m p l e x e ~ r echaracterized by their restricted access, defining them as arcas of exclusivity. The open spaces within them, usually in the form of enclosed courtyards or plazas, were M y functional parts (II the architechtre (see Evans, this volume; &so see Ringle m d Bey in voI. 2, forthcoming 200J). Although not ostensibly defensive in design, the elevation of many court complexes means that they codd be used as redoubts in extwme circumstances. Within these parameters there was still considerable variation. Perhaps the most striking contrast is between thase set on high platforms, invariably closely asscxliated with temple pyramids, and othen; m more modest pedestals that inclrade few or none of these assocjated shrines. At s o m point it may be possible to extract m m i n g from finer typological distiz~ctionssuch as this. Excavation has show11 a notable lack of single grand schemes, Eve11 ratk-terharmonious compositions-such as the royal palace of Palenqu have incremental histories that make them the products of cmstant modification and enlargement. With so many early courts enveloped withjln later cmstmctim, our understancling of their d e s i p evohtim is limited (&ough see Smfth 19W). The lmger, galleried quadrmgles do, hwever, seeln to be a feature predorninantb of the Late Classic period. lnterior spaces show little variety, most furnished with built-in stone "bencheseff lhis high degree of fomal repetition is consistent with a common fwcthn but does not. preclude varied usage. The aileged lack of eo1n6u:rtfor even [email protected], gohted to by a number of authors (e.g., Kidder 1950:11) seems more than compmsated by the syrnbolic status such b a c k s confer. This stat~lswas often reinforced by lavish decoration. Courts were involved in much the s a m symbol system as more obviously ritual space, Partirularty elaborate examples, such as that of Palenque, had mythic symbolism applied to interior and exterior surfaces, as well as historical portraits and hieroglyphic texts set on piers, panefs, stairways, and thrones (Robertstm 1985a, 19f35b).Rare swwivals of more fugitive media include both hteriar and exterior murals, Mmy though not all, received the s m e coat of deep red shared by otfier epicentral buildings. Whatever its other cdtural resmances, red, as the complemmtary opposite and an-

Court and Rmlm

171

tagmist of green-the color of the surrounding farmland and forest-denotes the otherness of royal and sacred space. The r q a l court was the business place and presumed residence of the paramount der-usually a kfahl;kfajaw "divine tt,rdff-his (occasimally her) farnib and their immediate entourage.. It was situated wit:hjn tht. site nuclei and proximate to ritual and ceremonial spare: temple pyramids, ball courts, monumental plazas, and so on. At many smaller or even medium-sizccf sites, court space is limited and could have accornmodated only a small circle of peoplef a few dozen at most. But in larger cities the epicenter contains court complexes of multiple units, grratly expanding the available space. At times a hierarchy between these eler~ents is hard to distinguish, and even the ruler" sresidence surprisingly difficult to identi*. On the c ~ n ehand we can view w a t e r court complexes as externsions of a sistgte myal compound, on the other as a series of individual subcourts. It was within these nonregnat spaces that a wider court community of kin ~latives,collateral Iines, and officials performed the majority of courtly tasks in such cities. Court complexes at Four Classic: Maya Cities ?i, pursue these themes furZher I will now turn to a cmparison of court complexeh the epicenters of four of the largest and best-known southern lowlmd cities, posing rather uncomplicated questions of similarity and difference, I do not attempt statistical rigor, concerning myself with tjenerai issues of size and distrihutim. As is the case with viri-ually all ancient plans-aside perhaps from single projects like Akhenaten's Amama-the view is linnited to the final phase m d end point of lengthy site development. In the case of the Maya this means that the analysis is effwtively restricted to the latter stages of the IdateClassic. In Figwes 6.1-4.4, court-style architecture, along with its smaller associated shrines, is highlighted h solid black, Since most of the stnactures concerned are unexcavated, idcnt-&cations should be regmded as provisionat. Lesser structures have been omitted for the sake of clarity, Reproduction is at a consistent scale,

The plan of l;ikal offers a complcx arrangement MIith a parlieular emphasis m free-standing pyramids and broad. processional causeways (Figure 6.1). Court architecbre in the heart of the city is represented by the Central Acrqolis, just south of the city's Great- Plaza, a dense asse~nblageof iorty-six buildrngs arranged around six courtyards (Harrism 1970; Harrism, vol. 2 of this booli, forthcoming). Excavation here has revealed a

FIGURE 6.2 Court complexes in central Tikal (after Carr and Hazard 1961; all illustrations by the author unless otherwise stated).

FIGUM 6.2 Court complexes in central Naranjo (after Craharn in Craham and V m Euw 1975:C;-7).

FIGURE 6.3 Court complexes in central Calakmul (after May Hau et al. 1990).

FIGUM 6.4 Court complexes in central Caracc~l(after Chase and Chase 1987:63-84).

long development history with continual modification until the collapse of polticd authority in the ninth cent-ury. The Central Acropolis's pivotal location and associated epigraphic material provide it with one of the c l e a s t ctairns to be the "royal pahcerf of any major polity. Additionaf court compounds at Tikal appear in a dispersed "epicentral ring'' puleston 1983~24-25).Many arc sizable and provide notably more plaza space than the Central Acropolis. One of the few to receive detailed attention, Group G (the most impressive in the southeast sector), was found to have relatively modest origins but was mbuiit on a much grander scale in the Late Classic period ( a r e g o and Larios Villalta 19fi3). 7'he masonry style displayed both here and at the other epirentral compounds date this lakr phase to around A.D. 750, makng it part of a much wider program of construction and r e n w d at this time (lones 1991:139-121); fones, personal communication, 1996).

Of the sites considered here, Naranjo is the least investigated and has yet to receiw any formal study of its wider settlement. Never&eless, unless there are some miljor surprises in this periphery, the map produced of the central core should he sufficient for our purpose (Graham and Von Euw 3975:6-7) (Figure 6.2). 'The city, or at least &is nucleated heart, is cmsiderably smaller than Xkal. There are no large cot~rtcomplexes, m d candidates for its royal palace are limited to a few groups, with that at the weskm extremity (AI-A6), overlooking a steep fncline to a Itlrio, perhaps the most pmmisifig. Some gallery-fike spnce appears on two sharply elevated platfoms in the center of the site that support sizable pyramids. A series of quadrangles fn the southwestern portion is of limited monumentdity but may yet prove to be of court style.

The large size of central CaXahuI was apparent from its earliest descrip tions, but an appreciation of its full extent c m e only with a cmprehensive survey in the 1980s (Falm 1992; Fdm et al. 1995; May Hau et al. 1990) (Figure 6.3). The resulthg site plan emphasizes the ense bulk of Structure If, a temple platfom of p~-Classicorigin that foms the ritual focus of the site rather overshadowkg the extensive plaza that lies to its north.Wtherwise, it is the concmtrated court complexes flanking this zone that represent the domillant architectural form at C a l a h u l , Cardh~allyoriented, they form a gridlike arrangement of ellclosed gallery and courtyard spares. They have received s o m prclhixlary hvestigation by the current INAH (Proyecto Arqueolcigko de la Biosfera de Calahul) project at the

Court and Rmlm

175

site, dkected by R m b n Carrasco. I?is yet &ere is no tempord control for the whole compiex, but: initial h d i n g s are in keeping with the Late Classic em, suggested by the style dating of the enclused quadrangle form,

Estimates of Caracol's total size are extensive (Chase and Chase 15387:63-84; Chase and Chase 15394; Chase, Chase, and Havilmd 1990), though this is not reflected in an especialily large court infrastructure in its inner core. Major courts are confined to assemblages in the central and southern portions and those close to .the large temple platform Caana (Figure 6.4). fn Volume 2 of this book (forthcoming 2UOI), the Chases suggest that court-5tyl.e architecture atop Caana itself housed the central rnyal palace. The most distinctive feahare of the Caracol plm is its system of radial causeways that extend out from the center to connect with building gmups of varied sfze and complexity some at considerable distance. 'The unduiating terrain on which Caracol stands is surely a factor in this investment,

Even a cursory comparison of these four court p h n s s h w s pmnounced differences in scale, spatial arrangement, and proportiond mphasis. Such disparities raise important questions about the functions these court complexes performed, and the political and historical trajectories that lie behind their hdividual development" To some degree, scale c m be taken as a feature of overall site size, Unfortunately, very few complete settkment maps for southern lowland sites arc availabk, so an assessment of this issue is diffirult. The impression one gets of the court compounds at Tikal and CalakmuX is that they are avgicalfy large even when weighkd at;ainst total site area, but cmfirmation of- this assumption must await comparison with a wider sample of mapped cities. In any event, if we befieve that the rolc of court compou"dmwas to house royal kill, collateral nnble lines, and high officials, we must cmcllude that Calahuf. and Ekal had court commm~ities significantly larger than Naranjo and Caracol, MTas this grcater size a response to a burgeoning elite population or to an expanding requirement for the operations courts performed? As the Classic period progressed, there would be a natural expansion of the elite class, but it is by no means clear why this expansion should be maniiested so dearly in these two particular cityscapes. Differences hspatial layout arc as striking as those of scale, Court space at C a l a h u l is heavily concenh-ated, having the look of a closely bonded

complex dmigned for ready co unication among its compmmts. This layout is quite mlike the dispersed cmfiguratim at 7?kal, where superviunicatim with the inner central court is given low priority. Wthout some compelling restraints from the local topographyythis arrmgeme~~t must be memh~gful(HaU 1966). Certainly it is very hard to e n v i s w that the outlyhg courts are constihents of the royal househdd in the same way that the Central Acropoiis itself was. 7'he Galakmul court plan emphasizes long gallerks and large enclosed spaces, somethhg seen at Tikd only in the epicentral ring. G h m the Late Classic date for these galleries and spitces--based m masonry style as well as overall fomthey mi&t suggest a riskg r e q u i r e ~ ~.for a ~ at lcind of space that the conh e d arca of th Cmtral Acrclpolis, hemmed in by a reservoir to its south, odate. The radial causeway system at Caracol raises its own issues of spatial intent. There may be some relationship between the relatively low density of court-styl.e architecture in the core and the3 investment made in links to the peripheral compments. Perhaps the causeways were a way to htegrate a large court subset wi& its smaller ce~zter.In commmkation terms, these roads shortened the distmce bet.iveen them, Finally proportional itiffe~nceswithin single sites seem especially sit;nilicant, There can be little question that the provision of court space at Calakml received unusual priority*This type of spacewas preferred to ceremonial and ritual spaces, which despite sizable additims to the irnposkg Structure I1 during the Classic era, were modest in comparison. The total provision of court space at Ekal was not too dissimilar, but there was a much greater empbasis on more overtly ceremonial and funerary eo~~struction. Functions of Extended Court Complexes We might now consider the function of these large court spaces m d the communities they contained. The treammt is necessarily heuristic but is grottnded throughout in aschaectlogical, pictorial, ethncthistorical,or epigraphic information. The intention is not to come to definite conclusions but to discuss viabfe and productive options for in\ses.tigation. Most observers would expect the court complex to heuse not only the immediate family unit of the ruler but an extendcd group of close kin. This assumptlm has been sufprisingly ~ s i s t a n to t i~~vestigation, Paramount rulers show little inclination to feature family members in the monumental record, and the ability of such groups to commission their w n pubtic recods was sharpty circumscribed. The refationship between h s h i g and high-ranking offices, an area, of considerable interest, is therefore clrzudy. Although in'iorrnatim about the occupmts of n a g nal, subsidiary courts is scartlc, we are not e n t i ~ l y iporant.

Court and Rmlm

177

Though not in the site epicenter proper, seclondary courts at Capan have provided some of the best evidence for oclinership and ~sidence.5everaf major structures have been found to contain hieroglyphic bmches that provide dates, the name of the structurcl" ownert and the owner's relationship to the Copan king (Fash 1991a; 1991b; Schele and h i d e l 1990; Webster 1"389),We h o w that two such lords bore the aj kkutlun title, but the still uncertain respmsibilities of this rank thwart any deeper understanding at present (see Houston and Stuart, this volume).* At PaZenque, the excavation sl:the st~bsidiarycourt complex Group 1x s o m 300 meters from the ""royal place," produced the splendid Tablet oi the Slaves. This welt-preserved wall panel was cornmissiclned in AD. 730 by a lord called Chak Suutz"("Great/Red Bat"") the holder of no less than three important subordinate titles, b'anlz ajaw ""head. lord", yajazo k'ak" "Lord of fire'" and sajal (waning unclear) (Shele 1991f. 7?w text ascribes to him a series of personal military victories, and it is clear that he W= a leradjng war captain in the servire of the PaIenque king. Chak Suutz%has similar prominence inthe royal palace itself, where he is the credited captor of the prismer show11 m the Tablets of the Scribe and Orator.. Whether the titles of Chak Suutz"point to a specific military office-not unlike that of ~lzkoanzammg the post-Classic Yucatec Maya-is still unclear. We can say that a significant court: compkx in the heart of Palenque housed a noble with special responsibiliw for military aifairs,

Excavation suggests that at least some elite y?xar-t:erswere wcupied by craft speciatists. The =cent finds at Aguateca are especially signif cant in this regard given their discovery in situ, in contrast to the "swept" cmdition of many excavated palaces (fnomata 1997, this volume). That courtly artisanship enjoyed high status inMaya culture is revealed by its place i,n myth, where we have rcp~sentationsof gods engaged in various acts of craftwork and in the act of creation itseff. The primeval epic the Popol Virh describes the creation as work by "modeless, matcersf"Tedlock 7,1385;Coe and Kerr 1997).Varied records survive elsewhere in Mesoamerica lfor the involvement of exatted r y a l family members in maA production, and it has been proposed that at least some Classic Maya ceramic painthg had royal authorship (Stuart 1989:157). 'These pursuits were much more tJRm the dilettante pastimes of the idle rich; they co11stitzlt.ed an integral functim of"the rnyai household. S m p tuary goods were produced not only for internal consumption but, mre important, for use in ehttorate gift-givifigythe essential cormlate of a trib-

ute system. W a ~ fashioned s in greenstone, &ell, and bone; painted ceramics; featherwork; and textiies were thus instruments of polit.i.ea1 powes, serving to consolidate relations with external clients. Such ties would have the effect of binding elite classes across communities and Mufring the perceptuai boulndaries among polities at the expelwe of the dtimate tribute payers, their peasant producers (see Smith 19%). h what Weber termed the O ~ ~ I Ithe S , city itself is little more thm the expanded economy of the royal household (Kolata 1,983:369; Weber 1952:66). This economy exists independently of any market economy, though it may interart with it, for example, in acquiring raw materials. k t the o h need not be based in Che physicaf co~zfkesof the court itse3,t: and could. equally encompass a middle-ranking class of artisans outside. This arrangement would certainty sit better with those who chafe at the redwtion of the royd palace to some form of elevated factory and prrzfcr to see elitcs as materially cmsumptive in p h i p l e ,

&e of the more popular, if fornulaic, themes of painted hlfaya ceramics is the presentation of heaped tribute items befnre an enthroned lord (Schele and Miller 19&6:153).The architectural space defined in these scenes is clearly that of the pdace chamber, its fronting stepwand plaza (Houston and Escabedo 1997; Reents-Budet, this ~rolume).The scale of Classic Maya tribute system is mattested at present, but we can rezlsmably expc~ctthe most powerful states tc:,have ~ c e i v e dsipificant wealth .from thcir donninions (see further on). This tribukz wodd rclquire space for pmsentation ceremonies, storage facilities, and oifices for scribes to notate the accounts. We h o w that parts of the central Mertican palace, or fecpan, were used for precisely this purpose, In Aztec Texcoca a special room was said to have been set aside for tribute from the Chalco region (Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1952, 2:lt51)), and it is possible that M v a courts also had fixed spaces allocated to particular tributaries. Interestingly, it has been argued that urban growth in TenochtitlAn was boosted not by the influx of tribute wealth per se but by the rising need to organize a d handle such levies (Calnek 1982:5%59). This dynamic may be one we need to consider inthe larger Maya cities.

Presentatim and ~ c q t i o are n cross-cultufal court functions and ricltly described innumerous Mesoamericm sources. The major courvard spaces at the beart of such places, like the East Court oi the Palenque palace, were arenas for fomal intorac?ticmwith visitors and were, with their arrayed im-

Court and Realm

179

ages of captives and hieroglyphic accounts of war victories, designed to impress. Some inscriptional records of such visits survive; primarily they describe contacts that served to express power relationships between vassals and their overlords rather than the diplomatic missions that must once have been common. We are told of two journeys made by the ruler of Dos Pilas, B‘alaj Chan Kawiil, to visit his political masters at Calakmul (Houston 1993:108). One was to attend the accession of the Calakmul king Yich’aak Kak‘, or Fiery Claw, in A.D. 686.Accounts of Aztec inauguration ceremonies show the same attendance by client kings; even hostile rulers were invited to witness such events under truce. Another of B’alaj Chan Kawiil’s visits coincided with the period ending 9.12.10.0.0 (A.D. 682), suggesting that calendar rituals regularly included gatherings of important clients (Martin 19972352). Five years later, the celebration of 9.12.15.0.0 was the occasion for the subordinate ruler “Great/Red Turkey”, apparently of La Corona, to visit Calakmul and participate in a ballgame or related performance (Graham 1997; Stuart and Houston 1994)(Figure 6). For special occasions such as these we can envisage a complete disruption of normal palace activity as space was given up to temporarily house a noble fraternity. At the same time, we can expect that the daily business of personal diplomacy required at least some dedicated guest facilities at the major courts. As a result, in some spaces there would have been a rapid turnover of occupants. Other areas might have been lightly used or even left empty for parts of the year, especially if facilities were permanently assigned to particular locales. It is also probable that the requirement shifted over time; the loss or gain of political influence was reflected in the type and number of interactions with client lords. An event for which we have ample precedent in the Aztec literature is the exile of lords from their home polities-whether as the result of war or of political intrigue-and their long-term residence in the courts of their allies or overlords. To choose just one example, Nezahualcoyotl was installed as the ruler of Texcoco by Aztec emperor Itzcoatl in Tenochtitlan in 1431, but resistance to his rule at Texcoco meant that he did not move his court there for another two years (Offner 1983237). For the Classic Maya we have at least one highly suggestive case noted by Werner Nahm (in Schele and Grube 199423) (Figure 6.6a, b). The events concerned appear on two hieroglyphic stairways at Dos Pilas and are part of a detailed war narrative involving Tikal, Calakmul and Dos Pilas (Houston 1993108). In A.D. 672 T i a l seized Dos Pilas, and its king, the aforementioned B’alaj Chan Kawiil, is said to have b’ixiiy, “gone away.” His exile lasted five years, ending when a Calakmul victory over Tikal in 677 allowed him to huul ”arrive here” at Dos Pilas? As previously noted, Balaj Chan Kawiil was envassaled to Calakmul, part of a complex network of

FIGURE 65 Grt.at/Red Turkey playing ball at Calakmul. Site Q Ballplayer Panel 1 (drawing by Linda Schete): Final two glyph-blocks at right spell: U-tl-ya3-732'TZJ:N-ni chirkul-NA:W utsliiy i?xte%~.ztztrz chalk nanb' 'Tit: happened at Calakmul."

FIGURE 6.6 The exile and return of Walaj Chan Kawiil: (a) Dos Pilas HieroglypFLic Stairnay 4 Step I l l J2N2: l-VlrfNAL-hi-ya 5-HA:EZ"-yafZJIX-ya W ALf M)?-CHAEV K%Wf :L ?-HArT mxaklajuun ? ju all winalihiiy fimb'iz'y b'ixiiy b'alnj ctrnn kkwiif "'01 was) 18bays, 1. winal, S ha&, from t k s i n g away of Walaj Chan Kwiil to [misshg] at h s 13ilas.'"/b) Dos 13ifasHiemglyphic Stairnay 2 West A5-A& HUL-li ?-HA: B%AL,fAJ)?-CHAN-naKAWX:L Fsuzil ? [email protected] chnn k r u t ~ i"B'alaj l Chan Kawiil" arrival here at Dos 13ilasaf'

political and familial relationships linking the Tikal, Dos Filas, and Calakmul polities (Houston et al. 1992; Martin and Grube 1994,2000). After he was ousted from Dos Pilas (as he seems previously to have been ejected from Tikal) the probability is high that B'alaj Chan K'awiil--a claimmt to the Tikal title and effecti\lc "mti-kingu-found refuge in the votuminous court compounds af C a l a h u l .

Court and Rmlm

FXGUIXE 6.7 The death of a lord at CalakmuI. Unprovenmced panel 135-As: 'OCH-B'IH-A; K' I N I C H - ~ ' ~ [ne-la-a-ku ~~] 9-?-TE?-ti u-*ti-ya chilkul-NA:B' 'clcltb'ilzaj k'inictf khp? lzel 'nhk bkalan ? ulztit'y cIzihk rtaab' ""K5inich K'apf?) Nel %hk ? road-entered (died) at Calakmtxl

The next example is explicit to the event concerned and its location, but less so in terms of the type of attmdance or relationshiy it inrplies, Et c m e s from a looted pand from the poiity of Cancuen m the Pasilin Rwr. XI: is a late account' from A-D. 7519, and goes back in time to lay out: Cancuen" relationship with CaXahul, including two ~lcasionswhen the CaIahrrl king ine;talled Cancuen's rulers (Martin and Cmbe 1995). The pnnel describes the death of a named but untitled lord in AD. 6%. The location of his demise is specified, uhtii?g chihk naab' "it happened at Cdakmulf"Figure 6.7). The text continues from a lost crrmpanion panel, which almost certainly supplies the missing context for who this person was, He is clearly not the ruling Calabcmul. king, and the fact that the enthronement sf a new Cancuen ruler is the next event discussed in the text, t%tree-and-a-hdf years later, might indicate that this fie;zlrc was his p ~ d e c e s s o rIt, ~has been suggested that the accessjon of this m w Cancum king actually took place while he was in exile at Cafakrnul (Stanley Guenter, personaS. communication, 1999). m e adval~tageof this idea is that it would, explah why this event took pEace under the "oversight" of the patrm gods of C a l a h u l .

Long-&rzn Forelm Residence A possible use of court space ofim cited in the past but much less so of late is that of palace schools. CIearly there wodd be a need to pass cornplex h~owledgefrom one generati.ctn to Ihe next, and s o m organized instruction is not implausible, Thou& we have no direct evidence of any such ims.titution for the Classic Maya, spectrfativelSI, a scene such as that on Redras Negras Panel 2 (see khele and Miller 19%:148-149)-which shows a line of kneeIing lords, apparent youths from Bonampak, Lacanha, and Yaxchilm-shows not transimt visitors to the Piedras Negras court but neophytes in residence. The training of princelings in the court of their political masters is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and in most cases there is a coercive element that makes them de fact0 hostages. Such practice leads into the larger area of the relocatim of subject nobility, n e well-known instance of Mayapan inpost-Classic hcatan is the best ethnohisturic case for such a system: ". . . &er arranghg with the nati.ve lords of the country that they shodd live thcre and that all their afiairs and busixless should be brought there." "anda in Tozzer 1941:24); and ". . . in it dwelt alT the nobles of the hnd, vvhence at the prcrsent day those who were co~~sidered lords and nobles in the land remember the sites of their former homes" "aspar Antonio Chi [l5821 in Tozzes 3941:230). We are elsewhere told that these lords wew supported by tribute sent from the hometowns. Unsurprisingly, this system has been interpreted as a cmrcive strategy of the ruling lheage, the Kokoom, to keep client lords under their direct supervision. 'The mpping and excavation of Mayapan reveded candidates for these "homs" and provoked the idea of a "one-to-one" relationship with ethnohistoric descrigtione; (Proskourikof 1962:90). Relocation of this kind was common to several Mesoamerican powms, most clearly the Aztec: "The greater part of the chiefs of this land. and provinces, especiatly those from close by resided, as I have said, for most of the year in the capieal city, and . . . all or most of their elldest sons were in the service of Mutezuma" (C0rti.s 1971:109). This system was practiced by ail of the Triple Afliance capitals (Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan), w h e its ~ purpose was clearly po:[itical, contml: "'Mandatory attemdmce of the lesser lords or their children at the three great courts served and rebellion"[Alva] Ixtlitxochitl to prevent 'thoughts cJf i~~surrecticm 1952,2:165)'"Qffner 1"383:98). The question for us cmters on whether Mayapan was adopting a foreign practice-one of many Mexican infIuences in the h c a t a n at this in the Maya area. Identifying nonlocal. or one with a l o ~ ~ ghistory er residence, even of long duration, by archaeological means would seem inordinately difficult. Unless traceable imports can be demonstrated to

Court and Rmlm

183

cluster in particular compomds, the hmogmeity of Maya efite c d t w would m s k almost every episode of this kind. Areas at the frontier of Ihe Maya world, whese ethnic divisions create a wider range of material marhrs, would seem more prmising, and excavations in the Lits Sepdturas district of Copan has produced evidence of just thit; kind (Gerstle 1987)*Here various artifactual remains isolate the inhabitants of two unities as non-Maya, proha:bly Lenca people from central Hond-Ltras.Gerstle goes on to cite thrz Mayapan case and w i d e examples of political hostage-taking, speculating m a patron-client refationship between Copan and its tess well organized neighbors to the east. This next, rather important, exarnple was pointed nut:to me by Nikolai Grube (personal communication, 1994; Schele and [email protected]:22-23; Houston and Stuart this volume). The collection of monuments attributed to "Site Qffdraovs together unprovenanced i,nscripli"n"rom a n m ber of centers with links to C a l a h u l (Mathews 1979).A number of them were composed by a dynasty that did not carry its QWI k'zlhzkl ajaw title, or "emblelx glyph," "but: that was a lineage ruling one of Calakxxul" dependent satetlitcs. Two glypX"iicpanels, Site Q Panel 2a (the Ucletaille form a sinPanel) and another that has appear4 more recently, Panel B, gle text commissioned by the character k n w n as Male 3 ("Met") (Mathews 1979; b g l e 1985; Schele and Cmbe 1994). In A.D. 664, at the age of nineteen, he b'ixtrlz cbzihk nmb' ""went a m y to Catakmul," where he may have altered a particulw office Figure 6.84.7'he text: goes on to recount the death of his father, Male 2 (""Chak Nab ChanU")in A.D. 667, which is foIlovved twenty-six days later by the return of Male 3, expressed as his fruzrl "arrival here" Figure 6.8b). Male 3's xcession to lordship took place twenty-five days after that. In this way the narrative ~ l a t e as single sojourn at f3atahu.l lasting three and a half years. Its termination was dircctly caused by eve~ltsat home, n m e l y the death of Male 3%ffaher, whom he then succeeded as ruler.' Here we would seem to have some very suggestive evidence that at least some local heirs were long-term residents, representatives or hostages, at the C a i a h u l court, A descl.iption of the hka, mother culbre to use the relocation strategy, =ems particularly apt: "Pmuinciali nohles, at least the most pmmirzent ones, were obliged to keep their eldest son i,n residence at court constantly m d to maintain also a rclpresentative competent to inform the mler about the affaks of their territory" "awe 1982:95), Any contingent of foreign nobl,es would require servicng on a par with what they received h their own communities and would doubtless employ a range of service personnd. Noble "pests" could have placed m onerous burden on the royal court's resot~rces,but more likely they actuaZly boosted the capital economy-as the influx of sustahbg tribute at Mayapan would surely have done. This wodd be especially true if their

FIGURE 6.8 An heir goes to Calakmul. (a) Site Q Panel 2a (F6-GZ): BqX-AN chilkul-NA:W ti-?-la-ha je-p?-? byxnn ctrihk nmb3ti ? ? "Male 3 went away to Calakmul." @) Site Q Panel 2b (K3-13): 19-11-WINAL-hi-ya 3-HA:Bp-ya BfXX-niya je-yo?-? i-HU:l-li b'ulonlnjliun fk7il.l) b1141uk2ui~nll"liiiy'ox Iranb'il'y b'ixtziiy ? ihzl~lt ""(It was) 19 days, 11 winal, 3 haab, from Mate 3"s going way to his arrival here,"

presence also had the effect of centralizing peripheral market systems Sanders and Webster 1988:526). and tracle networks (Fox 7,977:6-9; Sizable nonlocal enclaves arc known ethnohistorically for the Aztec, and a barrio of e t h i c Maya has been identified at the city of Teotihuacan (Fmncerrada de Molina 7,980; Rattray 1977)"This last case has been intapreted predominantly in commercial terms, but given the emerging data on the subordinate status of the Iswlmd Maya vis-h-vis Eotihuacan in the late fourth century (Martin and Grube 2000; Stuart 7,996), a political dimension nnight also be considered,

Explaining Disparity The question that naturally arises is, What do the disparities in the physical scale of court complexes mean for the sociopolitical functioning of these polities? Can they be seen as measures of relative political power? As Gair Tourtellot (1993:228) has said, "It would be helpful to know if the number of elite compuunds in the lasest Maya centess corresponds in some more or less one-to-one Ifashion with the number of subordinate po1i.ties controlled from these centers.'" A ~ a n t i t a g v cassessment of court size might offer a more sensitive ( m d more easily educed) variant of the overall site-size rankings attempted lhus far (Adams and Jones 1981; Morley 1946:Plate 19; Turner, Turner, and Adams 1981). Although this data set would certainly be informative, it is doubtful that any deductions would be convincing unless married to the kind of historical understanding now available from the inscriptions. In the past decade, significmt advmces have been made in this area, and at

Court and Rmlm

185

least a general shape for Classic ikfaya politicd history is within reach. From this perspective we know trhat all four of the cities in our s m p l e we= major polities, tl^toughfar from equal ones. Ekal and.Calakmul b& s h w evidence fof having client states subject to them (including at varied points Caracol m d Narm~o,respectively) m d are cited by numerous other cities in ways that suggest their superorcfinate status. 13y conh-ast, Narmjo and Caracol have negligible signahres in this regard; other than as defeated foe, neither is me~~tioned outside its i But scale is also of stmcturd interest to us. Did the communities using the largest- court complexes simply ~plicate,arbeit at a greater scale, the activities of smalfer oms-for example, the subordinate units in their political realm? 01- were there functional distinctions; were the tasks performed specific to a level of hierarchy? Broadly put, these vestions involve the di,sti,nction between "mechitnical'hnd "organic solidarity'" (Durkheim 1960; Houston 1993:144; Marcus 1993:111), On such issues turn a much wider dclbate about the nabre of Classic Maya politics and the veritable chasm between ~riebvsof large regional states composed of constitvent prt>vnces and perceptions of nursrerous unstable statefets (compare Marcus 1976, 1993 with Mathews 1994, Demarcrst 1992, and Houston 1992, 1993. Culbert 1992 asld Hmmond 1,991, supply cogent summaries and further exploration of the issues ixrvolved), In the research I have been conducting with Nikolai Grube, we find that the epigrapktie evidetnce best fits a pervasive and enduring systetn of "overkhgshipm (Grube and Martin 1998; Mart;in m d Grube 1994, 1995, moo).In this system, the most powerful Classic polities operated a systern of political patronage, extetnding network-Sof: personal ties among iellow dynasties that effectively rcduced them to client status. Although notionaliy fixed by hox~dsof fealty and maritai unicms, in practice the lhkages seem more dependent on military htimidation and the benefits avallablle to subject elites. Such a scheme closely folXows wider Mesoamerican practice and has the advantage of reccrnciing the two mast cornpelljivlg features of the weak stat+strong state divide: the division of the Maya into small kingdoms throughout the Classic era (a djvisitrn for which there is overcvhelmfng ewidenre) and the great scale difkrentials between their capitals (with their implicatim of vasying wea1t-h and political power). The court operations discussed here are no more than we wollld expect of a patronage system, We would certahly. mticipate the leadislg hegemans of the Classic era to be the recipients of outside tribute. As discussed earlier, this system wutd most likely stimulate the production of sumptllary craft goods as gifts to subject dynastks. We h o w that dominant centers hosted major cerernnnies attended by their clients, and. it seems highly likely that they also shefte~dcertain exiles and housed sections of foreign nobility on a more permanent basis.

The parallels here with the Mayapan case a d similar arrangements from central Mexico and elsewhere are engaghg. There is no reason to believe t h t great sections of the ruling class were held, hostage in the way the p""-Classic data suggest, but regular visits to the hegemon and the attendance of ycttrng heirs at its cowt w u l d cmstitute a simjlas strategy directed toward the same goal. The relocations of subject lords, rathc;r than being the workings of an organized bureaucracy, are the actions of a hegemony imposing its will on a system of dispasate power bases. Their loyalv was so suispect that rather extreme measures were necessary to ensure cclmpliance, Thus this strategy can be seen as an adaptive one to integrate a dece~ztralizedlandscape..Xnterestkgly; it is relocation for coercive purposes that Richard. Fox cites as a feature of his "admFztistrative city" (1977:tiW-GC)).Without wantlng to be drawn into the Fox typology; I suggest that the larger court signatures may reflect nascent moves toward this kind of centralization. Exactly Mlhy Tikal and Galakmul differ from their "peers"" lies in the of inany of the factors inmist of their historical development, Evide~~ce volved is beymd recovery, but the Late Classic period. we can best s b d y from urban plans witnessed specific p o c e s e s T'IikaZ and C a l a h u l w a e major adversaries, and their fortunes t h u g h o u t the Ctassic period were closeIy tied to their perfomance in w a The eighth-centmy ~vitalization of Tikal, discussed by a number of authors and manifested in both architectural and iconographic terms, seems a direct consequence of the military triumphs that restored its fortunes after the disastrous Hiatus period. fn pati"dar, Ruter B's successes w e r C a l a h u l ca. A.n.734, El Peru in A.D. 743, and Narmjo in A.D. 744 (Marth 1999,15396) cohcide with the construction ol. redevelopment of many of the epicentral ring compounds as part of a wider no vat ion cJf the site core (fones 49511:149-1211). Indeed, mwh of the monu~nenta:lityof the E k d plm can he attrjbuted to a brief but vigorous buildjng history in the eighth century Similar relationships between constmctiorn activity and military success have been posited .for atirigua (Sharer 1978) and Caracd (Chase and Chase 1989). In the case of CalakmuI, the highpoint of its political infiuence c a m a little earlier, in the late sixth and seventh cenuies, cloely ccnresponding to the Hiatus period at 'XTkal. The explosion of monment dedications at the city, and pr&a:bly a significant part of the urban development too, can be lhked to the long rczign of Uukncrom the Great (AD. 636486) (Mart h 2000a, 2000b; Martin and Grube 2000).

Our attempts to understand. the courts of the Classic Maya rely on a series of diverse =search approaches. Architectonic analysis of the court within its urbaa plan offers one such avenue. If we can but read them, ty-

Court and Rmlm

pdogy scale, spatial organization, and pmp"rtjon"t emphasis provide clues to both the internal organization of the polity and its hteractions with a wider realm, The layout of courts at four of the more notable lowlmd cities varies markedly. The scale of some sqgests that they housed more than the iarnily and extended. retinue of the ruler and encompassed some larger elite community. The degree to which these architectufali sipaturrs coincide with epi,graphic ems-which point to these s m e sites as some of the most militarily successful and politically powerful in the lowlandsis striking and compels us to look for causal rczlaticms between court sizes and political success. hlthongt.1 it remains unclear precisdy hokv this extra space was used-and so bow this connection manifested itseIf-viable models are available Eram ethohistofically known states af the post-Classic period, from pictorial evidence on Classic-period ceramics, and in a few descriptions from the monumental record. These sources suggest that far h m being the monastic retrc-lats envisaged at one time, these cerrters were cosmopolitan places bristlhg wi& activity, especially with the cmings m d goings of foreign dietaries, Courts were places of luxmy, ritual, and high pageant certainly but from a social pervective their importance lies in their role as business spaces in wfiich the r u h g elite engaged in maintaining and expanding their wealth and power.

Notes The data in this article were first presented at the seminar Ancient American

Palaces: Rulership and Ornament at the Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallev of Art, Washington D.C., February 7,1997. My t h a n b go to Joame Pillsbury far her invitation to that event, It took place during my fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks, Washingtcm, D.C., an experience geatly enriched by my colleagues Ricardo Agurcia Fasquelle, Dorie Reents-Budet, and Adam Herring and the director of pre-Culumbian studies, Jeffrey Quilter. My thanks ga to the senior fc_;tlowsfor prcjviding this oppc~dunityand to all the stag for their help throughout the year. X woufd also like to thank Nikofai Grube, with whom I've enjoyed many fruithl discussions regarding politicat strategies of the Classic Maya, and R a m h Carrasco, director of Prc3yec.t~ArqueuE6gico Be La Biosfera de CatakmuX. Finally; T arn indebted to Inornata and Houston for their perceptive comments and suggestions on the draft of this chapter. I. Far this emphasis on the ritual fundim of Structure 11 we fc>rthcomingreports from the Proyecto Arquealbgico Be la Biosfera Be Calakmul QINAH), Birected by Rarnlin Carrasco. For an alternative perspective see Fchn (vol. 2 of this baok, forthcoming 2081). 2. This chapter uses doubXed letters to indicate long vc>welsin Cfassical Mayan. Fctr the recent examination of dysharmclnic spellings and the uncoverkg of cornpiex .\rowelsin the writing system see Houston, Stuart, and RctbertrioJn 1998.

3, Nikolai Grube proposed that the rmcommon sign involved (wKeh does not appear in any catalog) read x m "to walk/tmvel," as in *mn-b'nl "to walk" (Kaufman and Norman 1984:136, in Schele and Grube 19%:22-23). Fflc>we~?er; as he and others have noted, there is an alternative? since the same sign also appears in the rare Gtyph Z of the Lunar Series. Here it substitutes with the spelling b5-xi, or "b'ix, "to go atzrayff(KauSman and Norman 1984:447), Elements taken as phonetic complements (the p ~ f i Mx and the suffixes -na and -ni) seem to be verbal affixes (Davicl Stuart, personal commrmication, 4491;). Barbara MacLeod (1990:334-341) u n c o v e ~ dthe various spellings of the root % R U ~ *'to arrive here" WauEman and Norman 1984:420) and r e c o p i x d its role in personal journeys. The attack on Dos Pibs took place on 9.22.0.8.3 (n,r>.6721, recorded on bath Dos Pilas HS.2 and HS.4. The record on the latter is the basis for a count of 5.1.18, linking b'ixz'iy ""gone awayf"to a damagng went concerning the Dos Pilas place name on 9.12.5.10.1 (A.D. 6177).Fortunately; c m HS.2 we are given a restatement of the event and told that this was the day m which the Dr>sPilas king lruul ""arrives here [at] Dos Pilas." The story of Balaj Chan Katzriil" exile is counterpointed in the same narrative by that of Nuun Ujol Chaak (aka Shield Skull), the ruler of Xkal (Schele and Crube 1994:24-22). The Dos Pilas king is said to b'ix ""g away"; the ousting of Nuun Ujol Chaak is marked by a different term, one independmtly proposed by Nikolat Grube and AIfonso Lacadena as I&(?) ""go out" "aufman and Norman 1984:125). This swiktlh is interesting and could approximate the kind of pejorative distinction we make beween "leave" and eitl-ter "flee" or "eject." 4. The death of the u n h n m lord toc~kplace an 9,11.0,44.4 (A.D. 653). The accession of the new king of Cancuen is the next recorded event in the text, on 9.11.4.4.0 (AB, 65Q, a little over three and a half years latec 5, The chronology of 13aneXs2a and 2b is convoluted, but Male 3 departs on 9.11.11.7,12 (AB. 66131, comeded by the distance number 3.14.19 to his return on 9.11.15.1.11 667)- The death of Male 2 had occurred on 9.11.15.0.5 (AD. %7), and the accession of Male 3 followed on 9.11.15.2.16 (A.D. 667) (Schele and Grube 1994:128-129). 6. A conservative estimate of foreign mentions of Cala kmuX exceeds fifty which appear across the width of the Maya world fmrn Palenque to Copan and as far north as Okop ( M a ~ i n 1997).The figure far Tjkal is at least Wenty-fis~e.No known mention of Caracol occurs outside its region, the eaves of Naj Tunich, and the decidedly problematic instances of the Naranjo Hieroglyphic Stairway and Panel 4 (elsewhere I have argued that these tzrere trophies removed from Caracol in war; Mam*tin1998). Naranjo appears as the victim of wars in the texts of "I'ikal and Caracoi but not as yet at any other major center.

Ref erenees Adams, Richard E. W., and Richard C. Jones. 1981. "Spatial 13atternsand Regional Growth Among Ma ya Cities." Azrzerimn Anliquify 46: 301-322. ALva Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de. 1952 [1892]. 06rras histciricgs de Durz Fertznrldo de A11117 Txtlilx~cil~iff publicnd~sy nnotndos por Apenn Cla~velw.2 vols. Mexico City: Editorial Nacic~nal,

Court and Rmlm

189

Andrews, Cecrrge E 1975. Mnyn Cifilrs: Pfncemnking and Urbnrzizatiun. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, Ashmore, Wendy. 1989. ""Construction and Cosmol%y: Politics and Ideolom in Lowland Maya SettXernent Patterns." h WiXliarn F. Hanks and Don S.. Rice, and Repeds., Word and bnage irz Maya Cult-ure:Explorntiotzs in l;nrlt;.tiage,Wrz'ti~~g resentntiolz, pp. 272-2136, Salt Lake City: Univtzrsi? of Utah Press. -- . 1992. "Deciphering Maya Axlchitectural Pjans." h TnEn C . Danien and ~ AIZC~C May[?, P Z ~ pp. 173-484. PhiladelRabert Sharer, eds., New Tljeories O P the phia: University of Philadelphia Mweum. . 1998. "Monurnentos golfticos: Siitios, asentarniento, y paisaje por Xunantrmich, Beliz."Yn Andres Ciudad Ruiz et al., eds., Rnatomi~dc unck cbifizncid~: Aprc;lximncianes inl.erdiscz"p/izt~rias a lla czatfura mnyn, pp. 161-183. Madrid: Sociedad Espafiola de Estudios Mayas. Ball, Joseph W, and Jennifer T. Taschek. 1991. ""Lte Classic tcjwland Maya Potitical Organization and Central-Place Analysis." Ancient Mesoame~ica2: 149-165. Bullard, WiIliam R., jr. 1964. ""Sttlernent Pattern and Social Structure in the Southern Maya Lowlands During the Classic Period." h Aclns y Mentorias, X X X V Corjgreso Infel-ptacionalde Americatlistes 4, pp. 279-287. Mexico City, Calnek, Edwad E, 1982. "htterns of Empire Formation in the Valley of Mexico, Late Post-Classic Period, 120&2523.'" In George Collier, Renato Resaldcl, and John Wirkh, eds., The Tnc~alzd Aztec Slrafes 1400-18630: Antlzmpology nnd Histoq, pp. 43-42. New York: Academic Pres. Carr, R, E, and J. E, Hazard. 1961. M y of the Ruins of TihI, El Pet-hz, Cuatenznln: T i k ~ Report l Rio, II, tr"niversi.e;@. Museum Monograph 21. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum. Carrasco, Ramon, and EmiXy Comales, 2 998. ""E centra de poder Bet Reino de h Cabeza de Srpiente." "patper presented at 40 Congreso Intemadsnal de Mayistas, Antigua, Guatemala. Chase, Aden F., and Diane 2. Chase. 1987. Inuesfigatio:orzsat ttic Classic Mnyn City of C~racoE,Belize: 1985-1987. Pre-Colurnhian Ark Resarch Institute Monograph 3, San Francisco: Pre-Coturnbian Art Research Institute. . 1989. "The Investigation of Classic Period Maya Warfare at Caracol," Mr-ryab5: 5-18. Chase, Diane Z., and Arten E Chase. 1994. Studies ir-z flze Arctznllol~~gy of Gnracol, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7. San Francisco: PreColumbian Art Research Institute. Chase, Diane Z., Arlen E Chase, and Wilfiarn A. Haviland-. 1990. "The Classic Maya City: Reconsidering T h e Mesoarnerican Urban Tradition."?nterican An$Frropologisf.92: 49-501;. Coe, Michael D,, and Justin Kerr, 1997, Tht Arf of the Mr-rya Scl"l'be.London: Thames and Hudso)n. Cartes, Herngn, 4979, Lettersfrom Mexico. Translated b y A, R, Pagden, New York: Grossman, Cowgilf, George 1,. 1983. "Rulership and the CiudeXa: PoEitical inferences frc~rn Teothuacan Architecture,"Vn Richard M. teventhal and ALan L. Kofata, eds., Cit?illintz'on 112 tlze Ansielff Americas: EssnyL~zHonor of Cordon R, Willey, pp. 31S343, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Culbert, X Patrick, 4991. ""Polities in the Northeast Peten." In T. Patrick Culbert ed., Classic a y a Political History: HkrogIyphic and Arcltneological Ezlidence, pp. 128-3 46..khool of American Research Advanced Sminar Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University 13ress. Demarest, Adhur A. 1992, "'lldeology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities." In Arthur A. Demarest and Gsoffrey W. Cons, pp. 135-2 57. Santa Fe: School rad, eds., ldeolc~gynnd Pre-Colzr~.rtbianCivilizalio~f of American Research Press. Durkheim, Emile, 1960. 'The Diz7hiot1 oflfiabor irz Society, Glencoe: Free 13ress, Eco, Umberto, 1980. "Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture." in C. Broadbent, R, Bunt, and C. Jencks, eds., Signs, Symbols and Arcl$E'tectztre,pp, 11-69. Chichester: Wiitey. Fash, William L. 3.983. "Deducing Svcial Organizatian fram Classic Maya Settlement Patterns: A Case Study from the Cop6n Valley." h Richard M Leventhal and Alan L. Kotata, eds., Civr'lianlhlz in ttw Atzcietzf Amel-icns: Essnys irt Hortor of Gctrdan R. Willey, pp. 2651-288. Alburquerque: University of New Mexico Press. . 1993.a.Scribes, Waf-riorsalzd Kitzgs: The City of Copat1 and the Ancier11Nlaya, London: Thames and Hudson. . 4991b. ""Lineage Patmns and Ancestor Worship Amang the Classic Maya Nobility: The Case of Copan Structure 9N-82." h Merte Greene Robertson and Virginia M. Fiefds, eds., Sixill Pnlenque Roz-tnd Table, 1986, pp, 68-80. Norman: University of Oklahoma 13ress, Fc~lan,William J. 1992. "Calakmul, Campeche: A Centralized Urban Adrnjnistra24: 15&168. tive Center in the Northei-n Pet&n."Inkarld Ard~rn~~~logy Folan, Williarn J., J. Marcus, S. Pinceman, M. D. Carrasco, L. Fletcher; and A. Morales topez. l(395. ""New Data from an Ancient Maya Capital in Campeche, Mexico," tnfii.1A nwricat.2 Antiquity 6: 31&334. Fctx, John We4989. "On the Rise and Fall of Tzilkns and Maya Sgmentary States."" A nzerican An ti1ropolog2'sf91:656-681. . 1994. ""Thticai Cosmology Among the Quichk Maya." h Elizabeth M. Brumfief and John W. Fox, eds., Factional Co111~efl'tion and Political Det7elopment in the New Wt~rld,pp. 158-1 70.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fctx, Kchard G. 4977, Urban Anthropology: Cities in Their Cultural Sttings. Englewood Cfiffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Francerrada de Malina, Marta. 1980. "Mural Paintirrg in Cacaxtla and Teotihuaedn Cosmupolitism." h Inerfe Greene Rotaertson, ed., T h i d 13alclzqz-reRound Tizble, 2978, Part 2, pp. 183--.298,San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Gerstle, Andrea, 1987'. '"Ethnic Diversity and Interacticln at Copan, Honduras." In E. Robinso)n, ed ., Tnleractlion on flze Soutlleasl Mesonmerim FranlierI pp,32fF-356. BAR Internatbnaf Series 327, Oxford, Graharn, fan. 191317. "Mission to La Corc3na." Arckueology 50(5): 46. Craham, Ian, and Eric Von Euw. 1975. Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscri-iplio:orzs, Vol. 2, Part 1: Rinr~njo.Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Harvard University. Grube, Nikolai, and Simon Martin. 1998. ""Polltica cX6sica maya dentro de una tradicibn mesoamericana: Un modelo epigrdfico de organizacibn politica %egemhnica.'" h Modelm de entidades porfl't.z'casfrlayas. Pritrrer sfnzr'narhde Redondas de Palefzque,pp. 133-146. Mexico City: INAH.

Court and Rmlm

191

Cuillemin, I, R, 197'7. "Urbanism and Hierarchy at Iximche,""~n Norman Hamrnond, ed., Social Process in Mnya PreIgktoryf pp. 227-264, London: Academic Press. Garden City: Doubleday. Hall, Edward T. 1966. The Hidden i3i~;~rensintr. Harnmond, Norman. 1991. ""lsicle the Black Box: Defining Maya Pofity.'"n T. Patrick Culbert, ed,, Ctassic h y Political ~ His:sto~,pp. 253-2M, Schost of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harrison, Peter. 1970. " m e Central Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: A Preliminary Study of the Fmctions of Its Structural Cr~mpanentsDuring the tate Classic 13eriod.'"Ph.B dissertatian, University of Penntiylvania. . 19139. ""Spatial. Gecrmetry and Logic in the Ancient Maya Mind, Part 2: ArM.FG. Robertson and V. M. Fields, eds. Sevetzflt Pclilenq~dozrnd chitecture," 'I Tablef 1989#pp. 243-252. San Francisco: Pre-"Columblan Art Research Institute. ,1999. Lords of Tihl. London: Thames and Hudson. Houston, Stephen D. 1992. ""Classic Maya Potitics." h EElin C. Danien and Rc>bert Sharer, eds., New Thories orz the Ancierzi Mnyn, pp. 65-69. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Museum. . 4943. Hieroglyphs and klistory al Dos Pitns: l;t;yrtastiePolitics of the Classic [email protected]: University of "fexasPress. Houston, Stephen D., and Hkctor Escc~bedo.199Z 'Wescifrando Xa politics Maya: Perspectivas arqueofbgicas y epigrdficas sobre el concepto de los estados segmentariojs." In Juan Pedro 1,aporte and Hkctor 1,. Escobedo, eds., X Simposk de Inz?estkncit>12es Rrqueolcigicas ert Cuntemnia, 2996, pp. 463481. Guatemala: Ministerio de CuXtura y Deportes. Houston, Stepken D., David Stuart, and John Robedmn, 4998, "Disharmony in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Linguistic Change and Continuity in Classic Society," In Andr6s Ciudad Ruiz et al,, eds., Rnatamia dc iirja civz"liznci6rz:Rproximnciones i~zferdisciplz'rznrias a In culturn maya, pp. 275-296. Madrid: Sociedad Espafida de Estudios Mayas. Houston, Stephen D., Stacey Symonds, Bavid Stuart, and Arthur Bemarest. 1992. "'A Civil War of the tate Ctassic I7en"od:El~iciencefrom Hierc>glyphlcStairway 4." Unpublished manuscript. Ichon, Alajn. 1975, Orgarzizacirin de 14n centm qzkz'cllk prolal~isldrica:Pzreblt:, Viejo Clzicl-rnj. Institutcl de Antropologia e EIistcjria Pubticacibn Especial No. 9, Guatemala: Xnstituto de Plntropologia e Historia. Inomata, Takeshi. 19537. "The Last Day of a Fortified Classic Maya Center: Archaeological Investigations at Aguateca, Guatemala." Ancient Mesoanzerica 8: 33'7-351 . Jones, Christopher, 1992. ""Cycles of Grow& at Ekal." XIF T. Patrick Culbert, ed., Classic Mayn F"aIiriicnf His tnry: Hicroglypttic and A reltraeological Ez?idenee, pp. 102-127. khocjl of American Research Advanced Sminar Series. Cambridge: Cambridge tiniversiv Press. Kaufman, Terrence S., and Williarn M. Ncrrman. 1984. "An Outline of ProtoChvlan Phonolog, M o q h o l o g and Vocabut ary.,"'In f uhn S, Jmtesvn and Lyle Campbell, eds., PIzotzeticisslm in Mayntl kll'eroglypilric Writirzg, pp. 77-166, Publication No. 9. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerisan Studies, State University of New York .

Kidder, Alfred V. 1950. ""ltroduction to Uaxactun, Guatemala: Excavations of 1931-37." In A. Ledyard Smith, ed., Uauctun, Guatemala: Exc~vatiansof15t31-37. Carnegie institution of Washington Publication 588. Washington DC: Carnegie Institution. Kolata, AXan 1,. 1983. ""Chan Chan and Cuzco: On the Nature of the Ancient Andean City.'Yn Kichard M, Leventhal and Alan L. Kc?lata, eds., Civilimtiotz in the Ancienf Amen'cns: Essnys in Honar of Gordon R, Willey, pp. 345-371. Alburquerque: University of New Mexicr~Press. MacLead, Barbara. 1990. ""Te Gad N/Step Set in the Primary Standard Sequence." In Justin Kerr, ed., TIze Mnyn Vase Bnak, vol. 2, pp. 331-347, New Vark: Merr Associates. ManzaniXla, Linda. 1997. "Teotihuacan: Urban Archetype, Cosmic Model." In Linda Manzanilla, ed., Elrlergence and Clfange in Early Urban Societies, pp. 109-1 32. New- York: Plenum Press. Marcus, Jnyce, 3.976, Emblem and Stnlie in the Classic Mayn Lozvlartds: An Epigmplric Approach to Territorial Organization. Washington, DC: Dumlaartc~nOaks Research Library and Collectim, . 1983. "On the Nature of the Mesuamerican City.'" In Evon Z. Vagt and Richard M. Leventhal, eds., Prefzisfnric Seftlemetzt Patterrzs: Essnys itz Hotjor of GordCIn R. Willey, pp. 195-242. Afbuquerque: bidvmsity of New Mexico 13ress. . 1993. ""Ancient Maya Pc>Xitical Organization." h Jeremy A. Sabfoff and in the Er'g.htlt Century n.u., pp. John S. Henderson, Lowln~rdMayil Ci~~ilizafio~il 113-171.. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Z,ibrary and Collection. Martin, Sirnon. 1995. ""New Epigraphic Data on Maya Warfare." "per presnted at Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, Nueva Epcxa,. Palenque, Chiapas. . 4996, "Tikal" '"Star Warxgainst Naranjo."Vin Martha Macri and Merle Greene Robertson, eds., Eigtzth hlenque Rolind TizbZe, 3993 Vi?L 20, pp. 223-236. San Franciscc~:Pre-Colurnbian Art Research Institute. . 1997. "The Painted King List: A Commentary on Cadex-style Dynastic Vases." h Justin Kerr, ed., The Maya Vase Book, vol. 5, pp. 847-867. New Yc3rk: Merr Associates. 1998. "At the Periphery: Early Mcjnuments in the Vicinity of Tikal." "per presented at the Third European Maya Conference, The Sacred and the Profane: Architecture and Identiw in the Suthern Maya LcJwlands, Universiv of P-iarnburg. .2000a. "Los sefiores de Calakmul." Arquealc7tjh Mexic~na7(42, MarchApril): 48-45, 2000b (in press), " h e l i d n a r y Report on Epigraphic Fieldwork at Calakrnul 19%-98." Mexicon. Martin, Sirnon, and Nikolai Grube, 1 994. ""Evidence for Macro-Political Organizatican Among Classic Maya Z,ow-bnd States." Manuscript on file at Universiv College London and University of Bonn. . 1995. 'Waya Superstates." A~fzaeology48(6): 43-46. . 2000. Clzrorzr'cleof-the Maya Ki~zgsand Queerls: Decz'plzel-itzg the Bjnasfielvs of the Ancient a y a , tandon: Thames and Hudson. Mathews, Petec 4979, "Notes on the Inscriptions of 'Site Q."' Manuscript on file, Department of A~haeology,University of Calgary, Alberta.

Court and Rmlm

193

. 1991, "Classic Maya Emblem Clypb," In T, Patrick CuLbert, ed., Classic Mayil I;301itical His tory: HierogEyyl~E'cand A rckaeologicaE Evidence, pp. 19-29, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. May Hau, J., R. Cohuah Mufioz, R. GonzLilez Heredia, and W J. Folan. 1990. El mnpa de Ins rzrinns dp Calnkttzzrl, Campcchc, M&xicu. Campc.lclze, Universidad AutBnoma de Campeche, CTHS. Milinn, Rat&, 49'16. ""Social Relations in Ancient Tec~tihuacan."VnE. Wolf, ed., The V~lEeyof Mexico: Silldies irz Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society, pp. 205-248. Albuquerque: School of American Research and University of New Mexico 13ress. Mcjrley Sylvanus G. 1946. The Ancient Mnyn. $tanford: Stanford University Press. Offner, Jerorne. 1983. Law alzd h l i f i c s in Aztec "Texcoco. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Qrregn Corzo, Miguel, and Rudy Larios 'Willalta. 4983. E h l , Petitz: Reporte de Ins invesl&aciorzes nrqtreo.afrigz'casen el Grupo 5E-12. Guatemala: Tnstituto de Antmpologia e P-iistnria, Parque Nacic~nalTikal. Preziosi, Donald. 2979. The Semiotics of the Built Envimn~rtent-:An X~ztrodz-lctionto Arckitectorzk Annlysis, Bloc~mington:Indian University Press. . 1983.Minoan AI.clzr'tecfurnlDesign: Fmlrznfz'onand Sigign$ctltio~.Berlin: Mouton. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. 1962, "Civic and Religious Structures of May apan.'" In Harry E.D. Polfock, RaXph L. Roys, Tatiana Prc>skouriakoff,and A. ledyard ~, pp. 87-464. Carmgie Institution of WashingSmith, M a p p a ~ E~ f, c d f a ~Mexico, ton Publication 619. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Puleston, Dennis E, 4983, The Settlement Sltrvey of Tikal: Tileat Report No. 13. 13hiladelphia:University of Penntiylvania Museum. Rattray, Evelyn, 1977'. "A Central Mexican Perspective an Teotihuacan-Maya Contacts." Paper presented at the International Symposium on Ma ya Art, Architectur, ArchaeoXc>gyand Hierc~gXyphlcWitjng, Guatemala City. Ringle, William. 2 985. "Notes on Two Tablets of Unknown 13rovenance,'"In Merfe Greene Robertson and Virginia M. Fields, eds., The Palenqlre Ro~rndTable Series, ud. 8, pp. 151-158. San Franociscc~:Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Rivera Dc)rado, Miguel. 1997. "CCtues to the System of Power in the City of OxkinClznnge itz Early Urbgn Societks, tcrk," In Linda Manzanilla, ed., Emerge~cma~ld pp. 169-179. New York: Plenum Press, Robertmn, Merle C r e n e , 1985a. The Sc~if;9tzlreof Pale~tq~ic: TIze Early Bul'ldi~zgsof the Palizce land trlte Wall Isclintings, vol. 2. Prhceton: Princeton University Press. . 198Sb. The Sculptlire cf Pnlenqzie: Tlze Late Buildings of Elle Pnlnce, vol. 3. Princeton: Princeton University Press, Rowe, J&n. 1982. "'lnra Polides and Institutions Relating to the Cultural Unifitaticm of the Empire." In Gectrge Collier, Renato Rnsaldo, and Jc~futWirth, eds., Tke ltzcn and Aztec Slate 140&18UO, pp. 93-118. New York: Academic Press. Sanders, William T., and David Webster. 19815. "The Mesoamerican Urban Tradition." Amerimn Anthropologist 90: 521-546. Schele, Linda. 4994. "The Demation of Chak-Zutz": Lineage Compounds and Subsiduary Lords,'" In MerXe Greene Robertson and Virginia M, Fields, eds,,

Sixtti Pale~lqzteRound Table, 196°Cpp. 6-11. Norman: University of Oklahoma 13ress. Schele, Ljnda, and David Freidel. 1990. A Forest of Kitzgs: The Untold Stol-y of fhe Ancient Mayn. New Uark: William Morrow. Schele, Linda, and Ni kola t Gsube. 1994. Notebook for the Se~lenleentJzMkyn Hieroglyplzic Workslroy, Mnrclz 12-13. Edited by T, Albright, Austin: University of Texas. Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller. 1986. The Blood of Kj~zgs:Dyrzusfy and Ritrsal ilz m y a Art. New York: George Braziller. Sharer, Robe& J, 1978. ""Archaeology and History of Quirigua, Guatemala," lournn2 #Field Arclfaealogy 5: 51-70, Smith, A. Led yard. ed. 1950. Uaxnetun, Cl4atemnll-r: Excnvafzlons of 1931-37. Carnegie Institution of Wshingtcln 13ublicatian588, Washington DC: Carnegie institution. Smith, Michael. 1986. "The Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec Empire: A View from the Provinces." American Anthropologist 88: 70-91. Stuart, Davicl. 1989, "Hieroglyphs on Maya Vessels," In Justin Kerr, ed., 'TheMnyn Vase Bank, vol. 1, pp. 149-160. New York: Kerr Associates. . 1996, "The Arrival of Strangers: Teatihttacan and ToLlan in Classic Maya Classic Heritage: From TieutiHistory." "per p ~ s e n t e dat the symposium "I"@ huacan to the Tempto Maps, Princeton University Studies in Stuart, David, and Stepkm D. Houtitan. 1994. Classic Mnya Place N~1~1es. Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 33. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Colledion. TedXock, Dennis. 1985. Popc~lVulz: The Muytzn Book of tile Dn~vncf&$e. New York: Siman and Schuster. Taurtellot, Gair, 1993. "A View of Ancient Maya Sttlernent 13atternsin the Eighth Century," In Jeremy A, Sabloff and John S. Henderson, eds., Lowlnizd Maya Civilization iu the Eigtzth Century A.D., pp. 219-241. Washington, BC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Coflection. Tozzer, Alfred M. 2941. Lnndn's Relacicilz de Ins Costls de Yucnta'lil. 13agers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeolctgy and Ethnology 18. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Turner, EIien S., Norman i. Turner, and Richard E. W Adarns. 1981.."Vc>lumetric Assessment, Rank Ordering, and Maya Civic Centers." In Wendy Ashmore, ed., Lowland m y a Settlemeat Patterns, pp. 37-70, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Wallace, D. T. 2977, ""An Intra-Site Locational Analysb of UtatXan: The Structure of an Urban Site," h D. T. V\lalXace and R. M. Carmack, eds., Arctzneofogy and Etlznolzistoty of the Central Q14 idre, pp. 20-54, Institute far Mesoamerican Studies Publication 1 . Albany: State University of New York. Weber, Max, 1954. The City. Glencoe: Cleneae Press. Webster; David, ed. 1989. The House cf the Bacabs, Gopnn, Hondztras. Studies in PreColumbian Art and Archaeology, na. 29. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Colledion.

Classic Maya Concepts of the Royal Court An Analysis of Renderings on Pictorial Cer~mz'cs DORIE I-CEENTS-BUDET

Late Classic Maya painted ceramics have lmg been used to establish archaeological chrcmology and to infer difkrent kinds of swiopolitical interaction. The pictorial and hieroglyphic imagery painted on these vessels has been studied. for its religious, mythological, and historical narratives. In addition to these traditional artlnas of modern inquiry, the visud narratives also arc a rich sowcc of m i c data, concerning the physical form of Cfassic-period architecture m d especialfy the social, political, and psychological ctrmpor;iticm of the Classic-period regal court. It has often been slated that an undcrstanhg of these painted nasratives and their c a t settings would lead to a better understandjng of the mgal architectural remains found at Classic-period sites (Ccre 1973; Coggins f 975; Schefe and Mjller 1984; %h& and Mathews 1998; Spinden 1975).In fact, although the representations provide specific clues concernhg the use and fmctims of regal court buildings, it is more importmt that they are Classic-period notations of both the idealized and actual social constitution and hierarchical structure of the Maya court. The mnderlngs on the pottery pmvide a unique opporbnity to study Classic Maya ccmceptions of cowt space, the psychology of hterior versus exterior space, and the role of the royal presence therein. This chapter discusses the presentations of court architeebre found on 1% I:.,ateClassic pottery vessels.' These emic portrayds arc of five primary forms: the pIaza; the ball court; the tall, pyramid.; the terraced platfnrm; and the range stmcture, or '"palace.'"e frevency of the five cate-

gories correlates with their f ~ q u e n c yin the archaeological record. That is, the most colnntonly depicted form is the range structure (the "palace" or "noble administrative building") with its supporting terraced platform and broad stairway (I37 of the 1% vessels stuciied). 'T'he kast cornm m form is the tdl pyramid s u p p r t h g a small building (two ve~scls)~ Tntercrstinigly, Athough the plaza is an integral: part of Classic Maya site desip, the ceramic corpus includes only three obvious illustrations of the open space of a plaza with its associated low flatfnrms, Ten vessels portray activities taking place in front of the broad stairs of terraced p1a.tforms, the pictorial format implying that the events are transpiring in plaza areas. Chly t-hirteerz vessels depict ent.ire buildings m d their contiguous plazas (e.g., see Kerr 1994:567 llK4628, K46291, Robicsek and I-lales 4982:28-29), four cJf these being quasi-Maya vessels from northwestern Honduras, And last, alll-\ou$h baugarne imgery and artitBcts am abundant in the archaeological record and the Mcsoameriean ballgame continues to fascinate modem studmts of the Classic Maya, only thirteerz vessels feature ball-court architecture, Beyond their importance as Maya representations of court buildings and the human and sociopolitical compositim of the c a t , these paintingmre a rich sottrce of informatinn concemil7g Chc many items made of perishable material that embellished the Maya court.? Curtains made of plain or decmated cloth or jaguar pelts hang w e r the doorways (see Reents-Budet et al. 1"34:'35 [K1728]; Robicsek and Hales 1982:28-29). Wven mats, decorilted cloth, and jaguar pelts cover the benches found inside the buildings (see Kerr 1947:807 [K5456j; Reents-Budet et al. 4994:94 [E;Z7%]),.Large cushjons sit atop Chcse benches, the cushions made .from cloth and jaguar peIts stuffed with such f i b a s as c m silk, corn husks, a d crJiba tree cotton (e.g., see Culbert 199.3:Figure 75a; Kerr 1989:56 [K1453]; Merr 1990:2t47 w2697, 290 [K278213. Other peridable iterns jnclude banners (eg., see Kerr 1989:29 [K631J),wooden objects such as boxes, plates and other serving items, woven baskets and gourd containers (see Kerr 1989:56 [K1453], Reents-Budet et al. 1"39:95 [M17281), m d an assortment of portable accoutmments of royal power and prestige (see Kerr 1989:87 [1(1454], 19"3:799 IK5454). 'These painted scenes also are a unique source of repwsentatims of the attirc?worn by corlrt participants, their luxuriant garments and.headdresses indicating their social, status, court roles, and sometimes political alfitiation. Some vessels illustrate litters (Figure 7,1, K767; d s o see Kerr 1992807 fX(Fi4561) and what are most likely mvable thrones, both made from wood and other lightv\rei&t materials (Figure 72, KCiSQ;also see Kerr 1992:456 [K40301, 19943550 [1(4549]; Reents-Budet et al. 1"34:'35 IK1728). The pictorial vessels provide a bridge back to the Classic period, filhg with peopltr, furnishimgs, and accoutremcynts of oflice and regal power the

FIGURE 7.3 K767. An official court visit and the presentation of prisoners take place cjn the broad staiway of a court range structure similar to Calakmul Structure XXXZ I (see Figure 7.55).Photograph Q Justin Kerr,

FIGUM 7.2 M80. A prisoner sacrifice rite takes place cjn the staiway fronting a court range structure elevated on a platform. The seated ajizw sits on a lighweight and perhaps mo>vablethrone constructed of thin wooden poles and other perishable materials. Pf-rotograghO Justin Kerr:

now bare stone s2teletons of the Maya court 'T"heyare a unique resource from which to infer the fmctiorls of court buildings fomd at Maya, sites and the sociopolitical composition of the royal court, This chapter begins with a discussion of the kinds of palace architecbre rendeed on the pottery, examines the events taking place inside the court buildjngs and the activities' participants, and addmsses the court" formal and psychological compcrsi.tion that may be inferred from these d q i c ~ o n s .

The Representatianal Formats of Classic-Period Courf Buildings Most representations of court architecture are frontd portrayals of the buildings, rendering the upper step of the supporting platfoms and the buildings' floor, piers, medial moldings m cclmices, and upper zones (after Loten and Pezzdergast 19%). Only thirteerz vessels depart from this iormat and portray the entire building as a me-roomed structure with a thatched or stone-vaulted roof and set atop a terraced platfom with a sing;le stairway on the front. The roofs are?rep~se~zted in the trapezoidal shape of stone corbel-vaulting or thatch typical of ancient and modem Maya architecture, The roofs are decorated with iconic motifs that define the s p b o l i m and, to a certain externt, the lunction of the structure; they also provide clues about the scenesharrative contents. The icons hclude Itsamna:h (God C ) ) (see K m 1992:443 [K3M4]), his animd spirit companion "Itsan? Yeh" (the ""Principal Bird Deity"";Cortez 1986), and the Ksion Serpent with K'igich Ajazli, the sun god (see Kerr 1989:10 [MM]).' Similarly the pietorial program on a black background vase from northern Gudemala present.^ two profile buildings m d narrates ritmls associated with the sacrifjce of the maize god (see Robirsek and Hales 3982:28-29).%e builaings (or "shrinesff)are elevated on l w platforms with h n t stairways. h unusud feature is the 1u:a ([email protected])"sto~ze" icmographic s i p s marking the buildings"roofs, seemingly indicating their stone ~clnstruction.~ Illustrations of thatched roofs are rare on the pietorial pottery. They magi be implied by the band of chevron motifs that typically ermbellish the rims of pottery from tbe Nebaj region of southern Guatemala, the chevron bands repscswting tie cords bindilzg the thatch (see Kerr 1994:580 [K4660]), Their form and fomat recall a similar band encircling the "roof" at the top of w a n Stela f. (see Schele and Mathews 1998:Fi.gurc 4.5). The use of the ckvron band around the base of the Nebaj pottery vessels, buwever, may argue against this interpretation. Less prohlematic renderings of thatch are seen on two vessets. One employs a horizontal line of painted "fringe" "indicating thatch, located arou~zdthe vessel and abwe a figure seated on a bench (see Kerr 1997:827 [f((j062]). I'he second example depicts the thatch as a horizontal band of modeled

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

199

and painted clay placed just below the wase's rirn (see Kerr 1994:558 rK45771). This band indicates the roof's characterislic overhmg above the building's supporting waU, the clay band dhided into vertical tabs marked with cmss-hatching. The depiction of roof combs is rare h the ceramic corpus (found on only three vessels). One is a step-fret design (Figure 7.3; :K8681 recalling cut-stone roof combs found at Chichen ltza (Figure 7.4) a d Kabah (Carraseo V. 1990). A vase made h northwestern Honduras re~ndersa "kmple" with, a spotted feline atop the roof in the usuaf position of a roof comb (see Ken 1994:55K [K45773)*This same type cJf buildifig, but with a saurim zoomorph atop the rod, is fo~mdon the carvcd stonc altar in Ihe Dial1a.s Art Museum. Similar ritual buildings are schematicdly replicated in ceramic as lidded, square vases (Coe 4973:13&1.4(5). 'f'heir quadrangular body is the building m d the sloping-sided lids with carved h o b denote the roof and roof comb, The incised irnagery illustrates high-status males seated cm a flanged bench or on the floor. Tne undecorated frame surroundhg the figures is understood as the buildbgs' piers.

The Ternace& Platform and Range Stmcture Most historical scenes painted on the ccsamics pertain to the business of the royal court and the nobility. Ahrchaeologicai data indicate that these events took place in and aromnd range struckzzres that cmstit~tethe majority of sitcskourt architecture (Figure 7.5). Not [email protected] the range struckre is the most cornmon architectural form on the pictoriai pottery. 9ve11ty-seven percelnt of the vessds in this study show events taking ptace inside or on the terraces of range stmcturcs. They are represented by combinations cJf the supporting platform, the building's floor, piers, medial moiding or cornice, upper zone, interiar cuftains, bench or thrune, and large cushions (Figure 7.6). Allthough these are schematized ~presmtations,the axhitectural elements correspond to those found at archaeological sites with the exception of the perishable items MIhich have not survived the tropical envim ent. Many vese.Ls~mageryincludes curtair~sspmning doorways, and a few ir~timatethat some had awnings suspe~ndedacross the exterior facade and pro~ridinga shaded area for the mose public affairs of the court (Figures 7.1 and 7.3; also see Kerr 49139:10 [K144]). Although no archaeological evidence of awnhgs has been recognized, perhaps the curious stone rings (or ""douhnut stones"")aund around these buildings were part of the awningsbupport apparatus. Range structures often are pictured atop a terraced platform with a wide staircase or m a low platform or the uppermost tier of a terraced platform. Some present only the b.taildinti; itself. Given these variaticlns

FIGURE 7.3 K8G8. A court building is depicted in a combined frontal (the room and bench throne) and profile (rwf crjmb) view. Photograph O Justin Kerr.

FIGURE 7.4 The decorative roof comb on a vaulted building from the Mercado Cornp1r;zxat Chichen Ttza closely resernbIes that illustrated on vessel K868 (see Figure '7.3) (drawing by the author, after IP~flack 1965:Figure 1Gf).

FIGUM Z.5 Czllakmtxl Structure XIlI. This is the type of large court building painted on many pictorial vessels that record public rituals (e.g., Figures 7.1 and 7.2). Photograph by D. Reents-Budet.

FIGUM 7.6 K2784 The scene on this vase from the Motul de San Jose polity depicts the top step of the supporting platform and the stucco-and-painted-stone superstructuw that characterize Classic-period court buildirrgs. Photograph G3 Justin Kerr.

and the myriad administrative and ritual actiwities rendered as taking place inside cowt buildings, it is probable that these are repre?se~ltations of not only the isdated structures atop terraced platforms (e.g., Calakmul Str. XIII; Fig. 5 ) but also the multibuilding palace compound"e.g., the Central Aeropoiis at Ekd; see Marrison, vol. 2 of this book, forthcoming 2001). Although unlikely, a few may depict the small buildings (or "shrines") found atop talI py'amids, Given the smaXl size of the interiofs of Classic-period buildings, some court rituals probAhly took place on the spacious stairs and upper terraces of the palace c0mplt.x (e.g., Figures 2.1 anci 7.2; also see Kerr f 992728 EKrE13J).These areas provide sdficient performative space 'or the daborate rites of the court, some of which were likely wihessed by large numbers of people g a t h a d in the plaza at the base of trhe buficjing. The caetaneous hieroglyphic stone hscriptions at many sites record such court visits for the purpose of witnessing rituals by local as well as foreign etignitaries (Marcus 1992; Schele and -thews 1991)The rituats pertain to the sociopofitical power m d economics of the polity m d its mling dynasty, the pairrted vessels beislg mcords of these events, It is not clear whether the scenes depicting large numbers of people gathered on the stairs of range slructures are those of td1 pyrarnids or terraced platforms, However, given that the events include such important sociopolitical rites as the plablic display of prisoners of war (e.g., see the murats at Bonampak; Miller 1984), logic dictates that the stairways are those of palace structures that typically face open public space, their broad staircvays constituting a suitably wide stage and their relatively low heiglh.es placing the participants in dose proximity to the plaza, h contrast, the narrow stairs and elevated superstructures of such buiIdings as Tikal Temple I clto not provide sufficient gathuir~gspace or viewing opportullity* Some vesselshscenes of the court do not include representations oi architechtral features. Instead, their ~ d - h u e drim and basal bands imply the medial molding or upper zone and Che floor of the building, Che color recalling the red-tinted stucco covering many Classic-period bujldings. In other examples, the Prirnary 5tmdarci Srquence or other hiemglyphic texts painted arottnd the vesscls' rims implies the rneciial molding (Figure 7.7, E(5453; also see Reents-Budet et al. 1994:95 [1(1.725]). Occasimafly piers art^ implied by vertical texts (Figure 7.7; also see Kerr 1990:297 [K29191)-Interczstingly, these rnirror the carved stucco m d stolle texts on structures at such sites as Palenque where they embellish piers, at Xcalumkin where they frame doorvvays, and at Caracol where they outline the base of the building on the Caana structure (Chase and Chase 1987, 1994, 1995). Tn the painted illustrations and the actual buitdhgs, then, the written word conveys architecturd and textual form, bringing

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

203

FIGURE 7.7' K5453. Two emissaries from Calakmut offer a bundle (a gift ar tribute) tcr a Ic~rdassociated with the site of TikaI. Phatograph G3 Justin Kerr.

to mind parallel theologies from other cultuses that pesceive th word as the primal force of creative construction, be it architecturaf or cosmological. Among the M a p , the cmved or painted word is m d e concrete, formally enframing the royal presence and sanctioning its authority s gallery-type buildings housirrg gatherOther range s t r u c t u ~ include ingmf pcopk (see Kerr 1992799 [KS454]).TThe arcf-ritectural environment is signaied by curtains painted below the vessel rim and by benches (see Kerr 1992:39nEK324qj,4 1 [K3832], 456 [K4030]). These scenes illustrate such activities as the preentation of visit?ingd&ga,tions and of tribute or gifts and the ancillary banwets m d ritual drhking. Gallery-we struch;lres may be imdicated m other vessels where the artists paifit a single h e of stepped motifs betow the vesseis~rints,Che typical location of curtains (see Kerr 1989:11 [K31.9], 29 [K631]; 1992:413 FK34'131). Gallerytype buildings often are found at a~haeologicalsites near palace c m plexes (e.g., C a l a h u l Structure =)(). &presentations of palace in.teriors feature three different kinds of seats: an attached bench, a free-standimg bench, and a cushion. 'The attached bench is a common feature of court buiIdings at. most sites, being a stone-and-stucco architectural element comected permanently to the building's floor and wall, many of which were painted red or red and white (see Kers 1989356 EKli1531). The free-stmding bench frequently has flanged edges and carved legs; its representations are s o m t h e s colorcd with a dark-valued hue, usually brown (Figure 7.7; for color see Reents-

Budet et al. 1994:26 [1(5453]).Free-standing benches were most likely made of wood and other perishable materials, no example of which has survived intact. These benches bring to mind the fragmnts of wooden constructions found in high-status buriats at such sites as Tikal and C a l a h u l - Although many are the remains of fwnerary biers or litters (e.g., Xkal Burial 185 [W Coe 1990:567] and C a l a h u l Tomb 4 in Structure If [Carrasco V. 1997]),some may be the remnants of wooden benches like those depicted on t-he pottery. h o t h e r type of free-stancfing bench depicted on the pottery is made of wood poles lashed together (Figure 7.2). These are rendered imide buildhgs as well as on the upper stairs or terraces of the multitimd platforms supporting range structures. 7"hese seem to be portable seats that could be moved from interior t;paces to exterior ones for those rites requiring a more public venue than that afforded by a building interior. The third type of seat is the large cushion covemd with jaguar pelt, cloth, and other decorations. These accoutrements are set directly on fhe floor (see Kerr 1,994:592 [K4489])or serve as backrests (Figure 7.1, also see Reents-Budet et al. 1995:94 [K2784]; Robicsek and Hales P982:28-29). Mayanists have conjectured that di.fl"erentk h d s of regal seats convey sociopoliticd messages; hourever, the prcsent analysis suggests that they relate instead to the kind of event or rite being recorded and.not necessarily to the social composition or political structure of the royal court. Except for a few rare instances (Figure 7.6; also see Inomata, this volume), these benches do not correlate with the architectural style at the site where the vessel was created or with the locus of the pai11tt.d scene.:

The Iconographic and Hieroglyphic Markings of Court Structures Classic hlfaya court buildings were deccnated with paint, midded stucco, and carved stone, The innagery mried narratives of p w e r (Roberison P985a, 1985b; Schele 1988) and also signaled a structure" identity (Fash and Fash 1996:136). Sadly, most have not survived in sufficiclmt condition to idelltify their programmatic narrathes or the buildbgs' proper nmes. Given the Classic-period penchant for architectural decoration and the giving of proper names to ritual ok?jects and buildings, it is surprisi~~g that the majoriry of structures depicted on the potteq lack these defining Ifeatures (Fash 1991; Houston and 'Taube 1987; Schele, Freidel, and Parker 1993). This absence leaves most portrayals ambiguous as to name and fuxzdion (also see Houston 1"38:362), The lack of architectural specificity stems from the vesse)s"rima~ narrative being about the individuals and the activities, not the precise court

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

205

stmcwe wi.thin which the event takes places. It see gly was sufficimt that the reprtlsentations simply make refera~ceto the ge~~eral category of court architeclturc, for example, the broad steps of a tersaced platform, or insicie a building. This point is underscored by the scmes of fh~elydressed persons wearing symbols of p ~ s t i g and e power and seated on cushions or benches but devoid of other architect-t-lralfeatures (see Culbert 2993:Figures M,85b); these b a c k s , jaguar-pelt cushions, and wdl-appofnted persons adequately idex~tifiedthe structurtls as court buildings. Many representations of stmctures are adorned with iconic signs that invoke fmction and meanhg but because the building is not the focus of the narrative, these markings arc abbrcviaed in content and format. Their minimalism is unlike the constellations of iconic m d hieroglyphic decoration characteristif of Late Classic-period buildings ( h s h and Fash f 996:23&137). Further, Chese renderjngs exhibit an overlap between their iconic signifiers and the kinds of events taking place inside them. This cooccurrence inthates that court buildings had more than one fmctisn, Hieroglyphic or iconic motifs adorn the buildings painted on one-third of the 137 vessels with images of range structures (e.g., see Culbert 3993:Figures 69, 7'0, 72, 75b; :Kerr 1994:592 EK4689f; Schele, Freidel, and Parker 1993:Figzlre 3.13)- Most of the decoration is placed on the structures' piers, the s m e location where stucco, stone, m d painted imagery is found on many buildh~gs(e.g., at Palenve; Rohertson 1985a:Flgures 29, 226). However, many piers seelningly were unadorned except for a stucco surface with mochmmatic painting. It is possible that cloth banners omameMed the piers, their impermanence ailov\riq them to be changed accordiag to occasion or funetion (see Kerr 1989:29 Ef(631f; 1994:558 EK457U). Unlike representations of buildjngs on pottery, the bulk cJf architectural decoratim is found on the medial molding and upper cornjee or "headhmd" "ash and Fash 1996:135; Lotem and Pendergast 1984; b g t 1993:52). The lack of such hagery on the pottev was an intmtional choice by the artists, the mission indicating that the focus of the scene is the event m d its participmts, not the architecture. Most vessels dcpict only one or two people inside a room, and the majority lack hieroglyphir texts recording the narnes and titles of these individuals and the naturrz of the event.. Xn thcse cases, Ihe iconically marked piers provide clues that are important for a corrcct interpretation of the scene. 'f'hat is, given the s c a ~ i t yof visuaf clues in these sparse and wigmatic r~resent-ationsof the May" courtf the artists added icons to the piers to provide data essential for comprehendhg the narmtke, a case in point being three vessels from Tikal Burial 116 (see Culbert 1993:Egures 69, 70, 72). CXn m,the piers m clecorated with a skyband, hvhereas on the second vase they are embellished with quatrefoil motifs, Both. we= painted by the same artist, a d they record the same cJbeisance rite in-

votving the same two people, an event that presumably to& place inside the same court structure (also see Coggins 1975:524). The th-ird[ vase, pahted by a different artist, may record, the same or a similar event, implied by co-occurrences of headdresses and figwal pose in the vase's two pmels (see Culbert 1993:Figure 72). The buildhg's piers are decorated with curled motifs flanked by flowers. h other contexts, this curled motif symbolizes bodies of still water which often are associated with water lilies in Maya art. tlnlilce the o&er two vasPs, this one pictures two parts of the same ritual, its bipartite nature signaled, by changes in costume, figural pose, and benches. One scene depicts the enthroned lord wearing a feathered cape and a headdress marked with three knots above his iorehead. and a tdl spotted feather atop his head. He sits on a carved bench embellished with circles denoting liyMid (perhaps a "'water hone;'' after I:.,ooper1995). h the other seme, he wears a fish-eatirrg-water-lily headdress and sits on a large fringed cushion, All though the regal seating is different m all three vessels, -the lorcl's headdress is the same.K Given the similarities in costumes, participants, and figural placement and gestures, these Tikal vesels appear to recount the same historical event hside presumably the same court buildhg; yet the structure is variously embellished by a, skyband, a quatrefoil marked with crossed bands, and a water-and-floral motif. Unlike the single-lunc"cicmcomotations of the decoration on court buildings at Copan (Fash and Fash 1996), the Xkal vessels k p l y an overlap in iconic marking and building function. At Copan, celestial s i p s and sun disks mark ancestor shrines such as Structure 29, and water lifies denote administrative/water temples such as Structure 32 (1Fask.r and Fash 1"396:136),In contrast, the Ekal vessels fmply that these s i p s mark the same building. 'This owerlap may be reconciled if: we consides Ihe markings as connotative e~~richments of the scenesknarratives and not as labels of specific identity. The various ictms and hieroglyphs that mark the piers of noble buildings include mat dcsig~~s, jaguar pelts, the tszhk "s~tpematuralpmtitinn"" icon or sohr deity, water and floral icons, serpent markings, astronomical and calendrical signs, hieroglyphiwompounds whose meanings remain s obscure, and a quatrefoil cartouche filled with various motifs ( F i g u ~7.8 and 7.9). Most are symbols oi political authority, especially the mat design which refermces the plaited mat covering court benches and the glyphic title of olfice uh pop "be of the mat'' ((Figure 7.8a; Ber%ir-r1958; Schele and Miller 1986:71), This same motif marks council houses (pop01 I?&) at sites such as C n p m fFash 1994; Schele, Freidel, and Parker f 993:143), U'axactun (V;tld&s 19891, and House R of the Palace at Palenque (Rdbertson 1385h). The mat motif also decorates other types of court buildings at Cararol such as Stmckre B-XVfII (Chase, vol. 2 of this book,

FIGURE 7.8 Iconic motifs marking the piers of court buildings (drawings by B. Keent$Buclet): (a) pup "mat" matif, (b)jaguar pelt, (c) tszdk "pa&itic>nP' motif, (d) water motic (e)sergent markings, ff) skyband, (g) a listing of the twenty tzolkin day [email protected], (F?) hierctglyphic:text of unkncjwn meaning, (i) hieroglyphs of unknown meaning.

a b c FIGURE 7.9 Quatrefoil fc~rms,embellished with various mcjtifs, often mark the piers of cou& buildings pictured on the pottery.

fnrthcomfng 2(3(51).Jaguar pelts embellish objects of royal and ideological authority; they cover myal benetnes, are used for the clohtning and headdresses of njaws (especially the eiz'uhzll ajar& the " d k i n e lord"" and other elites, and envelop the sacred books. The jaguar pelts d o m i n g the piers of court buildings, then, mark them as places of authority (Figure 72%; also see Kerr 1990:290 EK2782j). 'The astronomical s i p s , or "skyhands," found cm nine vessels in the assembled corpus (Figure 7.8f; also see Kerr 1994:63ri [1(4929], 1997:8%7 [KkQ67]) mimic iconic signs found m accession houses (e.g., House E of the Palace at Palenque) and the Castillo at Xunantunicb, as well as stelae recordirtg royal accessim such as Piedras Negras St. 2SeySome pottery vessels may record accession events and depict the building inwhich the rite transpired, the skyband on the piers contributing to tbe correct interpretation of an otherwise ambiguous scene. 'The accession narrative is further indicated by the enthroned person holding a wooden plate that contains a knotted cloth resembling the slzk I-ztkraaE headband worn by Maya rulers (see &rs 1994:h16 [K4929]), or by what may be an "'accest;ion bmdlc" ssitting in front of the seated f i p r e (see Kerr 1997:827 [K6067])."' Some enthroned figures wear icons pertaining to Its prirnary gods of cosmic creation, espedally his characteristic headdress and the personified wing of ""lzam Yeh," his spirit companion or "ioay (Schele, Freidel, and Parker 1993:231-25f7j. Four p"ttery vessels depict Itsamna:h si.tting eiLkes on a be& rnarked cvith a skyband or within his "temple-house,'" which features a skyband on its supporting platform (see Kerr 1992:443 [awl;Reents-Budet et al. 1994~14[KIIS3]). The skybmd dernarcatling the accession house may undascol-e the co~rceph.ralrelationship m m g Classic-period rulers, Ttsa a:h, and the cmmos (Gppelman 1997:103-132; Schele, Freidd, and Parker 1993:231-256). fntewsthgly at Copm, celest-ial signs mark buildings identified as ancestor shrhes (Fash and Fash 1996:136). M a p s court buildirngs with ancestral connotations we= the lmale of royal accession evmts as well as of tribute p~senbtion. A second, m d not exdusivc, consi.d.eratim is that accessinn buiidings were also perceived as celestial enclosures of divination. This interpretation stems from the occasional presence on the piers of the tsllk icon, which may denote the padition hel-tveen the hvorldly and supernatural realms (Schele, FrrzideI, and Parker 1993:190)."' It was this partition that fta:h, as the first ritual specialist or priest (Kappelman 1996:1(14-132), actjvated during creation (Schele, Frcidel, and Parker 7,993:66-74, 280-283; ScheZe and Mathews 1998:417),On one vase, an enthroned lord sits L\rithin a building whose lower medial molding is marked by a skyband and atso has a fringed (thatched) roof (see Kerr 7,997:827 EK60621). The supporting piers arc decorated with a geometric rendition of the tszlk icon. 'The markings on this building and the prttsence of an accession

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

209

bundle in front of the enthroned lord connote ascension to office, the ruler's mythologj,al and idedogical connectiarr to Itsama:h, and his religious ritual duties, The courtly h u i l d i ~ ~asg a plaee of divination is also h$icated on a codex-style vase (see Robiesek and Hales 1982:68, vessel 86). It portrays a high-status person s i t t i q on a bench inside a build.ing and holding a sheaf of &athers, The piers are marked with the tszrk icon. Sitting bebw the bench are three divhation mirrors used by Maya rulers in their role as ritual specialists or "priests" " ( ~ u t 1978; Schele and F ~ i d e 1990:121; l Schele a d Mathews 1998:45-50, 414; Taube 1992b:198).12The combhation of fsuk icon and court arctTlitecture is repeated on Copan St. J (see Schelc and Mathews 19538:Fig, 4.5). The stela replicates the tszrk house seen on the codex-styte vessel, replete with thatched roof. The hieroglyphic text on the stela's east side is arrmged in a plaited mat pattern, a prime syrmbol of royal authority (Schele and Mathews 1998:13'7). Itsamna:hfs "conjuring house" FtSchele 1992:178) is rendered on one vase where a half-quatrefoil entbellishes the pier (see Kerr 1992:443 [K3844]). This quatmfoil cartouche is the most common iconic element marking piers cm the pottery (Figurc. 7.9). h Mesoamerkm art, the quatrefoil symboljzes the d, or ""gortal,'"nto the supernatural realm, thruugh which a ritual specialist travels and through which the gods, deified ancestors, and i f z "essence" is brought into the humm realm by ?'his is these practitioners (frichele, Freidel, and Parker 1993:51-53, an ancient magico-religious concept and artistic motif whose origins can be traced to the Olmec of the Formative period (Reilly 1994,3996:35). The quatrefoil ""prtal'kontains various motifs including crossed bands, cross-hatched lines, jaguar-pelt markings, or the snk hzrnnl royal. headband icon (Figum 7.9; also see Kerr 19911:51i3 [K4617f).Similar quatrefoils are modelcd in stucco on corlrt buildings at Palenque, \zrhere they contah ixnages of deified mcestors, gods, or hieroglyphic texts (Rnhertson 1985a, 1985b, 1991).There is no consistent correlation between a vessd's narsativc and the kjn& of motifs markjng these qudrefoils. For example, two vessels painted in two different styles and made in geographically dispersed workshops include jaguar-pelt markings ivlside the quatscfoils on the buildings' piers (see Kerr 1,994:543 [K4479], 769 [K5191]). In both instances, the main figure is the tomured m a i s god wearing attributes of Itsa a:h. &e depicts the maize god rising from dark primordial waters enframd by arclhitectud references (see Kerr 1994:543 [K4479]);the other =cords the god seated w i t h a building and holding a wooden plate containing a jade-head necklace (see Kerr 1994:769 [K51N]), The jaguar-pelt markings \zrithin the quatrefoils, then, do not specifq; a pasticular narratke or building type but instead impart mythic, transformative power to the scenes,

The lack of correlation between a scene" narrative and fie markjngs within the quatrefoils is exemplified by vessels fsalvr Xkal Burial 116 (see Culbert 1993:Fignres 72b, 7'3, i"5a). The events pictured on these vessels jnctuete ritual food service (possibly a court banyuet), heir designation, accession or a similar official designation, and obeisance before an enthruned crjazr?. The quatrefoils decorating the piers contain crossed bands. As a signifier of fie ol, these quatrefoils qualify the structures as regal places connected to Chc office of @to. The floral motifs, kvlnich occasionally surround the ol, underscore this connection to the mler (the flower of ajaw-ship; after Gmbe 1989;Shtart 1989). The correlatio, of the structure with the office of njuzc? supports the hypnthesis that the Classic Maya perceived the palace compound as the stone and stucco ermbodiment of the office of ajaw-ship and of the royal phpical body. To underscore the comotatim of the palace as the ennhodjment of the royal corpus, Classic-period mtists added other motifs and hicroglyphs to piers-uatrefoil icons. For example, six vessels from the Guatemalan highlands depict piers marked by jaguar pelts and a quatrefoil containing the image of the slak hzlnal icon (Figure 7.9a; also see Kerr 1990:563 [K4612]).As an emblematic embodiment of Classic-pericrd kingship and the ch5uhul ajaw, the sak hzinal imbues court structures with direct reference to the royal body. on the piers of rendered palace buildings conThe p t ~ f o imarkings l note the architectural category of "sacred myai slclosure" sswiated with the royal corpus rather than being sgecjfic architecturalnominal devices or indicators that court buildings had only one function. 11%some examples, is qualified by the presence of an icon inthe nature of the saered ellclos~~re side tbe quatrefoil (e.g., the s& hrrnal headdress of rulership), afthough these too serve primarily as symbols of legitimization and narrative amplikatian rather than notations of building n a m or sillgttlar flmctim. .A final example of this point is demonstrated by a comparison between Cogm Structure 33, the so-called I:,ineage House (Fash f 991:13&ICM)(Figure 7.18a), and a vessel from the northcrn Peten lowlands (Figure 7.10b). The upper zone of SSructure 33 is carved with a constellation of specific iconic motifs whose combined narrative pertains to the order of the cosmos, the symbolic oi! portal, and the place of deified ancestors within this mythic construct (Fash 1991:13%134; Schele, FreG del, and Parker 1993:189). One of the constituent icons on this lineage hause is an enframed k"itz sign trhat recalls the p d y c b l n c vase on which is depicted an elite person sitting within a structure, The piers of the building are marked by a similar kfin motif, and fie medial molding or upper zonc;?is impljed by a repetition of a fsmGliEte "partition" ggl~f-r.~~ The illustrated bujlding and the Copan Lineage House, then, share iconic m a r h g s anci perhapwalso served the same hnction. As is typical

FIGUM 7.10 A comparison of narrative decorative programs on court architecture: (a) Copan Structure 33, the Lineage House (drawing by D. ReentsBudet after L, Schele); (b) K5092. The piers on a court building represented an a cylinder vase are decorated with the same k'in sign on Copan Structure 33.Photograph O Justin Kerr.

of architectural ~ n d e r i n g son the pottery, however, this depiction hcks the full niirrative as found on Copan's Ixdneage House, The k?ilz signs on the piers and the glyphs along the medial mlding or upper zone were sufficient for a Classic-period viewer to understand the buiidhg as a court structure with sacred lineage co~~natations. Hieroglyphs occasionaily decorilte buildings on vessels made in workshops located throughout the M v a region (Figure 2.8g-i). These rmge .from a list of Ihe twenb day signs (the tzolk'in) of the Maya divirtatory calendar (Figure 7.8g; also see Kerr 1992836 rF(69971) to the repetition of glypbP; whose sipificance in this conterct remains obscure (Figure. 7,8h, i). The scenes portray mythological events, supernaturals such as the simian artists Hun Batz m d H t m Chzkwen (Coe 1977; see Kerr 1992:377 [=994]), and elite activities taking place inside court structures (see Ken. f 994:580 [K46GO1). Although the meaning of the seems remains obsez~re, the glypbs and glyphlike markings on the piers contribute to the comprehension of the scene" narrative rather than the specific identification of the structure, The building m the codex-style vessel with tszrk icons decorating the piers is also decorated with a ~ p e a t i n gglyph flankrd by a rare glyphir comporlnd (121va~709.12fvar)(see Robiesck and Elalcs 1982:68, vessel 86). Nikolai Grube has suggested the reading abak ""iWsoot'' ffor this glyph (personal ccrmmunication, 1998), and Barhara MacLeod has proposed a reading connected to painting for a si,m,ilar glyph compound hown (MacLeod h Reents-Budet et al. 19(34:317).'De of the acti~~ities to have transpired inside court buildings is artistic pmduction, especially the scribd arts and the production of precious artifacts by couft artisans (Cae 1973, 1977; Cae and Merr 1998:97-101; Fash 1991:ll&121; Inomata 1995; Reents-Budet et al. 1994:3&"i71).The headdress worn by the seated figure on this codex-style vessel is found in other cmtexts where the primary narrative is court painting (e.g., see Coe 19717; Coe and Merr 1998391-92; Reents-Budet et al. 199448 [K5597f), although fie headdress can be worn by figu~flsin other courtly scenes with no dear scribat associations (e.g., see Reents-Budet et al. l994:76 lK15991). The bundle of feathers held by the seated figurt3 may =present quetzal-feather tribute or a bw~dleof quill pens ((3% and Kerr 1998:f 53). The tsuk icon, u b ~ khieroglyph, and the b m d k of feathers may denote the brailding as the focaie of vision v e s t , scrihal endewors, and the ~ c e p t i o nof tribute. Painted representations of royd buildhgs depict their now-perished accoutrements m d Ihe court's human participants, the images providFng unique clues concerning the constituent positions or offices and the ranked strwture of the Chssic-period court. These renderjngs werc not intended as a guidebook for the identification of specific buildjngs found ammg a site" elite axhit~turc.,although a few exceptions may be cited

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

213

(e.g., Krrr 1994:592 tIiiZri891). Inskad, the iconic and gfyphic markings mhance the pictoriai narrative by contributing to the conceptual understanding of the scene and.the building as, for example, an administrative stwcturt? with ancestral, cosmic, c ~ rsupmahtraf connotations. Further, such markjngs indicate that the s m e b d d i n g may be t-he locale of diiFferent kinds of admixtistrative and regalevents. Activifies, Padicipants, and Architectural Foms A variety of social and political events and ~ l i g i o u rites s takes glace inside court buildings, all of which were essential to the maintenance ol Classic-period society and its administrative structure and ideologcal foundatic,ns. Depictions rmge horn complex narratives illvolvhg numerous individuals to spastan portmyals of a single male person seated within m unadorned structure. The scenes include royal visits (see Kerr 1997:8(17 [f(5456]),tbr ~cept-icm of tribute and gifts (Figure 7.7),marriage negotiations (see Kerr 1996):297 [K2914]; 1994:MO [K4996]), Chc prrzse~~tation of war captives Figure 7.$b), autosacri.ficlial and djvination rituals (see K ~ r r r198956 f1('145,7], 19W:297 II(29141), couft "oanquets and drinking rites (see Kerr 1997:799), the conszxltation of codjces and artistic pursuits (especially painting and carvixlg), and preparatio" for dance rites and ritual dancing (see :Kerr 1989:87 lK1454.1). mese painted narratives present the essentia1 members of the court as well as its domhant rites as perceived by the Classic Maya and deemed appropriate to recod on the pottery. 7'he members' functions in, and irnportance to, the court m y be inferred from such formal narrative features as figural proximity to the thrme and to each other as well as from the iconographic contents of the scenes. Personal identities and offlcial positims sometimes are recorded in short hiemgIyphic texts painted next to the figures, These images, then, provide a unique whdow onto the court's activities and its human constituents, horn which implications may be drawn cmcernhg social structure (see Houston 1998). The most frequently portrayed member of the royal court is the k'ulztkl ajaw, the divine royal person. His centrality in the court, and the swicrty at large, is signaied bp a number of formal katures. First, he occupics the grezltest amount of pictorial space and often is placed at the top of the picture plane. He usually is portrayed fn a seated position and with a paucity of intplied figural motion, both features sig~~aling his mental focus and steadfastness, The k'zdhtll ajaw often wears the most elaborate clnthhing, and his body is rendered in a color different than that of other figttres. He is surrom-rdcdby personages who face and gesture toward him. The mier may be named as the vase" patron or owner at the end of the Prknary Standard Sevence, and hr ofem is the subject of the main

214

Dorie Reents-Budet

hieroglyphic text painted within the scene. In these instances, the text may frame or support the k’uhul ujuw, drawing the viewer’s attention to him.’l This enframing solidifies the royal body within the recorded event, immortalizingboth. As such, the royal body becomes a compelling force, an immutable presence in the dynamic world around him. The courtiers surrounding the k‘uhul ujuw m collateral elites who held secondary and tertiary rankings within the court. These patterns of portrayal and hieroglyphic denominations indicate that the royal court was a hierarchical and multifaceted entity and that many of the social and administrative needs of a Classic-period center, and certainly of a polity, were carried out by these collateral elites. Notable among them is the painterscribe (the uh ts’ib; Stuart 1987),who is second only to the k‘uhul ujuw in frequency of depiction on the pottery. He is the court word-keeper and savant (Coe and Kerr 199889-101;Reents-Budet et al. 19943&71), his official duties designated by the glyphic title uh k’u hun “keeper of the sacred books“ (after Grube, in Coe and Kerr 199891; see Reents-Budet et al. 1994:95 [K1728]).” Similar to his modem Kiche descendants, he is a diviner and an interpreter of difficult texts (Tedlock 199618).Underscoring the importance of the scribal position in the royal court is the high frequency of nominal phrases accompanying their painted portraits. In contrast, other court members may be identified only by the common title ch’ok “youth” or “lineage member” (MacLeod, in Reents-Budet et al. 1994133-134), and many lack a nominal phrase altogether. Another important constituent of the royal court is a person who always is shown in close proximity to the enthroned k’uhul ujuw (e.g., see Kerr 1989:56 [K1453]).He often holds a wrapped bundle of feathers that probably represents quetzal-feather tribute (e.g., see the feathers set stop the stack of white cloth in Figure 7.7). This person may be the same as the sixteenthcentury Kiche and Cakchiquel courtier known by the title ujpop k’umju or k’umujuy,which means “keeper of the Reception House mat.” Dennis Tedlock notes that among this person’s functions was the collection of tribute (Tedlock 1996315; also see Braswell, vol. 2 of this book, forthcoming 2001). On the pottery, another figure sometimes stands in the same position as that of the holder of tribute next to the throne and the royal body (Figures 7.6 and 7.7; also see Reents-Budet et al. 199495 [KlnS]). He is dressed in a costume similar to that of the ujpop k’umju (Eceiver of tribute) and either smokes a cigarette or lights a torchlike bundle of thin sticks. These images imply that the official receiver of tribute was also responsible for creating an aromatic atmosphere in the court. In a number of tribute-presentation scenes, two or three presenters sit or kneel on the floor in front of the throne (Figure 7.7. Also see Kerr 1994640 [K4996]; Reents-Budet et al. 199495 [K1728]). One is identified glyphically as chilum “speaker, interpreter“ (Coe and Kerr 1998:95; see

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

215

Keents-Budet et al. 1994:95 [1(1228]), As a visiting dignitary, he likely is the offieial representative, the voice im absentia of the ktzrhr.ifujam, on whose behalf the kibute is presented. This offjcialmay also have had a scribat identity given the Classic-period title of scribes as nil ts'iih 4uzu, one of the meanings of ajazv being "'mouth" (I-:ictds1986). A crucial meHlber of the sixteenth-century K'iiche court and also of modem highlmd Maya is the ~ i n chokoj z ""giver of banvcts,"' ""master of ceremonies'"Tedlock 1996:322), Michael Coe suggests that the alr k'u Irzlt~ also was the organizer of ceremonies (Coe and Kerr 1998:94), Another candidate for this courtly office is an enigmatic figurt. who is liepicted on a nurnber of vessczi,~standing b&ind Che throne and watching over the scme (see Merr 1989:56 [K1453]; 1;99'7:807[K5456]).18 The recurrence in paiace scenes of specific activities by selected courtiers leads to the suppositiun that they served esser~ti,alfunctions within the court, fn addition to the officials noted previouslyr others include hdders cJf official banners, rendered in close pmxirnity to the enthroned ICftlhziJ lXjaw and often sitting b&ind the lord on the thl-one (Figures 7.1 and 7.2, Also see Kerr 1990:2"3 [K2914]; 1997728 [K4113]). Other important positions are that of valet or p e r m d assistmt who hefps the lord don his dance costume (see Kerr 1989:87 [1(1454]); carriers of regal litters (Figure 7.1. Also see Kerr 1997~807FK5.11561; Reents-Budet et al. 3994:95 [K17281); and makers of auditory accompaninrent, including players of instrwmnts, singrs (kkyo:m) (see Kerr 11997:798 [K5435]; 799 [K5445]), and those making announcemats (see Kerr 1989:56 IK1.4531; Keents-Budet et al. 1994~95[Kl"i"8]). Dmce rites were an importmt performative aspect of the royal court (see Merr 1989:87 [K1454])." The primary depicted dancer usually is an njaw (sometimes the kftzllznl a$w). Often these =gal dancers wear fmtastic costumes that represent supernatu'd beings, the dancer being transIformed into the numiszous host when he dons the costume (see Grube 3992; Houstcrn md Stuart 39%). Among the modem Kiche, the head of a lineage is its spiritual leader, its principal diviner or shaman (its "mother/hther," Tedlock 3996:s; also see Tedlock 1992:7485),Among the m d e r n Tzotzil, a dance is a prayer, the word for ""dcef%eaning "to sing with one" fleet" "ossen 1974). These Classic-period ritual dance scenes, then, h t b a t e that the k'rrlzul ajaw was more than a politiclal leader. He was the chief diviner and spiritual leader of the polity in which capacity he wati Ihe focal point of rihal trandormatio~~ dances. M e n pictured on the pottery the architectural elements surrounding the performers indicate that the dances transpircrd on the terrares and stairways honting cotxrt buildings (also see Miller, vol. 2 of this book, forthcoming). The social identities and.duties of courtiers and perfomers may be deduced from the icmographic feabres of their clothing, headdresses, and

objects held by each person. The headgear most heyuently worn by courtitlrrs includes the net head scarf, the spangled turban, and the stiff white head wrap. The net head scarf and spangled tusban usually are worn by uh k'u hutz scribes, although they may aiso be worn by supmaturds. The sharing of headgear is cor~mnantwith the scribes' relationship with deities, especially the gods of creation (Reents-Rudet 1998. Also see Coe 1977; Cot?and Kerr 1998:1(35).The spangled brban appears fn other contexts as well, adorning prisor~ersand their captors in prisoner-prese11tatiasr and -sacrifice scmes (see Kerr 19917:728iK4131). mese varied contexts sugge" that the spangled turban cmnotcs some type of speciai status rather than earthly office. The stiff, white head wrap was first discussed by Mlchael Cae who ubserved that most of its w e a r s are subordinates to the k\kdh~I ajaw. It is worn by war captains (see Kerr f,990:%3 [K463q), by the ajpop k'a~11j1.1 (the official receiver of tribute) (see Kerr 1989:56 if(lP4-531; Reents-Budet et al. 1994:95 fK1728]), by musician-singer-dancers performing dwing baltganes (see bents-Budet et al. 1944:265-267 [K28C)3, K54351), and by other subordinates such as the official holder of b ers (Figure '7.2). Two notable exceptions to this pattern are vessels from the central Peten. A vase from the Tikal-Topoxte region depicts an enthroned lord wenring this h e a d d ~ s s he ; is receivirrg tribute from two emissaries of Catakmul (Figure 7.7)."'"Asecond vessel, excavated by Takeshi Inomata at Aguateca (see lnsmata, this volume:Figure 2.6), renders twelve figures wearing the stiff white head wrap, kcludhg the enthroned Wzu, su$ordmatc figures seated on the floor in front of the throne and gesturing in obeismce to the @zv (Mi(1er 1981),the "ineensc diffuser" (after Marctts, personat tommunication, 19981, musicians, an attendant dwarf or child, m d various other courtiers. 'I'hefigural positioning fn the scene and the specific gesbres by the participants communicaf.e hierarchy, whereas the stiff \zrhite head wraps worn by afl suggest s m e type of equaliw or cmaraderie. Common to many societies is tbe simdtancous expression of hiermhy md equality as a pokverful, cohesive poliical strategy. Further, the similarities between the Aguateca scme and the tribute- or gift-presentatiun sccne on the Tikal-'fbpoxte vase intitnate that the stiff white head wrap relates to the evmt rather than to an office or court position.. Another clothing item comected to a specific event is the short, friqecf cape (Figure 7.11c,f; also see Cutbert 199n:Figurc 72). This is worn ajaws by e ~ ~ t h r o r ~ e d during war captive-presentation rites. 'This cape often is depicted on vases made inworkshops located in the Tikal-Motul de San Jos4 area and thus may also carry a geopolitical message as an article of lordly clothing associated with this m a , Another example of rcgional clothing associated with a particular event is the wide, circular, feathered hat resemblirrg a warrior's shield (see G r r 19%:5S(J lK454.91). 'This hat is

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

21 7

~ n d e r e don vessels pai11tt.d in a bold and colorful style and associated with workshops located h celztral Peten. Ensembles of attire aid in understand;ing a scene" narrative content and the identities of members of the royal court. Headdresses, in particular, impart messages of role or office. f17 at least one hshnce, headdresses and garments convey geopolitical affiliation pertairring to polity and perhaps also li~~eage. This practice of using q p m e 1 to denote identity is wcll-esl.abiished amnng contentgorary Maya peoples (e.g*,see Morris 1987). Et is likely that styles of dress signding sociopolitical identity and official position wert?e q u d y well establihed durin; the Cfassic perioci. Many vessels are pailnted with a single figure seated within a court structure, the scenes devoid of hiemgiyphic texts or specific attributes of role or office. These generic portrayds probabiy depict lower-tier functionaries within the multiconnponent: administrative systeln of Late Classic Maya socicty (Figure 7.1%; &o see :Ken 3993:580 [MSO]). Rarely arc these vessels painted with a cclmplete Primary Standard Squence, their rims instead displaying a pseudoglyph version of the sequence. The pairrting quality of these vessels ranges from adequate to poor. Together, these formal features support the supposition that they were used by lower-level nobles, peripkral rncntbers of the aristocracy, and nmelite people ( b e n t s - h d e t et al. 1994:9&99). The proportionately high number of such vessels, many found fn loww-status contexts and at small sites (IJeG'ount f,996:281-298), implies the presemce of large numbers o( courtkrs and suhsidiav individuals below the rank of klzkl"ta1 ajlhw, The frequmcy of these scenes on pottery made in workshws thmu&out the Maya region and the vessels coming from lower-tier contexts intimate that rites of rulership and administration, with their proper accoutrements, were ~plicated.across the social and geographic spectra of Late Classic Maya civilization. The majority of portrayed courtiers are male, prompting the conchsion that men directed most court events (or at least those deemed hnportant enough [or appropride] to be painted on the pictorial polZery). Women are pichreb in a few types of scmes. They offer Eood and drink, assist with dressing men and deities, and occasionally sit on bench thrones behind elite men (see Kerr 1990:297 EM2914J; l994:MQ [K4996]; 1997:81)7 [1(5456]). Bagmof khur beans and bolts of cloth are set in front of tbe bench; some of them are identihd gIyphirally as payment." These latter scenes probably record marriage negotiations that included the proffering of valuable commodities and ritual feasting. A similar social pattern characterizrn betrothal rites among mderrt Maya. Marriage negotiations are directed by an official matchmaker, who often is a respected male member of the h e a g e (Collicr 1968; Tedlock 1992:7/2, 11.0, 317,156; Tedlock 1996; Vr,g$19%3),Cl~ocdateis a seminal item among the

food gifs brougbt by the g m m ' s farnib to the kast at the bride" hhome (Tedlock 1996:322; Wgt t 993). =ring Che sixteenth celztwy, the "mmt er of ceremonies," uniln chok~j,was respmsibte for weddhg banquets (T'dlock 1996:322). It may be that at least m e of the men depicted in the eighth-cclztufy pottery scenes is a ~simchobj, a mrriage negotiator and master of ceremonies, The recording of marriage negotiations on the painted ceramics underscores the essmtial role phyed by women whose betrothixl to members of other elite lineages cons"cituted an important plitical, mechanism &at securcd social and political mlatimshiys (also see Marcus 1973,1976,198"j7,1992;Schele m d Mathews 1991). The painted cermic narratives are an invaluable source of data concerning the official components and hurnan constituents of the royal court becaux many of these court functionaries are not eiepicted on the carved stosze monume~ztsnor are they mentioned in the monuments' hieroglyphic texts. Future iconographic research and the decipherment of the myriad nomhal phrases painted on the pottery promise to elucidate the hternat composition of the Classic-period court. Architectural Sty-les, Pottev Painting Svles, and Provenience Aftribrttian

It has bng been thou&t that the style of liepicted architecturr mfght be geographically sensitive (e.g*,Coggins 7,975:519). That is, by correlating the painted renderings of architecture with that of a particdar site, one might be able to identify thr geographic location of the scene and the origins of the portrayed indjviduds. The present st.udy has failed to find any comlatior-r betwem style of architectural representations and those variations characterizing specsic sites or regions. Rather than regional styles of architecture, the renderjngs connote CIassjc-period concepts of court architecturcl and inform about the kinds of activities taking place, not the geqraphic locaticms of thr scenes. This is not to say that stylistic ~rariatiorrsare not present among the hundreds of representations of architecture, For example, pottery from workshops located in the southern Quintana Ro-fio Azul area characteristically depict court buildbgs with no medial moldings or upper zones, and curtains are rarely prcsent (see Kcrr 1992:467 [K4169]f, Piers are not ofkn indicated, the few examples being unusuaily narrow and, if dectr rated, only with a red band. Bath attached and detached benches are 15lustrated; they are relatively small, and painted with the minimum of embellishments. These tCio Azul area images contrast with those from Tikal, where piers are wider and painkd with a variety of iconic motifs (see Culbert 1993:Figures 69, Ba). Curtains are indicated, and both typemf benches and large cushions provide efite seating.

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

219

In contrast to the Tikal images, architecture painted cm pottery from the southem highlands of Guakmixla is chararterized by wide piers embellished with jaguar pelts and iconic motifs (see Kerr 1994:563 [K4617]; I-Chicsek and Hales 1992:142), Curtains and detached benches are even larger than are those from Tikal. These images do not imply; however, that court buildings of the Rfo A z d ama had no curtains or decorated medial moldings or upper zones, or that piers were narrow and pIainiy painted, Conversely they do not imply that Che court buildings of thc southern highlands had wider and more embellished piers than those oi Tikd. Instead, these are featurrs of artistic styles; they relate to regional ceramic painti~~g traditions and the products of particular kvorkshops and artists. Architecture as a stylistic feature is exemplified by cadex-style ceramics from the Mirador Basin (see Robicsek and Hales 1"382:15, vessel I). The artists who made this distinctive pottery usually pictured court buildings without indicating stairways or tbe tiers or upper steps of the supporting platforms (see Kerr 1,991):293[1(27943;f,992:46O fK411131). Unlike most other pottery, codex-style vessels portray stmctures in profile view ~ g a d e s of s Mthelther these are illustrations of the entire stmcbre, including its roof comb, or simply the interior of a room (see Kerr 1990:293 [#2?94]; 1992:460 [EC4113]),All three types of seathg are present; the attached bench, the detached or movable bench, and the cushion, their presence intixnathg that seats may not be as rcsponsjve to the pequisites of pottery painting styles as arc renderings of architecture. The lack of ccnrelation among yainthg style, Classic-period political geography, and =gal seating types is f~trtht.rdemonstrated bp vesseJs from the Tikal-Uaxactun area and the Misadar Basin (see Cullbert 3993:Figlare 72; Kerr 1990:257 [K2697f, 293 [K2794]; Kerr 1994:551 [K4550])*Vessels lFrom the two regions picture the same two types of elite seats: a bench marked with ""liquid" or '"water" siws Figuse 7..lla,c,e) and a cushion bound with a tab frhge (figure 7.31b,d,f). Artists, nfwws, m d super~naturalssit or lie on these seats. The Uaxactun m d TikaI vases depict the "'water t h m e " as both an attached and a free-standjng bench with flanged edge (Figure Z.lla,c), the latter type also behg painted on codex-style vessels from the Mjirador Basin (Figure 7.1,le). On the two vases from Tikal, the cushion seat is set directly on the floor of the building (Figure 7.13b) or atop a legged bench (Fig- 7.11f)." 2'I'he variabifiq inb e d type, then, relates to the scene's narrative rather than to lscaf architectural, or painting style, supportirtg the conclusion that regal seathg types are not effective indicators of paitlting or architechlral style in cantrast to modes of building rczpresemtatian An Early Classic carved and incised vessel from Xkal Problematic Deposit 50 is a rare example of ~gicmaiarchiteetufd styles (Figurt?7.12; also

E FIGURE 7.3 1 Representations of the water throne and the ajaw cushion from vessels painted in different styles (drawings by D. Reents-Budet): (a&) from K4550; Qc,d) from Tikal Burial 116; @,E) from K2794; (d) fram K2697.

see Culbert 1993:Figure 12K). The vase's ilnagery may record a visit by Teothuacanos to EkaL Three buildings are pickred; two are hterpreted as typical Maya buildings, the third one a Teotihuacan construction (Coggins 197Ei:171-181; Schete, Freidel, and Parker 1993:31)0-301). The Teotihuacan identification is based on the suhstmcture's plain tuhbcru, the irontal depiction of the roof % iconjc decoration, and the ""emissaries" drtlssed in Teotihuacan-tike garb and carqing Teotihuacan-style weap-

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

FIGURE 7.22. T h e e buildings depicted on an Early Classic incised vessel; Tikal Problematical Depasit 50 (drawing by D. Reents-Budet, after Culbert 1993:Figure 128)*

ons (Schele, Frczidel, and Parker 1993:300-3C12). Although it cannot be proven that this is a depiction of a building at Teotihuacan, the Maya artist seemjngly was using architectural style as a narrative device to ixnply geographic and perhaps also pofiticat identiWz3 The incised vessel from Tikal also provi,des insight jnto Maya artjslic production a d Cl.assir-period modes fur rendering architecture. First, the artist who made the vessel was schoded in Maya conventiom of represer~tation;all three buildings replicate typical Early Classic Maya terraced platforms supportirrg small structures with decorated roofs. Close examination reveals that there is scant differentiation between the "Maya'hnd ""Tc3otihuacarr" "buildings' terraced platforms and superstructures, The so-cakd Teotihuacan stmcture is distingukhed only by its rooffs arching cufve and the frontal depiction of the roof comb icon, neither of whieh, has been considered characteristic of Maya arclnitechare (Caggins 1975:179), There is no conclusive evidence, however, that these are typical Teotitluacan elite architechtralforms or that they would be the katurtls ekoselr by a Teot;ihuacan artist as quintessential elemem.t.sdefining Teotihuacan buildings, Enstead, these are more likrrly narrative features selected by the Maya artist to connote two different sites.*The artist, then, was tikely of Maya cttltural origin and was working within the indigenous artistic tradition (cf. Culbert I993:Figure 128a caption). A second hserwation is that in the Maya repmsentatimal traditim, and, by externsior?, that of the cdttrre as a whole, a primary distinguishing leature for understanding the identit). or m e m h g of a building may be found in its cornice, upper zcme, and roof cornb decoratim, It is unfortunate that most Classic-period cornices, upper zones, roofs, and roof combs have not survived In sufficiently good condition to recover their carved, modeled, and painted imagery fn turn, the lack of depictions on the pajnted pottery of these katures is equdly inconvenient. The Early Classic incised vessel from Tikal is further notable because the artist employs two architectural fnrms-the plartform topped with a

rmge structurcz and the tall pyrmid-to symbolize a geopolitical locale. By this choice, we may infer that the two types of arch,itectrrrccomprjsinp, the Classic Maya mental ianage of a 'kity-place" are the court range structure atop a terraced platfom and the multitiered, tall pyramidal substructure elevating a s~nailbuilding; that is, the pdace and the temple. We m y conclude that representations of court arcbltecturc on the pictorial pottery do not portray specific buildings characteristic of a particular geogmfiic mea or site. Instead, these are schemtic selnblances ol court architecture, However, the artistic format of the d.epi.cted architecture is geographicay correlated because fomat is an integral part of artistic style, which itself is sensitive to place, timef and person (ReentsBudet et al. 1994:164-233).

Summary and Canclusions Depictions of architechtre on Ctassic Rcraya pictorial pottery reflect the five primry mhikcctural types found in the heart of nnnst Maya sites. The most commonly mdercd type is the range structure, the chief component of all noble axhitecture. 'This artistic focus is not suprising given that these vessels were csrrated specilicnlly to be used in the royal court and by the nobilily (Reents-Budet et d.1994:72-105). n r o u g b u t the Nfaya regions, court buildings and palace complexes display considerable variabifity in architectural form. Such variation could be constmed as evidence lfor the absence of a single ancient model fnr the Maya court. Howwer, the ixnat;ery on the pictorial pottery suggests the opposite. Stylistically different vessels created h workshops at geographically distant sites depkk similar architectural forms, human and artifactual contents, formal layouts, anti ritual artivities in the royal court. I'hese rcmarkab%esimilmities, which crosscut regional painting styles, reveal that there was a single conceptual mode1 of the royal court. This is not surprising because just as any human group conveys social cobesion and cultural continuity through shared rnmners of pmsonal comporrnent, so too are they conveyed through similarjty in the constructed environment. In spite of the diversity of Classic-period elite architectural mmifestations, they do not derive from djssimitar ernic models of the court. hstead, they reflect local stylistic expressions, idiospcratic functional ~quisites,and techical parameters. Modern archaeological investigations of these diverse architectusat expressions may have obfuscated the underlying similalTities of the court, similarities that are distinctly ercpressed on tbe pictorial pottery Late Classic court buildings were Ihe locale of lnany of the admtinistrat h e affajrs of a polity and of the political and socioreligious rites underlying and mahtafning the power of the mling elite (Fash 13 ' 411;Harrison

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

223

1970; Il-tomata 1995; khele and Freidel 1990; Schele and Mathews 1998). The paintings of the cowt indicate that the pdaee, as the place of royal presence and authority, may not be isolated from other court admjnistrative buildings (see Webster, this v a l u e ) . As Alan Kolda (1998) has noted for Tiwmaku (Bolivia), the palace represe11t.s cmthuity of the material expression of the religious, political, and. economic administrative components of the ancient Americas. These ancient American court buildings, then, were both substance and symbol of Che state. Exnbodied withk them is the collective hierarchical structure of the networks of relationships that defined and supported Late Classic Rcraya society. Durirng the Classic period, Maya artists created thousands of vessels pahted with scenes of the royal court rcplete with finely dressed hdividuals, opulent furnishings, and the portable and decorative accoutrmmts of social, political, m d religious power. These mderings support Clif'ford Geertz" model of a court as the focus of a theater state (Geertz 1980). The scenes~rtifactualrichness, pictorial complexitl; iconographic and epigraphic brariability?and the diversity of pottery painting styles imply a highly complex social and political environment. They dso support the notion that the interplay of Classic-period social m d political powr, religious prestige, and economic wed& was @wallycontplex (Paynter 1989; Pdka 1995). Such coolplexity is reflected, in the myriad human constituents of the regal court h o s e hieroglyphic titles in$icate a ranked system. %me glyphjc titles specify cottrtiers' functions, espedally that of scribe and savant and of those responsi:ble for tribute and the courts" complex ceremonies. These titles imp?w a codified and some\nihat rigid internal strudure, All visual accounts of the Classic-period court are idealized, portrayals, That is, they are not realistic pichres of the building and event. Instead, artists reduced the court and event to their indispensable components. As a visual reprcsmtation of the Maya conceptualization of the court, these imagemare useful for discovering its essential components. The clarified view strips away the supplementary trappings of and collateral participants in regal Mapa life, leaving only its most important elemnts. These fnclude (4) the royal personage (the k"ulzttl ajam), (2) the stage (the court buildbg), (3) the participatory witnesses (especially the guardian of the royal presence and master of ceremonies [the rrim choJCL!jI,the official receiver of tribute [the uj.pop k'anzja], and the keeper of the sacred books [Ehe uh k'u hzilz]),and (4) selected symbols of royal author it^ especially the jaguar pelt, the mat motif, the quatdoil portal or flower, and the skyband. The idealized representations of the royal court mobre beyond mere historical recording. They frame the k'lkh~klajar0 in the proper social and supernatural setth~gsthat connect him to the myriad networks and ide-

ologies underlying his authority 'I'he pwvagve prt?wne of courtiers is consonmt with the importance, as recorded in the stme hseriptions, of the witnessing of the theatrical performance of the governing process. This wihessi~~g authentirated a d sanctioned the pmcesf;as well as the rcllational networks and hierarchical karnework of Late Classic society Unlike a e i r terse hieroglyphic accounts on the carved stone m m m n t s , however, the pottery's pah~tednarratives give flesh and substance to the stone?words. Yet the painted representations of the c a t arc limikcd in a number oi ways. FIrst, they do not provide clues as to the lcrcaeion of the portrayed structure at t-hc site- St.cond, they do not indicate the size and configuration of the architectural. compIex, Third, there is no comlation between the style in which a building is ~ n d e r e dand the style of architecture at the site where the scene took place or where the vessel. was made, Fourth, these pahtings do not render the building" entire decorative pmgrann. In short, these repsentations were never intended to be guiliebooks to the idcntilicat-im of a specif-icstmcture within a palace or nobte residmtial. complex, hstead, the iconic motifs, hicmglyphs, and glyphl-ike markings painted on piers and cornices augment the scene's narrative content rather than ids~tifythe structure?,coMribut.ing, for example, to the ~011ceptual understanding of a building as an embodinnent of the relationship between ancestors and the power Of the ruling elite. Athough some sites' court hu,ildkgs have a particdar t h m e in their decoration that may imply a single function for that buildislg, the imagery on the pottery depicts difkrent kinds of social a d pcritical events and ideoloti;ical rites taking place inside similarly decorated structures.. Therefore, court buildings seemingly were the locale of djfferent kinds of events, a point that may indkate caution in suggesting building function .from only its survivhg sculpted and painted decorative progrann. Further, the use of changeable cloth b ers and awnings or curtains would allow a buftdlng to be properly '"ttimd" f o f diff;erentevents, these itemsf perishable nature compounding the difficdty of inferring function from excavated remains. Accordingfy, if the goals of archaeological hyuiry include an understanding of buildifig function and meaning, court structures must be fully excavated and the remains subjected to careful and cmplete scientific analyses in order to retrieve all indicators of use and identity, Test pits, the excavaticln of tombs and burials, and the reconstructhn of architectural decoration provide oniy a glimpse ol a building" smultifunctional nature and complex history of use, The pictorial ceramics characterize the court as a haven for the five hum m senses-sight, smell, sound, touch, m d tast as well as the sixth sense of human consciousness, The pageantry of the adorned building and the rich apparel of the "beautiful" ppeole were dazzling. E ~ c ) ~ ( ? T s ,

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

225

cooked food, and burning scented wood, incense, and tobacco hfused the air with aromas and perhaps even altered the mind (especially via the use of tobacco). Blaring trumpets, percussive rattles and drums, shrill whistles, and melodic songs f i k d the ears with cacophony The likely repetitive nature of these compositions was mesmerizing. The soft, WOven cloth and animal fur covering the benches and pillows were soothing to the touch and created a warm, dry barrier between human skin and foods, the building's cold, moist stone and stucco surfaces, The ~ZESC~QUS especially the stimulating chocofate and alcoholic beverages and the tamaies covered with savory sauces, pleased and satiated the revelers. The court truf?; was a place of degance, opulence, comfort, intensity, even excess, featuring luxuriance that exists d y in a mi2ieu of social, political, economic, and even supernatural power. The kkzlhztl lzjnro is clisplayed as the potent, living entbodiment of such mmificence The palace was an act* local rhetorical and perfmlace h i d e the palace mative processes of gcrvenlance. The pertain to the interior hetorjral process; those on the upper terrace and broad stairs of the supporting platform record. the perfomtive process of tjwernance whose proper archstration was crucial to the cmtinulty of royal powec k c e s s to these events and their architechral shge wati criti,cal; the Classic: M a p palace complex was not a closed environment fike &at of the Cbirrese rcryal Forbiddex~City However, htimate access was restricted to the nobility and invited guests, spatial co~~trol behg an integral part of the orrhestmtim and wielding of regal power. More accurate interpretations of the pottery's pictorial scenes and of the co.urtiers' hieroglyphjc names and titles will lead to a better understanding of the composition and character of the royal court as well as of the bare stone buildings that survived the "coliapxn of Classic Maya culture. These ancient tableaus are especially i~spcrrtantbecause the scant archaeological remains of the regal court provide a fragmented record and partia) chronicle of its hierarchical structw, performative aspects, and the material trappjngs thereof. Our ignorance of these painted emic demarcations of the court and sociofiistorical narratives horn across the Classic realm only impoverishes our uncferstanding of Maya civilization.

Notes 1. The initial research behind this chapter began at the 1997 European hieroglyphic w o r k s h ~ pheld at the University of teiden. The author achawtedges and thanks Pierro Robert Colas, Kai DeXvendahI, Harri Kettunen, and Annette PieEer far their assistance assembling the pictorial carpus and for stimulating cliscussians about Maya renderings of buildings.

Stephen P-ic~uston'schapter on the rc~yalcourt is a seminal contribution to the study of the Classic Maya court (Houstm 29981, and many of the ideas presented here are similar to those reached independently by Houston. His 1998 chapter is not cited as often as might othewise be appropriate became it was not available to the author during her research and preparation of the manuscript. This study is based on the analysis cjf published images of Classic Maya pottery, in particular those in which the vessels7xrnagery is illustrated a s a roltout photc~graphor drawing, This hrmat is crucial because it presents the total pictorial narrative. Sources include Coe 1973,1975,1978, 2 "382; Coe and Kerr '1998; Kerr 2 %9,[email protected] 4992,1994,1997; Keents-Budet et al. 1994; and Robicsek and Hales 1984, 4982. In this chapter, references to images not illustrated are noted within parentheses ). The Kerr archive number ( K ) is prt>vided so and designated (see that these images may be easily found in the Kerr Maya Vase Photographic Archive on-line at http//www.FAMSI.c~rg. The author recognizs the limited statistical value of listing the total numbers of vessels depicting each axlchjtectural category; However, these numbers prt>vide a cursory pmpc~rtic~nality for the architedural categories pertaining to the pictorial ceramics in the cited publications. These amounts are not intended to be numerically meaningful vis-8-vis the entire corpus of Late Classic painted ceramics. 2, The royal court comprises two separate entities, the architectural form (the court building used by members of the court) and the social entity and political body (the ruler and his courtiers). In addition, Classic-period nc;bles had their c>wnarchitectural compounds (e.g., the Sepulturas compound at Copan [see Fash and Fash 19961/),where they both lived and conducted their business affairs, Many depictions on the pottery prt>bably represent these nc>bleskclompounds rather than the palace of the rules. Often it is difficult to discern between them. Perhaps those ;t.resselswith sparse representations of a lord seated inside a building and devclid of other human figures and detailed hieroglyphic texts are partrayals of nobles and their compounds. Tn this chapter, ""range structure" "designates the generic and usually stonewall& structures that comprise Classic-perid elite residential archiitecture and adminjstrativeritual buildings. ""Court architecture" refers to the architectural comp u n d s of both the ruler and the nobles, and ""place" or ""place struckre" "notes the building complex where the ruler residd and where transpired the uppermost affairs of state. ""Court" or "myal ct>urt""efers to the social entity in its entirety 3, See khele and Miller (1986:4647)far an iconographic discussian of the Vision Srpent and the sun god. 4. For discussions of the maize god, see Quenon and LeFort 1997; khele, Freidel, and Parker 1993:27&283; Taube 1985. 5. The fu:n sign, howeveu; also pertains to the otherworld of cosmic events (Schele and Miller 1986:46), the likely location of the scene. Perhaps the iconographic markings ccjnvey both meanings. The fronts of the temples9rcllofs are ornamented with the heads of the Paddler Twins, deities involved with cosmic creation, ancestral veneration, and blood sacrifice rituals associated with rulers (khele, Freidel, and Parker 1993:92). 6. Rather than a single gathering inside a galleiy-type building; this vase may depict t h e e separate scenes. The lack of pictorial devices srvparating the three figural grt>upingsmakes prt>blematiceither interpretation,

Classic Maya Conccpls o f f h e R q n l Court

227

7. Far a thorough analysis of Classic Maya throne, benchesf and cushions, see Noble 1999. 8. The only difference among these representaticyns of the same headdress is that on the first two vessels the elements are combined into one headpiece, whereas on the third vase they are divided beh-een two headdresses, one in each of the vase's two panels. 9. See Rct-tertrio~n(1985b) far a discussion of accession buiiXdings at Palenque, Fields (4994) for an analysis of the accession icc~nographyof the Castillo at Xunantunich, and 13roskouriakoff (1960) and Carfson and Landis (1%5:117) far discussions of Piedras Negras accession stelae. Also see Schele and Miller (1486:442) for a general discussion of skybands and accession stelae, 10. See Fields (1986), Schele and Miller (1986:53), Schele and Freidet (1990:115), and khele and Mathews (1998:115,412) for analyses of the sak lzunnl headband of kingship that is tied onto the forehead at accession. This icon also emerges from the ends of the double-headed serpent bar carried by kings. On K601;2, the bundle on the floor in front of the enthroned figure may be a tribute bundle (see Kerr 4997:827). If so, the scene would suggest that accession hr~usesa l s functioned as the official reception house for tribute. The convergence of the place of accessic>n wit11 the place of tribute reception would underscore the power of the ajazu as an effective poli"ccal and economic farce. 11. The identification of this iconographic motif as the portral between the natural and supernatural worlds is not accepted by all Mayanist schafars, Karl Taube and Stephen Houston interpret this sign as an animate or persc>nified version of the celt (Hsustm, personal communication, 4999). 12. The sheaf of feathers held by the enthrc>nedindividual may be tributef this vessel suggesting that in addition to its function as a place of divination, the accession house was used for the p ~ s e n t a t i a nand storage of tribute, IS. Stephen Ht3rrston (personal commrmication, 1998) believes this quatrefoil is a flower rather than the ol, the flower signifying ajaw (Stuart 1989). As sugporting evidence, he cites the stucco quatrefc3iis enfrarning portraits of Palenque rulers on the piers in the palace, which include small flowers at their corners (Robertson 1985b). The author agrees with Houston" identification in this instance. Ho.~zrever,the majority of quatrefoil renderings lack floral embellishments. Perhaps the quatrefoil has two meanings in Mesoamerican art, the addition of iconographic motifs and the overall narrative context determining the scene-specific meaning. 14. This is the same sign that often begins the Primary Standard Sequence painted on many pottery vessels (khele and Freidel1990:148--241). 15. Daniel Grafia-Behrens also has contributed to the elucidation of this glyph compound (personal communication, 1996). 16. A stuccoed and painted vase frorn Tjkal BuriaX 116 exemplifies the "solidified word," that is, carved or painted hieroglyphic texts supporting the power and authority of the k'ltlall njaw (see Culbert 19133:Figure 68). This vase records in great detail the presentation of gifts to the Tikal ~jazo,the scene replete with the presenters and a gathering of other lords who witness the @MsAelivery "fagically, the painted text is faded and effaced, making it impc~ssibleto read the entire inscription which must have included the names of at least some of the depicted historical figures.

17, Davicl Stuart proposes a difkrent reading for this title, suggesting it is a ) from the root k'uh Ndiviner'r(Stuarl; personal communication form ( - u : ~derived to Houston, 1999). 18. Justin Kerr (personal communication, 2 999) suggests that this figure is the protedor of the rufer, ensuring his safety in the face of any threats or unforeseen occurrences. 19. For other representations of dance imagery, see Kerr 1992:463 1[K4120], 1994:SOl LK4825J; Reents-Budet et al. 1944:166, lmB,172, 183, 196-199; Robiesek and Hales 1982:22,23; Schele and Miller 19%:PIate 71. 20. Stephen Hottstcm and Peter Mathews first suggested the CalakmuL assaciation of the event depicted on this vase (1985). Simon Martin has since confirmed the Cafakmul coilo>cationand identified the figures as emissaries Ercm the site (personal communication, 1996). 21. In his work on the murals at Bonampak, Stephen Houston was the first to pubfish the identification of bundles found in front of thrones as containing kakaw beans (Houston in Miller 1997:30). Nikolai Grube deciphered the gXypb for ""payment,"h-talg~l,on K4728. 22. Note that the seated figure on the latter vase wears the same feathered cape as the figure on the Tikal vessel wha sits on the ""water throne" (Figure 7.14c). This cage is often worn by lords in prisoner-presentation scenes, this article of dress correlated with the event rather than sociaX or politicat geography 23. The Teotihuacan-style building may refer to Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, or Matacapan, Veracruz as the origin of the s u p p o ~ dforeign emrnisaries (Javier Urcid, personal communication, 1999). Both sites are renowned for their Teotihuacan-style architecture. This identification might explain the variety of headdresses tzrorn by the processional figures, including both the tassel headdress of Teotihuacan and the others with nno-Teotihuacan features. 24, Because these three buildings mow cloxieZy fallow the formal charaderitstics of Maya and not T'eotihuacan arcktecture, it is likely that the place of embarkation is a Maya site with Teo>tihuacan-stylestructures. The available architectural,and burial evidmce point to Kaminaljuyu as the most viable candidate, the site also being known far the probable muttiethnlc identities of its EarXy Classic ruling elite (Kidder, Jemings, and S h a h lg46:7&79; Reent~Bude-tand Culbert 1W9).

References Ball, joseph W. 1993. "Potteiy#Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioeconomic and Political Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Industries." In jererny A. Sabloff and John S. FTendersc>n,eds., Lozuland Mayt~Civilization izz the EigFsth Centzlry Maya A. D.,pp, 243-272. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Izesearch Library and Collection. Ball, Jclseph W*, and Jemifer T. Taschek. 1994, ""Lte Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization and Central-Place Analysis: New lnsights from the Upper Belize Valley." Aurcient Mesoamerica 2: 14"3---165.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berlin, Heinrich. 1958. "B glifc, kernblerna' en las inscripciones mayas." )t?urr-ze;tlde In Soeiife"des Arrze'rimnistes 47: 2 2 2 -119. Paris.

Classic M a y a Conccpls ofthe Rqnl Court

229

Carlson, John, and Linda Landis, 1985, ""Efands, Bicephalic Dragons, and Other Beasts: The Skyband in Maya Art and Iconography," In Merle Greene Robertson and Elizabeth P. Benson, eds., ifourttt h f e n q u e Rotlnd Table, 1980, pp. 1 15-140. San Francisco: 13re-ColumbianArt Resarch Institute. Carrasco V., Ramcin, 1990. PrqecCo Aqzreokbgico Kaball: Empoundn 1989. Mexico: Centro Regional de Yucatlin-1NAH. . 1997. ProyccCo Arquclof6gico Calakmzil: Teutpomda 1996-3 997. Mexico: Centm Regional de YucatAn-1NAH. Chase, Arlen E, and Biane Z. Chase. 1987. I~zvesfigatimrsat Tke Clrzssic Maya City of Camcot, Belize: 1985-1987. Pre-Columbian Art Re%arch institute Monograph 3. San Francisco. . 1994. Slzldies in flze Archneology of Gnrrlcol, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7. San Francisco, . 1995. Studies ilz f l Archneology ~ of Gnrrlcol, Belize. Pre-Columbian Art Research institute Monograph 8. San Francisco. Coe, Micl-tael. 2 973. Tkc Maya Scribe nlzd His Wmld. New York: GroXier Club. . 1975. Classic Mayrz Puftefyat D~r~nbnrtorzOnks, Washington, DC: Dumbartun Oaks Research Library and Collection. . 1977. ""Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes and Artists."Vn Norman Hammond, ed,, Social Process in Maya Prehktoy: Sfzldies irz Honour c?f Sir Eric Tlzompson, pp. 327-347. Idonclon:Academic Press. . 1978, h r d s ofthe Underworld:Maste~~?kces of Classic lLlnya Ceranrr'es.Princeton: Princeton University Art Musc3urn. . 1982. Old Gods and Youlzg Heroes: Tke Pearlmapl Collectiorz o?f-MnyaCcmmics. Jerusalem: Israel Museum. Coe, Michael, and Justin Kerr, 4998. TIze Art of Ik Maya Scribe, London: Thames and Hudson. Coe, Wiliam. 1990. Excnvr;rtiorzsin ttw Grmt Plaza, Norttz Terrace, alzd North Acropolis c?f Tihl. TikaX Reports No. 14, Vol. 1. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Coggins, Clernenq 1975. "Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikaf ." PhD. dissert.aticm, Haward Uni~rersity. CoXIier, Jane F. 11968. GourEsllQ and Mnrriqe in Ziuzncantnn, Clziivps, Mexico. Middle American Research Institute, Publicaticsn 25. New Orleans: Tulane University, Cortez, Constance. 1986. "'The PrindpaX Bird Deity in Pre-Classic and Early Classic Maya Ark,'' Master's thesisf University of Texas at Austin, Culbert, T. Patrick, 1993. The Cernnzics of TihE: Vesselsfro~rz:trlte Burials, Caclfes and Problemntiml Deposils. University Museum Mctrtograph 84. Philadelphia: Univc?rsi.lyof Pemylvania Press. Fash, Wi!liiam. 1991. Scribt>sfWarriors.and Ki~zgs:The City of Copdn and kke Ancient Mwya, tandon: Thames and Hudmn. Fash, Wilfiarn, and Barbara Fash. 1996. ""Bjlding a Wrld-view: Visual Cornmunicaticrn in Classic Maya Architecture."XES 29-30: 127-147'. Fields, Virginia. 1986. ""Tfe Origins of Divine Kingship Among the Lowland Clasdidisrtation, University of Texas at Austin. sic Maya." ".E>. . 1994, The Royal Charter at Xunantunich, Paper presented at the First An.nual Maya Weekend, Cotwn Institute of Archaecjlogy University of Califi3mia at Los Angeles.

Furst, Peter, 1978, "The Art of Being Huichc>l." In Kathleen Berrin, ed., Art of lj2e Huiclzol Indintzs, pp. 18-34. New York: Abrarns, Geertz, Cliffc>rd.1980. Riegnra: The TItealter Slntt i~zNhefeenlll-Ce~zlzcryBall'. Princetun: 13rincetonUniversity Press. Gossen, Gary. 3; 9174. Cllnnztalns izz flze Wt~rld0fril.z~Sznn: Time a d Space in a Mnyn Oml Traditkrz. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Grube, NikoXai. 1989. ""The Ahaw Sign as nik, '"few-er.""" Manuscript on file. Germany: University of Bonn, . 1992, ""Classic Maya Dance: Evidmce from Hiaoglyphs and Icunography." Ancie~tlMesoam~rica3 201-218. f-larrison, Peter. 1 970. ""Te Central Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: A Preliminary b Structural Components During the Late Classic Study of the Functions of T 13eriodt." Ph.D. dissertation, University of 13emsyfvania. Houston, Stephen. 1998. "Classic Maya Depictions of the Built Environment." In Stephen Houston, ed., Function and Meaning in Classic h y a Rrchitctcture, pp. 33S372. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Houston, Stephen, and Peter Mathews. 1385, The lI>zjmslicSeq~1et2ceof- DOSPihs, Pre-Columbian Art Resarch Institute Monograph 1. San Francisco. Houston, Stepha, and David Stuart. 1996. ""Of Gc>zIs,Clyphs, and Kings: Divinity and Rulership Among the Classic May a." Ant Z'~jt2city70:289-312. Houston, Stephen, and Kart A. Taube. 1987'. ""Name-Tagging in Classic Mayan Script," Mexicon 9(2): 38-41, Inomata, Takeshi. 199%."ArchaeoXogicd Investigations at the Fortified Center of Aguateca, El Petkn, Guatemala: Implications for the Study of the Classic Maya Collapse." ".l>. dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Kaplan, Jonathon. 1995, "The Inciensc, Throne and Other Thrones from Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala." A ~ncient Meso~mericta6: 185-196. Kappelman, Julia Guernsey. 199'7. ""Of Macaws and Mm: Late Preclassic Cosmology and Political Ideolog in Izapan-Styfe Documents.'" Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Art and Art History University of Texas at Austin. Kerr, Justin. 1989. Tke Maya Kzse Book, voj. 1. New tlork: Kerr Asmciates. . 1998. The Mnyn V ~ s Book, e vol. 2. New York: Kerr Associates. C vol. 3, New York: Kerr Associates. 1992, The Maya ~ S B017k . 1994. TIze Mnyn V G SBook ~ V O ~ 4. . New York: Kerr Associates. . 1997. The h y a k s c Bo17k, vol. 5, New York: Kerr Associates. at K ~ E Z ~ ~ Z LCamegie ~~~EI~EL Kidder, A., J. Jemings, and E. Shook. 1946. EXCQZJQ~~OMS Institution of Washington Publication 561. Washington, D,C. Kulata, Alan. 1998. ""Palace and Temple: the Social Errtbeddedness of Power in the Native Andean State." Paper presented at symposium Anclenf hlnees c$ the New World: Farnz, Fulzctz'ofi, aud Meani~zg.Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Mlashington, D.C. LeCount, Lisa. 1996 ""Pttery and Power: Feasting; Cifting, and the Displaying of Weall11 Among the Late and Terminal Classic Lcjwland Maya." l31.D. dissedation, University of California at Los Angeles. Lotcm, H, Staanley, and David M, Pendergast. 1984, A teximn for lLlnya A ~lzitect Archaeolagy Monograph 8. Torc~nto:Royaf Ontario Museum. Looper, Matthew G. 1995. "The Three Stones of Maya Creation Mythology at Quirigulii." Mexicon 1'1": 24-30.

Classic Maya Conccpls offhe Rqnl Court

232

Marcus, Joyce, 4973. "Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya." Science 180: 911-91 6. . 1976. Emblenz a d State i ~ Classic. z lLlnya Lowlalzds: An Epigrnyl~icApproac11~to Territorial Orgaplizaliorz, Wlashington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. . 11987. Tlie Tnscriptions of C~lnktnul:Royal Marriage ni?.n Mayn City in C~mpeelze,Mexim. University of Michigan Technical Reportl. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthrc~palclgy,University of Michigan. . 1992. "Royal Families, Royal Texts: Examples from the Zapotec and Ma ya." In Iniane Chase and Arten Chase, eds., Mesoantetican Elites: An ArctznmIngz'ml Assessrrre~t,pp. 221-241* Norman and London: University of Oklahoma 13ress Miller, Mary Ellen. 4986. The itlzlr~lsof Borzampnk. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 1997, "Imaging Maya Art.'" AreIzaeoEogy 5013):34-40, Miller, Virginia. 1981. " b s e and Gesture in Classic Maya Monumental Scufpture." N-i,D. disxrtation, University of Texas at Austin. Mcjrris, Walter E, Jr. 198'7.Liii~ir-zgMayn. New- York: Harry N. Abrams. Noble, Sandra. 2999. "Maya Seats and Maya Sats-of-Authority.'" Ph-D. dissertation, University of British Columbia. Palka, Joel, 4995, "Classic Maya Social Inequality and the Collapse at Dc~sPilas, Peten."T~lratemnln.Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University. Paynter, Robe&. 1989, "'The Archaeatogy of Equality and inequality." Annual Review ofAnfi"zropolocql 8: 369-399. Pr>llock,H.E.D. 1965, ""Architecture of the Maya Lowlands." In Cordon R, Willey, ed., FJllrzdihook of Middle Atn~riean Trzdians, Vol. 2: Archneology cf Sowfltern Meso~merim,Part Gtze, pp- 3 7 8 4 0 . Austin: University of E x a s Press. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana. 1960, "Historical Implications of a 13attern of Bates at Piedras Negras." Rmerimt~A ~ltiqitity 25: 45M75, Quenon, Michet, and Genevieve LeFort. 1997. "Rebirth and Resurrection in Maize God Iconopaphy." In justin Kerr, ed. TIze Maya Vase Book, vol. 5, New tlork: Kerr Assuciates. Reent$;-Buclet, Drtrie. 4998. "Bite Maya Pottery and Artisam as Social Indicators."" Jn Cathy Costin and Rita Wight, eds., Craft nlzd Social Identifyr pp. 71-89. Archamfogical Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 8. Washingon, DC: American Anthropofogical Association. Reents-Budet, Dorie, and T, Patrick Culbert. 1999, ""ts ofrendas del periodo clhsico temprano d e Tikal y Karnjna tjuyti: Relaciones regionales y "internacionales.'" "paper presented at the XXII Simpasio d e Tnvestigaciones Aryueoliigicos en Guatemala. Musev Nacional Be Arquevlogia y Etnulogia, Guatemala City. Reents-Budet, Dorie, Joseph W. Ball, Ronald 1,. Bishop, Virginia M. Fields, and LZa rba ra MacLecld. 1994. I;"l-rin ting tlze Mkyn Uni-i~erse: Royal Ceranzics of flze Classic Period. Durham, NC: Duke %in;iversityPress. Reilly, F. Kent. 1994. ""Vsions to Another Wcjrld: Art, Shamanism, and Political Pcwer in Middle Formative Mesoamerica ." PhD. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

1996, "Art, Ktual, and Rulership in the Olrnec World." In Kent Reilly and Gillett Griffin, eds., The Olrnec World: Ritual and Rulership, pp. 27-46. Princetan: Princeton University Art Museum. Robertson, Merle Greene, 1983. The Sculptrare of hlenque, Volulrw 2. Tile Temple of the Inscriptions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 1985a. Tlze Sc11lpIureof Pnle~lqme,Volzime 2. The Early Bzlilcli~zgsof-ftzc I"al"lrce nlzd flze Wall Paintings. Princeton: Princeton University Press. . 1985b. The Sculpture of Pale~tqzie,h l u m e 3, Tlze Late Buildifzgs of Ik Palace. Princeton: Princeton University Press, . 1994, Tlze S c i ~ l p l l ~ofPatenq~.ic, e h h i m e 4. The Cross Croup, ftw Norttz Grc~uy;?, the Qlvr'datd'o,and Other Pieces, 13rinceton:Princeton University Press, Rot-ticsek, Francis, and DonaXd Hales. 1981. The Maya Book of Clze Dend: The Gerwmic Codex. Chartottewille: Bayfy Memorial Museum, UniversiQ of Virginia. . 1982. Gerantk k s e s from the Lnfe Classic 17eriod: The Qvernber Coflectiorz of-Mayrz Ccmmics. Charlottesville: Bayly Memorial Museum, University of Virginia. Searborough, Vemon L. 4994. ""Courting in the Southern Maya Lowlands: A Study in Pre-Hispanic Ballgame Architecture," In Vemon L. Scarborough and David R, Wilcctx, eds., The Mesonmericarl Ballgame, pp. 129-144, Tuessn: University of Arizona Press, Schele, Linda. 1998. ""7-he Icono>graphyof Maya Architectural Facades During the Late Classic Period," h Stephen D, Houston, ed., Fu~etionand Meani~girz Classic Mnyn Arclritec.cf.urefpp.4[753-517. Warjhlngto>n,DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Colledion. SeheXe, lEJinda, and David Freidel. 3990. A Forest of Kings. New York: Williarn Morrow. %he;?le,Linda, and 13eterMathews. 1991. ""RoyalVisits and Other Intersite Retation.ships." In T. Patrick Cdbert, ed., Ch~ssicM y a hlitical Histoty: Hicqlyphic and A rchrzeological E'ctl'de~ee,pp. 22&252, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. The Gadc c$Kings. New York: Scribner . Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller, 1986. The Blood of Ki~zgs:D y ~ a s t yand Rifual ill n/laya Art. New Ys3rk: George Braziller. Sehele, Linda, David Freidel, and Joy Parker. 1993. Mnyw Cosmos. New York: Williarn Morrow-. Spinden, P-ierbert. 4975, R Study ofMaya Art: Ifs Szkbisct Matter and Historic~tDczyetopmen t. Reprint of 1913 publication. New York: Dover. Strtart, David. 1987, "Ten Phonetic Syllables." Researc.t.lz Reports on A ~ l c i ~ 'ht ~y1 n Wititzg 14. Washington, BC: C a t e r for Maya Research, . 1989. "The Maya Artist: An Epigraphic and Iconographic Study." b B a c lor 's thesis, 13rinceton University. Taube, Karl Andreas. 1985. "The Classic Maya Maize God: A Reappraisal." h Inkginia Fields, ed., FFfk P.rtenqzie Rour2d Table, 2983, pp. 171-182. San Francisco: Pre-Colurnbian Research Institute. -. 1989, "The Maize Tarnale, wnh, in Classic Maya Epigraphy and Art."" Anzerican Antiquity 54: 32-51. . 4992a. The Major Cc?dsofilncient Vzrcalin~,Sfzrdiss itz Pre-Columbia~tRrf and ArcIzaeolqy, Pre-Columbian Art Research Library and ColXections, no, 32. Warjhingtctn, DC: Dumbarton O a k Research Z,ibrary and Collection.

Classic Maya Conccpts ofthe R q n l Court

233

. 1992b. "The Iconography of Mirrors at Classic Teotihuacan." In Janet BerXo, ed., Art, hEity and the City c?f Teofihllacan, pp. 169-204. Washington, BC: Dumbadon Oaks Research Library and CoXlection. Tedlock, Barbara. 1992. Time and the H i g f i l ~ n dMaya, Revised edition. Afbuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Tedtock, Dennis, 1996. 1I)Uyt~fh h : Tke Definitz'zw Editiorz of Elrc Mnyalz Bnak of the Dawn o f L f e nlzd the Glories of Gods and Kiirzgs. New York: Sirnon and %hustex: Valdks, Juan Antonio. 4989. "Ef Grupo H d e Uaxadun: Evideneias d e un eentro d e poder durante el preclhsico.'" Xn Mcti.rar.ias del X I Goloq~iE'ojmfer~zacionaIde Mayist-as I, pp. 603-624, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de M6xica. Vc>gt, Evon. 1993. Tortillas for tlze Cods: A Sy~nbolicAnalysis i f Zinnmnteca Rituals. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press,

This page intentionally left blank

PART TWO

Comparative Views and Conclusions

This page intentionally left blank

Aztec Noble Courts Men, W o m e ~a, ~ Children d of the Palace

Noble courts of the Aztecs of Central Mexico are known from extensive descriptions by Spanish observers and native chroniclen;. These reveal that at the most complex courts, such as that of Motecuhzoma I of Tenochtitlan, there was a daily cmvergence at the royal palace of hundreds cJf people, inclueiiq visitors and residents, f m i l y members, courtiers anci servants-a diverse group in terms of social status, sex, age, talents, and relationship to tke ruler. This chapter describes the Aztec palace people and their rdes. Motecz~hzma's""palace people" were? given to feasting, pomp, scandal, m d intrigue, tastes they shared with courtiers of the great palaces of the p~industrialOld World. hztec courtly life also had much in commcm with that of the Maya, as is clear from comparison of the long accounts of Aztec royal life provided by Colonial-period chmni.clerswith the incrca* in& fine-grained :Maya liynastic histories that are now available. This chapter, an analysis of people and activities of Che Aztec court, provides a basis fur inference about Maya courtly behavior. The chapters in this book offer a wealth of architectural a d artifacbal mat-erid related to Mapa palaces, as well as sociological pattens and details horn epigraphic decipherment and. interpretation of materhl remains of Maya royal courts. These materials largely date from the Classic period, and it is somwhat iroslic to f-md that for the more recent postClassic period (AD. 900-1521), and the very well known Aztecs, there are only a few examples of archaeolngicallyknown palace architecture, anci a much less revealing witten language. The few Aztec palaces that have been excavated correspond to descriptions of palace layout, all h o w n examples folIoLving the samc. ccnartyard-

oriented plan,However, what the Aztec royal courts lack in physicai evidence they make up for in extensjve description: of the layout and hnctions of the palaces; the composition and jobs of palace personnel; rules, customs, rituals, and entertainments of court life; and cautionary but somtimes seandalotls talcs of life jn the palace and how mennhers of Ihe court hazaded the perils of transgressing the inviolable Aztec code of moderation in all things. The Aztec palace and court served the seemingly contradictory functior~sof embodying the sanctified and restricted place and operatives of power while also representing an emblematic every-house and every-familyI an ideaiized version of weli-ordered home life at all Levels. Because the spati.ai contexts ol behavinr are an important basis for interpreting palace architecture for the Aztec, Maya, and other cultures, references to tbe physicaf layout of the palace occur throughout this study of Aztec courtly life. Aztec: Politicall and Social Organization. in Brief

The Aztec empire was absorbed into the Spanish empire in 1521, aficr two years of increasingly hostilc relations between the Aztecs of Central Mexjco and the Spanish expeditionary force led by H e m h Cort4s. In A.n. 1519 the Aztecst with their major capitals at Tenochgtlan and 1Pxcoco in the Basin of i?nexico (see Figure 8.1), drew tribuf;es from a lager area of Mesomerjca than had ever been so thoroughly consolidated in the past The tribute system was rmified through a series of segmentaIly organized and mechanically irrtegrated city-states, each ruled by a n&le lord, a feuctli who saved as flahtrm~zi,a term for rules Chat is g e m r a y translated as "'speakes."'"The inlportance of hetoric in shaping policy is noted will retum tcr this concept in a detailed discussim of the courtyard's role in the palace and the fkhtrrtrni" role in court.' .Aztec political organizatiost operated through a settlement system of cities and smdler c unities. By 1519 the hztec heartlmd, the Basin of Mexico, had a large populatiw~,pmbably about: l,b milEon people (Smders 199231?9), distributed. ovcs all cult-ivablemnes of tfie basin, m d o r g ~ z e d into several dozen city-state (NaIruatl aftqeCI [sing.?). Each city-state drew orxr popuSati~17,s h i n g in faming vtllages %me faming viflages also bad civic and ceremcmial functions and served as administraIIve centers ior sets of villages h Tne Basin of n/lexicothere were perhaps &WO(21' these mral central, viilages, gover~~ed by petty Iords from rninor nobfe lineagcrs, cadet branches of the city-state dynasties (Evans 1998b),"n t lords of Texcoco turn, the c*-state lords tryercl. vassals of the g ~ ahperial and Tenwhtitlan, ina hkrachy of dynastic houses and Lineages. Social,organization of the post-Classk peoples of Central Mexico comprised several broad classes: an upper class of nobles by birth and an up-

FIGUM 8.1 Map of the Basin of Mexico showing Aztec-period sites mentimed in the text.

per-middle class of lesser nobles and enterprising commoners who achieved noble status and wealth through war, trade, or production of luxury goods. Commoner artisans and farmers formed the middle-tolower classes, and slaves constituted the lowest class." &presentation of social classes among a paXace% people in general would depmd on fie palace's size and type..At the larger administrative and resjdential pnlaces, with dozer~sof people resident and hmdreds visiting every da~., all classes we= represented in the full complement of ~ s i d e n t sattendants, , visitors, a d servants. In the smallest palaces, fie ruling lord and his (occasionally her) family, n?inor nobles all, consti,tut.ed the core residential group of palace people (see Note 19).

@er the course of the Aztec empire, or more propedy the TencxlhtitlanTexcoco alliance (1430s to 1,,5f9),the population of the Kasjn of Mexico increased steadily but the upper class boomed, each noble father siring many children from his p c r l y g p o u m i m s , many wives being a solid economic invest~~ent because of the profits from textile production (MOtoihia 1.951:202,246) and the sign of a prosperous man (for the Maya, see Houston a d Sbart, this volume).

The fifteenth-century noble class also increased Zly recrzlltment because service to the state could result in promotinn to higher status. Theoretically such perquisites were awarded to indkiduals, not to their descendants, but there are cases of prkileges persisting over the generations, no doubt secwed in part by judicions masriages contracted with daughters of nobles by birth." By the t h e of Itlotechznma fE (AD. 1502-1520) there were so many n&les that he introduced much more stringent criteria, a cruel policy excluding more mrginal nObIes from privileges previously afforded them, The d i n g class of the Basin of Mertico cmstihtted a highXy intermarried group, which memt that the lords who cmgregated at each other's palaces to confer on political matters or to gambile or hunt together were also cousins and bmthers-in-law and their wives, a much larger group, included many consanguinea1relatives of nobk allies,

Tecpan: Palace

2cpal.z mlli (hemaficr, tecpan), ""ford-plare house," is the full Aztec tarn fm place.' English derives p h c e from the name of a hitl in Rome (a point Houston also makes, in this volume); Nahua.t.l etymology reveals the ward's more logical relation to functional maning: the power inhemt in tJle lord and tJle dependence of the defh~itionof palucii on the prtrsence of the lord. Tecpalz atso kcorporates the bchavioral meaning of the Enghsh Y ~ referrhg not only to the physical place but also to the people ward C U Z ~ in whose lives ~ v o l v e daround it, and this dual stxliat anci spatial meaning provided a poht of cultural similarity betweell sixtee~~th-century Aztecs and the "courtf"-centercd Europeans who contacted. them.%iijnce the Cdonial period, teqan has gmerally ~ f e r r e dto the building, not the smiological groupf and except where noted, I will fol:low &is usage. Native chroniclers used tecpnllr to refer to the phce where the lord litved, wheCher it was an abinistrative and rczsidential palace or a noble retreat. Spanish chroniclers used tecpa~zoccasionallyf more often using easas reales for admixtistrative-residential palaces and w a s de recreil for pleasure p d a w s &ring the Colonial period the native poZirtjcal system broke dokvn to the local level MIith native lords govming the towns, and teepan came to mean community building-town hall-md the residence of the local governor? Pleasure Pw laces The administrative-residential palace meanhg has overwhelmed the term" broader usage in referring to k k c noble establishments, including pleasure pdaces and retrc-lats.About the noble treats in general we

h o w much from &scriptbe sources because in the fifteenth century the dynasties of Tenochtitlan and Texcoco engaged in a long contest of conspicuous consumption by developing difkrent kinds of pkasure parks: urban amusement parks, suburban imperial retreats, horticuttural gardens, and hmting reserves (Evans 2000). However, we know almost nothi~~g about pleasure palace layout or persomel, either from ethnohistclry or artlhaecllfrgy, despite some fabulous ruins like Texccrtzingo, the suhurban ifnperial r e t ~ aof t the lords of Texcoco, Most rctrcats had. lodg-tngs and shrines; some had feasting rooms, dance floors, zoologicaf displays, baths, and so on.Another kind of feeyatz was the sihational, temporay lodglimg put up for the lords when they made pilgrimages or participated, in military mmeuvers. Wiring about the lords" ual trek to Mt, Tlaloc, & r h said, "For these lords large, fine shelters of botrghs werc made. . . );or each sovereign m d his fobwers were bujlt, on different parts of the mountain, houses of straw with their rooms and aparmmts . . . around the grt-latcourtyard.'" (1971:157). The palace people in these si.tuati.011~included lords as welf as attendants and resident personml to mahtain the site" special landscape features and =souriles and to see to the ntler's camforts. All the physical chasacteristics noted, plus the nature and duration of the ruler's visit, tirne of year, ritual calendar, weather and other jndetcrmixlables, configured the court and ifs activities.

Administmtive-Residepzikial Palaces In contrast, the tecpan as cmmunity house, or admhistriztive residence, conformed to a far more standard pattern (Evans 1998~)'a much larger version of the courtyarcl-centereci domicile of the Central Highlands. Its entry courtyard was particularly large relative to the size of the other rooms in the building and was designed for much-larger-than-hwsehold gatherings pertahhtg to government, hospitality, rituals, and everyday work and sodaljzing.l0 The entry courtyard opened onto the community" ccentral plaza, which formed an even larger and more pubiic c a t y a r d for the wbole town (Aranc6n Garcia 1992; Mmgho Tazzer 1"398:31, 33). Inrtportmt to the life of the palace people, the town plaza, was a critical adjmct to the pdace (as it was for the Maya; see Ringle and Hey in votume 2 of this book, furthcoming 2002). Rnochtitlan's plaza at the time of contact was, as it is now the zbcnlo, a vast public anterom for the ritual pxlecinct to the north, other important civic buildings on the south and west, and m the east side, the palace. Entering an Aztec palace from the plaza,, one looks across the sunken entry courtyarcj to the lord's dais room, vvhich faced the plaza and was

FIGURE 8.2 Map of Quinatzin il1ustration of Neza hualcoyotf 's ad minlstrative fecpnlz at Texel-rco, Mexico (redrawn by author).

raised above the level of the courtyard. The classic illustration of this relationship is the Texcclco palace of Nezahua1co)iotl (Figure 8.2), depicted in the Mapa @tirratzin (Roberison 1959:Plate 13). It shows Nezahualcoyotl and his closest fmily member, his son Nrzahualpitli, in the dais room, and irr the courtyarcl arc. their highest-ranking ~rassals,lords of tributary city-staEes,l%~roundthe courtyard are shownor suggmted-roams for courts of law and arehives and for storage of armaments and musical instruments as well as suites of habitation rooms appropriate to a palygynouhhousehold. Not depicted but implied by the visual catdog of palace functions are the service and special-purpose areas a p p p r i a t e to household operation and to the crrllection and distribution of tribute goods, Elsewhere (Evms 1991,1998c) I have extensively discussed the nature, layout, and functions cJf the Aztec palace based on ethnohistrrricatiy

known examples and a k w archaeological cases. Together, these provide considerable evide11ce for this distinctive pattern of a large, multilevel but single-stary building ranged around an entry courtyard. The relationship between form and function seems clear: Political organization was administered by a lord and hjs cowtiers- with dccisinnmakjng and communal socid events takirtg place in the courtyad (see Note 9) and with the lord's participation-and simultaneous elevation and isolation-achieved by his position. in the dais roam, facing the plaza. 'The Aztec style of government and noble domestic life fmctioned witbin a courtyard-centeresl walled compound of suites of rooms. There are very few archaeolagicaUYy h o w n fecpans, but they conform to this pattern, The Palacio at Acozac/Xxtapaluca Viejo, with its courtyard and dais room still h~tact,was probably the admimistrative ~ s i d e n c efor a city-state.!" Structwe 6 at Cihuatecpan, an h t e c viilage of about 1,000 people, has been interpreted as the village tcrcpurz on the basis of formal similarity to known plans of Aztec fiucpns and its large size compared with other houses in the vi,llage and at other Aztec sites (Fig~~re 8.3).'" From its size and number of rooms, 1have estimated its household size at 2 5 to 30 people and the househdd as inctuding a joint family, probabty the ruler m d three ta five wives and thek crihildren as well as other family members (Evms 1993:183) As the smallest, simplest type of administrative tecpnz, Cihuatecpmfs r t : people were Shucture 6 lets us speedate about the core of the c o ~ ~ \zrhat essential to lordship and to the proper running and maintenance of the fiucpatz and what people constisuted the ""court"no matter how small or haw large the fecpan. These two groups overlap with the family serving as the essential core of the court and the entry courtyard as the theater for courtly behavior.

"meater for courtly behavior" may seem prete~~tiaus to describe the e11try courtyard of this rambling but not very large viltage villa and the demeanor of rural peasants passing time therein. The court of Motecuhaoma followed t'armal rules of attendmce and dress m d derneanar. Haw could these be maintajned in farrning villages? Much fess fosmalllJ, to be sure, but there is a tendency im cornplex societies to maintain rigorousty the perquisites of rank in provincial situati,ons (for China, see Stover IY7rl). It is likely that everyone accepted the contrast betvveen the purereven ho'ty-blood of the nobler; (Lecin-Portilla 1985:383)and that of the commaness. This disthdion would be drawn between the Cihuatecpan villagers m d rufing farnib regardless of the latter"^ relatively low status in the regianaf noble dynasw

m

\

FIGURE 8.3 Structure 6, the probable Aztec-period tecp~nat Cihuatecpan, Mexico

The sumptuaq mXes that applied strictly to n h l e s in Tenochtitlan and Texcoco would also be well h o w n here. Even in Cihuatecpan, lordly m noble status was advertised clearly in the tectpan's suncmpromishg signals-'" red-painted place," as Sahagijm" informants stated, and as we found in the cl-painted w d s of Structure 6's entry c o u f t y d (Evans

and Abrams 19K15:118-1211). Having a tecyatz was a privilege and perqztisite, m d the higher lords forbade even their close kin to build or dworate in a palaitial fast-iim wiChout having earned the right." Villagcrrs would also have known &out couftly demeanor because they rczgularly served in the higher-order palaces, and rank would have been advertised through courtly demeanor as well as by clothing and adornment ( h a w a l t 1981). F~~rthermore, courtly behavior was consistent with, and an exterzsion of, the Aztec tradition of emphasis on established rhetorical format in speeches and sermons (figure 8.4). 'The most formal of these were the htaehzrehllahfulli,a term that combhes the word for speech (also fotlind in tlnhfonni)with a double incidence of the word. for revered. Such speeches, particularly among the lords, art? the sMhject of several impmtant cornpilationsbp Sahagzjn (inBooks 6 and K of the Flarc~zfilzeCudex), of Pomar's volume (1941), and of a cognate document, the Bancroft Hlieizrkehtlnhtolli (Karttunen and Lockhart 1986, 1987). Regularly, the lord ga&ered his .family and others togelher to hear sermons on various ethical topics (Pomar 1941:3940). Mastery of appropriate speeches for different social situations was an essential part "f etiquette. For example, ""A nobleman of the court of the lcing gxets the recently married queen'3n a s p e d about 200 words long (Karttunen and Lockhart 1986:125), thus an oration of several minutes. In Motectrhzoma'?i palace this greeting may have been part of a very formal scene h the dais room, possibly with actual jebvels being given to the bride, herself of n&%eblood, as the speaker, a very noble lord, tried t~ demonstrate the poetic mastey that was the hallmark of the cultured noble. Uut in Cihuatecpan, the setting and exchange of words and gifts may have been far simpler, but even country folk would have been well m a r e of the cadences and typical language of such speech. Nrjlhuatl was the most widely spoken language in the Basin of Mexico, and Nahuatl as a language was full of metaphoricai posibhility-it was no wonder that the Aztecs composed poetry for p l e a s u ~The . moso advantaged intimates of the Cihuatecpan court and other mhor nobles and affluent peasants, perhaps related to local nobles by marriqe, might attempt to honor their okvn ~ ~ ( ' I ? fu Ias d y by obseming the proper forms of address on the celebratory occasjm of a bride's new social role in the community or a new bahy" aarrivai. This is but orle exmple of Aztec covlrtly emphasis on f o r m l spec&, a subject that should be studied, more closely for what it might reveal about formal relations among members of the nobk househdd and the court. It is clear that formal patterns of rhetoric werc embedded in the language of all (see, for example, Ruiz de Alarccin 1984 for speeches when errtbarking on a journey or coming upon a line of ants) and that

FIGUM 8.4 Aztec formal speeches: Pregnant one responds (Flure~~Cirze Codex Book 6, iXfustratian 23; redrawn by author).

fomal greetings and short speeches pertinent to particular occasions would have been widely known. ?hat such speeches were particularly polished for presentation in the tecpan may have given the Aztec rural court a mare ""[email protected]"'aspect in terms of speech than found in a contemporaneous m a l lord's house in Europe.

Mosyitality m d feasthg were essential to court liceThe ruler of Texcoco hosted one huge feast so well., serving so many dlshes, that the visiting "Mexihcah were very much put to shme." (Karttunen and Lockhart f987:155). That feast was to cefebrate the execution for adultery of the ruler" wife, a Mexica princess, and her many lovers, but the hzrefizlehtlatolli emphasizes fie lavish spread d m g with the gruesome details of fie deaths, which seem to have taken place in the plaza adjacent to the patace with onlookers including many foreip visi.tms. This event, too, is within the rmge of activities of the court.

The Terccaco palace used. huge amounts of food (Alwa ktlilxochitl1985, 2:15Q;Pomar 1941), m d the same must have been true in Te~nochtitlm: Alf these foods came forth from tzrithin the hc>raseof the ruler, . . . And daily a man, the majordornc:, [caf~~ixqui], set out for the rufer his fc~od-two thousand kinds of various foods , , . And when the ruler had eaten,. . . a11 the food was divided. Apart, in the cit?i;the l a d s ate# and all the people from surrounding lands-the ambassadors, the war messengers, the princes, the judges, the high priest, the seasrrrned wamiors, the valiant men of war, the masters of youths, the rulers af the youths, the keepers of the gads, the priests, the singers, gages, his ser~ants,his jugglers, and the various artisans, p l d s m i t k , feather workers, cutters of precious stones, setters of mosaic, sandal makers, and turquoiw cutters, (SahagBn 11i37"a:33)

Feasts accompanying the great ceremonies involved, even greater largesse: "After the ce~moniesthey served food to the guests and gave them many prtlsetnts. This involvccf them in very great expenscl, for they gave to many people, not only to the l d s but to their servants, relatives, a d allies; they also gave many alms to the poor and needy" (Zorita 1994:96). Feasts were also opportunities for htmication, which was a peryukite of lorcis and merchants. Whcreas magucy sap beer (pulque)was the cornmoner's pathway to drunkenness, the nobles preferred chocolate and psychoactive mushrooms; Axayacatl of Tenochtitlan (r. A.n, 1469-14131) ~ c e i v e dsuch a s h r o o m s in trihute (cie la Garza 1990:63).Sahagdn's informmts described the effects of cl-cocolate as being like those of jil-nson weed or mushrooms and related that commoners could not d r h k it because it was so precious p969:2%), but sometimes the paface domestics got some, as after Axayacat-1%funeral ( & r h 1W:28S). Fohl(1998) analyzed the functions of post-Classic Tlaxcalan palace feasts as they moved through intoxication into violence, even murder, indicating that the outcome of such events was not always pleasurable to all.

Palace Pleasures and PEeasuw Gods Pkasurc played a hi&ly ambivalent role in Aztec life (see Evans 1998a) and was seen as dangernut;not only because it wasted time brat because losing one's self to indulgence in p l e a s e was to become an open conduit for dark forces." The Aztecs bdieved that life was a slippery slope of potential rrtishaps and disaskrs, making it difficult to avoid falling down (Burkhart 1989). Cltne codd, however, best maintain good f o r t u ~ ~ and e harmony by moderation in all thhgs, and the Aztecs produced many long sermons on the importance of hard work, moderation, anci pru-

dence. The lives of Aztec commoners seem to have been austere, but considerable evidence suggests a gencral respect for pleast~re,nnnderately indulged in, With their grclater wealth and range of cbolces in lifestyle, n&les codd afford to experiment and ercperience a wider range of pleasures, Thus it is intriguing to consider Chat the patron deity d the courtkrs was the pleasure god(s) X~chipilli/NacuiIxochitl.~~ XochipillvMacuilxochitl S domain was flowers, hailucinogens, feasting, and gan?bl.ing-all as important cmponemts of Aztec palace life as poXitical decisionmaking and virboso poetry recitals." The affluence and pequisites of nobles afforded them pleasmble and imtoxicathg activities not permjtted to the common folk. Aztec palace people as a self-idmtified g r w p cleaved to a patmn heavi:ly involved in exkmely sensuous reveals an implicit acceptance of one characterization of experie~~ces, the tecpan 0ffe1"~dby Shagixn's upper-class Aztec informants: "a place where one is intoxicated, flatter&, pervert&" Fahagfin 1969:270). To he fair, Sahagh's fnformants offert-td other, mom serious-mb~dedcharacteriz(?l.ior~s of the tecpan, hut the clear sense is that the selling of the palace heightened the d r a m of expressions of human nature. About: palace pleasures, Sahagrin's informants described ""hw the rulers took their pleasure" (Figme 8.5): When the ruler went forth, in I-tis hand rested his r e d stalk tzrt-rich he went moving in rhythm with his words. His chamberlains and his elders went befare him; on both sides, . . . prvceeded as they went clearing the way for hirn. No~nemight cross in front af him; none might come forth before hirn; nane might lc)ok up at him; none might come face tee, face with him. He sang; songs were learn&; chants were intoned. They told him provehs and pleasantries to pass the time, They played ball, There tzrere his . . . ballplayers. They tvagered . . . all [manner of] costly goods-gold, golden necklaces, green stc~ne, fine turquoise, slaves, precious capes, valuable breech clouts, cultivated fields, hauses, leather leg bands, gold bracelet%arm bands of quetzal feathers, duck feather capes, bales of cacac*j[these] were wagered there in the g a m called flaclztli . . . [and the board patolli], . . . They shot with bow and arrclw . . . with bird arrows, with darts. With this belonged a bracelet on which were large, round, green stc~nesor fine turquoises. The ruler placed it about his wrist. . . . !With a blowgun] they shut small birds, . . . They hunted with a bird net; with it they captured various birds. . . . Flower gardens were laid out; . . .jesters . . . provided thern solace and gave thern pjeasure. . . . !Those] whu rolled a log with their feet . . . their deeds were laughable and marvebus. . . . Many things they did to bring men pleasure, There were their sezlsants, their pages who attended thern and gave them solace; dwarfs, cripples, hunchbacks, semants. They kept eagles, ocelots, bears, mountain cats, and various birds. (SahagGn 1979:29-30)

FIGURE 8.5 Aztec courtly pleasu~s:Jugglers, dwarves (Florentine Cudcx Buok 8, illustration #M; redrawn by author).

Games, hunting, sports, were among the activities that noblemen enjoyed most. An incident from Aztec history illustrates everyday life at court. In the early 1470s, Axayacatl of Tenochtitlan made ready to conquer Tlatelolco, but when Mohquihuix, the king of Tlatelolco, "sent his spies to see what was happening . . . they found King Axayacatl playing ball with his noblemen, apparently ignorant of any trouble. The Aztecs had done this intentionally so as to mislead the Tlatelolcas" and make them think that this was the most ordinary of r o y d days (DurAtt 1994:255), enlivened by a fast game of tlachtli by the king and his friends at a court near the paface (f:igure 8.6)

FIGURE 8.6 Aztec courtly p l e a s u ~ sBallgame : (Florentz'neCc~dexBook 8, illustration #92;redrawn by author).

The daily life of Motecuhzclma, his predecessors and Texcocan counterparts-the highest lords-was spent at or traveling between one or another of the tecptzs, provided t h a e we= no major rituals, feasts, or military campaigns. These highest lords indulged in the luxurious perquisites ol their position, ineludj.ng a choice of musememts, even expensive ones like pleasure park development. n e s e ixnportmt features of courtly fife show h w the d e r and his closest companions passed the time at court. Idet-us look moro closely at the featured pl,ayers.

T e c p a ~pauhgue: Palace People Aztec pdace people were refrzrred to as fecpanflacah or fecpan po~l/zqzle.~~ I'he htter term, Hicks believed, mcompassed everyone whose daify tife revolved around the palace (2984:163), even service persomel such as field hands working farm plIots held, by the palace (Corona Sanchez 3975). Aztec palace people were farnily and retainers, political functionaries and dnmestic help, metn and women, eC-hnic confreres and ethnic enemies, courtiers and servants-aII constihting a complex, polythetically-tinked set of inetiuiduals and special-interest groups whose strcnglh and position depetnded on these and other functions and furthcr depended on the size and complexity of the particular court and the size and functions of a particular pdace. The term fecpan pouhque is clearly broader than in the Europem sense of a group of courtiers limited to those men m d w m e n who attended upon the wler and wercl. familiar with him or her insofar as their ~ l a t i v e

stabs and the ruler's mood a d taste for protocol dictated. Members:hip in the lord's entourage depended on noble or at least elevated stdus, somtimes on skills inentertainment or elite artisanship. In Aztec palaces this gmup waqrominmt, and its daily life c e n t e ~ dm the main entry courtyard. In a different domain than the lord and his familiars were domestic service workers. This distinction between the lord's farniliars and the palace domstics would have been well understood both by the Aztec palace people and by their contemporaries in Renaissance Italyf who used the terms dolnestici andfamiliari to exprtlss the household hierarchy: "Familiars us~~ally enjoyed more rank and prestige than domestics. Indeed, the krmfamiliar could be applied to persons at the very highet levels of society. . . . Cowtiers were considered familiars of the prince they served'3Romano 19Yli:xxiii). An army of bvuse servants took part in court life indirectly, preparing and maintaining the setting for the court md scrrwing the needs of court members through buildi-ng maintenance, culinary service, housework, and,as needed, elite craft production, At even further remove frm the daily tife of the court as convened in the tecpa~z" main courtyad were commoner artisms working an ~rariousprojects m d rotational labor and iarm laborers working to suppIy the palace with basic goods. "Chhalpahin implie"that most frequently the nohles from a pdity rttgularly attended at its tecpan and Chat the commoners c m e to perhrm services there, . . . The implied norm. is that nobles and commoners of the subdjvisitrns of one tZayacatl altepetl attended at the princigat palace of that particular royal divisionf"khroeder 1""391:142). A rotational service worker, a peasant frm a distant village who swept the palace and tended its fires, was part of the palace people and may have seen a lot.of courtly life from a servant's perspective, but such a person was not a member of the court no matter how glamorous the bmsh with sumptuous srtrroundings. However, the Aztec couft offered some rare opportunities for advancement. A domestic worker who performed a task very wdl could be recruited for p e r s o d service as, say, m artisan or courtesan, and then that individual had become a familiar of the lord"s, at least temporarily, m d had joined the cowt as well as servi,ng it. At Cihuatecpan, Structure 6"s "courtiers" hcliuded all manner of visitors. A rural village ttlcpa~zwcidd have been a place for feasts, performances, rituals, and regular consultation times for the governing lord, when one could say that court was being held even though the activiv involved was mly the mundane daily gathering of a fw local gossips m d would-be pow erbrokers* In a small town like Cihuatecpan, the ruler m d his family famed the core group of palace people. Even their house servants might not have

sided in Structure 6." But courtly life was far more complicated and elaborate at the big tccpans clf Texcoco and Tenochlitlan, as many accotrnts attest. Texcocro" secpans and c a t s were certa-inly as large and corrrglex as those of Tenocbtitlm; Pomar and ALva ktlilxochi-tlpmvide mmy insights, but both were writhg decades after the cmquest. In cmtrast, courtly life at Tenochtith was described in eyewihess accounts by several of the Spanfa& who lived in Axayacatl's palace and explorltd Motecuhzoma 11% sand lived with Motecuhzoma and members of his court. Thus we have good documentation about the palace people: nobles at court, the ruling lord, wives, offspring, and personal attendants. The rest of this shrrdy focuses on these people, inTenochtitim and elsewhere..

Cartes wrote that every day at dawn 600 lords md. men of rank came to Motecuhzoma's palace, sitting or strolling rough other rooms and ccnridors but not enterllng his quarters.""' The seivants [and retainers] . . . who accompanied them filled two or three large courtyards, and the street, which was very big. And they remained all day until nightfall. When they brought hod to Mutezuma they also provided for all thase chiefs . . . and their seivants and fc~llowers,. . . The pmtry and the wine stores were left open each day for those who wished to eat: or drink, (Curl.6~2 986:111)

CortPs and his men were visitors to this court for half m yeac In a brery real sense they were visiting members of Motecuhzom" entourage; they and the Aztecs maintained the public fiction that Motecuhz,oma remained ruler of Mexico while under the protective gIJidance of 5pain"s diplomatic mission. Motecuhzona resided with the Spaniards at his old palare (also known as Axayacatl's palace) and apparently could visit his other palaces; the accounts are unclear as to whether the crowd of courtiers was drawn to Motecuhzoma as ruler or to one or the other of his two large administrative palaces, both a$jacmt to the main plaza of Te~~ochtitlan, as they represented seats of government. Motecuhzoma's New Paface (site of the present-day Palacio Nacional of Mexico) seems to have continued to functirm as a semipublic civic building; several of CortPsfsmen contment on having wandered at length through the New Palace and describe it as extensive and full of iaschathg things but definitely not as deserted or abandoned by the palace people. The drcrurnst..ances of this ""interreg~~um," highlight the distinction between th Aztec royal court as carrying wt the business of gove and as enjoying the privileges of courtiers. It is clear that while the

S p a n i d s lived in the Azkc pahce, the life there amused them because they recognized many faniliar and emjoyable featurer; of courtier life (Herren 1991:1811-185). They liked the food, they were given women to htok after them and sleep with them, and they gambled every day with Aztec lords, enjoykg Motecuhzomak generosity-he gave prizes to winners and losers at sports and g m e s and, when he caugkt the Spaniards cheating, fomd it amusirtg." The Aztec: nribles and Spanish "difimats'" went on boating expeditions and h u ~ ~ t i ntrips g togetrher. There was no common ground on pditical goals and spiritual pracgces, hut the two cultures shared the idea that these were. appropriate pursuits of palace life, Cort4s's description o.f court seerns to pertain to everyday life; on a typical pre-Hispanic day one d g h t fhd. Moteeuhzoma"s courtyard fi.lled with clusters of nottles talkil~gas pages anci other attendants moved among them ru~mingerrmds and bringhg refreshments. Closer to the dais room. here mi&t be a performance to amuse the ruler and his closest fmiliars, usually other nobles, the lords Mxha were his friends, his favorite wives and concubines, and sometimes commoners such as hdividuals whose talents devated them to the lord's company. C k the ruler would be conferring with other lords about politic& matters, and as strategies were worked out, the nobles in the cot~rtyardwadd be called upon to carry out diplomatic missions m d other tasks (RelacilirzArrdnim 1953:17-18). Daity life of the nobles seems to hawe encompassed participation in cot~xtlyactivities and work at some craft or profession. Sometimes these overlapped. Lods wert. well aware that there were too many of their kind to be supported by the commoners, so Aztec nflbles, men and women, mastered variot~sartisanal and managerial skils in order to earn a h h g . Many nObles worlced in the f o m a l bureaucracks of political and cammercial adminisbaition as officeholders or as gove ental fmc.tionaries ready to undertake diplomatic errmds or other jobs. The fkrhtoani and village headman had a set of: civic and ceremonial rcspmsibilities that included the administration of bibute collection and the mediation of disputes within the community (including marriage counseling). 'The governing ford earned, the tri27ute owed to the office (such as the harvest from tecprrlztllzlli ["lord-place-earthff]fields), probably recrJived various amounts c.tf rent from personally held proyw;rt.ic;?s,and m dotrbt-enjoyed Che benefits of craft productjon bp members of the household (Sextiles made by palace women, for exampte) or by artisans under the lord" pablmage. Noble boys were taught battle and hunting skills and crafts: featheiwork . . . ; . . . mosaic tvork, goldsmithery, jewel cutting, and metal polishing; and atso fcodex ?) painting, woodw~)rking,and the various other crafts. O-t.he1-swere tau&t song composition and oratory and the science knawn as "the drum and the rattle""i,e,, music), and also the science af

the heavens, haw the sun and mcysn and stars, called the Ninefold, mave; and then what are called divine cudices . . . And indeed, some they took to the fields or the flower gardens to teach them how to SW seeds, to plant trees and flowers, and to cultivate and work the Land, They taught them all it was needfuX far them to know by way of sewice, knc>wledge,wisdom, and prudent living. Likewise within the houses, where the ladies were in their qua&ers, the girls were taught all the different thlngs tzromen do: sweeping, sprinkling, preparing food, rna king beverages, grinding (maize), preparing tortillas, making tamaleq . . . also (the art of) the spindle and the weaver's reed and various kinds of embroidery; also dyeing, how rabbit down ar rabbit fur was dyed different colors. (Karttunen and IJockhart 198"7:149-353)

Documents cataloging approphate occupaticms for Aztec n&les offer rich potential for pditical. and economic kterpretation, but here o~trgoal is to ijluminate what went on at c a t horn the perspective of what lords were trained to do." Lords at all levels pufsued elite artisanship; Nezahuafcoyotl of Texcoco, one of the greatest Aztec kings, was enormusly skilled, in landscape design and was much sought after as a civil engineer and architect as we11 as being an exemplary political dmfnistrator and rhetoreticjan. N'ezahualcoyotl built: many palaces and pleasure palaces, and in the dcsign of his Texcoco palace in the 1460s enjoyed the help of the t l a h t m ~of l Tlatelolco, Mohquihuix (Llmberger 1996:2Fj7). Here were two men skil[ed at palace design and able to work on a grand scale. When they met at each other" court, they w u l d have enthusiastically discussed architecture. They may have ""held courtf"in a s pl sellse as they visited bu.ilding sites, discussing p r o g ~ s and next phase, attended. by project architects m d the foremen of work parties, stewards in charge of scheduling tributes in labor and construction materials, messellgers to run errands, and others. We h o w that lords copied each other" palaces (Umberger 1996:250), indicating that such issues as palace layout and decoration werl, important topics of conwersation. Lords were avid gardeners, sought exotic plants thsnugh tributary networks, and did extensive landscape remodeling in order to protect tender plants in the harsh Basin of Mexico environment. These details suggest that whell the lords vi,sited each other, they noticed features of palace and garden m d the qudity of accoutrements, matters about which some lords were quite knowtedgeable; thus courtfy life must have included some time sper~tby the lords sharing inormation and gossip about their areas of expertise. It is safe to assume that Nezahualcoyoti did not earn his living at any artisanal pursuits, but other Lords had far morc Ijmited resources, and the income from the tecpan as an elite workshop may have helped to underwrite its role as 'kommunily house" and place of hospitaliv to members

of the court. The generogty of the .rulers and their wives was fmdamental to community well-being, and speeches by visiting nobles emphasized how much everyone depended on this largesse; the replies by the noble hosts were both modest and reassurkg (Zorita 1994:100-101).

A lord began his rule by celebsatkg his investiture with a party hhis tecpaz. "M1 the lords came and escorted him with great pomp and rejoicixzg

to his palaces, where they held high kstivities and celebrations. 'Thenceforth he reigned as rulcr, and was so obeyed and hared that none dare raise his eyes to look him in the face, save when h was amusing himself in tbe company of some lords or intimates" "orita 4994:94). The [email protected]&-r""ki.ngof the palace people in I519 Tenocfititlan would have been Motecubzoma 11 himnself, recruited to his position by his senior noble kinsmen. He was chosen from a very small p o d of candidates, all close relatives and noble descelzdants of Quetzalcaatl via the Toltee-era dynasty of Culhuacan. Much has been written about Motecuhzoma in&catk~ghis state of mind as fatalistic, ifirospective, cmtemplative, and ascetic, which might imply to Western percepti.ons a certain self-denial with regard. to luxuries. But this devout practi~onerof his faith was also imperious about access to my& perquisites and restricted the size of the noble &ss, affecting t-he con?posi.ti,onof his court. Perhaps he felt that hjs courtyard was too crowded with hangers-on, that he was serving expensive food and drink to too many distant datives, Furthemore, he was activcly sclf-aggrandizing,having a new and mu& lager palace built for himself and enjoyirrg his m a y pleasurc pdaces, In this chagter, lord has often been used a gender-neutral way m d as a class, lords induded both male and k m d e nob%@, However, virt-wily all governing lords were men. There are no documented cases of Aztec women mlem at the imperial level, but there have been some imprcrssive in shapwomen at imperial court, and they may hiwe been instrurne~~tal ing policy." In ccmtrast, there is considerable docrumentatim that women served as administrators at middle and lower levels, anci there was probaMy a continuum of a femde administrative presmce that began with the occasional female rulers of city-states (usually in dynasv-preserving situations) and cmtinued &rough to the household kvel, where women apparently served as household heads at persi.stent but. very low fsaqrxemties..'" Noting the many occupations assumed by Aztec women, Kellogg (4995:95) cites the Rorentine Codex, where the ""silzuafecu!ztli,or 'noblef or 'ruling woman"~dedeseribed as hard-working, a goad steward of resources, and a good leader. Whereas we achowledge th regdar occurrmce of female lords at middle m d lower levels of house and tecyal.2 ad-

ministration, it is fair to assume that it ""did not extend to tbr higbrr levels of administration . . . positions virtually always held by men" "ellogg 1995:99). Male leadership dmirtated irnperial palaces and courtly life.

Wives a ~ Cansorts d The wives and other consorts of the lords also constituted a socially diverse (jroup. h the imperid courts, the women sexually intimate with the lord composed a group that included the most socially exalted as well as patace domestic servants of hurnble origin, even slaves and others taken wjtholtt regard to their will*7'hesize and diversity of this group of w a r n wodd depend on the lord" power and tastes. b e n though virtually any lord couid afford to buy a slave he fancied, it took a large palace (or palaces) to mintain many women, and furthermore, these was a sorrietal expectation that a ruler would not render himself vuherhlc to chaotic supernahtral forces or to scandalous gossip by d i s p l a w unbridled sensual appetites"=? Mrhm refugee women came to Axayacatl" imperial. palace inTenochtitlan, they lived in t-he kitchen varters and simply did kitchen wcrrk, the implication being Ihat hayaratl did not incorporate them into the pool of sexual service workers ( A ~ n n l uf s Cuauhfiflan1992:11.5). Motecuhzoma 11, in cmtrast, is known to have breached couftesy toward refugees from Muexotzinco, because he ""had taken their countrywoman and had m d e her his concubhe." The Huexotzhca, offended, left for home; Motecuhzorna had them assassinated along the way (Alznnls of C ~ ~ a u h t l t f a ~ ~ 1992:128). Or consider how Axayacatl destmyed the court of Tlatelolco, where his sister was prhcipal wifef because of sex scanrlals resulting from her husband Mohquihujx" alleged orgies. Tenochtitlan's &ations with its sister city, Tlateloko, detaiorated in the early 1470s. Tlatelolco" increasing wealth from its huge market and corps of p!chfecla mercl-zantswas chronicled as a secondary reason for Tenochtitlan's actions, atthough the key motivating factor was revenge for Mohquj;huitc% b e h a i m inhis administrative residence (AIII~UES of CzlauJzfiflnl~1992:113; general discussion in Evans 1998a:17&176). Presumably; staghg orgies at the palace was tas much for AxayacatIrsdignity, md. the potential profits from the pcr'zlerra were too much for Axayacatl's g ~ e dProclaiming . himself a protector of "fmily vatucsff3eand the Tenoclhca drove the erring brother-in-law to suicide, bringing Tlatelolco under Tenochca control.. Axayacatrs sister and other principal wives in thr Aztec empirt. were centrd to pajace life i,n terms of inter- and intradynasty po:[itical relations (especial& in producing the principal heirs). The exemplary lordly household would he run with efficiency by wives and m;ljordomos, di-

~ c t i n gthe work of domestic servants. Royal wmen had been raised to excel at such tasks. wilt thou seize upon as thy womanly tabors?" a king asked his daughters; all .Aztec women leamd, to cook and spin and weave, but ""te art of good drink, the art of good food, which is called one's birthright. This is the property of-it belongeth to---the lords, the rulersf"(Sahagrin 1969:95). 'T"he principal wife was recruited from a higher-ranking dynastic lineage (Carrasco 1984), although this activity could just as accurately be seen as husband-hunting by a higher-ranklng dynastic lineage looking fnr a lower-ranking lord to be a good ally as a son-in-law and for an appropriate father fnr its own grandsons and nephews, their father's principal heirs..'" For the last few decades of the pre-Contact era, Tenochtitlan and Texcoco bonded their liynasties by the exchange of their daughters as prhcipal and secondary wives, meir daughters also became principal wives of the hi&est-ranking city-state rulers, who in turn similarly cemented relatims with their tributary towns a d vitlages. If Cihuatecpan's lord follocved Aztec cu,st..om,he took his principal wife from the local city-state dynasty (gmbabb Otumba), m d his secondary wives were the daughters of other mh~ornoble families or affluent co lies as diplomatic and economic need and affectionate carnaliry dictated. Lords are reputed to have pseferred their brides to be virgins, but this prefcrrmce may have applied onty to principai wives, because they =ern to have married each other's w i d o c ~ s * ~ ~ In the larger courts, where the mfers are reported as having hmdreds of women--many Mtives and conclrbfnes and probably as many other sexual servers as they wmted-we could distfng~~ish a group we might: call principal secondary wives, women from exceuent, usuatly noble families vvho sewed as compmions to the principal wife as w d as to the lord. These high-rmkhg women would have had more desirable quarters and. other benefits for themelves and their chi.Idren t:han, say, the concubines, though ail the palace women may have worked together on certain prjects, such as textik production or feast preparations, the prjncipal wives planning toward deadlines with the palace majordumos. PcrIygyny was widely prarticed by nobles for basic economic reasam. "Aside horn the consideration of the wide distinction and rcldionship they established by having the women, and also the great support they thereby obtained, it was through the women tbry possessed a great advmtage in having them hveave cloth, make chthes and render them many services, since the principal women brought other serving-women with themf' ( M o t o l ~ 1951:246). a In the period right after the conquest:of Mexico but before Christianjty was well established, polygyny seems to have skyrocketed, The death rate a m g b d s dufir~gthe conquest must have been very high (even

before f.lghting started, Alvarado ordered hundreds of noblemen killed in one night, precipitating the final round of Hispano-Aztec hostility), leaving their widows ready to find a haven in another household, Furthermow, noble coweris to Christianity had to eschew all but ofie wife. All other Indians lived with as many women as they cared to have. Some had two hundred women and others less, each one as many as suited him, Since the lords and chiefs stole at1 the women for themselves, an ordinaw Indian could scarcely find a woman when he wished to marry. . . . The Indians would emtend that the Spaniards, tocl, had many women and when we friars answered that the Spaniards had them in the capadty of rier~ants,the Indians replied that they had them in the same capacity it is true that, alt b u g h the Indians had many women, to all of w h m they tzrer-e married according to their custom, they had them also as a means of prc)fit, because they set all the women weaving cloth, making mantles. (Motolinia 11352:202)

Clearly, some men saw in this pre-(llio~~tact era of troubles m opportunity to use the shstmtial workforce formerly controlled by yre-Hispanic noblemen, Noblemen who had survived could briefly enjoy the outward signs of even higher status than t h y had previously had beforc? accepting the rcality of the demotion of Aztec society as a whole and especially of nohles. "For the rding ctass the change [was] absolute, from a dominant to a st~bordinaterank" Fibs011 1960:169).

Palam Mnlm in Pzrblic and Private. The public mle of Aztec princir>al (and upper-secondary) wives at court was apparently quite varied; despite the ocrcasional, refe~nceto sequestering, most sources indicate that womm were very much a part of couftly life, partaking im feasts as well as prepari.ng and serving delicacies such as chocobte. The huchuelltlutalli accounts dacribe long poetic greetings between the ruleds wife and important visitors, and many stories refer to or suggest the presence of royal w o m n at xnwical performances and feasts." In terms of the everyday presence of women in courtly activities, there was probably a cc7ntin.uum of the fomality of the L\lives' presence. The greatest crmformiry to rules of decorum would obtajrr hthe mare public areas of urban imperial palaces, whereas increasjngly practical circumstances would govern behavior in the smaller tecpans, many oE them v e r a t h g in the world of the f a m k ~ g cotxntryside, where rural noblewnnen probably had more direct responsibilities toward and contact with commoner fmilies. Nnhlewrrlot, Nnhlemen, and SwmZhtlis. Local rural families, especialfy Ifarm wives, may have turned to the Zecpan noblewomen lfor curing, Curing was regarded as a valued skill, often practiced by womm, and the

proximity of sweatbaths Pahuatl sing. temscul) to Aztec palaces indicates that sweatba.trh use, m importmt adj~~nct of well-being and recovery from illness, was an integral part of palace Women often relieved the pangs of labor in the s w e a t b a t h - d the sweatbaths in the back of the Cihuatecpan t i r m n werc fragments of Xwhiquetzai: figurines, implying that the healng powers of the krtility goddess may have been invoked there (Evans and Abrams 1988:134, 339-340). The attending midwife may have been a "professional'kcurer or perhaps an experienced kinswman, one of the palace wives. Aztec sweatbaths were used by everyone for gewral hygiene, and their revitalizing effects were thought to be more efficacious MIhetn metn and women bathed together. It must have been cornmm practice for the paiace ruling family to rtttax t o g e ~ e in r this fashion, juliging fmm an extensive legal case reported in 1,564 in which, native lords &fended their courtly custom and. perquisite of mixed bathing by husbands m d wives in the ftrmscuf. 'This practice srandaiized the Spanfar& because, as h e y noted, ""bthing in Europe was associated with sexz~allicense. Bathhouses were recognized centers of prostitution" "rvey 1988:189). Colaniaf au.thsrities asserted that ""the said [native]officials have as a vice and custom [the practice of] entering into firmascill~sChat arc the baths, mixed [bathing] with women, all naked and wittnout s h a m . . . setting a bad example for all" (Codex Osrtna 1947:14).%" And even more damnhg, the bathers were drinkng ""vinoblanca de lit tierra" ((pulque,maguey sap beer) (Codex Osuna 1947:27).The defendants argued that mixed bathing was essmtial to their health and was their ancient custom. Evenbafly the gover ent co~ncurred,permitthg the fords and their wives to maintain this custom of palace life (Codex Osuna 194740).

Did Aztec Nobles Sequester Their Witmen? The Archaeological Perspective from Cihtintccpan. These vignettes af palace life seem to indicate that palace women interacted with Ihe public, yet sources deseribjng Nezahualpilli"~court ixr late-fifteenth-centtary Texcoco ixrdicate a kind of purdah, particularly for royal daughtclrs. Can archactologicaf evidence illuminate the issue of the sequesterjng of women among Aztec nobles? Such behavior might be discerned &rough the pattemhg of artifacts associated with womenfs work in the various areas of the teqan. If such materials cluster in particular areas and are absent .from others, this might indicate that women congregated in s o m places and avoided. others, Ceramic sy>indle whorls are appropriate evidence oE such patterns: All Aztec women were expected to spin, m d sphirmg seems to have been a reflexive activity for the exemnplary adult woman. Even at social functions, a women would spin..A vignette of young married life from the Codex

FIGURE 8.7 Aztec noble hame life: A nwly-wed couple entertains friends, offering fc~c~d and. gifts (Codex Mevzdozn, Eof io 68; redrawn by author).

Mendozn (also Calnek 1992) depicts a couple sitting and facing the husband's malt; frieneis, vvho are pests at a feast (Figure 8.7). 'I'he husbdnd is closest to the other mm, m d the wife sits behind him and spins. There are no iconographic sipals that the wife is excluded from this party; but the pests are her htxsband's d d friends, m d she keeps busy with productive labor that quires minimal attent-im,as any carefwl howclwife would. .An Aztec wornm was seldom far from her spinning- fortunately for the archaeologist because the spirrdle whorl is among the most durable of artifacts. Other tools of womal's hvork, such as weavhg eqraipment, leave no trace in the Aztec archaeological, record. Thus if spi.stdle wkosls are found in excavated, behaviorally sipifkant contexts (such as ~sidential floor zones) asld represent aecidentd djscard in a place of regular use, their pattern of distribution may reveal women" use of various arcas. What do the spindle whorls from Cil-ruatecpan%5Structure 6 reveal about this issue? Abranns and X reported finding fifty-onc spi,ndle hvhorls in our surface collection and excavation of Structure 6 (Evasrs and Abrams 1988:181)." Of these, forty-five were found in tbr area tryithin the outline of the outer wail of the building. However, most (thirty-three) of those were not found inbehavjosally meaningfu.1contexts; they were on the much-plowed. ground surface or in tbr p l w zone m irr subfloor flll which, probably consisted of old trash middens). The twelve sphdle whorls =covered from Boor-zone contexts, which coutd be gmerously termed ""behavioral," were located atl over the buildbg, as shown in Fig~~re 8.3 (Structure 6 plm). Enterhg the building @&tomof the @an)into its most public part, the red-painted main courtyard, you would face the dais room, a wefl-finished, raised reception

room three steps above the courtyard. Only one spindle whorl was found in the elltry cowtyard, and thrce were found i,n the dais room. h o t k r three were from the back courtyards (where the temascal sweatbaths were located), and the ~ m a i n i n gfive came frtlm the various resietential rooms. Setting aside the larger problern of hvhether such a small s m p l e can provide a basis fur meanixlgful interpretation of complex social issues, we can appreciate the irnpulx to find an underlying reason fnr this particular pattern, to want to perceive clustering by c~rnpmingthese frequencies with the retatke floor arca represented by the types of rooms. However, we can fnterprttt these k w whorls only after considering some effects of the. siteformation process that left only a few survivhg scmps of floor cmtext in the buildjng. When Structure 6 was in use, spindle whorls would not have been lost unless very difficult to see. The thrifty, moderate Aztecs would not )ewe usable tools or unsighay trash lying about; m e essential symbol of .Aztec wommhood was the broom. Thus we wlruld expect: that disproportionately fewer MIhorls wcruid have been iost i,n unroofed are?= (entry cowtyard and back cottrtymds; total of four spindle whorls) because they would be more likely to be seen and retrieved if dT~ppeCJ.Conversely, those lost in roofed afeas would be more likely to become part of the archaeolo&icalrecord because in the dimmer light of the dais room and residential rooms (total of eight spindle whorls), it would have been easier to lose small items. ?"his is only one of many problems in accounting for data bias; others might include effects of reflooring episodes, room dimensions, traffic through the room, h o r l size, and deeper and better-preserved strata m the uphill (north) side of the buildhg. The distribution of s p i d e whorls from Structure 6 has recently b m misinterpwted to a serious extent. Brumfiei has used the Cihuatecpan Structure 6 distributional data to argtre that the role of women in pubic life was limited., a function of a repressive, male-dominated society (Brumfiel 3996). Her analysis used ail forty-fiue spinde L\lhorls found of the structure as a spatially meaningful within the out.line of the WAS samplc regardless of lack of behavioral context or biases engendered by the site-formation process. She argued that restrictions on women's lives were detectable because &ere were fewer spindle wl.lorls in the courtyard, per voiurne of excavated (and surface collected) material, than elsewhere in the struch;lre..Brumfiel believed that this was memingful evidence of male qpression of wometn i,n Aztec society in spite of Ihe fact that her own mafysis of these contextually challenged whorls produced no statistically sipificant results. The distrjbwtinn of Structure Q's twelve whorls in good contexts makes it clear that women were spinning throughout the house: in their habitation rooms, in the rear service yards, in the main courtyard, and, with

one of the highest concentrations, in the dais room, If we factor in a few site-formation circumstances, the spatial distribution of the sample seems well distributed. We would expect fewer whorls on the southwest, mow public side of the building for site-fornation Easons (rczlativct?shailowness of strata, lack of contexts). No male oppression is detectable. Perkags the small, size and down-to-earth busisless of the Cifnuatecpan trcpnn prevented the kind of sequestering that can m m rr.adily occur when the palace is so exklnsive that the palace women's quarters include pteasant garden patios surrounded by private rooms, as was the case at Motecuhzoma's palace a d the Tertcoco palaces.32Some imperial wives and concubines and their children lived at the pleasart! pdaces, and their lives probably were far quieter, more seyueste~d,than they would have been in the main administrative tecpans, particularly vvhm the lord was in reside~nceelsewhere, Mle might take a radically different view of the evidence from Cihuatecpan's Strucbre 6, inferring that the relatively high number of Mihorls in the dais room is evidence of control by women of the most powerful place in the tecpan. The village" s n m , after all, means "woman-lordplacem-pahaps there is a historical rczason for this, and perhaps it is substantiated archaedogicalfy by those three spindle whorls, Such an ktecpretatjon is, of course, utterly fanciful and scientifically irresponsible; the data are far too feMi to be subject to any smslble test of meanfngfial distributicm*We rnight as readily argue that- the three spindle hvhorls represent the conspicuous display of wealth. production by Stmcture 6's headman (or headwoman), Mifw kept the palace womm lined up in the dais room, sphning co~nstmtlyto impress the fecp~n'svisitors with the household's ecmonic strength. As evidence of maie opp~ssion,the spindle whorls fail. h p u t i n g oppression on the basis of these data not only violates the archaeological evidence, it flies in the face of the pervasive presence of women in, even the largest m d most formal coufts, the good documentation of Aztec women in posilions of rders%lip,and the lack of documentation fnr the systematic mistreatment of Aztec women withiS1 their households, communities, and society as a whoic.

The lord" children were defhitely among the palace people but not necessarily a regular feat- of courtly life. Sources emphasi.ze the rigorous u p b r i n e g cJf both sexes and atso suggest occasions when they may have been present: at court. There were different expectations for sons and daughters, md. also according to the social status of the mother m d the father's permm1 i n t e ~ sin t the child.

The extent to which offspring other than those of the principal wife wcre recognjzed asld permitted a role in court life s e e m to have depended (like so much else) on the circumstances of the palace and the historical moment, as well as on the spe"i"l taients of the individual. The last great Aztec ruler who was born illegitimate was ltzcoatl (r. AD. [email protected]). By MotecAzoma 11%ttimrz, illegitimate kirt of nobles had far less opporSuniv for advancement.

SOPIS. Legitjmate sons were members of an exclusive group of noble male cousins who wlruld take the highest pcrsiticms of leadership in thc. Aztec mpire. These pivotal individxlals were given a gruelil~gtraining by priests and scribes and other masters of youth at the calmecac school and were closely mmitored for positive and negative traits (see Note M). I:.,ocver-rankingsons would. he given mwh the m e training and rai,sed with the expectation that they would serve in the military or otherwise make themselves useful to tbeir d e r and pwsue mastery of cme of the elite occ~patiosrs.~' Although much of their youth was spent u ~ ~ dtuteer lage with their stepbrothers and cousins, they would bave been part oi the court far more than their sisters and would have seen their father and his attendants (including wives) more often in courtly sitllations both Iformal and hformal. Formal occasions would have included various ceremonies such as the convening of lords of the hrolhua city-states, as depicted in the Mapa @inatzirt with Nezahudpilli (who would have been a boy at the time of his father's death) s h w n sharing the dais room with Nezahualcoyotl. m e can also imaghe less formal circumstances of filial participation h courtly life-in a crowd of hundreds of m n , their servants, [email protected],and others, a few noble boys could easily make thmselves inconspicuous for a wMe. M o m o n g the lords in court would antagonize the h t u lead~ ers of the empire by pointing out to their father" stewards that the boys were lckitering in the main courtyard rather thm being at the t:ulma:ac?

Dardghtcrs. Daughters" training would have emphasized hosnemaking skills, and they were more closely watched than their brothers, no doubt because their value as noble brides depended in part on thek virginity :In the imperial palaces, nohle daughters were raised in the women's quarters and were occasionally trooped forward tc:,greet their father, possibly in the dais room, but they wodd not have been as familiar with the main courtyard and the ongoing political life of the court as their brothers and some of their mothers, It is unfortu~~ate chat so much of the ethnohistoric evidence on royal daughters comes from a handful of cognate sourccs describing the Texcoco court of one king, NezahualpilTi, written decacies after the actual

events. 'f'hese reports recount gruesome punishments for minor infractions as well as for adultery and murder. Texcocan morality tales as h m d in the Bancroft EtaehueflatoEli;and other sources may have been the biased memories of a dying aristocracy, accorciing to Karttuna and I:.,ockhart,who h d the t h e w of harsh-but-gmd-old-days to be characteristic among elderly nobles of lost empires (1987:10). When Nezahualpilli had his daughter executed for infidelity, ""the maidens and worner1 of the palace were ordered to atternd these punishments, and the reason for the punishment was explained to them . . . to dissuade them from such drnse..However, yomger girls wercl. not summoned lest they be moved to reflect on the vice that had been committed. Death was the penalty for creatixzg a scandal" ((Zorlita 1994:131).Thus on the occasion of an execution, which may have taken place in the plaza adjacent to the court, the wives and daughters w ~ t ~ fhave . d been r e ~ i ~toc atternd. t Another of Nezahua1pilli"s daughters is mputed to have been strangled for talking with a boy But to be fair to engendered arguments, it should be pointed out that Pllezahualpilli also had one of his fiighestranking sons executed for speaking disrespectfully to one of: his favontc secondav wives. Nezahualpilti seemed to t a k courtly liecorum to an extreme, and the rrafes of his court &out k m d e sequestering s e a to have been unusually harsh. Did such practices represent a blip inpse-Hispanic social history or the start of a trend: If the h t e c empire had conkued to expand, thjs social pathology reg;ardi,ng the objeclfication of Texcocan noblewomen might have become more widespread. Whenever women become stat-us symbols or trophies (as was the case with the elaborate Aztec system of elite hypergyny), status i,nheres in conspicuously displaying control over the ci~urnstanccsof their participation in-and removal from-actiwe lift.. The wealth and elaboration of Texcocan courtly life under Nezahualpilli may have permitted this expression, but the larger body of ethohistorical evidence does not indicate a trend.

A final distinctive group at court were the lord's private attendmts, "dwarfs, cripples, hunchbacks, servants" ((Sahag61.n1979, Book 8:30). These body servants were always immediately at hand far him and served as valets anci private messmgers, seers, curt-lrs, and entertainers. These individuals knew the lord best in the widest range of circumstances, Aztec attendants were recruited as phenotypically nonnormative individuals, some of whom were born &:hatway*Others were deliberately deformed in youth to enhance their future value: "hhis palace Moteuczomatzin had dwarfs and little humpbacks. These are intentionally made so in childhood by breaking and disjcrinting their bones, The lords of the

land are served by these dwarfs as the Grand Turk is by eunuchs" Wcr talhia 1951:269). D u r h noted that these attendants heated the batMouses lfsr the lords and, along with rites associated with heating, recehed contributions of corn, chocdate, and other goods. "'Tfie nobl.emen possessed appointed people according to their category n e s e men and women accmpanied &ern to the bamouse to wash &em. Most . . . who [bathed] the lords and ladies were dwarfs or male and female hw~chbach""urh 1971:271). Some of their physical oddities were treasured. as signs of spiritual strength, but im general their othemess woutd have been a refuge for the lord and a means of refreshing his spirit by szxrprising "nm and drawing him outside hixnself. In fact, the dwarf was an alter ego of the lord, his dualistic counterpart. Xoloti, patron deity of dwarves, was the dog cornpanion oE Qwetzaicoatl (M-iller and Tallbe 1993:f,90-191) and Ihe "'deity of hnihs and monsters described as Quetzalcoatl%twin brother" "illiarns 3992:71). '"Therelationship between these deities is echoed by tbr loyalty of the hunchbacks to their hrds. h r A n relates that after hxayacatl died, "all the slaves, hunchbacks, dwarfs, and fernale slaves . . . more than fifty or sixty persons. . ." were told to "'go and serve your king as best you cad"' m h e r e slain (Dur&n1"394:296). Gourtf y Life, After Life

M e n the lord died, he left his tecpaz for the penalhate t h e . P o m r describes the fotlowing h e r a r y activities (1941:35-36): His body was takm to the temple and p r e p a d for cremation, and, richly garbed, the corpse held court at U?e temple while sgeecfnes werc given by the mourners. The lord was bunled, and at the t h e 05 crerna~onthe lord" attendmts were M e d . Now reduced to ashes, the lord was placed in a jar or box and brought back to the ""casa real," where the remains, withh aeir cremation ~ wrapped with tcngths of urn, were taken k> special quarters." 'l'he u n was c l o a makh~ga br~ndlein the s h q e of the seated corpse, which was then Et held court dresxd in royal clothes with masks of gold and turquo.i~e,~ agah, and speeches were made by newly arrived mourners. Che last t h e , this lord's hospitdity wati lavished on a palace f d of familiar~and domestics, and then the cremation urn was taken from the fecp" m"nddepc,si.tedin a sacred place.""WiZ%ithe next great ceremony the investiture of the new lord, a ncw cottrt wollld begin to evolvc out of the old.

Notes Takeshi Inornata and Steve Houston's conference at Yale on courtly life among the Maya provided the oppc~rtunityto present same of these ideas. RexarcI.1on

Aztec palaces was conducted at Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Studies program, and research at the Cecp~nof Cihuatecpan, Mexico, was conducted under the auspices of the Instituto Macional Be Antropologa e Historia and funded by the Nationat Science Foundation. l . P-ic~ustonand Stuart, this volume, suggest a pc~ssiiblesimilar meaning for the Maya term for rules; njazu, The complex terminology of Aztec rutership is extensively discusxd by khroeder (l991:133; 1M-168; 171-1 73; 176-1 96; 219). 2. f o r a discussion of haw Aztec palace design gave rhetoric its arena, see Evam 1998~. 3, The Aztec altepetl has been extensively studied in its Prehispanic and Early CoXonial fc>rms.See Charfton and Nichofs 1997, Hel)rden 1989, Hodge 1984, Miinnich 2 974, Ouweneel 2 990, khroeder 1991, 4, The number of villages is based on archaeological suvvey data (Sanders, Parsans, and Santley 1979), particularly the survey of the Teotihuacan Valley and analysis of pertinent ethnohistoric sources (Evans 4980). 5. A class of Aztec slaves is mc)re a theoretical cmstruct than an actual group of people; slavery was almost always a situational circumstance for an individual, often the Xast status in a downward spiral of bad fodune that ended with death on the sacrificial stone, as sc~meone"purchased oblation. 6. Commoner origin was apparently never quite overlooked, Chimalpahin wrote about an eagle knight who tcmk the throne of Chalco Atenco and was remembered as being a good person in spite of commoner origim (Chimalpahin 1965:198, with other examples pp. l60-161,Z 67). 7. "In this derivation the final consonant of the stem TEUC ~ o r dloses ' its labiality or has it absc3x"oed in the fotlowing labial conso)nant, and the result Xs spelled TEC.'"(Karttunen 1983317). A glance at any Nahuatl dictionaw will cmfirm the wealth of "tef-related, lord- or palace-related, terms. 8. ""TECI,AN can refer to the organization or household as well as to the structure." (Karttunen 4983:21"i7;see also Cline and tedn-Portilla 4984:15). 9. Tn Colonial period Cuernavaca, to avoid manipulation or fraud, the Indians vc,ted "in a town" palneio, a structure with much the same function as a North American town hall . . . in buildings described variously as casas rmles, a palacio, or a co~rtonidndtec~t~n (community palace). "fhe latter practice probably would have been the norm anya)?r,for it was a prec~nquestcustom to emsummate the selection of a tlatoani in the Cecpnn, or palace. . . . Vc3ters were often called to the galacic:, by the sound of a trumpet and the beating of a drum" (Haskett 1991:32). 2 0. The coudyad may have been called the aquiclzp~,as discussed in one of the late-sixteenth-century testaments of Culhacan: ""te great hall [oquichpa] . . . where my people used to warm themselves" (Cline and LeBn-PortiHa 1984:58-59)' probably at the constantly burning fires, characteristic of lecpan court-)rards("They leave fires [lit] in their court-)rards,which in this land are very large and etc?gantM"otolinl'a 1971:91-E]; "Some Indians were deputed to fetch wood, while others had to stand guard and always keep the fire burning . . . in the houses of the chiefs . . . Even tcrday they build scjme fires and watch the houses of the chiefs: but not as fc>rmerZybecause today not one-tenth of such

Aztec Nclbk Courts houses have a fire" [Motolinia 1971:105]). Far an architectural discussion of the Aztec patio, see Robertson (1%8:2&25). 11. The illustration of MezahualcoyotI and his son, dating frc>mthe 1 5 4 8 ~ ~ recreates evtznts dating from seventy years earlier; NezahuaXcoyotl died in 1472, when Nezahualpilli was a p u n g boy 12. Acozac, in the Acolhua domain, tvas tributary to Texcoco but lost its noble rulers when an Acolhua calpixqlri steward was assigned to govern it, presumably using the same administrative building (Evans 4998~). 13, No Refizer'btz Geagrhfica exists for the Otumha area, so Cihuatwpan has not been identified as a Colonial-peric~dsz4jef.occ~mmunityexcept in the Arzobispado Be 1571, but in rwiewing legal documents related to the Cantact period, X came upon 1531 court proceedings refated to Ffernan Gortks" lands in the Otumba area; providing testimony about C0rt6s was "TXeylutta, indio y d e Ziguatecaganeca" ('(""Pro>cesc:, del Marques del Valle" "46:90). Tfeylzallnis not in dictionaries of AMolina(1977, Simeon (1984), or Karttunen (19831, but Simeun (191;4:589) provides a clue in defining Cl~iloflnqlreas the tribes thought to have come from the Mixteca tcr settle in Texcoca (among other places), famed as artists and chmniclers; fhilotlac ~"tlfers to a judge. Also, 'XpparentXy higher status was signaled by the prexnce of a palace in the catpzaltlaxiIacaIi. In Tzaqualtitlan Tenancc), the highest-ranking cal~~ulflaxilac~li was Tecpan "fiai~otlacan. . . a base and repository far the principal ttatocayotl (rufership)" "chroeder 1991:80--81). Thus the individual called to the witness stand from Cihuatecpan seems to have been an authority figure, possibXy the lord of the tc?wn, possibly a resident- in Structure 6. 14, Nezahualpilli had his second legitimate son executed ""just because he built himself a residence of his c)wn, not by order of the lord" (Karttunen and Lockhart 4981;""11570-1580]:157). This may have been tantamount to establishing one's own (possibfy competing) court. 15. Clendimen (1985) explored this theme with regard tcr Aztec drunkenness, and Pohl" (1998) study of Tlaxcalan feasts revealed the relationship between halludnogenic ecstasy, contact with the supernatural world, and violence, 16. Surces are unclear as to whether Xochipifli/Macuilxochitl represented all who lived in the palace ("'quienes moraban en las casas de tos sefiores y lojs paXacios de los principales" [Robeto 198&245])or only nobles. SalhagGirn" informants called Macujlxochltl the god of the '?feq~ntzincn,"which Anderson and Dibble translate as "the palace fo;ulk""(Sahag6n 19?0:31). For those who broke their fasts, these deities ""visited upon them . . . piles, hemorrhoids, suppurating genitals, disease of the groin" (SahagGn 197&31). 17. In Nahuatl, a hallucinogenic experience is femhodz, ""fwery dream," and hallucinogenic mushrooms were xachinnnncntf, the '?flo>wer fc~od"CIC "flower Resh,'hccording to Gordon tllasson (1974). 18. The first term was defined as "ccourt-iex;member of a palace household or staff." Its singular form is lecpn~ltacntl(Karttunen 1983:247), prc~bablyreferring to familiars at court (rather than domestics), as is the sense of Chimalpahjn" description of the group ""clled tecpag ~ I ~ L 'palace ~cI people' . . . because they tver-e vassals of the great gad Tlatfauhyui %ed'Tezcatfipoca, wham they worshiped and served. The tvt-rale group was treated as if noble and greatly honored because of its god (1-39-24)" (Schroeder 1991:93); these ""asmciations with nobility and

religion are characteristic of the teepan in Chimalpahin" mind" (Schroeder 1991:142), Other terms were tecfjnt.2 nelrzini and tecfjnn nelzqz-ri,both with the sense of denizens of various classes (Simeon 1965:450,324,329,394). 19. Structure 7, adjacent to Structure 6, was one of the smallest, least substantial houses at the site and may have housed the family assigned to maintain the palace or tzrork its fields (Evans and Abrams 4988:482-4%). 20. Cervantes d e Salazar, writing in the mid-sixteenth century calculated from this figure a daily palace occupancy of 3,000 and perhaps as many as 5,000 people (MagariEos 1947:56)* 21. The Aztecs loved to gamble and perhaps did sa compulsively. A ""gmbler who risked aXX his possessions on the dice" could end u p a slave (BurAn 1971:281). 22. One might study the noble occupations in terms of the ""pckage" of skilled artisanship, et lite goods, and Xong-distance trade anatyzed by Helms (1 993). 23. Gillespie (1989) identified Tenochtitlan's pc~liticallypowerful women, even possible women rulers, whose activities may have been ignored by historical SQUrCeS. 24, There were, for example, fernale rulers at Ixtapalapa QAlva IxtliXxochitl 4985, 1:51), at Cuauhtitlan (Annrals of Ct.itrzilztitlarz 1992:39), and Ameeameca (khroeder 1991:183-1M, also 176--178). Tn Early Colonial Tepetlaoztoc, married women and wiclctws accounted fc7r four of 186 (2.2%) of humehald heads (Hamey 1986:287-288). 25. One child of the CuauhtitXan ruler resulted from his union ""with a slave who was a maker of fermented atole'7Anrznlts of C~anufztitlntz1992:51), 26. Pornar relates that daughters of the kings married kings and other rufers. and brought dowrim of towns, houses, lands, slaves, and many other goods and properties (""benes y haberesM")(1941:29) 27. Regarding the preference for virgins, Pomar tzrrote that "le parecia cosa vergonzosa para su grandeza tomar mujeres estrupadas'"(Pomar 1941:35),An example of widc>wsremarrying is in P>ur&n(1"34:48[7): 'Wc~tecuzoma11 was so depressed by omens of destruction that he made provision for the imminent remarriage of any of his wives who so desired it."). 28. See, for example, the story of Axayacatl, tzrho invited the Chalcan singer to become part of his court, to stay in the palace as a companion to his wives (Anderscln 4982; Evans 4998a; te6n-Portilla 4 97%). 29. Terrtnscales were common in the central highlands in the post-Classic, and same have been found in assaciation with palaces (at Cihuatecpan [Evms and Abrams 1988:232-2331; at Motecuhzoma 11's palace [lombardo d e Ruiz 1973:13Q-1311). 30, Originally, ""Ls dichos alcaldes y [email protected] tienen por vicio y costurnbe entrar dentro en 10s tamazcales, que son los bafios, revueltc~scon mugeres, desnudos en cuems ellos and ellas, no teniendo empacho ni verguenza de las gent=, en lugar de evitallc:, y mandar que tat cosa no se haga son elfos park de dar mal. exemplo a tcdos." 31. Since the monopaph was published, reevaluations of the Teotihuacan Valley Project surface collection have yielded more spindle tzrhorls associated with

Aztec Nclbk Courts

269

this struduw, all from the surface or plow zone and thus having little infewntial value in terms of spatial distribution of bcthavior, 32. Torquemada, who explored Texcoco" palace ruins with descendants of the royal family, said "I have seen all the houses of Nezahualtpilfi in Texcoco, . . . Within the gardens there still remain some of the houws buiXt for the women of this king,""(19"i75-1983,5:186 [Lib. 13, Cap. 121). 33. At age five, the ruler's son was sent to the temple to be instructed in s e w ing the gc~ds.""The priests brought him up with much care and diligence, and he must be first in everytli7iing.A ruler's son who was not very diligent in temple service was punished severely. He remained in this service until he married ar tvas of age to ga to war." (Zorifa 1 994:136). 34. Pomar notes that this was ' k n aposento que para eflo estaba asjgnadcs'' (1"3$1:35-36). 35.,Codex Maglkbecelliano illustrations on folios 66 and 67 show the bundles, mourners, and sacrificial victims. 36. Texcotzingo may have been the traditional burial ground for Texcocan kings (Alva Ixtlilxochitt 4985,2:33), and remains af Tenochtitlan kings may have been interred at Huitzilopochtli's temple in the niacatecapan calpzklli of Xknochtitlan (Klein 1987:34%%4.).

References Alva Ixtfilxcichitl, Fernando de, 1985 l1600-16401. Obras Itistciricas, Edited by E. O'Gorman. 4th ed., 2 vols. Mexico City: Universidad Naciclnal Autbnoma de Mkxico, Clothz'zzgBcfire Covtes. Nctrman: University of AnawaXt, Patricia Rieff. 1983. [n!nAh;rn, Oklahoma Press. Anderson, Arthur J.O. 1982. ""Aztec Hymns of Life and Love." New Scholar 8: 1-74. Annals of Cua~kltfitlfin, 1992, S-Xist0r.yand Mythology of tlze Aztecs: The Codex Chih ~ Emslated and edited by malpopom. Antznls ofCunulztz'ftanatzd Legend ~ f r Suns. John Bierhorst. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Arancbn Garcfa, Ricardo. 1992. ""L pglaza generadora del espacio urbano mesoarnericano." C~uaderrzosde A quifectum Mesoamkn'ca 16: 2940, Amey Margaret. 1988. "Wcjmen of 111-Repute in the Florentine Cc>dex,"In Virginia E. Miller, ed., The Rote of Certder itz Prc.Colu?nbiatzRrf a d Rrt"/biCecC~kre,pp. 11753-1 9'7. Lanharn, M D University Press of America. Bierhors&john. 1992. Hisfory and Mytlzutt7gy of t h Aztecs: Tlze Codex Clzimalpopuca. Annals of Cmazll~titlanand Lege~dof the Stkns. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Brurnfiel, Elizabeth M, 19%. "Gender Rofcsfi in Aztec Sciety: The Historical and Archaeological Esridence." "per presented at the Dumbarton Oaks syrnposiurn Recovering Gender in Prehispanic America, organized by Cecelia I?. Klein. Washington, D.C. Burkhart, Louise M, 1989. Tbc Stippejy Earth: Nnh-rtn-CFzristianM t ~ m tDialogue itz Sixfeenlh-Centlz~yMexico, Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Calnek, Edward. 4992. "The Ethnographic Context of the Third Park of the Codex Mendosn.'" in 13atricia Rieff Anawalt and Frances Berdan, eds., The Codm Mendozn. K?: Intetpreinfl'on, pp. 81-91. Berkeley: University of CaXibmia Press. Carrasco, Pedro. 1984, ""Royal Marriages in Ancient Mexico.'" In Herbert Harvey in Efllnollistay, pp, 41-81. Albuquerque: and Ffanns Prern, eds., E;rylsr~tio:~ns University of New Mexicc1 Press. Charjton, Thornas H., and Deborah L. Nichols. 1997. "Dachronic Studies of CityStates: Permutations on a Theme, Central Mexico from 1700 B.C. to A.D. 160Q." In Deborah L. Nichols and Thornas H. Chariton, eds., The Ar.e!zneo~t~gy of CityStalesf pp. 469-207. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Chirnalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Bomingo Franckco de San Antcin Mu46n. 1965 [early 1600~7).Relaciones oreinales de Clznfcu Amnqz~em~can. Edited b y S. Rendcin. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultural EconBmica. CXendinnen, Inga. 1985. "The Cost cof Courage in Aztec 93ciety." fist nlzd Present 102': 44-89. CXine, S. L., and Miguel Leiin-Portilla. 1984. Tlze Tesfa-nnzenCsof Culhuncnn. UCLA Latin American Center Pubfications. Los Angeles: University of Caiifc~mia. Codex Magliabechiano. 1983 [m.id-1500s]. CodtaxMnglr'ckbecizinno: The Book of tlze in facsimile with introduetic~n,translaof the A P ~ C ~MC~PXZ~~C GReproduced ~PIS. tion, and commentary by Zelia Nuttatl. Part 1: Irtfroductimr and Fnfii~zileof the 1903 edition. Berkeley: University of California. Codex Mendoza. 1992. Codex Mendozn, Volume 3: A Facsilnile Reproduction of Codex Meszdozn. Edited by Frances E Berdan and Patricia Rieff Anawalt. BerkeIey: University of California Press. Codex Osuna. 1947. Cddic~Oszina, ~.eprcjtdclccidnfncsimilar d c lt2 obrn del mismo fitltlrz, editada en Madrid, 1878: RcampaAadn de 158 pdgz'rzlas itzkditas encurzfradas en el s Orozco, Mexico City: Ar.e!zivn Gekzernl de la Mtzcr'brz (Mkxieo)pm"1roJ. L ~ i Chduez Edieiones del Instituto Indigenista. Interamericano, Corona Sanehez, Eduardo C, 1975. "Las rebeliones agrarias en el Mexico p ~ h i s pcinico." hletiiil d c lt2 Escra~l'nde Cit3ncins Anlropc?lbgicns de la Unizersidlad de Yzrcnta'n 3: 24-31. Cortks, Herniiin. 1986 [1519-15261. Leifersfirom Mexico. Transf ated and edited by A. Pagden, New Haven: Vale University Press. de la Garza, Mercedes. 1990. Sueno y alucizzncid~zen el mzcndo ndhuaffy mnya. Mexico City: Universiclad Nacionat Autcinoma de Mkxico. Bur&n,Fray Diego, l971 [1579]. Book of the Gads and Rites and he Ancient Calendar. Translated and edited by F. Horcasitas and D. Heyden, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. . 19% [15821. Tlze Histoy of Clze Tndies cf New Spain. Transfated, annotated, and introduced by Doris Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Exalante, Pabto. 1990. "IfnsuXtos y saludos de tos antiguos nahuas, fc~lkloree histcrria sc>cial."A~lzalesdel lnsitzala diy Investignciorzcs Esle"lims61: 2%45. Evant;, Susan Tbby 1980. ""A Sttlement System Analysis of the Teclrihuacan Region, Mexicct, A,D, 1350--1520." Ph.D. disxrtatinrt, Pemsylvania State University. . 1991. ""Architecture and Authority in an Aztec Village: Form and Function of the Tecpan." In H, Harvey, ed., Land and PoEitics itz the klley of Mexico, pp. 63-92. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press,

Aztec Nclbk Courts

. 1993. ""Aztec Pic~useholdOrganization and Village Administration."Yn R, Santley and M. t-firth, eds., Prehisp~nicDontcsfz'c Urtifs in Wesfem Meso~mericta, pp. 1'73-189 Boca Raton: CRC Press. . 1998a. ""Sexual Politics in the Aztec 13alace:Public, 13riv-cbatcz,and Profane.'" RES 33: 165-183. . IWISb. "Taltec Invaders and Spanish Conquistadors: Cultuw Contact in the Postciassic Teotihuachn Valley; Mexico." h James G. Cusick, ed., Studies i~z Culture Co~.rtnct,pp. 335-357. Center for Archaeological Investigatims, Southern Illinois UniversivI Occasionai Paper No. 25. . 1998~.""Aztec Palaces." Paper presented at the Dumbarton Oaks symposium Ancient Palaces of the New VVorld, organized by Susan Toby Evans and Joanne Pillsbury Washington, D.C. 2000. ""Aztec Royal 1,leasure Parks: Conspicuous Consumption and Elite Status Rivalry..""Studics in ttre Histoy c$ Gardens and Design Landscapes 28: 20&228.. Evans, Susan Tbby and EIliot M. Abrams. 1988. ""Archaeology at the Aztec Period Village of Cihuatecpan, Mexico: Metl~odsand Results of the 1984 Field Season." In Susan Toby Evans, ed., EXCGDR timzs rat Cilzmnfec~1nt.2, pp. 50-23. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology No. 36, Nash.c~ile. Gibson, Charles. 2960. ""The Aztec Aristocracy in Colonial Mexico," Comynrafir~e Studies ir-z Society and Histo~y2: 169-1 96,. Gille~pie~ Susan D, 1989. The Aztec Kilzgs: TJle Cc~fzsfructl;olz I?( [email protected] Mexica Hislo~y.Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Harvey#Eferbert R, 19%. "Household and Family Structure in Early Colonial TepetXaozto>c.'"fiE4dios dc Gultura Nn/~uall18: 275-294. Haskett, Robert. 4991. Indigc~zozisRuXers: An Effinohistory of- Tourrt Coverr-zmcptt itz Colonr'nl Cuernnzjam.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. l Che Kizzgly Idc~nl:Art, Trade, and Pozwr. Austin: UniHelms, Mary We1993. C r ~ jalzd vmsity of T'ctxas Press, Herren, Ricardo. 2931. La conquisla erritim de h s 11rdi~s.Beniito Juhrez, Mexico: Planeta. Heyden, Doris. 1989. The Eagle, tCl~Cncfus, tlze Rock: Tlw Roots #Mexico-TenoelrlilEntzS Fnurjdntiotz Myttz and Symbol, BAR International %rim 4812, Oxford. Hicks, Frederic. 19%. ""Rotational Labor and Urban Development in Prehjspanlc Tetzcc7rco.'"n Herbed Harvey and Hanm Prem, eds., Explomtiorjs in Efhrzuhistory, pp. 147-174. Albuquerque: University of New Mmico Press, Hodget Mary G. 1984. Aztec City-Skates. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 18, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Kadtunen, Frances, 1983. An Analytical DictriOnay of Pdakzt~atl.Austin: Universiv of Texas Press, Karttunen, Frances, and James tojckhart. 1986. "The Huehuehtlahtolli Bancroft Manuscript: The Missing Pages." Estudbs de CufftirafN,nhuntl18: 171-179, Kadtunen, Frances, and James Lo>ckharl,d s . 198'7. The ArE ofN~lzuntl'Specell: 7"ke Bancroft Dialogzres. UCLA Latin American Center Publications. Los Angeles: University of California. of R Z ~ K C~altzrre,2500-2780, Kellogg, Susan M, 45395. Law and the Tra~zsfortr~alioiurz Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,

Klein, Cecelia. 4987. "The Ideology of Autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor." In Elizabeth Hill Boone, ed., The Azfee TetrzpEo m y o r , pp. 29%370, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Lebn-Portilla, Miguel. 1978, ""T'e Ci'mlm Ci;lzliaezkiratl of Aquiauhtzin: Erotic Poetry of the Nahuas." New Scjtolar 5: 235-262. . 1985. "Conciencia Be clase en los Huehuetlahtolli, testimonies d e la antigua palabra." h Jesiis Monjarcis-Ruiz, Rosa Brambila, and Emma I""4rezRocha, eds., Mcvsunmil-ica y eI ce~ztrodde Mkxica, pp. 381-391, Mexico City: Colecciiin Biblioteca de XNAH. tienzo d e Tlaxcala. 1979 [ca. 15501. Lielzzu de TI~lxcnlIlz,pubticado par Ayredo CIzn~fi~ro: n/lexico 3892. Mexico City: Editorial Cosmos. Lornbardo d e Rujz, k n l a . 1973. Desavrollo urblano de Mcy"xico-Eifoct~lifln1~ seigztn. Ins fidentes hisfdvicas, Mexico City: SEX>-XNAH, Lucena Salmoral, Manuel. 1490. Amerim 1492. New Ycfrk: Facts on File-. MagariActs, Santiago, ed, 1947, Herr-zkn Gortks: Eslnmpns dc2 su vi&. Madrid: Instituto de Cuttura Ffispbnica. Mangino Tazzer; ALejandro, 1990, A rqzt itectzira mcsonmericnna: Relaciorzes espaciales. Mexico City: Editorial Trillas. Mnpn Quinatzi~~. 4959 [ca. 15421. In Donald Kobertsan, Mexican Mntzuscf-ipt.Pnintirzg c?f the Early Colonial Period, Plates 13, 46-47, pp. 135-40. New Haven: Vale University Press. Miller, Mary, and Karl Taube. 1993, The Cods and Syrrrbols ofAneient Mexim nnd trlte Mnyn: An Illusl rafed Llkfionafyof Mcsonmcricalz Religion. New Yc3rk: Thames and Hudson. Mcjlina, Fray Alonso de. 1977 [157l]. Voctzbularioen lefzgun cllslellnnlr y ntexicana y mexica~ay cnstelllztzn. Mexico City: Editorial Pctrrua, $.A, Mennich, Anneliese, 1974, ""E altepeamatf d e Ocoyacac, Mkxico." Indiana 2: 167-1 82. Motolinia (Fray Toribio de Benavente), 1952 115411. History of the lrtdiatzs c?f New Spairz. Translated and edited by F. B. Steck. Washingtc~n,DC: Academy of Amrisan Franciscan History. .l972 [ca. 15495. IW13tnoriales o ll'brodde lns cosas de l~ Nueva Espnfia y de 10s nalzkralw de dla. Mexico City: Universidad Nacic~nalArrtcinoma de Mkxicc~. Ouwmeel, Arij. 1990. Altepenze and Rreblus de Indius. Iln Arij OuweneeX and Sirnon Millel; eds., The Indiapl CommurjiZy of"Culotzial Mexico, pp. 4-37. CEDtA 58, Amsterdam. Pohl, f cthn M.D. 1998. "Themes of Drunkenness, Violence, and Facionalism in Tlaxcalan Altar Paintings," RES 33: 18S207, Pomar, Juan Baut ista. 1941 f15821. "Relacihn de Tezcoco." In Pornar-Zurita, Rekacio:onesde Texcoco y de 1a Nzteva Espnfia, pp. 1-64. Mexico City: Editorial Salvador Chavez Hayhoe. ""Prc~cesodel Marques del Valle, cmtra los licenciados Juan Qrtiz d e Matiemo e Diego Delgadilto sobre 10s sexlricios cle Otumba e Tepeapulco, 9 febrero 1531." 1946. In Nuevos documerttos relafiuas a lus bie:lvncsdr Henzdtz Curtks 1547-3947, pp. 63-120. Mexico City: Archivo Generat de fa Naciiin. Kelaci6n Anhima. 4953 [pre 15301. Relacidn atldnr'mn di3scribiiltndo ta divistinsic qzke tetziatz Ins irzdios en tknzpo de Motezunza y el brde~zqz-re tenkrr en In sucesib~lilzdr Ias

Aztec Nclbk Courts

273

mismns. Mexico City: Editor Wargas Rea, Biblioteca de Historiadores Mexicanos. Rot-telo, Ceciliu A. 1980. Dz'ccionariode ntifolagig nalalafb.2 vols. Mexico City: Edit<>rial Innovaci6n. Rot-tertson, Dt~nald.1959. Meximn Manurseript Pair-zlir-zgc$ tile Enrly Colonial Period. New Haven: Yale University Press. . 1968, Pre-Culzlmbi~nArcltitecCure. Reprint of the 1963 Braziller, New Yc)rk, edition, London: Studio Vista. Rornano, Demis, 19%. t7iozlsecrnft and Stafecrnft: Domestic Serztice i ~ zRennr'ssnncr. 140&1600, Baltimore: Johns Elcspkins University Press, Vc~ziecr, Ruiz de Alarchnf t-iernando. 19% [1629]. Treathe on the Eentlzen Szrperstitions That Today Live Among the hzdia~sNwfive to nzis New Sp~irz,2629. Translated and edited by j. 13. Andrews and Ross. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Sahagllrn, Fray Bernardino de. 1969 935693. Rhetoric and M o r ~ Pj~ilosaplly. l Book 6 of the Flor-entine Cctdex, Translated and edited by Cl. E. Dibble and A,5,0. Anderson. Santa Fe: School of American Research; Salt Lake City: Universiv of Utah. 1970 t1569f. Tlze Gc?ds,Book 1of the FLowntine Codex, Emslated and with notes by A.J.O. Anderson and C.E. Dibble, Santa Fe: School of American Research; Salt take City: University of Utah, . 1979 115691. Kijbzgs a ~ tords. d b o k 8 of the Flvrentine Codex. Translated and with notes by A.J.O. Anderson and C. E. Dibble..Santa Fe: School of American Research; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Sanders, Wifliarn T. 1992. ""Ecolctgy and Cultural Syncretism in 16th-century Mesoamerica."3~nEiqt~ify 66: 4 72-1 90, Sanders, Williarn T., J. R. Parsons, and R. Santley 1979. The Basir-z oJMexicc?:7"ke Cultural Ecott?gy ofa Civiliz~liorz.New York: Academic Press. Schroeder, Susan. 1991. Chl'n-mlplinhinand the Kingldoms c?f 61znlco. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Simeon, Rerni. 1984. Biccionario de Ia lengzka nalzzfatl o ~rzexhna.Mexico City: Sigto Veinti uno. Stover, Leun. 1974. The Cultural Ecology of Clti~zeseCizlilizatiolz. New York: Pica Press. Torqrremada, Juan de. 1975-4983 f46151. Mc~lze;trqzi.inindinna, 6 vols. Mexico City: UNAM Institute de Investigaciunes Histciricas. Umberger, Emily. 1996. ""Appendix 3: Material Remains in the Central 13rovinces.'"In E E Berdan, R. E, Blanton, et al., Aztec I~zperklStrategist pp. 247-264. Washingtcm DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Wasson, R. Gordon. 1974. "The Rule of Tlowers9n Nahuatl Culture: A Suggested interpretation."" Juurnal aJ:I;"syctzedelicLlnigs 6: 351-360. Williams, Eduwardo. 3992. "Sacred Stones: Shamanism and Sculpture in Ancient West Mexico." h In. J. Saunders, ed., AncicrzE Ammien: Contribufio-onsto New World Arclchaeo:ology,pp. 65-73, Oxbow Monograph 24. Oxford. Zorita, Alonso de. 1994 [1566-15;"01f.life and Labor in Ancie~zfMexico: Tlze Briefand Szkmmarp Rc?latz'orzsof the Lords of Mew Spain. Translated and with an intrc~ductian by knjamin Keen. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press,

Concluding Remarks

In 1986 The Blood of Ki~zgs,the grcat exhibition m d catalog by Linda Schele anci :Mary Miller, burst upon the ikfaya scene and radically transforxncd out understanding of the way Ihe rulers of the Chssjc lowlmd cities ruled, behaved, and thought. The present volume shows how far that understand% has advanced and been refined &I the past thirteen years, thanks to the coordination of m n y tines of inquiry ethnohistory, iconography, comparative ethnography and least by any means, field archaeology. Now, at the end of the cenhtry, we can s p e d confidently of Classic May a "'court studies." Mrhm I first entered the Maya field as a student during the late 1 9 4 0 ~ ~ it was by no means clear that the multiroomed masonry completies that were then called palaces were that at all, thanks to doubts raised mainly by A. V. Kidder and Ledyard. Smith of the Carnegie Institution of Washingt011 (nor, for that matter, were what we h o w as Maya cities considered to be anything but largely empty ceremonial ce~~ters). When 1 returned 'from a 1954 visit to Angkor and read in Lawrence Briggs" The Ancient Khnler Emyirrr (Briggs 3951) Ghat the er royalty in that very Maya-like city :had resided not: in splendid stone structures lrr~~t in perishable palaces of wood, T thought 1 saw confirmation of the Kiddcr-Smith ~ c o d you ever study the Maya court as a collection of view. 2 - 1 then, elite people if you had no physical court i,n which to place them? k t the more recent excavations of Peter Harrison, Joseph Ball, md.0 t h fiefd archaeologists have p v e d beyond a shadow of a doubt that the largest of these compfr.xcswithin a pasticdar Maya city was indeed a royal palace. What made The Blnud af [email protected] so revolutionary was that for the first time our newfound ability to read, or at least to understand, most Maya inscriptions was used to irtterpret the royal activities beislg depicted on stelae, linteIs, figurirres, pottery vessels, and other artworks of the lowland Maya. Perhaps the picture that Sche1e and MItler drew-of an efite

obsessed with war, h an sacrifice, a d self-mutilation-was a bit overdrawn, but it did overturn the old Carnegie paradigm of peaceful, Shangh-la-like city-states ruled by anonymus theocrats, My point here is that if we are to consider the royal court from the point ol view of the peoplc residing and acting within it and not just as an architectural settirrg, epigraphic and icmographir evidence becomes a sine qua non. Our degree of confidence fn any reconstruction of such a court must be hjghest where such evidence is in abundance, as at Palenque, Piedras &gras, Uaxchilan, I3kal, Cczpan, and Bonampak and at; on the painted and carved vases. But where tcxts a d pictorial scenes are scarce or nonexistent, we are faced With a dilemma. Perhaps smaller, undocumented centers may replicate the arrmgemnts and acthities of greater ones, but perhap"hey may not-a dangerous analogy in any case, sillcc several authors in this volume and its forthcoming companion have demonstrated considerable intersite variabjlity in palace layouts. h such sites, axhaeologists art? by necessity fortled to rely completely on the often-sophisticated techiques of prehistoric research, but the inferences about the court-as-peopk are going to be somewhat limited. This observaticm brings me to the evidence of the pictorid vases (and to the murals of Bonampak). Whetl-ier provmanced or not, these beauti-. &I. objects are vital clues as critical for Classic Maya ""curt studies" as tmda's ""ABC" was for the decipherment of Maya script. Beyond the architectural settings described by Reents-Budet in her chaptey, here are just sone of the royal activities [email protected] shown in these sccnes: banquetirng, chocolate &inking, receiving of tribute and ofkrings, rohfng and masEng, mirror-gazing, dancing, makislg music, negotiating marriage,, torturing and sacrificing humans, perf0ratin.g the penis, and viewing sacred bundles. Apmt from some of the carved p a d s (such as the famous Panel 3 kom Piedras Negras), these vases are virtuaily the only surviving testimony to the all-importmt positioning of court officials and other personnel in relation to the king. In this regard, the patterned hand gestures and body lmguage apparent hChese scenes despemtely calf out for further study ~ been Ever since I began studying tbrse objects in the early 1 9 7 0 I~have .fascinated by t-he costmes worn by the personnel depicted on pictorial ceramics and on the walls of Bmampak. At first glance, these gorgeous headdresses and body garments appear to be a riot of sartoriai imgination, but I m convinced that, on the contrary, they arc rigidiy codified uniforms. Justin Kerr and I (Coe and Kerr 1998) have called attention to the distinctive costume and hair stylt? worn by the highly impo&t""t ccnart headdresses official h o w n as an ah k?utz hun and to the netted, Pawahtu~~ of more osdinar). scribes, but there arc many other such uniforms to be discerned in the record. For example, it is clear that "starched-naph-

typef%eaddresses were worn Zly bwer-ranked individuals such as musicians and servants..The comeetion between rmk and dress would be a fruitful line of investigation for the future. The outsider to any major endeavcrr is tempted to goirrt out gaps and lacunae, and I am no exception. Th.roughout his career, Eric momgson consistently emphasized the strongly religious attitude of both the ancient and modem itlaya: Their lives were and are modeled and d i ~ c t e d by ohtnerworldly concerns. Here I Chink he was absolutely right. With a few exceptions, I note arnmg the authors very little concern with religiofi, cosmology, myth, a d ritual, all of which-on thc testimony of both texts and pictures-must have been of deep concern to the Maya otigarchy in these royal courts. Possibly this fcicus reflects the material-determinist bias of anthrclpcrlogically trained archaeologists that ancient melltal systelns are irrelevant superstructures, mere epiphenomena when considered. against the deeper reality of economic system. Bishop t m d a and the contemporary Maya tell us othswise, and so do the inscriptio~~s, as the late Z,inda Schele and her close associate David Freidel noted long ago, Ever since the discovery of emblem glyphs and the histcrrical nature of royal hscriptions revealed that the Maya lowlands were organized h t o largely independent city-states (rather than the '"Old Empiref' envisioned by Sylvanus Morley), I have wnderc~dhc,w these disparate and often mutually hostile polities might have genmated and maintained a mental culture that was basically the same everywhere. There was no grcat hperid structurcz to impose such a syskm, as with ancient Rome, Ghina, m the Khmer of h g k o r ; these were petty states until the rise to dominance late in the Classic period of Rkal m d Calakmul, For instance, exactly how did the calendrical formula that 405 lunatictns equal 31,960 days, ay>parently invented in Capan in A-D. 682, b e c m adopted a h s t : immediately by every other major capit.ai (and. court)? One can only suggest that there must have been an understanding throughout the southern lowlands that certain intellectuals and even artists were permitted to travel freely from court to court, as we know was the case in medieval and Renaissance Italy. One thfnks atso of Asia during the first millemium, with Brahman gurus and Buddhist monks traveling widely across political &ontiers to bring their respective me+ sages to courts highly recepthe to new knowledge and doctrines. The hveli-documented Aztec court has been effectively described in this volume by Slxsan Evans and presented as a possible analogy to the Classic Rcraya m. C)f atZ royal corarts in Mesoamerica, the one hest described in the ethnohistoric sources is the vast, 300-roamed palace of Nezahualcoyotl in Texcoco, on the other side of the Great Lake from Tenochtitlan-Tiatelolco. In it, fie great poet-king had set aside a special

patio as a kind of unfversity where f d o w pwts, philosophers, and historians taught; close by were the royal archives (Davies 1973:117), 1 can well imaghe a similar kind of space in Classic Maya palaces, where astroncrmrs, fieologians, s c r h s , and other intellecf-uals could meet with their counterparts from other polities, conszllt codices from the royal library, and work out new syntheses of time, the heavens, and the gods, And on the basis of both Aztec and "T:nrae;canmalogies, there must be other significant spaces for field archaeologists to search for, one of them being royal. armories, which are mentioned by a number of sourccs (identifiable, one hopes, by a high f ~ q u e n c yof preectile paints). Last, I m deeply impressed by the sophisticated analyses of the authors who have brought the latest and most accurate glyphic decipberments to bear cm the interpretation of specific royal buiMings. We now realize that the Classic Maya were e~~thusiastic namers m d possessors of many things in their universe: Ernportant objects, buildhgs m d parts of btrilclings, courts, natural features, classes of s u b o r h a t e s (even the anomalous dwarves mentioned by Inomata), and a host of other items were name-tagged, In combination with deciphering historical texts, Maymists c m n w associate knownM a p royalty, both male and female, with specific royal spaces and deduce the rituals (such as the conjuring rites cited by M c h a n y and Plank for Yaxchilan queens) that were carried out in &ern. WC As this volumes shocv, after a cen.t.ufyof u ~ ~ h f m m especulation d can at last begin to '"peoiple the Classic Maya court."

References Briggs, Lawrence P. 1951. The Ancztant Khr~feuE~~zpiue. Philadelphia: American Philosophicat Scxiety, Coe, Michaet D., and Justin Kerr. 1998. The Art of the [email protected] Scribe. New York: Harry M.Abrams. Bavies, Nigel. 1973. The Aztefi: A Histoq. New tlork: G. 1,. Putnam's Sons. Schele, Linda, and Mary ELlen Miller. 1986. TIze Blood of Kj~zgs:Dyrzusfy and Ritrsal in m y a Art. New York: George Brazillllr,

This page intentionally left blank

Contributors Michael I). Coe is Charles j. MacCurdy Professor of As~thropologyEmeritus, Yale ernerillus in Yale's Peabody Museum. He reUniversity and curator d mthrc~pc>lc~gy ceived his A.B. from Harvard College in 1950 and the Pl-r.D, from Harvard U~iiversity in 1959. His research interests include the epigrqhy ax9d ico~~ography of the Maya the ccjmparaGve study of early writir~gsystems, historical arand related dvilizatio~~s, chaeology of the northeastern United States, and the Kkmer civilizatirrn of Southeast Asia,

Susan Taby Evans's interest in the Aztecs began with admiratiox~of their beautiful settternmt system in the Teol;thuctcm Valley. She tcmk a closer Imk at Aztec farmas with excava~onsat the village site cjf Cihucttecpm, unccrvePing their houses a ~ other d material remkns, hcluding one very large m d elegmt house, probably the village teepan mIli (lc~rd-placehouse). Evans was educated at the University of Califoniia, Berkeley (B.A. 1966, English) axId Pelt12 State fl7h.P).1980) ancl is affiliated with Penn Stake. Stephen D, Houston is art archaeologist who serves as miversity professor of anthropology at Brigham Yourtg University, His research foctrses 01%Maya glyphic deciphermex~t,mc~numentalarchitecture, Classic Maya religio~~, and sacred ki~~gship. Mo>stof his archaecrlogicctf fieldwork has taken place in Guatemala, where he codirects the Piedras Negras f)roject,a~interdisciplinary study of urbari gmesiis and cc>lIapse&I a nlzd Ni~roglyphsak Dos Pil~2s:Classic e tropical zone, His publications i n c l ~ ~ dHistory Mrayiz Place Nat~tes(with David Skiart) (1994) and ax9 edited volume elllitled Function utzd Meaning in Classic [email protected] (198). He i s ncrw at work on a bojcj1C, Altcioz t Maya Wl'fing,to be coauthored wi& David Stuctrt, a ~ adj o i ~ effort ~ t with T&eshi Inomata on Classic Maya civ2izatiun.

Takeeh3 linslnata is assistclrlt professor of arIthrc>polc~gy at the Uxiiversity of Arizor~a. He received his M.A. frc>mtthe Universiq of To~kycrin 1988 and cc~mpletedhis Ph.D. at Vmderbilt lir~iversityin 1995, He has bee11 ccmdueting field research at the Cfassic Maya cmter of Aguateca, Guatemala, since 1990, focusing on the excavaliort of art& fact-rich bunied strrrctures. He has also worked in Ho~~duras, Peru, and Japan. His research interests ir~cludethe developmex~t of complex societies, warfare arzd social change, spatial analysis, and hcusehdd achaeology Simon Mart-inis currextt.fy honorary research fellow of the Institute of Archaeology, University College Londo~~, and epigrqher to the Proyecto Arqueolbgico de Ia Bidsfera de Calakmul, INAH, Mexictr. He graduated f m the Royal Cr31lege of Art, LonI and since then has made his career as a desiper, filmmaker a~dlwriter. don, ~ I 1987 Rece~~t research awards include a feIXowsh_ipat D~rmbartos-rOaks, Washingtort, U.C., for the year 19961997.

Patricia A, McAnany, associate professor of archaec3logy at Bostcji~U~~iversity has been involved in field research in the Maya Lowfmds since 1481. Frc3m 19913 trrn 1998, she directed archaeological investigations at the site of K'axob in Belize . With research support from the Natio~ialScience Foundation and Bostc~nUniversity Division of 1x1terr~al-iox~al Prc>gams, her team ccxlducted a study of the genesis of ancestor veneratioxt and of illlcie~~t Maya strategies of wetland use. M ~ r recently, e she has been irivestigathg mciertt settlemeitt and patterrts of ritual cave use h1 the Sibm Kver valley of Belize. In additioxt to numerous book chapters and journal articles, Patricia A, McArnany is coeditor of Prchisft7ric may^ Ecult~miesof Bcrlize (1989) ax3d authrx of Li-iai~zg mifh the Ancc~stuvs:Kirzship urld Kingsi'lip iil~A~zcietzfMaya Society (1995). Dorie Reents-Budet is director of the Museum of World Ctrftures, University of Nor& Caro~linaat Wi1rningtur.l.She received her Ph.B. in art history (1985)and her M.A. (1980) in anthro~pdoqfrc~mthe University of Texas at AusGn. She began graduate studies at La Univwsidad de Las AmQicas, Chcrlttla, Mexico. She has paticipated in aircbet31ogic d excava~oitsin Mexico and Belize, At presr~t,she is xl1-thistorim : for the Maya Cermics Prcject, Smithmitim Center for Materials Research and Edumtion, ax~dis a research coflaborator with the Glak~nulKo~sphereProject, directed by Ram& Carraxclcl, Cenlr-t,Regi:>nal Yueath-lNAH (Mexico).

Shannon Plank, a Ph,B, cartdidate in the Archaeology Bepartmeitt at Bostort Uztiversitiy; has been invdved with field prc~jeetsin Belize, Nexicc~,France, England, ax3d the Americar3 W s t Her research interests include the interplay betweell text ax~dmaterial culture, the relalic3nship between gmder roles and cosmology, the quesliom of the dtrr&ility of pre-indtrstrial belief complexes iir the modern world, and philosophy as An Iizl~grafivt? Approach to Classic Maya Houses, exarnjlnes theology. Her dissertatic~r~, the erto:t fro~mthe perspectives of archaeology, q i ~ a p h yeth~Iography, , and ethnohistcjry David Stuart is sei~iorlecturer in artthrapology at fifarvarct University ax~dalso assistant director of the Carpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Tnscriptions Project at Harvard's Peabc~dyMuseum. Stuart has coxlducted fieldwork at Copax3 and Dos Pitas ax3d alscl at numerous other sites as part of the Corpus prc>ject.His first volume of Piedras Negras drawings artd photographs is forthcomjng, Slrxart has had a long and active career in Maya hieroglyphic decipherme~ttand icoirographic i~~terpretatio~t and is currently worEng on two boc& projects (one with Stephen F-fouston and another with Evon Vt3gt). David Webster is professor of anthropology at Pe~~~tsylviltia State Urtiversity. fife received his cotlege education at the University of Miz-rneso~ta,where he completed his Ph.B, in 1972. Theoretical and r-esearch interests illcluded the strrxcture and evrdugon d cc3mplex srxieties, cufturaf c;cc>log,warfaref political f3c3cjnomy and field studies of settlement aitd Xmd use, Webster has participated in fieldwork the United States, Croatia, Turkey, Mexico, E-fo~tdtlras,artd CuatemaXa, "Ihe main regional focus of his work -isMesoamerica, particularly the Maya I_,ovvIartds.

Index Rbnk hieroglyph 212 Acozac/Xxtapaluca Viejo, 243 Acropolis, 134,139-141 Acthities in royal courts, 69-73, 76(nl), 157-158,213-222 Adjudication, 91-92 Administration of courts, 29-32,119, 94-92,135-136,222-223 Administrative-residential palaces, 241-243 Africa, 30-31,55 Aguateca, 36CFSg.I ceramics, 216 courts, 41--38,50 crafts, 94, 177 palaces, 43,159-1 60, 162 warfare#94 Aftaw, 92, l 56 Rlr.k "ulzIzu n, 275 Afi k'u:n, 73 Alll ts 'ib njgw, 21 5 A ~ L Z 59-61,66,72,88,197Qfig,), W, 213-215.. Sec also bx Aji-lw Ajpop k'afrfj~,214,214,223 A-k'ulz-hu:n, 78(nl l ) Atcalhua, 263 Al ~rzel~enob, 35 Altars, 87 Altyetl centers, 60,1 41-142,266(n3) Altun Ha, 91 Allfarado, 258 Amecarneca, 268(n24) American Anthrc~palagical Asso>ciation,133,163fnl) Rnab, 72 The Ancient Kfzmer Empire (Briggs), 274 Andrews, Cesrge, 439-441,444

Angkor, 276 Anib, 72 Anthropologlcd archaeology See Archaeoiog Archaec~Xogy16 anthropolc2gical, 5-6 engendered, VCn4) settlement, 453 Architectonics, l (49,286--287 Architecture, 9-44,4 7 Aguateca Palace Group, 43-46 Aztec, 254 on ceramics, 196,198-203,222 Copan, 155-1 58 decoration of, 204-213 hjerarchjcaI space, 64 interior, 20%204 far particular time and place, 158-1 59 pier Becuratiron, 205-206 207(Iig.) royal courts, l 68-1 "?I, l 9&283 styles of, 21&22 Yaxchllan, 99-101,105106,135-121 y-ofo:r, 85,99,404 See also Space Armies. Sce Military Artisans, 94,251 ArZistic work, 33,35-36,49,133,144, 212 Aguateca, 44 artisans, 94,251 Aztecs, 254 ceramics, 195-1 98'22 1 textiles, 64-66,95-136,1117-1118 Tikaf, 224 See also Craft prcIduction A s h o r e , Wend5 469

Astronomy, 208 Athletic performance 93 Axa yacatl, 24?,249,252,25&25?, 265 Aztecs, 37,38,237-238 artisans, 251,254 burials, 265 children, 66-67 25>254,262-264 cour tly demeanor, 243-250 exile of lords, 179 noblest 238-240 nudocal residents, 184 palace perx~nnel,250-265 palaces, 240-243 politic, l organization, 238-2313 polygamy, 66 and power, 56 regal-ritual cities, 1133,14&148 sites, 239(fig.) social organizaSion, 238-239 textilesr 64 tributes, 173 women, 7?(n4), 256262

Bra-ajazu, 62,177 B'alaj Chan K'aawiIt, 179-180,1886n3) Bali, 12,911 Ball, Joseph, 133,274 Ball-playing, 93,196 Bark, 91,92,96 Barrios, 184 Barton Ramiet 96 Bn-saj~llf,62,72 Basin of Mexico. Sec k t e c s ; Mexico "Bat Jaguar?"71 Becan, l34 Beekeeping, 109-11 0 Beer consumption, 247,259 Belize functions of court, 61 palaces, 139 positions of author it^ 889 Benches, 170, 203-204,218,219 Benin, 3?,68 ""1Bnding," 76-"i"(n2) Bird Jaguar, 90-91,103,112-113,114, 118 reign of, 124(nn 11,12)

Structure 23,4231n5) Structure 24,119-120 Bloc>dletters,33,123(n5) T?zeBlood of Kz'lzgs (khele and Miller), 5,274-275 Bolivia, 223 Bonampak courtiers, 68453 documentation, 275 murals, 33,69,86 warfare, 93,94 Bones (weaving), 64, T-78(n5) Bsundaries of royal courts, 7-9 Bc?ys, 25%254,[email protected] See atso Children Briggs, Lawrence, 274 Buildings. See Architecture Bureaucracy, 29-31 Burgmdy, 67,68 Burials Aztec, 265 on ceramics, 204,205,210 Lady Xok, 119-120 Late Classic period, V(n3) pyramid construction, 71SQn9) ruiers, ?8(n9) Uaxactun, 149-150 Caana, 475,202 Calakrnul architecture, 201(fig,) burials, 204 children, 67-68 client states, 185, 186 complex, 173(fig.),174-1 76 diplomacy, 32 functions of court, 13 management of courts, 135 nto:t, 118 palacesf 1434 k m b 4,204 visitors to, 179-1 81,183,184Cfig.) warfare, 94,186 Calendars? 212,276 CaI~.necncschool, 263 Calzancs, 29,48 Caneuen, 181,188(n4) Capes, 216-21 7,228(&2)

Caracal ceramics, 202,206 complex, 1'73(fig.), 175-1 76 functions of court, 23,f;l management of courts, 135 military success, 135 palaces, 134 spatial settinga48 [email protected] Institution of Washington, 274 Carrascu, Rambn, 175,187 Gasas de reera, 240 Casas reales, 240 Castilito at Xunantunich, 208 Caves, 109 Celestial, signs, 208-209 Cemeteries. See Burials Central Acropolis, 5,148-151,171,202 Ceramics, 45(fig.), 46, 495-498, 222-225,275 activities on, 223-21 8 court architecture on, 198-204 hierugf y phics, 204213 phs, 204-21 3 icc~nogra painting styles on, 21 S 2 2 2 Ceremonies, 33,90 and altars, 87 a n ceramics, 496,202 feasts, 70(fig. 3.4) fire-entering dedications, 113-114, 129 oclr-k'nk', 115-116 puberty 67 and sibling readings, 111-112 Cervantes be Salazar, 268(rr20) Chaak, 2 07-108 Chacchob, 159-1 60 Chak Suutz', 177 ChaXcc), 1'78 Chalcu Atenco, 261; Charnula, 11'7 CIz #e:":PI, 1619 Chicben Itza, 208(fig.) CIzihk Nab, 67 Clzilam, 214-215 Children, 64-68,72,214,253-254 Aztec, 262-264

daughters, 226S264 13iedrasNegras Panel 3,72 sons, 25>254,263 China, 8,29-30,276 Forbidden City, 30,225 nonnoble corartiers, 37 Sc~ngdynasty 35 Tang dynasty 35 Chocolate, 217-218,247 Ch"ok, 67, 72,214 Ch'orti', 58 Christianity 257-258 Ch'uilzuf @jaw,63,210,215215,223, 227(n16) Clzulftir?, 86 Cihuatecpan, 233 cl-rurtiers,251-252 court1y demeanor, 24%250 women, 257,259-262 Cities, 169-170 IcjwXand, 171-1 75,187 regal-ritual, 2 33,146-1 48 See also specFic city nnvrtes, i.e.. T i k ~ l Classic Mayan Oanguage), 58 Classic period, 3,5,2'7-28. %e also Early Classic peric~d;Late Classic Period; Terminal CXassic geric~d Client states, 185 Clothing bark fiber, 96 capes, 226-217,2284n22) on ceramics, 216-218 headdresxs, 206,208,212,215-216, 227(n8), 275-2176; Sec also Costumes; Textiles Codex n/lendoza, 259-260 Codex-style ceramics, 209,219 Coe, Michael D., 274-277 Colha, 94 Common Mayan, 59 Communlq houses, 254-255 Conjuring homes, 2053 Consorts, 6M8,256-262. See also women Consumption in huusehofds, 147-1 48 Contact-period, 29,32 hereditary nobles, 35

nomobles, 36 pal aces, 138-1 39 women, 257 Copan, 35,143(8g.>,2 45(fig.) athletics, 93 calendars, 276 ceramics, 198,206,208,209, 240-242 court complexes, 177 crafts, 94 documentation at, 275 Lineage Houstr, 210-21 2 management of court% 135 palace schools, 183 palacesf 141,144,151-158 textiles, 95 Cartes, Hernbn, 238,252,267(n13) Costumes dance, 245 headdresses, 206,208,212,215-215, 275-276 on ceramics, 275-276 See also Clothing Court architecture, l4&1"i70. Sec also Architecture Court camplexes, 141 descr-iption of, 169,170-1 71 functions of, 176-185 See also Royal courts Court members. See Cc)u~jers Courtiers, 228 Aguateca, 46-43 Aztec, 251 on ceramics, 217-21 8 social identity of, 3 3 4 0 women, 38-39 Sec also MNrtbles Courtf y demeanor, 243-250 Courts. See Royal courts Craft production, 94,146-148,177-178. See also 'Textiles Crete, 169 Criminals, 37 Cuauhtitlan, 268(rr24) Cuernavaca, 266 Culhuacan, 255 Curing, 259-259

Dahomey kingdom, 35,38 Dallas Art Museum, 199 Dance rites, 21 5'21 6 Daughters, 26S264 Day signs, 212 Deaf courtiers, 37 Decorations, 178-1 71,20421 3 an piers, 205-206 20qfig.), 248, 219 Deer hunting, 93 Deference-positions, 63 Dernographics. Sce I""c>pulation D-iplomacy,32,9l-92 Divine courts, 209 Divine rulers, 90 Dos PiXas, 32,37(fig.), 41,159 glyphs, 73 rituals, 98 visitors, 179-180,188(n3) Drunkenness, 247,267(n15) Dwarfs, 3&40,49,249(fig.), 264-265 Dyadic orderings, 62 DziibiXchattun, 7"7(n5), 96 Early Classic period papulatim, 7 4 2 6 positions of authoritl)j;89-90 titles, 55340 Earty-Colonial-perid, 48,66 Earthbone glyph, 107-109 Egypt, 2 35 El Cayo, 67 Elites, 11,54,57-59 identification of, 136-144 ncmregnal elites, 54,59-69, 73-76 and polygamy, 64 positioning of, 22 4-225 in Tikal, 74 Elizabethan England, 131 Ernbroider)~,64-65, "7"(n5) Engendered archaeol%y, 77(n4) England, 55,131 Epigraphy, 46,17 ""Ethnic kingdoms," @-61 Ethnohistory, 1(;,17 Eunuch, 30,37,39

European courts, 7-8,11,12,15 medieval, 9,25 See also spec$c E z l r ~ p c ~countries n Evam, Swan Toby, 237-265 Events. See Activities in royal courts Exile of lords, 179-181

Gardening, 254 "Gender parallelism," 64 Giddens, Anthony, 57-58 Girls, 22s264. See also Children Glyphs activities represented in, 56,6(3-73, 76(n1) Dc~sPiXas, 73 Lacanha, 73 and Lady Xok, 110-1 15 Palenqrret 73 reading of, 78(nll) relatiomhip, 107-1 Q8 Gods of pleasure, 248 Great Red Bat, 177 Great/ Red Turkey, 179,18O(fig.) Grube, Nikolai, 188(n3) Guatemala, 8 Aguateca court, 4148,50 ceramics, 198,210,219 Guests, 17&-184,203

Hapsburga 78 Harrisan, Peter, 139,149,274 Hasaw- Chan Kawil, 90 Hausa kingdom, 35 Headband icon, 209 Headdresses 206,208,212,215-216, 227fn8), 275-2176 Headgear, 215 Heian period, 30,31,41 Heir designation, 90-94 Hereditary nobles, 34-35. See ailso Courl.iers "Hermit-crab'kffect, 3 Hierarchicat orderings, 62,6344 Hieroglyphic markings, 204-213 Hib, 96 Hc~dge,Mary 146147 Holirnul, 91 "Holy Lord." 3 e cTitles Honduras, 2 83,296,199 Hospitali.ty; 178-184,203,254-255 Households, 9-11,85-88,144-148 administration of, 146 consumption inf 2 47-148 female roles, 94-97 mate rc~les,92-94 management of, 29 place-centered, 132-148 positions of authority, 88-91 prc~ductimof gc~sds,147-148, 178 rituals of, 97-99 servants, 251 social roles at, 88 See also Royal courts Hc~ustcm,Stephen D,, 3-23,5476, 163Cnl) Huehzicht.lahful!i, 245,246,258,264 Huexotzinco, 256 Huif~iles,95, 124 Hun Bafz, 212 Hunchbacks, 37,39-40,2e;$-2.65 Hun Cltuwen, 212 Hunting, 93 Hygiene, 259 Hygergpy; 264

Hallucinogens, 267(nn 15,27)

Iconographic markings, 204-213

Farming, 92-93 Fear, 5657 Feasts, "i"O(fig.3.4),246247,26"i7n15) Fmalc3fi. See Women Fibers. See Textiles Fiery C l a y 279-2 80 Fire-entering dedication ceremonies, 113-414,149 Fire-keeping, 266-26?(n1 0) Flore~zf-ine Codex, 255 Fmd preparation, 95,210,225,247 Fctrbidden City, 30,225 Foreign residences, 178-1 84 FCIX,Richard, 133 France, 7,31,34,56 Funerary activities. See Burials

Iconclgraphy, 16,17 Ideologies of courts, 14 Ifugaa 58 Imperial courts. See Royal courts Impinged bone sign, 109 INAPI. See Proyecto ArqueolBgico de X a Bicjsfera de Calakrnul Incensarios, 333,46 Indonesia, 56 Inka, 64,183 Inornata, Takeshi, 3-18,27-50, 159-1 60,163(nl) Inscriptionti, 133 Interior architecture, 203-204. See also Architecture Intoxicat.ic>n,1247,267fn15) Ireland, 59 Issue-strength, 57-58 Italy, 2251 Itsamna:h, 198,208,209 Itsamnah Batam, 103,107-1 09, 113-114,116-117,12%124(nn 5,7, 11,12) Itsamah Balam 11,143 Itsam Yeh, 198,208 Itza, 463(n5), 200(fig,) ItzcoatX, 179,263 Ix Ajawf 442 Ix Sak Biya:n, 107,113-114,120 Ixtapalaya, ;?ci8(n24) Jaguar pelts, 206-208,219 jajaw k'ak', 4177

Japan,9,12,15,30,31,35,40-43 Kyoto, 163-lM(n6) locations of courts, 131 management of courts, 135 spatial settings of courts, 4 0 4 1 Yamato dynasty, 35 fasaw C l z a ~Ktawr':l,73 Jugglers, 249(fig.)

Kampuchea, 56 Manjobal, 123(n3) f(12 'rz Nik-te ', 72 M'axota, 89,9cdl, 92 KRayo:m,215 Kerr, Justin, 17; 144 Kerr Maya Vase Photographic Archive, 78(n6) M'iche, 214,215 Kidder, A, V., 437-438,274 K"~Fz sign, 210-212 Kings, 50 overkingships 185 Sec also Royal courts; Rulers and rulerships K /iniclz Ajnzu, 198 K'in krtds, 98 Mitchenli, l19 Kokoom, 182 K"ocibelz, 119 Kowalski, Jeff, 139 K5-rtlzul aj~zzu~ 88, 171, 183 K'u Fslrn, 214,216,223 K"ufzliun, 177 K'ul nhnzu, 156 Kzrrt, 109 Kyoto, 163-1 M(n6) Lacanha, 73 Lady Xok, 95,96,103-107,140-121, 123fnn5 6 ) Land, Bishop, 276 Late Classic period athletics, 93 burials, n(n3) palaces, 149 population, 7%-74,76 titles, 660. Sce also Sajal Lebenszuct f, 56 Lenca people, 183 L4vi-SICra~tss,Claude, 9,10, 3dif164(n[7) Lineage House, 210-21 2 Lineage member, 214 Linen, 96 Literacy, 92 Lord of fire, 177 Louis XXV, 34

Lowland cities, 171-175. See also syec.8~ city names, i.e. Tikn1 McAnany, Patricia A,, 84-122 Maize grinding, 77(n4),95,146,347 Male-gendewd roles?92-94,122 Maler" Palace, 339,34O(fig.), 150 Mnndt~koro,41 Ma~os,43 Mntzfas, 96 Marriage, 217,26O(fig.) Martin, Simon, 368-1 817 Marxism, 59 Mayan (language), 58 Common Mayan, 59 Yucatec, 11"7 Mayapan, 139,182,486 Maya sites, 4(fig.) Mnyn k s e (Kerr), 144 Medieval courts, 9,16 Mesoarnerica, 3-4Metaies, 46,87 Mexica, 158 Mexiea Aztec sites, 239(fig.) e t h i c Eringdams, 60 See also Aztecs Military 32-33,93--94,135 Miller, Mary EIten, 5,274-275 Ming dynasty 8,30 Minoa, 169-270 Mirador Basin, 219 MixTec, 7'4 Mcjhquihuix, 249,254,256 Mormons, 7781n7) Morocco, 7,23 Mosca, Caetano, 58 Motecuboma 1,158 Mcjtecuhzoma TI, 237,240,243,245, 250,252,255,256 Mcjttlt de San Jog, 201(fig.) Mt. Tlatoc, 241 MusErrc>oms,24'7,267 Mwicians, 215,216,225 Myths. See Symbolism

Nah, 1QO, 123(n3) NahuatX, 59,240,245,267 Rinkoom, 177 Naranjo, 97,172(fig.), 174, 17L%176 Naranjo EEl"erc>gl yphic Stairway; 1BS(n6) Nebaj region, 198 Ne~~,rlyweds, 26O(fig,) Nezahualcoyuth 242,254255,263,276 Nezilhualpif li, 242,259,26;5--264, 267(n24) Ninz ellakoj, 218,223 Nobles Aztec, 252-255,258-259 an ceramics, 222Cd) guests, 183-1 84 hereditary, 34-35 houses of, 7,20 in Piedras Negras Panel 3/72-73 and sweatbaths, 258-259 See also Court-iers Nojgeten, 163(n5) Non-elites, 58 Nonrepal elites, 54,5949,73-76 Nonrc>yalcouds, '7,3639 Nuun Ujrd Chaak, 188(n3) Oaxaca, 96 Obedience. See Power Q&-kc'nk", 115 Offspring. See Children Qikos, 378 Okop, 2 88(n6) Old Kingdom Egypt, 135 O:l-tat~,119 Qyuicltpa, 26&267(n30) Oratories, 149 Otocl~,88,100-101 Qto:f, 85,88,96, W-103,107,122 nonroy al, 2 2 8 royal, 118-121 Ottoman Turkey, 37 Oturnba, 25'7,267fn13) Overkingships, 185 Oxku tacab, 8849,10Q,11&320 13aintedceramics, See Ceramics

Painter-xribe, 244 Palace complaes, 2 41,261. See also Palaces Palaces administrative-residentialI 241-243 Agrrateca, 43,159-1 50 architecture of, 17,57 Aztec, 240-243,250-265 Caracol, 48 on ceramics, 1496,225 Chinese, 30 cmceptions of, 133-1 36 Copan, 141,244,251-358 definition of, 139-1 40 functions of, 134 identification of, 136-1 44 interiors, 203-204 13iedrasPJegras, 134,260-261,262 private vs. public spacesf 1134-4 35 Sayil, Yucatan, 86-88,262(fig.), 163 schools in, 182 Tikal, 5,141,148-1 51 Uaxactun, 136,149-1 50 Palacio Nacional of Mexico, 252 Patclnque architecture, 404, 470 ceramics, 202,206,209 court complexes, 177 courtkrs, 69 documentation at, 275 glyphs 73 ofo:l., 120 palacesf 1133,450 spatial settings, 48 succession of rulers, 90,547 visitors to, 2 78-17!? Parentage of mlers, 7'4 Peten, 226 Petexbatun, 161 Philippines, 558 Pib-nah, 101 Piedras Negras Acropolis, 134,146,151 ceramics, 208 children, 72 doeurnentatim, 275 nobles, 62,72-73 palaces, 134,160-161,162

Panel S, 69-73 s~ji21,72,73,77(n3) schools, 182 Stela 5,72 Stela 12,63,'1"2 Structure C-1 S, 77(n3) Piers, 205-206,207(f ig.), 218,219 Plankf Shannon, 84-422 Platforms, 199-20.il, 222 Plazuela groups, 8 P l e a s u ~palaces, 240-241,247-250 Pokornchi, 59 Polity addistration, 29-32,246-147 Polychrome vessel, 4Qf ig.) Pr>lygamy,34,66,78(n7) Polygyny, 257-258 Pc~pulViiJt, 4'77 Population, 73-74 Prjst-Classic period, 3,s architecture, 237 children, 66-67 bnguage, 58 Mexicanized, 139 population, 74 Pc>ttery.See Ceramics Power in courts, 55-57, 15%" Pre-Cfassic gericjd, 3 Caitakmul, 174 population in, 74 Priests, 209 13rimaryStandard Squence, 213,217 Principal Bird Deity 198 13rincipales,32 Prisoners, 197(fig.) Private vs. public palaces, 134-135 Production of goads, 94,146148, 17'7-1 78 13roskouriakoff,Tatiana, 61, 71-72, 137(Cig.) 13royectuArqueol6gico de la Biosfera de CalakrnuX (INAH), 174175, 187(n2) Psycl.-toactivemushrooms, 247 Puberty, 67 Public vs. private palaces, 1 3 4 135 Pucra, 159 Pzllqrre, 247,259 Pyramid construction, "i"(n9)

Qing dynasty 8,30 Quatrefoil cartouches, 209,227(n13) Queens, 64-68 Quetzalcuatl, 255,265 Quetzal feathers, 212,214 Quinatzin, 242 Quintana R c ~ R i oAzul region, 218 Quirigua, 409, 486 Range stmcturesf 4499-204,222,226(&) Record keeping, 91-92 Red (cofor), 170-2 73,202-203 Reents-Budet, Doriep195-225 Regal-ritual cities, 132-1 33 Regnal titles, 5 9 4 9 Rio Bec, 134 Rituals, 97-99 on ceramics, 2Cf2 mortuary 91,917 of successian, 97 and women, 96-97 See also Ceremonies Rot-tespierre, 56 Rome, 276 Roof architecture, 198-1 99, 2OQ(fig.), 221 Royal courts activities in, 69-73,76(nl), 457-158, 21s222 administration of, 29-32,49,91-92, 135-1 36,222-223 Aguateca. Sce Aguateca architecture. Sw Architecture Aztec. See Aztecs Balinese, 12,548 behavior in, 69-73 boundaries of, 7-9 children. See CKldren China, 8,129-X, 35,225 competition in, 15 cmsumption in, 147-148 courtiers. See Corartiers definition of, 3,6-'7,127-28,86,131 demeanor in, 243-250 dynamics of power, 12-2 2,157 as divine, 209 European, 7-8,22,2 5. See also [email protected] European countries

factionalism in, 63 functions of, 2 2-1 3,269-170 as houxholds. See Households identification of, 136-144 ideologies of, 14 Ireland, 59 Japan,9,12,15,30,31,35,40-41, 131,135 male roles, 92-94 place-eentered, 132-148 positions of authority 88-91 power in, 55-5'7,157 public vs. prit~rratespaces, 134-135 richness of, 224-225 rituals, See Ceremnies; Rituals ruins, 133 seating, 470,203-204,218,219, 220ffig.l secondary, 7,10 size of, t 35,l 75-176,l 84-3 86 social roles a&88 spatial settings of, 7-9,4M9, 130-1 32,175-1 76 status in, 11-12 study of, 5-6,15-16 symbolic m e a ~ n gof, s 13-15,3940, 49 visitors, 17&184,203,25&255 womrtn. See VVornrtn work at, 2&33,25%E4 Yaxchifan. See Vaxchilan See also Court complexes Ruler 4,69-72,98 RuXer 5 6 9 Rulers and rulerships acts of, 56 Aztec, 255-256 burials, 78(n9) divine, 90 overkingships, 185 parentage of, 74 place-centered, 2 31-?.321 261 seating, 219,220(fig.) Sea also Ajazu Sizjal, 6144,1112, 477 13iedrasNegras, 72,73,77(;n3) Sizk I-rtnal icon, 209,210

Sandews, VVilliam, 132 San Jos4 (Belize), 2 33 Satterthw-aite, 134 Sayil, Vucatan, 86--88,2 50,262(fig.), 163 Schele, Linda, 5,276275,276 Schools, 182,183,263 Scribal work, 33,35-36,44,49,68,212, 216 Sculptors, 64 Seibal, 96,98 Senses, 224-225 Sepulturas athletics, 93 palace schools, 183 textiles, 95 Sequestered women, 259-262 Sermons, 245 Seivants, 251,264-265 Settlement archaeafogy 2 53 Shield Jaguar. See Itsamnah Batam Shield Skull, 188(n3) Shil, Edward, 63 Sibling readings, 111-115 Slbun River valley 92 Singers, 215,216 Size of courts, 135,175-176,184-186 Skybands, 208 Slavery, 266(n5) Smith, A. L., 136-1 38 Smith, Ledyard, 274 Social rotes, 88-97 Solares, 12&121 Song dynasty 35 Sons, 225%254,263 Space and tzromen, 404-440,115-424 hierarchical, 64 public vs. pri-r~ate,134-1 35 and settings of royal courts, 7-9,27, 40-49,130-132 and size, 475-476,484-486 See also Architecture Spain, 8/15 and Aztecs, 238,252-253 women, 78 Speeches, 245-246

Spindle whorls, 259-262 Spinning, 95-96,259-262 "+insters,'78(n7) Spondylus shells, 69 Staixways, 202 Stalin, 56 Stephens, j,c?hn Llcyd, 133 Stone-tools, 94 Skart, Dauid, 54-76 Succession, 40-91,W Sweatbatb, 2 01,25&-259 Symbof ism, 13-1 5,39-40,49,208 Tabtet of the Slaves, 177 Taika refclrm, 40 Tamarindito, 98 Tang dynasty, 35 Tan Ha", 109 Tan-Ha ' hxchilan, 405-406,416 Taschek, Jennifer, 133 Taube, Kart, V-78Cn5) Ecp~,178,266(n8) Repan mfli,1248 'jfecpt.2pozihqrae, 2.50 Repan tbnmll, 250 Temasml, 259,264 Rnlnscules, 268fn29) Te'rmixolioch,267 Temple of Inscriptions, 5% Temples building of, 33 ceramics, 208 See also Palaces Tenjobito, 41 Tenochtitlan, 433, 442,446-448, 464, 178,327 Aztec capital, 238 courtly demeanor, 244,252 exile of lads, 179 palace schools, 182 pleasure palaces, 241 womrtn, 256,257 Tenochtittan-Texcom alliance, 239. See also Tenocktitlan; Texcoco Tec~tihuaca,161,220-221,228(~23) nclnlacal residents, 1% urbanism, 161,169

Teotihuacan Valley Prc~ject, 268-269(n31) Terminal Classic p e r i d , '74 Sayil, h c a t a n , 86-88 stone-tools, 94 Terraced platforms, 1W-204,221 Terror; 56-57 TcucGli, 238 Texcuco, 142,148, 17t3,242(fig.>,276 Aztec capital, 238 cutrrtly demeanor, 244,2252 exile of lordsf 179 feasts, 246 palace schools, 182 pleasure palaces, 241 women, 257; 259 Texcotzingo, 269(n36) Textiles, M-66,95-96,147-148 a n ceramics, 1196 See also Craft productian Thatched roofs, 198-2 99 Thompson, Eric, 276 Thompson, J. E. S., 159 Tikal, 142(fig,) and Aguateca court, 41 burials, 204,205,210 Central Acropolis, 139-141,148-151, 171,202 ceramics, 206,218--222 client states, 185,186 complex, 171-174,175-176 documentation, 275 dwarf%38 elites, 174 functions of cour2,IS Maler 'S Palace, 139,150 management of courts, 135 mortuary rituals, 91 palaces of, 5,142,148-151 Robitematic Deposit 50,219-220, 221 (fig.) spatial settinga48,141 succession of rulers, 90 visitors from, 179-180 warfare, 94,186 Tikal-Tt3poxte region, 216 Tikal-Uaxactun area, 229

Ti'Sak E"lu:12,6-9, 72 Titles, 59-69, 75Qfig.I Tiwanaku, 223 Tlacupan, l82 Tlaktfachtitlan;Texcoco; Tlacopan Tstik icon, 208,209,212 T~~zlnunle'~ '72 Tudor courts, 12,55 Rd:n (h-yn-wa-h) stone, 198,226(n5) Turkey, 37 Tzotzil, 215 Uaxactun ceramics, 206 palaces, 136-138,144,149-150 U-kab-u-cit 'e:n phrases, 108(fig.), 109, 119 U-pz-l-ts'i-bn-ki, 64 Urbanism, 169-1 70 Usurnacinta, 62,68,121 Vacant ceremonial center model, 136 Vatican, 9,144 Vision Serpent, 198 Visitors, 178-1 84,203,254-255 Warfare, 93-94 186 Weaving, 64-66,77-78(n5), 95-96 Webstex; David, 3,130-1 63 Wc-rltarlschnzlurtg,56 West Africa, 35,37 VViclows, 78(n7) Wives, 256-262, See nlso VVomen Women Aztec, 255-256 on ceramics, 217 cmsarts, 6448,25&262 courtiers, 38-39 and Lady Xok, 410-115 Late Classic period, 73

maize grinding, 77(n4), 95 and polygamy, 66 queens, 64-48 roles, 94-97' sequestered, 259-262 and space, 4404-4163,115-121 "Spinsters," "(n7) widows, 78(n7) wives, 256-262 Yaxchilan, 96,101-110,115-424 Work at royal courts, 28--33,253-254 Witing, 92

hxchilan, 71-72,85,121-122 architecture, 99-101,105-106, 115-121 documentation, 275 households of, 99-101 and Lady Xok, 11%145 Lintel 23, Ill(fig.)

Lintel 25,147fig.) ntsbles, 142 rituats, 99 Structure 2 2,201 Structure 23,101-110 Structure 24,419-120 succession of ruf ers, 963-91,9"7 Tan-Ha", 405-406,409,416 textiles, 95 women, 96,101-110,115-424 Uax Pasah, 253,156 Yich'aak M8ak', 179-180 Ui-ta-hi glyph, 111-113,216 Yoruba kingdom, 317 Y-oCo:I., 85,99,101,122-123(nn 1,2) Youth, 72,214 Uucatan, 29,32 children, fib Contact period, 2% 32,35,36 Early Colonial period, 48 hereditary nobXes, 35 ntsnnobles, 36, palaces, 139 Sayii, S 8 8 Yuknoorn the Great, 186 Zande, 335 Zbcafo, 244 Zuyha, 58

Subscribe

© Copyright 2013 - 2019 AZDOC.PL All rights reserved.