Beginnings

Maya ArcheologyGordon R. Willey

Archeological research into the civili-zation of the ancient Maya has beengoing on for more than a century. Whatdo we now know about these formerinhabitants of southerin Mexico and Cen-tral America, their origins, their way oflife, and the development of their institu-tions? A review of the status of thefield-its solid background findings, itsmore important recent discoveries, andits intriguing new interpretations-seemsin order (1).

grees, to other peoples and civilizationsof the larger pre-Columbian world,which is referred to as Mesoamerica(Fig. 1). Thus, any attempt. to understandthe lowland Maya past demands some

attention to this larger cultural settingand context (2).Maya archeology, like any other

branch of the discipline, is dependentprimarily on material remains, on sites,monuments, and artifacts, and on settle-ment pattern dispositions and the eco-

Summary. Maya beginnings go back at least 4000 years in southern Mexico andCentral America. The Maya of the tropical lowlands were one of several linguisticallydistinct groups who occupied pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. Their complex socialorder and civilization, which arose from early village farming, encompassed remark-able achievements in architecture, the arts, and hieroglyphic writing. Their Classiccivilization (A.D. 250 to 1000) was a tightly integrated system in which subsistence,technology, settlement, the arts, and ideology closely intermeshed. Their decline andthe subsequent Postclassic Period (A.D. 1000 to .1520), the continuing subjects ofdebate among Mayanists, are perhaps best understood in the light of more wide-spread Mesoamerican trends and changes.

The focus of this article is on whatarcheologists have traditionally referredto as Classic Maya civilizatioh, which isrepresented by those ruined cities, mon-

uments, and other remains that are foundin the low-lying tropical terrain of south-ern Mexico and adjacent Central Ameri-ca (Figs. 1 and 2). It is here that thefamed pre-Columbian stone temples andpalaces, monumental sculptures, andmysterious hieroglyphic inscriptionswere explored and brought to the atten-tion of an extensive American and Euro-pean reading public by John Lloyd Ste-phens and Frederick Catherwood in the1840's. The ancient Maya who builtthese lowland cities did not exist in com-plete isolation. To the south were otherpeoples, also of Mayan speech, whooccupied the region generally referred toas the Maya highlands and who had a

well-developed civilization comparablein antiquity to that of the lowland region;the Maya of both regions were also relat-ed culturally, in greater or lesser de-

The author is Bowditch Professor of Archaeology,Department of Anthropology, Harvard University,Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138.

logical interface between man and hisnatural environment; at the same time a

traditional direction of Maya studies,that dealing with hieroglyphic inscrip-tions and their decipherment, has contin-ued to be vigorously pursued (3). Thus,unlike any other branch of Americanprehistory, Maya archeology is "text-aided." For example, specific individ-uals and events can be identified fromcontemporary written texts as far backas the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., or a

thousand years before Columbus madehis New World landfalls. Maya archeo-logical studies ate further enriched by an

ethnohistorical literature dating to thetime of the Spanish Conquest (4), andinterpretation of the Maya past is, inaddition, expedited by modern ethnolog-ical studies among the living Maya de-scendants (5). Finally, students of mod-ern and historically known Mayan lan-guages have made significant contribu-tions to the archeologist's understandingof the Maya past through their recon-structions of migrations of peoples andthe content and nature of the culturesand societies involved (6).

0036-8075/82/01 15-0260$01.00/0 Copyright 1982 AAAS

Until recently the archeological recordin the Maya lowlands began with evi-dences of pottery-making village farmers(7). Other regions of Mesoamerica wereknown to have sites and remains of pre-ceramic hunters and food collectors, butthese had not been disclosed in the tropi-cal lowlands. Now, however, evidencehas been brought forward from Belizethat indicates the presence of such pre-agricultural populations, perhaps as ear-ly as 9000 B.C. (8). The stone artifactsfound in these Belizean sites imply adevelopment generally consistent withthat known in other parts of Mesoamer-ica and the New World: an early shiftfrom Pleistocene hunting to hunting,fishing, and gathering followed by asteadily increasing sedentariness and aselection of living sites suitable for plantcultivation. Apparently the lithic imple-ments of the latest preceramic Belizeancomplexes are similar or identical tothose of the earliest pottery and farmingsites of the same region, suggesting adegree of cultural and, perhaps, popula-tion continuity.The earliest Belizean pottery phase,

designated as the Swasey and discoveredat the site of Cuello, is dated by radiocar-bon to a time range of 2000 to 1000 13.C.,which is the full span of what archeolo-gists call the Early Preclassic or EarlyFormative period (9). This early Swaseypottery from Belize raises some interest-ing questions about its relation to otherearly pottery complexes in Mesoamericaand to other early pottery styles in theAmericas at large. In Mesoamerica onlythe Purron (10) ceramics of the TehuacanValley and the Pox (11) pottery of theGuerrero coast are earlier (- 2400 B.C.),but neither of these styles closely resem-bles Swasey. The same is true of theearliest known New World pottery com-plexes, those of northern Colombia andcoastal Ecuador, Which date back toabout 3000 B.C. (12). Provisionally, atleast, the Swasey pottery would seem topertain to a southern Mesoamerican ce-r,amic tradition, also represented by theearly pottery groups of the Chiapas Pa-cific Coast (13), the Veracruz-TabascoGulf Coast (14), and, perhaps, the Valleyof Oaxaca (15), all of which date in therange 1600 to 1400 B.C. This traditioncontinues in these regions for severalcenturies as it does in the Maya low-lands.

This preoccupation with early potteryand the relationships among its severalstyles is explained by the archeologist'sconcern with origins. When did the earli-est Mayan-speaking peoples come to the

SCIENCE, VOL. 215, 15 JANUARY 1982260

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

on

Sep

tem

ber

29, 2

013

ww

w.s

cien

cem

ag.o

rgD

ownl

oade

d fr

om

Fig. I (top). Mesoamerica and the Maya low-land and highland regions with important ar-cheological sites indicated. Fig. 2 (bot-tom). The major Maya regions, subregional orzonal divisions of the lowlands (25), and im-portant archeological sites.

lowlands and where did they come from?A few years back two explanations of theorigins of these people were posited:one, a movement of pottery-makingfarmers from the Guatemalan highlandregion into lowlands, or, alternatively, amovement of similar ceramic-agricultur-alists from the Olmec Veracruz-TabascoGulf Coast eastward into what was tobecome Maya country. Historical lin-guists seemed to favor the first possibili-ty. In their view a proto-Mayan lan-guage, from which all later known Ma-yan languages were derived, had its for-mation in the Guatemalan highlands atabout 2200 B.C. From this region Mayanspeakers began to descend into the low-lands at some time between 1400 and1000 B.C. (6, 16). But the recent evi-dence from Belize of preceramic occupa-tions in the lowlands, as well as that ofthe early Swasey pottery, throw somedoubts on this reconstruction. If therewas a preceramic-to-ceramic culturalcontinuity in Belize, might there not alsohave been some population continuityand linguistic continuity? In any event,pursued this far the question of Mayalowland origins dissolves into tenuous-ness and speculation. In brief, the "be-ginnings" in any archeological recon-struction are those of the sites, ceramics,and artifacts of the Early Preclassic(2000 to 1000 B.C.) and Middle Preclas-sic (1000 to 400 B.C.) occupation of thelowlands.The villages of the Swasey (9), Xe

(17), Mamom (18), and related earlyMaya lowland settlements representsmall communities of 200 to 300 personsat most. They were sustained by maizefarming; manioc may have been grown;and hunting, fishing, and forest plant-collecting were important subsistenceadjuncts. The competently made potteryof these villagers can be divided intorough-surfaced storage and cooking ves-sels and more carefully finished and pol-ished wares with simple incision andtwo-color decoration. There are few, ifany, pieces that could be designated asluxury wares. Small human figurines ofclay are of the handmade styles similarto those manufactured elsewhere inMesoamerica at this same time. Thepresence of obsidian cores and bladelets(small prismatic flint or obsidian blades)in some sites reveals trade contacts withthe Guatemalan highlands to the south.15 JANUARY 1982 261

Fig. 3. Pyramid of temple E-VII-Sub at Uaxactun, Guatemala. This Late Preclassic-Protoclas-sic structure, with its jaguar-like stucco masks, is representative of the architectural and artisticelaborations of the then emerging lowland Maya Classic civilization. [Courtesy PeabodyMuseum, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts]

As early as the Swasey phase the villag-ers were constructing houses of woodand thatch with lime-plaster floors.These buildings were placed on lowearth mounds or earth-rock platforms,and there was a tradition of constructingone platform over another so that in timesome platforms took on the aspect of a

most important, central, or public build-ing. At the Cuello site (19) and at Altarde Sacrificios (17) in the Peten of Guate-mala these more imposing platforms, es-

pecially toward the end of the MiddlePreclassic, were associated with more

finely furnished burials that are indica-tive of the higher status of the personsinterred. There can be little disputeabout the rise of ceremonialism and so-

ciopolitical authority in this gradual low-land Maya cultural development of theMiddle Preclassic, and it can be easilyargued that this development flows on

into the architecturally imposing pre-cincts of the subsequent Classic Mayacivilization. At some, point in this Mid-dle Preclassic evolution Maya societychanged from an essentially egalitarianto a more complex, nonegalitarian order.

The Rise of Complex Society

In examining the rise of nonegalitarianor complex society in the Maya lowlandsit is well to view this in the perspective ofwhat was happening in other parts ofMesoamerica. Large platform construc-tions, presumably of a public or politi-

262

coreligious nature, appeared in the 01-

mec region of the Gulf Coast by 1250 to1150 B.C. (20). These constructionswere also associated with a monumentalart style, that of the well-known Olmecstone sculptures. Such archeologicalmanifestations strongly imply a rankedsociety with authority vested in perma-nent leaders. In the Valley of Oaxacasizable platform constructions and a set-tlement hierarchy of principal centersand satellite communities also suggest anincreasing complexity in the social orderat about the same time (21); there issome evidence of similar developmentsfrom Pacific Guatemala-Chiapas and ad-joining highland regions by the beginningof the Middle Preclassic (22). Thus, thelowland Maya may have been influencedby neighbors who were somewhat more

advanced socially and politically. Withknown trading contacts with these neigh-bors, some ideological borrowing on thepart of the lowland Maya would not besurprising. At the same time, in situprocesses of social and cultural growthwere at work in the Maya lowlands, andthe rise of complex society cannot beexplained as the result of diffusion alone.The entire Preclassic was a time of popu-lation growth, and the social and eco-

nomic conditions of the lowlands were

such as to ready them for the acceptanceof the social inventions that constitute a

complex sociopolitical structure.An examination of the archeological

records at a number of lowland Mayasites, such as Altar de Sacrificios (17),

Uaxactun (18, 23), and Tikal (24), re-veals a similar story of the developmentof sociopolitical complexity. At Altar deSacrificios the earliest central residentialpatio group from the beginning of theMiddle Preclassic was a simple arrange-ment of small houses. By the end of thatperiod, several hundred years later, thissame residential complex had beengreatly enlarged, and the largest moundwas some 4 meters high. In the succeed-ing Late Preclassic and Protoclassic peri-ods, or from about 400 B.C. to A.D. 250,this group included a pyramid moundthat was stone-faced, terraced, and hadan impressive stairway. The height ofthis temple pyramid was 13 m, and itsterraces were adorned with stucco reliefsand carved stone censer-altars (stonealtars with basins in which a substance,probably copal gum, had been burned asincense). Uaxactun shows a similar LatePreclassic-Protoclassic architectural flo-rescence (Fig. 3); and at Tikal, destinedto be the greatest lowland Classic center,earlier and simpler Middle Preclassic oc-cupation levels are succeeded by cor-beled vault tomb construction, greatpyramids and platforms, elaborate mor-tuary furnishings, and eventually hiero-glyphic texts.We know that these were not separate,

isolated evolutions. For example, large-scale settlement pattern studies (25)show other major or primary centers,somewhat smaller secondary centers,and centers of tertiary size. Clusteredaround these centers, and also foundthroughout the landscape between cen-ters, are numerous residential mounds orhouse mounds. In effect, there was avast system that was interlinked in manyways. Political control radiating out ofthe major centers was undoubtedly onelinking mechanism, although it is unlike-ly that there was ever a single territorialstate in the Maya lowlands, at least inLate Preclassic times. The centers andtheir satellites were also linked by tradein commodities such as food products,raw materials, and manufactured goods.Craft specialization appeared as early asthe Late Preclassic. For instance, atColha (26), in northern Belize, there arehuge deposits of chert wastage fromworkshops where thousands of bifacesand other tools and weapons were manu-factured and then transported to a seriesof other centers, all several kilometersfrom Colha. Trade over even greaterdistances is also reflected in the increasein foreign and exotic items in lowlandMaya Late Preclassic elite graves. For-eign imports such as obsidian were foundin earlier Preclassic lowland sites, butnow the volume of such trade must have

SCIENCE, VOL. 215

been much greater. Marine shells fromboth the Caribbean and Pacific coastswere a frequent item of trade. Highlandjade, pyrites, and other stones or miner-als were also imported, both in their rawstates and as manufactured pieces. Whatthe lowland Maya exchanged in return isstill the subject of speculation, althoughit has been suggested that such things asjaguar pelts, tropical bird feathers, oils,spices, cacao, and drugs, all of which areforeign to highland environments, mighthave been the exports that served as animportant source of wealth to the risingcities of the lowland Late Preclassic (27).As already mentioned, ideas as well as

goods were disseminated through tradingcontacts, and this suggests further con-sideration of the origins of some of themore specific elements of lowland Mayaelite, hierarchical, and ideological cul-ture. The regions of Pacific Guatemala-Chiapas and the bordering highlands ap-pear to have been somewhat in advanceof the lowland Maya in the developmentof complex society. This is true, forexample, of the sites of Izapa (28), AbajTakalik (29), and Kaminaljuyu (30). Ar-tistic and iconographic analyses of themonumental sculptures from these cen-ters suggest that they have earlier deriva-tions in Olmec art and that, in turn, theybear certain resemblances to Late Pre-classic, Protoclassic, and Early Classicsculptures of the Maya lowlands. Theevolution of monumental art in Preclas-sic southern Mesoamerica is a complexquestion, and there are differencesamong authorities on its interpretation(29, 31); however, all agree that earlymajor art of the Maya lowlands (Fig. 4)has its prototypes in these Pacific andhighland regions.

Hieroglyphic writing is associatedwith some of the Abaj Takalik and Ka-minaljuyu monuments, and these hiero-glyphs are clearly related to those thatdeveloped so elaborately in the laterlowland Maya Classic civilization.Again, the question of origins arises:Was Classic Maya elite or aristocraticculture, as exemplified in its great artsand hieroglyphic system, imported to thelowlands from the highland and PacificCoast regions? But this question seemsto be much too simplified, because therecan be no simple answer (32). A masstransference of a Pacific-highland eliteculture, presumably by a migration ofpeoples, seems unlikely, even thoughthere is evidence of some migration (33).The many individual evolutions of sitesin the Maya lowlands from the LatePreclassic to the Classic tend to precludethis. Furthermore, Pacific-highland Pre-classic art and hieroglyphs undergo radi-

15 JANUARY 1982

Fig. 4. Close-up ofjaguar-like deity mask from Temple E-VII-Sub pyramid at Uaxactun (Fig. 3).[Courtesy Peabody Museum, Harvard University]

cal transformations and reworkings inthe lowlands almost from their introduc-tion. A borrowing of ideas-and espe-cially ideas that could be integrated intothe growing political, social, and com-mercial world of the Maya lowland cul-tures, which were evolving on a coursesomewhat similar to those of their neigh-bors-was the essential process bywhich the foundations of Maya Classiccivilization were laid down. Studies ofMaya civilization have shown that thereis no single-source origin for any of itscomplex institutions. They were synthe-sized, instead, from many diversesources, both foreign and local.

The Classic Civilization

The Classic Period of lowland Mayacivilization is dated from A.D. 250. Thisis an arbitrary date, set at a few yearsbefore the dates of the earliest knownMaya initial series stelae. At one time itwas thought that these early initial seriesor long count (34) dates of the Mayacalendar were synchronous with the firstlarge temple and palace constructions,the first use of the corbeled vault, mostMaya sculpture, hieroglyphic texts, andpolychrome pottery, all of which ap-peared at about the same time. Now it isclear that these hallmarks of Maya Clas-sic civilization were being developed andassembled throughout the Late Preclas-sic and Protoclassic. Thus, the A.D. 250date signifies the full crystallization ofMaya civilization. The Classic Periodhas been subdivided into an Early Clas-

sic (A.D. 250 to 550) first florescence, abrief interim known as the hiatus (A.D.550 to 600), a Late Classic (A.D. 600 to800) second florescence, and a TerminalClassic (A.D. 800 to 1000) dissolution.Some of this chronology, which will bereferred to as the Classic Maya culturalsystem, is presented through a set ofsubsystems or themes: subsistence, set-tlement patterns, sociopolitical organiza-tion, trade, warfare, and ideology. I willshow how these subsystems interlock inan attempt to reproduce a holistic viewof Classic Maya civilization (35).Maize farming was the basis of Early

Preclassic village life in the Maya low-lands, and it continued to be throughoutMaya history. A long-fallow swiddenmethod of clearing and planting was ob-served by the Spaniards in the 16th cen-tury, and it is probable that this methodwas very ancient in these tropical low-lands; however, more intensive farmingmethods were also used and, apparently,on a very large scale (36). Extensiveterracing or "silt-trapping" has been re-ported in the Rio Bec region (37), andartificially raised fields were constructedin swampy regions or along sluggishstream beds (37). These raised fields,which are comparable to the chinampasor floating gardens of the Valley of Mexi-co and similar constructions in otherparts of the Americas, are constructed toprovide both drainage and irrigation, andtheir agricultural productiveness far ex-ceeds that of comparable acreages culti-vated under a swidden system. Con-struction of the raised field system is farmore costly in labor input than swidden

263

(46). This work has been supplementedby comparisons of site sizes and byhieroglyphic research whereby emblemglyphs or badges of the various majorcities have been used to trace out in-ferred political allegiances among pre-sumed secondary or tributary centers(47). One possible sociopolitical model isthat of a feudal type of organization,where the largest centers may have beenthe seats of kings, secondary and tertiaryones the domains of lesser nobles, andthe whole supported by an agrarian peas-antry (48). Advances in hieroglyphic re-search, such as the identification of em-blem glyphs, offer substantiations ofsuch a system; texts have been deci-phered that describe wars, alliances, in-termarriages, and king lists that are remi-niscent of the relationships among theroyal houses and nobles of medievalEurope (49). Trade and manufacturingalso had roles in the Maya system (50).The population of Tikal and other urban-

like concentrations suggest the rise of amiddle class of artisans, traders, andminor bureaucrats. It is not known, how-ever, whether trade was of an open mar-ket type or was of a redistributive na-ture.

Foreign or external influences (32)continued to affect Maya lowland societyduring the Classic. Some of the mostinteresting evidence for this comes fromhieroglyphic texts and associated art atTikal. One 4th-century A.D. text de-scribes a "foreigner," one "Curl-Snout," whose accoutrements and atten-dants suggest a close relation with thecentral Mexican city of Teotihuacan andwho married into the local royal familyand founded a new lineage (51). This bitof historical information fits nicely withTeotihuacan influences, as representedin imported pottery styles and the ap-pearance of central Mexican obsidianthroughout the Maya lowlands in theEarly Classic. Taken together, such evi-

dences begin to outline some of the pro-cesses involved in lowland Maya statedevelopment.

During the Early Classic it seemsprobable (at least from evidence of sty-listic similarities and hieroglyphic texts)that Tikal maintained a leadership, ahegemony over much of the Maya low-lands, or at least the southern portions,founding dynasties at Quirigua (Fig. 6)and Copan (52) and marrying its royaldaughters to the rulers of other cities(47). The latter part of the 6th centurywas the time of the hiatus, a curiousslackening of elite activities in mostsouthern Maya lowland cities (53). Fewdates were inscribed on the stelae, fewrulers were commemorated, and therewas little temple and palace construc-tion. Then shortly after A.D. 600 therewas a resurgence of stelae dedication, ofbuilding, and of the founding of newcities and the renovating of old ones.Tikal (Fig. 7) revived as did many other

Fig. 6 (left). Stelae 26 from Quirigua, Guatemala, depicts an early ruler of that site, and on the back of the monument there is an initial series dateof 9.2.18.0.0 or A.D. 493. It was discovered in the 1970's under deep silt deposits to the north of the well-known main center that dates some cen-turies later. The import of this monument is that it verifies Quirigua's establishment in the Early Classic and that it links stylistically with EarlyClassic monuments at Uaxactun and Tikal, thus suggesting dynastic ties with these sites, most probably the latter. [Courtesy University ofPennsylvania, University Museum, Philadelphia] Fig. 7 (right). A Tikal stela dedicated to a later ruler, Yax Chitan, whose reign lasted only alittle over 2 years (A.D. 768 to 771). The intricacy of the rendering of the costume, in contrast to that of the Early Classic monument fromQuirigua (Fig. 6), is characteristic of Late Classic Maya sculpture. [Courtesy University of Pennsylvania, University Museum, Philadelphia]

265IS JANUARY 1982

cities, including Copan, Quirigua, Palen-que, and Piedras Negras. It is difficult tosay what city had preeminence in theLate Classic. Quite probably it was atime of intense intercity competition, butit also marked an apogee in the Mayaachievement.

In attempting to understand Maya civ-ilization we may view it as an integratedsystem (35). Agriculture and land useclearly link to demography. Insights intoboth are provided from settlement pat-tern information; settlement data, inturn, throw some light on Maya politicaland social structures, which are furtherelaborated by interpretations of hiero-glyphic texts (51, 54) and of art andiconography (55). The texts and art openup a small window on the ideologicalworld of the Maya. The Classic periodspans more than seven centuries, and theconditions and institutions that archeolo-gists are trying to understand were un-doubtedly changing ones. Research ad-vances of the future will be addressed tothese changes in Maya culture and theprocesses that brought them about.The most dramatic change, or set of

changes, resulting in the disintegration ofclassic Maya civilization, began in the9th-century A.D. and continued for 200years or over the period called the Ter-minal Classic. The cause of this dissolu-tion or collapse has been the topic ofmuch speculation; natual disasters, dis-ease, crop failures, overpopulation,peasant revolt, foreign wars, and tradefailures have been proposed, but no sin-gle explanation seems satisfactory (56).The facts of the collapse can be set downquite simply. Evidences of the declineappear first in the southern lowlands atthe close of the 8th century and acceler-ate rapidly through the 9th century. Theyare manifest in the cessation of the re-cording of commemorative dates andstelae dedications and in the slowdownor stoppage of center constructions. In-deed, the phenomena of the collapse arereminiscent of those of the hiatus, butthis time there was no recovery. Thiswithering of the elite aspects of the cul-ture was accompanied by the markeddepopulation of the once great cities andof much of the surrounding countryside.The processes of disintegration, whatev-er they may have been, appear to havedrifted gradually north, through centralYucatan and eventually into the northernpart of that peninsula.Although there is little consensus

about the cause or causes of the Mayacollapse, there is one thing about whichthere is general agreement. This is thatthe Terminal Classic was a time of radi-cal political and social change through-

266

out much of civilized Mesoamerica. OldClassic period centers of power, in Oa-xaca, in central Mexico, and elsewhere,were overthrown and abandoned. Newpolitical formations, some of them, likethat of the Toltecs, of imperial dimen-sions, were in the making. Military com-petition increased. Old trading routesand alliances were rearranged. Andwhatever the specific causes and events,as these may have occurred from placeto place, it seems certain that the ClassicMaya civilization of the lowlands wasaffected by this general unrest.

The Postelassic Period

At about A.D. 1000 a group that isoften identified as Toltec settled at andrebuilt an earlier Classic Maya center innorthern Yucatan and renamed it Chi-chen Itza (57). The Toltec identificationmay not be strictly correct; these invad-ers may have been peoples of Mayaspeech, the Putun Maya, who had livedalong the extreme western margins ofClassic Maya civilization in the GulfC;oast country of Tabasco (58). The Pu-tun Maya, who came under Toltec andcentral Mexican influences earlier thanthe lowland Maya, were acculturated toToltec ways and ideologies by the end ofthe 8th century. From later ethnohistoricaccounts these Putun Maya were knownas warriors and riverine and coastal ca-noe traders, and it is possible that theirmilitary and commercial incursions wereinstrumental in setting the Maya declinein motion some 200 years before theyactually implanted a city at Chichen Itza.The establishment of Toltec or Putun

Chichen Itza marks the beginning of thePostclassic period in the Maya lowlands.Except for this one great site, the earlypart of the period is poorly known. In thenorth some towns anid cities of the Ter-minal Classic continued to be occupied,but populations were reduced, and therewas little notable construction. The en-tire south appears to have been virtuallyabandoned. Only in the east, in northernBelize, are there former Classic sites thatshow substantial activity (59). This local-ity is the part of the Maya lowlands thatwas most remote from the Putun home-land.Chichen Itza's great days were over

by the beginning of the 13th century. Inthe Late Postclassic, the period that issometimes referred to as that of Mayaresurgence, the leading city was thewalled center of Mayapan in northernYucatan (60). The principal religiouspyramid of Mayapan appears as a poorand reduced replica of the great Castillo

at Chichen Itza; otherwise, the centerretains little of the Toltec or Putun tradi-tion. The urban zone within the walls,which measures 2 by 3 km, is estimatedto have contained about 12,000 persons,a fraction of the population of the greatClassic period cities. It gives the impres-sion of a relatively close-packed arrange-ment of the standard Maya patio-groupresidences, as though these had beengathered up and confined within the pe-rimeter of the city's defense wall.Some archeologists suggest that the

Late Postclassic was an era of activelong-distance trade along the coast andthat the Maya of Yucatan played animportant part in that trade (61). Archeo-logical evidences from coastal Tulumand from the island of Cozumel, bothLate Postclassic centers, support this, asdo 16th-century Spanish accounts. It hasalso been argued that to conceive of aClassic period collapse and a reducedPostclassic civilization is a mistake (62).As an alternative the concept of an "up-ward collapse" has been offered; theexplanation of the archeological recordis a progressive evolution marked byradical sociopolitical changes, includingthe abandonment of the values of theClassic period aristocratic elite in favorof an order that laid more stress onextended commerce, the mass distribu-tion of goods, and a greater participationin many spheres of life by larger numbersof people.Although it is true that there was cul-

tural activity in the northern lowlandsduring the Postclassic, and especiallytrading activity in the Late Postclassic, Ido not feel that a full review of thearcheological evidence gives much sup-port to this fulsome picture of the lastpre-Columbian centuries of lowlandMaya life. Whatever the nature of activi-ties-at least insofar as these can bemeasured in material archeological re-mains-the present data indicate a defi-nite lack of Late Postclassic populationnumbers comparable to those of Classictimes. If there was, indeed, a greaterparticipation in many spheres of life bylarger numbers of people, there were notas many people around to observe this orto have the opportunity to partake in theparticipation. If a wider view is takenand the field of action expanded beyondthe lowland Maya area to Mesoamericaas a whole, there is, perhaps, somethingto the concept of an upward collapse.Certainly the Postclassic, as has beenobserved, marked the rise of new stateand imperial polities. These, however,radiated out of central Mexico, that an-cient locus of early Mesoamerican ur-banism and state formation dominated

SCIENCE, VOL. 215

successively by Teotihuacan, the Tol-tecs, and the Aztecs. This was the regionthat was in the vanguard of Mesoameri-can social, political, and commercialevolution. The lowland Maya werecaught up in the processes of this evolu-tion, at a geographic remove and alwaysin a somewhat delayed way; and thetrials of their Classic dissolution andtheir not altogether successful attemptsat a Postclassic reintegration reflect theirdifficulties in attempting to adapt tothese processes.

Referenees and Notes1. For general background, see J. E. S. Thompson

[The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization (Univ.of Oklahoma Press, Norman, ed. 2, 1966)] andM. D. Coe [in The Maya, G. Daniel, Ed. (An-cient Peoples and Places Series, Thames &Hudson, New York, 1966)].

2. For general references, see M. P. Weaver [TheAztecs, Maya, and Their Predecessors'(SeminarPress, New York, 1972)] and R. E. W. Adams[Prehistoric Mesoamerica (Little, Brown, Bos-ton, 1977)].

3. D. H. Kelley, Deciphering the Maya Script(Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1976).

4. For example, "Landa's relacion de las cosas deYucatan," a translation of a 16th-century docu-ment by A. M. Tozzer [Pap. Peabody'Mus.Archaeol. Ethnol. Harv. Univ. 18, (1941)1, en-tire volume.

5. A. Vilia Rojas, in Handbook of Middle Ameri-can Indians, R. Wauchope and E. Z. Vogt, Eds.(Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1969), vol. 7, pp.244-275; E. Z. Vogt, Zinacantan (HarvardUniv. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1969).

6. T. Kaufman, World Archaeol. 8, 101 (1976).7. G. R. Willey, in The Origins of Maya Civiliza-

tion, R. E. W. Adams, Ed. (Univ. of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque, 1977), pp. 383-423.

8. R. S. MacNeish et al., First Annual Report ofthe Belize Archaeological Reconnaissance (Pea-body Foundation, Andover, Mass., 1980).

9. N. Hammond et al., Am. Antiq. 44, 92 (1979).10. R. S. MacNeish, F. A. Peterson, K. V. Flan-

nery, in The Prehistory of the Tehucan Valley,F. Johnson, Ed. (Univ. of Texas Press, Austin,1970).

11. C. F. Brush, Science 149, 194 (1965).12. G. Reichel-Dolmatoff, "Excavaciones arqueolo-

gicas en Puerto Hormiga, Departamento de Bo-livar, Colombia" (Publicacion Antropologia 2,Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, 1965); D.W. Lathrap, Ancient Ecuador (Field Museum of-Natural History, Chicago, 1975).

13. G. W. Lowe, "The Early Preclassic Barra phaseof Alta Mira, Chiapas" (Paper 38, New WorldArchaeological Foundation, Brigham YoungUniversity, Provo, Utah, 1975).

14. M. D. Coe, in Dumbarton Oaks Conference onthe Olmec, E. Benson, Ed. (Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, D.C., 1968), pp. 41-78.

15. K. V. Flannery, in ibid., pp. 79-118.16. T. Kaufman, personal communication; E. Z.

Vogt, in Desarrollo Cultural de Los Mayas, E.Z. Vogt and A. Ruz, Eds. (Universidad Na-cional de Mexico, Mexico, D. F., 1971), pp. 9-48 and 409-447. It has also been proposed thatthe earliest ceramics of Belize could be pre-Maya or non-Maya [G. W. Lowe, in Chronolo-gies in New World Archaeology, R. E. Taylorand C. W. Meighan, Eds. (Seminar Press, NewYork, 1978), pp. 331-394.

17. G. R. Willey, Pap; Peabody Mus. Archaeol.Ethnol. Harv. Univ. 64 (1973), entire volume.

18. 0. G. Ricketson, Jr., and E. B. Ricketson,Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ. 477 (1937).

19. N. Hammond, Antiquity 54, 176 (1980).20. M. D. Coe and R. A. Diehl, In the Land of the

Olmec (Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1980).21. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, in Cultural

Continuity and Change, C. Cleland, Ed. (Aca-demic Press, New York, 1976), pp. 205-221.

22. M. D. Coe and K. V. Flannery, Smithson.Contrib. Anthropol. No. 3 (1967).

23. A. L. Smith, Carnegie Inst. Washington Publ.588 (1950).

24. W. R. Coe, Expedition, No. 8 (1965).25. W. Ashmore, Ed., Lowland Maya Settlement

Patterns (Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albu-querque, 1981).

26. H. Shafer and T. Hester, unpublished manu-script.

27. B. Voorhies, unpublished manuscript.28. V. G. Norman, "Izapa sculpture" (Paper 33,

New World Archaeological Foundation, Provo,Utah, 1976).

29. J. A. Graham, Actes 42nd Congr. Int. Ameri-canistes 8, 180 (1979).

30. S. W. Miles, in Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians, R. Wauchope and G. R. Willey, Eds.(Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1965), vol. 2, pp.237-275.

31. J. Quirarte, Actes 42nd Congr. Int. American-istes 8, 189 (1979).

32. G. R. Willey, in Social Process in Maya Prehis-tory, N. Hammond, Ed. (Academic Press, NewYork, 1977), pp. 58-81.

33. P. D. Sheets [in Volcanic Activity and HumanEcology, P. D. Sheets and D. K. Brayson, Eds.(Academic Press, New York, 1979), pp. 525-564] proposed that the eruption of Ilopango in ElSalvador led to migrations from that region toMaya lowlands at about A.D. 200 and that thismigration sparked Maya Classic cultural devel-opment.

34. Initial series or long count dates of the Mayarefer to a time counting system of days comput-ed in units (days) of descending magnitude of144,000, 7,200, 360, 20, and 1. This system wasreckoned from a mythical starting point in 3114B.C. Dates associated with the Maya Classicperiod pertain to the eighth, ninth, and tenthgreat cycles or baktuns (144,000 days). Acces-sions of rulers to thrones, royal births, deaths,marriages, wars, conquests, and so on, weredated and commemorated in this time countingsystem. The dates referred to in this articlefollow a long count-Julian calendrical correla-tion known as the 11.16.0.0.0.

35. G. R. Willey, J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 15, 249(1980).

36. P. D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, Eds., Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture (Univ. ofNew Mex-ico Press, Albuquerque, 1978).

37. B. L. Turner, i; (36), pp. 163-184.38. R. Netting, in The Origins ofMaya Civilization,

R. E. W. Adams, Ed. (Univ. of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque, 1977), pp. 299-334.

39. F. M. Wiseman, in (36), pp. 63-116; F. W.Lange, Am. Anthropol. 73, 619 (1971); M. Pohl,unpublished manuscript.

40. G. R. Willey, in (25), pp. 385-415.41. M. J. Becker, in Maya Archaeology and Ethno-

history, N. Hammond and G. R. Willey, Eds.(Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1979), pp. 3-20.

42. G. R. Willey and D. B. Shimkin, in The ClassicMaya Collapse, T. P. Culbert, Ed. (Univ. ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 1973), pp.457-502.

43. W. A. Haviland, World Archaeol. 2, 186 (1970).Not only have settlement studies and smallresidential mound counts been made in theimmediate vicinity of Tikal, but these have beenconducted around and between other major cen-ters [D. S. Rice and D. E. Puleston, in (25), pp.121-1571.

44. R. F. Millon, The Teotihuacan Map (Univ. ofTexas Press, Austin, 1973), part 1;

45. M. J. Becker, Am. Antiq. 38, 396 (1973); ibid., p.222.

46. J. Marcus, Science, 180, 911 (1973); N. Ham-mond, in Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Ap-proaches, N. Hammond, Ed. (Duckworth, Lon-don, 1974), pp. 313-334.

47. J. Marcus, Emblem and State in the ClassicMaya Lowlands (Dumbarton Oaks, Washing-ton, D.C., 1976).

48. R. E. W. Adams and W. D. Smith, in (25), pp.335-350; W. T. Sanders, in (25), pp. 351-370.

49. The interpretation of the emblem glyphs wasfirst made by H. Berlin [J. Soc. AmericanistesParis 47, 111 (1958)]. Historical informationfrom glyphic texts has been interpreted by vari-ous scholars but T. Proskouriakoff [Am. Antiq.25, 454 (1960); Estud. Cultura Maya 3, 149(1963); ibid. 4, 177 (1964)] was one of the first.For references bearing on settlement arrange-ments and hierarchies and their relation to hiero-glyphic texts, see J. P. Molloy and W. L. Rathje[in Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Ap-proaches, N. Hammond, Ed. (Duckworth, Lon-don, 1974), pp. 431-444] and J. Marcus (47).

50. C. Jones, unpublished manuscript.51. C. Coggins, in Maya Archaeology and Ethno-

history, N. Hammond and G. R. Willey, Eds.(Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 1979), pp. 38-50.

52. C. Jones and R. Sharer, Expedition, No. 23(1980), p. 11.

53. G. R. Willey, in Mesoamerican Archaeology:New Approaches, N. Hammond, Ed. (Duck-worth, London, 1974), pp. 417-430.

54. C. Jones, Am. Antiq. 42, 28 (1977).55. D. E. Puleston [in Social Process in Maya-

Prehistory, N. Hammond, Ed. (AcademicPress, New York, 1977), pp. 449-469] linksMaya aquatic-agricultural ecology with artisticsymbolism in a most convincing way.

56. T. P. Culbert, Ed., The Classic Maya Collapse(Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque,1973).

57. A. M. Tozzer, Mem. Peabody Mus. Archaeol.Ethnol. Harv. Univ. 11 and 12 (1957).

58. J. E. S. Thompson, Maya History and Religion(Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1970).

59. Examples are Lamanai, Colha, and Cerros (D.Pendergast, T. R. Hester, D. Freidel, personalcommunications).

60. H. E. D. Pollock et al., Carnegie Inst. Washing-ton Publ. 619 (1962).

61. J. A. Sabloffand W. L. Rathje, Sci. Am. 223, 73(October 1975).

62. C. Erasmus, Southwest. J. Anthropol. 24, 170(1968).

15 JANUARY 1982 267