Study of performance allows archaeologists to explore interrelations between political, social, and cultural factors. Plazas in Classic Maya society (AD 250-900) suggests performance by the rulers depicted on stone monuments involved a large audience.
Study of performance allows archaeologists to explore interrelations between political, social, and cultural factors. Plazas in Classic Maya society (AD 250-900) suggests performance by the rulers depicted on stone monuments involved a large audience.
Study of performance allows archaeologists to explore interrelations between political, social, and cultural factors. Plazas in Classic Maya society (AD 250-900) suggests performance by the rulers depicted on stone monuments involved a large audience.
Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya
1
by Takeshi Inomata
Not only does theatrical performance communicate preexisting ideas but it also defines political reality as it is experienced by participants. Theatrical events, thus, constitute a critical process of integration and conflict in a wide range of societies, but present particularly significant effects on the maintenance and transformation of premodern centralized polities. The study of performance allows archaeologists to explore the interrelations between political, social, and cultural factors and provides an approach to action and meaning different from the one that views the material record as text. The analysis of plazas in Classic Maya society (AD 250-900) suggests that performance by the rulers depicted on stone monuments involved a large audience and that securing theatrical spaces for mass spectacle was a primary concern in the design of Maya cities. Such events gave physical reality to a Maya community and counteracted the centrifugal tendency of non-elite populations.
Keywords: Archaeology, Classic Maya, theatrical performance, political organization 2 TAKESHI INOMATA is Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arizona (PO Box 210030, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA [inomata@u.arizona.edu]). Educated at the University of Tokyo (B.A., 1986; M.A. 1988) and Vanderbilt University (Ph.D., 1995), he has conducted field investigations in Honduras and Guatemala, focusing on social change and political organization in Classic Maya society. His publications include (edited with Stephen Houston) Royal courts of the ancient Maya (Boulder: Westview, 2000), and (edited with Ronald Webb) The Archaeology of settlement abandonment in Middle America (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2003). 3 How did large societies far exceeding circles of daily interactions achieve a certain degree of cohesion underscored by collectively-held cultural and moral values? Anderson (1991:6) has argued that all communities larger than primordial villages of face-to-face contact (and perhaps even these) are imagined, in the sense that individuals never know most of their fellow members or meet them, yet they bear the image of their communion (see Canuto and Yaeger 2000). There is, however, a vast gap between primordial villages and modern nation states, for which Anderson developed his concept. Although Anderson (1991:12-19, 37-46) has emphasized the role of written media for the creation of imagined communities, many large communities in the past emerged without much benefit of writing. While avoiding the nave concepts of true or natural community, we need to recognize that human sociality and identity are rooted in our sensory perceptions of the presence and actions of others. Many communities in antiquity are probably not something totally imagined, but groups based to some degree on direct interactions between individuals. In addition, we should note that no organization can exist without associated symbols, which give concrete, sensible forms to group identities (Kertzer 1988:15). The values, traditions, and identities of a community are not timeless, transcendent entities, but must be anchored to the tangible images and acts that each individual can directly sense. The relation between the tangible and imagined aspects of society is particularly important when we examine political entities in the premodern world. The way the ancient people experienced the presence of such political organization is not always the same as ours. Whereas today the notion of state is internalized in the political consciousness of numerous individuals, many early states may not have had resources and mechanisms to assert their constant presence in the minds and daily lives of their subject populations. Foucault (1977:187) 4 noted that, in premodern Europe before the technologies of discipline were developed, the state power was what was seen, what was shown, and what was manifested. Likewise, before the rise of modern nationalism, each individuals identity as a member of a state may often have been weaker than that of smaller social groups, such as kin groups and localized communities (Anderson 1991). In certain historical contexts, then, the subject populations perception and experience of authorities and national unity were highly uneven, accentuated in the specific temporal and spatial contexts of state-sponsored events, such as ceremonies and construction projects, but diluted or even non-existent in the routines of daily lives. In those cases, what many individuals consciously recognized and thought about may have been the tangible images of the rulers body, state buildings, and collective acts, but probably not the abstract notion of the state. These considerations of the tangible and imagined aspects of human sociality bring our attention to the political implications and consequences of theatrical performance in public events, in which a large number of individuals senses and witnesses the bodily existence and participation of other members and the cultural and moral values of the community are objectified and embodied. In particular, I argue that the development of large, centralized polities would have been impossible in any historical context without heavy reliance on public events. Classic Maya society (AD 250-900), in which rulers and elites actively sponsored and participated in public rituals and festivals, provides a fertile ground for exploring the intersection of theatrical performance and politics (Figure 1). By analyzing the spatial contexts of public performance at Maya centers, I examine how public events facilitated and conditioned the integration and identity formation of a community and how they set stages for imposition and negotiation of asymmetrical power relations.
5 Theater, Community, and Power THEORY OF PERFORMANCE Recent developments in performance theory, theater studies, and dramaturgic analysis provide a theoretical ground for this study. We first need to examine diverse perspectives, as the concepts of performance used by social scientists comprise a wide range of meaning. On one end of this continuum is a prescribed act in modern theater. Schechner (1977:75; 1988:6-16; 1994) distinguishes theater from other types of performance, such as rituals, sports, and games, by noting that it requires the physical presence of an audience who are observers and evaluators with an emphasis on entertainment. Beeman (1993:379) stresses the symbolic reality of theater, in which the performers represent themselves in roles detached from their lives outside the performance. On the other end of the continuum is a broad definition of performance as an enactment of what it refers to (Pearson and Shanks 2001). In this view, the emphasis is on what human beings do as opposed to thoughts and abstract structures. An explicit theoretical formulation of this perspective is found in the concept of performative utterance in speech act theory. Certain utterances do not simply describe social relations but effect them (Austin 1962). Goffman (1959:22, 1967) has also proposed a broad definition of performance, all the activity of an individual which occurs during a period marked by his continuous presence before a particular set of observers and which has some effect on the observers. He has emphasized the theatricality that is present even in everyday activities and has examined their communicative and expressive qualities, through which a person projects different identities and images under different circumstances. The present study builds on these diverse theoretical views. Nonetheless, the purpose of my research requires a definition of performance that is tighter than those of Austin and Goffman 6 yet broad enough to include various activities which take place outside of formal theaters (see MacAloon 1984a:6). Following Hymes (1975:13-19), I define performance as creative, realized, achieved acts, which are interpretable, reportable, and repeatable within a domain of cultural intelligibility. What distinguishes performance is its qualities that are consciously recognized by performers and an audience. I am particularly concerned with its theatricality, that is, the quality of communicative acts that requires the presence of an audience acting as observers and evaluators (Beeman 1993:383-384). Theatricality is defined in terms of the level of emotional-- including both positive and negative--responses that performance causes on the participants and the level of symbolic reality with a semiotic system distinct from that of unconscious, routine acts (Fischer-Lichte 1992: 139-140; 1995; Pavis 1998:395). In addition, theatricality involves the use of material images in dynamic motion as media of expression and communication, in which the human body takes a central role (Grimes 1987; Read 1993:10). In this sense, theatricality is present in many contexts outside of the modern formal theater. Although many of the events that I discuss may be called rituals, I often use the term theatrical performance to make my theoretical approach explicit (see Moore and Myerhoff 1977). The significance of these theoretical developments concerning performance can be situated in a broader trend in archaeology and other social sciences, which, with inspirations from practice theory and agency theory, calls stronger attention to what people do (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984). This view is accompanied by a broader conceptualization of political processes, which are indissolubly tied with the so-called cultural domain of society. By demonstrating that even tastes for certain types of art are associated closely with asymmetrical power relations, Bourdieu (1984) has criticized restricted conceptualizations that view such cultural practices as nonpolitical acts operating in closed systems of aesthetics (see also Inomata 7 2001b). He has also broken away from the other theoretical extreme in which art, theater, and other cultural domains are treated strictly in terms of the expression or imposition of dominant ideologies. Bourdieu has emphasized their relation to cultural capital, or valued cultural knowledge, which can be converted into symbolic capital and political power. Likewise, Gramscis concept of hegemony has urged social scientists and humanists to examine the all- encompassing political processes. Building on Gramscis ideas, Williams (1977) has noted that hegemony is a process of dominance and subordination, in which political, social, and cultural forces are interlocked in a complex manner. Thus, the concept of hegemony, as a whole body of practices and expectations, over the whole of living, is broader than that of ideology. Such theoretical developments regarding the political implications of cultural practices provide critical inspirations for the archaeological study of performance, which crosscuts the political, social, and cultural domains. The archaeological study of performance even has the potential of going beyond approaches inspired by practice theory. A central issue in this regard is how we grasp the immediacy of material presence and physical action. As important as the influence of practice theory has been, it does not sufficiently elaborate how the materiality of space, in which peoples practices are situated, empowers and constrains agents (Munn 1992; Smith 2003:15; see Hall 1966). Likewise, it does not fully address the bodily presence of audiences who perceive and affect the practices of actors. The study of performance urges us further to examine specific details and processes of embodied acts, material and spatial contexts, and interactions between actors and observers (Inomata and Coben n.d.). The heightened attention to the materiality of space and body also provides an encouraging avenue for archaeological engagement in political thinking. 8 At the critical intersection of culture and politics are the generation, negotiation, and contestation of meaning. The focus on performance provides a perspective different from the one that views the archaeological record as text (see Hodder 1986). The text-based notion of meaning assumes the priority and pre-existence of generative rules, thoughts, and ideas over bodily actions, sensual perceptions, and lived experience (see Geertz 1973; Lvi-Strauss 1963). This assumption is not unrelated to the nature of academic practice centered on intellectual reflections that are detached from the practical concerns of the world (Bourdieu 2000:51; Stahl 2002:829). The study of performance, with inspirations from practice theory and phenomenology, explores the duality--rather than dichotomy--of thought and action without privileging either one of them (see Meskell and Joyce 2003). In other words, performance does not simply transmit preexisting meaning, but also creates new meaning and transforms the existing one. It acts upon the world as it is experienced by participants and creates social changes (Bell 1992, 1997:72-83, 1998; Schechner 1994:626-632; Tambiah 1979). Performance shapes the identities of participants and defines their social relations (Palmer and Jankowiak 1996; Turner 1957, 1972). It follows that performance creates and communicates meaning in a manner distinct from text. Although there usually exists a conventional meaning of performance shared by the majority of a society, such acts are multivocal at a deeper level, representing different meanings for different people and in different situations (Turner 1967:50). The ambiguity and diversity of meanings in performance, however, do not necessarily imply ineffective communication. Seeing is believing. Images do not deceive while words can be easily manipulated (Rappaport 1999; Robbins 2001). Thus, bodily performance may sometimes have more persuasive power than verbal communication. We need to explore the persuasive, creative, and transformative power of performance while recognizing the fluidity, ambiguity, and indeterminacy of its meaning. 9 These considerations lead to an important methodological implication for archaeologists. The inherent multivocality of performance indicates that an overly optimistic view about the possibility of recovering meaning in the past may result in an imposition of the researchers own internal narratives. Wuthnow (1987:332-344) has suggested that what he calls the dramaturgic approach in social sciences, with its focus on the observable dimensions of actions, utterance, and interactions in human lives, shifts researchers attention from the quest of subjective or semantic meaning to a more productive inquiry of the conditions under which symbolic acts are meaningful. This observation is particularly true for archaeology (see Barrett 1994). Instead of presupposing preexisting fixed meanings, archaeologists need to explore contexts and processes in which performance becomes meaningful with tangible social and political effects.
SPECTACLES OF UNITY AND DIVISION Performance may take place on diverse scales, ranging from a solitary act of one individual with deities, ancestors, or natural beings serving as a perceived audience to a mass spectacle involving thousands of people. Theatrical events of different sizes all have important political implications. Even daily practices on small scales can be highly political as they reflect and recreate power relations of the society at large (Bourdieu 1977). We, thus, need to explore diverse operations and functions of theatrical events on different scales without falling into mechanistic categorization. At the same time, the implications of different scales should not be underestimated. In the interest of tight argument, this paper focuses on large-scale performances involving a substantial number of participants, such as public ceremonies, festivals, and courtly interactions. MacAloon (1984b:243-246) and Handelman (1990) call them spectacles and public events respectively. 10 Public events physically bring together numerous individuals and allow them to sense the presence of others and to share common experience. In other words, large public performance grounds the constitution of a community that exceeds the range of daily face-to-face interaction in the physical reality made up by its members (Da Matta 1984; Handelman 1990:116-135; Singer 1959, 1972; Turner 1986:24). It presents moments of a real community. In addition, performers in public events typically dramatize the moral and aesthetic values of a community in ostentatious manners (Singer 1959). Theatrical performance is not simply a reenactment of timeless community traditions, but it objectifies and embodies otherwise abstract notions (Bailey 1996:13; Connerton 1989; Hobsbawn and Rogers 1983; Rockfeller 1999:123). This means that spectacles provided premodern communities, which may have lacked print media and other communication technologies, with opportunities to create shared identities and common values among its members. Theatrical events, thus, have real and direct political effects. They create and recreate a community, sometimes even transcending ethnic and linguistic boundaries (Futrell 1997; Handelman 1990). The central role of theatrical performance in the constitution of a political community implies that it was a critical arena for the negotiation of meaning and power (Comaroff and Comaroff 1991; Dietler 2001). One aspect of this process is the use of theatrical performance for and by the dominants as a means of conveying their versions of worldviews, history, cultural ideals, value systems, and social order (Baines and Yoffee 1998:235; Demarest 1992; DeMarrais et al. 1996; Lucero 2003). Another important aspect is the effect of public performance that defines the political reality. Bloch (1974:59-60) has suggested that the formalized discourse of ritual does not allow deviation, leaving only the alternative choices of either participating in it and following the protocol faithfully or denying such an event totally. The implications of 11 serious confrontation or punishment in the latter choice force most individuals to opt for the former. No matter how the participants resent such events quietly, the acts of participation and following the decorum define certain aspects of the social relations among the parties involved. Theatrical performance, thus, is not empty ritual behind which the real mechanism of power works. It is the real process of politics (Bell 1992:197-223; Kertzer 1988:77-101). Theatrical events, however, rarely work in unambiguous ways. The inherent multivocality of theatrical signs makes the propagation of dominant ideologies difficult, if not impossible. Theatrical performance does not homogenize the emotion and identity of participants (Evans-Pritchard 1974:207-208). The ambiguity of meaning and the uncertainty of effects are indeed critical aspects of ritual and other public events (Fernandez 1972; Kertzer 1988:57-76; MacAloon 1984a:9). As Bell (1992:221-222) points out, ritual and other theatrical events tolerate a fair degree of internal resistance and disinterest among the participants, while requiring their external consent in the form of their participation. Public events become effective because they ground and display a sense of community without overriding the autonomy of individuals. Thus, the solidarity of a community is produced by people acting together, not by people thinking together (Durkheim 1965; Kertzer 1988:76). Scott (1990:2-19, 67-90) particularly emphasizes schisms hidden under superficial conformity. He contends that, whereas the public transcript enacted on public stages is the representation of elites as they want themselves to be seen, both elites and non-elites have their own hidden transcripts played out off stage, which diverge from and contradict the public transcript. In addition, theatrical events may be dangerous times for the dominant, in which the established order can be challenged and subverted (Van Gennep 1960). In particular, carnivals and similar public events may provide occasions on which the populace openly expresses dissent 12 from and resentment toward the powerful (Bakhtin 1968; Kertzer 1988:144-150; Scott 1990:172- 175). The system of cultural and aesthetic values of such events may also bind dominant groups, limiting or weakening their power (Bloch 1986; Inomata and Houston 2001). The paradox of theatrical performance is that even ones designed for the purpose of the dominant simultaneously empower those who are intended to be subjugated through emotional elevation, affirmation of social identities, and renewed affinity to a community (Fernandez 1972). Geertz (1980:123-135) goes further to claim that public performance in the theater state of historical Bali was the states primary purpose. In this view, the elaborate dramatization of cultural themes through royal ceremonies was not a tool for the states political purpose, but the state served for the realization of this cultural drama. This claim appears rather farfetched, and his interpretations have been criticized by Balinese specialists on empirical bases (e.g., Lansing 1991). Theoretically, his view gives primacy to cultural meaning that dictates peoples actions, which is at odds with the central proposition of the present article. Still, Geertzs call for the poetics or aesthetics of power as opposed to the Weberian notion of the mechanics of power provides an important perspective (see Smith 2000; Reese-Taylor and Koontz 2001). Although we should probably avoid Geertzs extreme argument, it is meaningful to explore the historical conditions of theatrical events that stimulated political centralization and stratification. Small, egalitarian societies, as well as large, hierarchical ones, actively engage in public events. The preparation of large-scale spectacle, along with the construction of theatrical space, may have promoted the development of hierarchical organization by requiring dramaturgical and logistical organizers. Clark (2004; Hill and Clark 2001) presents fascinating data indicating that in Formative Mesoamerica extensive plazas were constructed at critical junctures of social transformation from small villages to larger, more centralized communities. Large-scale 13 spectacles with associated architectural spaces may not have been created after and as a result of the establishment of hierarchical political authorities, but they may have preceded and facilitated such political changes (Barrett 1994:27-32; Bradley 1984:73-74). Moreover, public events may have created a condition in which the emergence of central figures in the form of dramatic protagonists was tolerated, or even desired and demanded, by an audience. Such individuals may have had the potential to become political leaders. In this regard, rulers in many ancient polities appear to have shared certain qualities with ritual specialists in non-hierarchical societies and with theater or music stars in the modern world (see Schechner 1994:623). The archaeological study of the development of large, centralized polities should direct its attention not only to the political maneuvering of a small number of aggrandizers but to the motivation and roles of an audience or the masses (Pauketat 2000). These diverse views of theatrical performance are not mutually incompatible. In any society, the potential of performance for ideological unification and imposition coexists with the persistence of multivocality and a possibility for the subversion of power through theatrical acts. So does the use of theater by the state with popular demands for large pageants that facilitate the emergence of a state. We need to examine intersections of such diverse forces and the political dynamics created by them.
THE CREATION OF THE EXTRAORDINARY The study of these extraordinary events does not necessarily run counter to the recent emphasis on domestic lives and daily routines in archaeological studies, but they complement each other. On the one hand, public performance is embedded in social relations, experiences, and economic activities of everyday lives. On the other hand, the memory of past events and the 14 anticipation of future ones shape and affect the perceptions and experiences of daily life. In addition, mass spectacles affect day-to-day routines economically and physically as well, because they require a long period of dramaturgical and logistical preparation, including rehearsal, construction of theatrical stages, and acquisition of foods and gifts to be consumed and distributed during the events. For example, the colonial-period Maya put substantial work into growing turkeys over the year to consume them on rare festive occasions (Cogolludo 1971, I:243, 295), and their Classic-periods ancestors spent many days of the year in constructing plazas and associated buildings. In this regard, there is a certain analogy between perceptions of space and those of time in many societies. As Eliade (1957) noted, in premodern societies the spatial aspect of the world was not experienced as uniformly neutral, but the landscape was marked with monuments and sacred places charged with unique, condensed meaning. The same is true for the temporal aspect. The passage of time was not viewed as monotonous or homogeneous, but as punctuated by heightened emotional experiences of extraordinary events. Even in modern societies, both rites of passage associated with individuals, such as weddings and funerals, and calendrical events of a community, such as New Years Day and Christmas, structure peoples perceptions of time and life. Thus, as we cannot grasp unique public events without addressing their basis in daily life, we cannot adequately understand the ordinary of everyday routines without considering its dialectic relation with the extraordinary. This consideration of the ordinary and the extraordinary leads to the relation between what is generally called the public and private spheres. It should be clear that by focusing on large-scale events I do not intend to privilege the public and the extraordinary over the private and the ordinary. Moreover, an increasing number of archaeologists and 15 anthropologists question the uncritical distinction between the public and the private (Inomata et al. 2002; Robin 2003). This, however, does not mean that we should abandon the concept of the public. The work by Habermas (1991) remains significant in this regard. He demonstrates that what we call the public sphere was developed and transformed under specific social conditions of the modern Western world. Instead of abandoning the concept of the public or presupposing its universality, we need to analyze how the public sphere is constituted in each historical context. For this purpose, the public sphere should be defined in a loose, heuristic manner as a social field of interaction which potentially involves a substantial number of individuals and shapes political processes on a large scale. At the same time, we need to pay attention to the common criticism of Habermas that his notions of public sphere in different periods are highly idealized and their categorical distinctions are overemphasized (Calhoun 1992). Habermas argues that, in the feudal society of Middle Age Europe, the rulers power was merely represented before the people, constituting the publicness of representation, but the public sphere as a social realm of political debate did not exist. Performance theory, however, indicates that such public representations are not one-directional acts. Instead, they involve political negotiations between the central authority and those who view and perceive such representations, though their negotiations may not take explicit discursive forms. These processes, then, are not totally unlike those of the modern public sphere that Habermas describes. I should add that the public nature of political negotiation through performance is not limited to large, centralized polities in the premodern world. Small communities, where daily face-to-face interactions are possible, engage in collective theatrical events, which create important political arenas. Even in modern societies public performances, such as inaugurations 16 and speeches of presidents, continue to have political significance. I should reiterate that the importance of mass spectacles in premodern polities is rooted in the political significance of performance in general, which can take place on diverse scales in diverse social contexts. We need to explore public processes of political negotiation in various historical monuments to expose their commonality and variation.
Theatrical Spaces at Classic Maya Centers PUBLIC PERFORMANCE IN PLAZAS Classic Maya society comprised numerous autonomous or semi-autonomous polities, each centered on the divine ruler. The importance of theatrical performance is evident in stone monuments and other artistic media. These often depict rulers and other elites engaging in performance, indicating that the dominants were not only sponsors of theatrical events but also protagonists. Many stelae show rulers in elaborate attire, such as feather headdresses, masks, jade pectorals, and shell belts, often in the guise of Maize God or other deities (Figure 2) (Houston and Stuart 1996). Some of the accompanying texts specifically note that they are conducting ritual dances (Grube 1992). Tokovinine (2003) identifies a word, chanil in monuments depicting dance scenes, which may be literally translated as something being watched. The meaning and use of this term suggest to him that events such as royal dances were indeed public performance conducted in front of an audience. Other monuments depict elites playing the ballgame, which was a ritual, as well as athletic, event tied to human sacrifice and the creation myth. Many public events probably involved numerous performers, including musicians and dancers, as indicated by the murals of Bonampak (Miller 1986). Although such iconographic depictions provide valuable information, they deal exclusively with performers and remain 17 virtually silent about the role of an audience and the spatial settings of the events. In addition, such pictorial renderings should be viewed as idealized notions of performance and as representations of how performance was remembered rather than as the unbiased record of past events (Bergmann 1999; Joyce 1992). Theatrical performance in Classic Maya society most likely took place in various spatial contexts, including small residential complexes and sacred locations outside of centers, such as caves. Yet many of mass spectacles involving a large audience were probably held in plazas-- large, open spaces surrounded by temples and other symbolically charged buildings that marked the core of every Maya city. The use of plazas for this purpose and the participation of numerous spectators among the colonial-period Maya are well-documented in historical accounts (Barrera Vsques 1965; Ciudad Real 1976:II:314-371; Estrada Monroy 1979:168-174; Tozzer 1941:94, 152, 158-159; see Inomata n.d.). Comparable activities in plazas during the Classic period have been suggested by many Mayanists (e.g., Andrews 1975:37; Fash 1998; Jones 1969; Looper 2001; Lucero 2003; Ringle and Bey 2001). A more significant line of evidence is the presence of numerous stelae there. It is probable that monuments commemorating public ceremonies were erected in the same spaces where the events took place to help people to remember and re-experience their grandeur and excitement (Grube 1992). To develop this argument, I should address competing hypotheses, particularly the one presented by Bassie-Sweet (1991) that many stone monuments represent rituals held in the more exclusive settings of caves. The elaborate headdresses and backracks and heavy jade ornaments shown on stelae, however, appear extremely cumbersome for entering caves, which often require climbing down cliffs and crawling through narrow, muddy passages. Most paintings found in caves indeed render figures with simple clothing (Stone 1995:131-154). 18 Although Bassie-Sweet correctly points out that some stelae present symbols of caves and mountains, it is equally possible that performance was conducted on or in front of pyramids and temples facing plazas that symbolically represented sacred mountains and caves (Schele and Mathews 1998:43; Stone 1995:241). We should note that courtly events held in palace rooms and depicted in ceramic paintings include rulers and other elites wearing relatively simple attire with small headdresses or hats (Reents-Budet 2001). In other words, the attire shown on stelae with enormous headdresses and backracks made of brilliantly colored feathers are far more extravagant than those used in exclusive architectural settings and appear to have been designed specifically for high visibility in mass spectacles. More direct evidence is found at Chichn Itz, Uxmal, and other northern centers, where small, low platforms were placed in large plazas. Noting the association of thrones with these platforms, Ringle and Bey (2001:277) argue that rulers occupied these structures to address large audiences that filled the plazas (see also Kowalski 1987). The Bonampak murals lend further support for this view. They depict scenes of captive presentations and elaborate dances held on a wide stairway, which Miller (1986:115; Schele and Miller 1986:218) has convincingly identified as the one flanking the plaza of this center. This spatial setting presents an effective theatrical stage, heightening the visibility of performers. Although the murals do not show audiences, the plaza was most likely filled with a large number of spectators. Also suggestive is the use of large palanquins to carry rulers and other elites, as depicted on lintels at Tikal and some graffiti (Figure 3) (Chase and Chase 2001b: fig. 4.12; Harrison 1999:133, 153, figs. 77, 94; Trik and Kampen 1983: figs. 71, 72, 73). Ciudad Real (1976:II:327) recorded similar litters used by the colonial-period Maya in public events. Some of 19 the Classic-period palanquins were decorated with enormous statues of deities and jaguars towering behind the rulers. Such ostentatious presentations make sense only for their use in mass spectacles in open spaces. Given these lines of evidence, it is highly likely that a large portion of stelae depict public performance held in plazas and other open spaces in the presence of a large audience, although I do not deny the possibility that a small number of them show rituals that took place more exclusive settings. In this regard, we should note that some of the lintels at Yaxchilan and panels at Palenque appear to represent acts held in semi-closed architectural settings, although others refer to public events comparable to those shown on stelae. In other words, there is a loose correlation between the spatial settings in which various types of art were viewed and those of the acts shown in these art pieces. Stelae set in open plazas and viewed by many visitors depicted public performance involving a large audience, in many cases, held in the same spaces, whereas lintels and panels that adorned elite buildings and could be seen by a limited number of high- status individuals often dealt with rituals attended mainly by court members and held in exclusive spatial settings (see Sanchez 1997). Ceramic paintings were viewed only by a few individuals at a time, typically in elite residences or administrative buildings, and many of them rendered scenes of courtly interactions that took place in similar architectural settings. Thus, stelae and other artistic media typically served to prompt viewers to remember, re-experience, and re-imagine the depicted acts in spatial settings that were the same as, or comparable to, those of the original events. These observations, however, do not mean that plazas were used only for public theatrical events. Various authors have proposed that some plazas were used as market places (Becker 2003:265-266; Jones 1996:86-87; Smith 1982:107). Although direct evidence for market 20 places is difficult to obtain, such use of plazas is not incompatible with their primary function as theatrical spaces. Even in public ceremonies, plazas may have been used in diverse manners. Such events appear to have involved placements of scaffolds and other temporary structures, as well as banners, movable thrones, and palanquins, which affected the movements of participants and their perceptions of theatrical spaces (Houston 1998:339; Suhler and Freidel 2000; Taube 1988). Likewise, erections of stelae in plazas probably narrowed the potential ranges of human bodies physical flow and of the places meanings by emphasizing memories of specific events. The Maya in some cases reset old stelae, which constituted attempts to alter or reconstitute such effects of monuments in the physical and perceptual construction of theatrical spaces.
THE CAPACITIES OF PLAZAS The analysis of plazas as theatrical spaces provides an effective step for the study of public events by archaeologists, who cannot directly observe ancient performance. One way to test the use of plazas is to analyze their potential capacities. In his study of plaza capacities, Moore (1996:147) cites the estimated densities of participants, ranging from 0.46 to 21.6 m 2 /person. The figure of 0.46 m 2 /person would imply a tightly packed area with little space for movement, whereas 21.6 m 2 /person would leave ample space around each person or a large open stage for dynamic performance. The figure of 21.6 m 2 /person, taken from data on Yanomam villages, however, is probably too large for the more urban situations of the Maya lowlands. Anywhere in the world, city dwellers have to endure smaller space than those who live in rural settings. In this article I thus apply the figures of 0.46, 1, and 3.6 m 2 /person. We should note that Moore did not find a consistent correlation between plaza sizes and the estimated populations of the settlements in his analysis of Andean data. He suspects that this is because there existed widely different 21 ways to use plazas for theatrical performance. Thus, these densities need to be viewed only as tentative values for heuristic purposes. I examine plaza spaces of three centers of different sizes as examples (Figure 1): Tikal, which was one of the largest Maya centers (Figure 4); Copn, a center of medium size in the southeastern periphery of the Maya area (Figure 5); and the relatively small center of Aguateca (Figure 6). Tikal had a long history of occupation and monumental constructions since the Preclassic period, and boasted numerous plazas connected by wide causeways. Culbert et al. (1990:116) estimate the Late Classic population of Tikal for the 120 km 2 area defined by seasonal wetlands and earthworks at 62,000 people. Along with the West Plaza and the East Plaza, the Great Plaza probably formed the central ceremonial core of Tikal (Figure 7). Other plazas associated with Temple IV, Temple VI, and twin pyramid complexes, also had the capacities to accommodate a substantial number of people. Early occupations at Copn also date back to the Preclassic period, but substantial constructions at the ceremonial core started during the Early Classic period. According to Webster and Freter (1990:52), the Late Classic population of Copn was around 22,000. The public theatrical space of the primary importance consisted of the large continuous flat spaces of the Great Plaza, the Middle Plaza, the East Plaza, and the Plaza of the Hieroglyphic Stairway (Figure 8). Freidel et al. (1993:463) point out that stone sculptures depicting the Maize God dancing were recovered from a large platform east of the Great Plaza and suggest that the platform was possibly a place for the preparation, practice, or execution of dances. Most ceremonial constructions at Aguateca date to the Late Classic period prior to an enemy attack that resulted in the burning and rapid abandonment of the central elite residential area. Although the analysis of settlement data from peripheral areas of Aguateca is still in 22 progress, 8,000 would probably be a generous estimate of its Late Classic population. Most monuments depicting rulers performances are found in the large Main Plaza. A short causeway connected this highly public space with a more restricted compound of the Palace Group, or a probable royal palace (Inomata 1997). Table 1 indicates that these plazas had substantial capacities. In addition, their layouts show easy access from outside, implying an emphasis on the inclusion of a large number of participants. In particular, the Main Plaza of Aguateca was large enough to accommodate the entire population of its settlement. The combined ceremonial plaza of Copn could also hold the entire population, but it did not make an effective theatrical space with consistent visibility because buildings obstructed sightlines between various parts. The Great Plaza and the Middle Plaza constituted a more consistent theatrical space, but a gathering of the entire population in these areas would have resulted in a highly crowded situation. At Tikal, if participants were packed tightly, the entire population may have been accommodated in each of the central complex, of the area in front of Temple IV, and of the area in front of Temple VI. Realistically, however, most theatrical events probably required ample stages for performers, which would make gatherings of the entire population in these spaces less likely. These observations indicate that, whereas the main plazas of smaller centers may have been able to hold the entire population (see also Houston et al. 2003:234; Looper, 2001:128), public events with the simultaneous presence of the entire community became increasing difficult as the size of a center grew. This tendency may be reflected in the overall site layout of centers of various sizes. Small centers, such as Aguateca, tend to have one large plaza as a focus of community rituals, where most of the stone monuments are found. The medium-sized center of Copn still maintained this focus on one continuous plaza area. Large centers, such as Tikal, tend to have multiple large plazas of 23 comparable sizes, and their stone monuments are more dispersed. In addition to inclusive mass spectacles, the Classic Maya conducted more exclusive performance. Smaller spaces of the East Court of Copn and the Palace Group of Aguateca were most likely places for theatrical events. Along with their arrangements surrounding open, flat spaces, their function as theatrical complexes is hinted at by Structure 10L-25 of Copn and Structure M7-33 of Aguateca. These low platforms appear to have served as open stages without roofs or walls and were probably used for ritual dance (Fash et al. 1992; Inomata et al. 2001). The estimated capacities of these plazas based on the density of 3.6 people/m 2 range from 5.6 to 11.4 percent of the total populations, which may correspond roughly with the elite sectors of society. In addition, architecture and excavated objects suggest that the Palace Group of Aguateca was the primary residential complex of the royal family of this center. Yet we should note that performance in the Palace Group of Aguateca was probably visible not only from an audience occupying the plaza of the complex but also from spectators who stood in the causeway (Inomata 2001a). Theatrical events in restricted spaces appear to have retained a certain level of openness and inclusiveness.
THEATRICAL SPACES AND CITY PLANNING Sequences of construction projects at these centers shed light on strategies of designing community ritual spaces at Maya centers. At Tikal, the final layout of the city resulted from its growth over centuries. During the Early Classic period, the Great Plaza, along with the adjacent East and West Plazas, was probably the primary focus of community-wide spectacles at Tikal, although the Mundo Perdido complex also appears to have provided an important theatrical space. The Great Plaza was located between the North Acropolis, which was the most important 24 funerary place for dynastic members since Preclassic times, and the Central Acropolis, which served as the main residential complex for the royal family (Coe 1990; Harrison 1970). Clearly, this plaza was a symbolically charged place with direct connections to the dynastic past and present. Both during the Early Classic and Late Classic periods, stelae were placed in lines in front of the North Acropolis facing the south, leaving ample space in the southern portion of the area. This pattern may imply that the use of the plaza as theatrical space remained relatively consistent, with performers often occupying the northern part and audiences placed mainly in the southern portion. It is interesting to note that Structure 5D-119, an elevated room built on the roof of Structure 5D-120 (Harrison 1970:27), was equipped with a throne facing Temple I and the Great Plaza (Figure 9). It is probable that the ruler or other elites occupied this vantage point to view theatrical events (see Valds 2001 for a comparable throne at Uaxactun). A significant change in the configuration of the Great Plaza, however, occurred with the construction of Temples I and II, which probably started in the reign of Jasaw Chan Kawiil during the early 8th century (Harrison 1999:142). The construction of the enormous temples diminished the floor space of the Great Plaza and reduced access and visibility between the Great Plaza and the adjacent plazas, thus transforming the Great Plaza into a more exclusive ritual space. In addition, the population of Tikal, as well as that of many other centers, was growing rapidly during this period (Culbert et al. 1990:108). The reduction in flat space in the central area was compensated by a series of construction projects during the reign of the next ruler, Yikin Chan Kawiil, in the mid 8th century. This ruler probably commissioned the construction of Temples IV and VI, along with large open spaces in front of each (Harrison 1999:153-162; Martin and Grube 2000:49). Temple IV measured 64 m in height, and the ruler who stood on the stair of this building must have been visible from a wide area. 25 This sequence shows that the shortage of theatrical space in the central complex was dealt with through the construction of new open spaces associated with newly built temple pyramids. Each space in front of Temples IV and VI is substantially larger than the Great Plaza. This trend of increasing theatrical space can also be seen in twin pyramid complexes. During the Late Classic period, the Tikal dynasty built a ceremonial complex with a pair of pyramids at the end of each katun (20 year period) cycle. For the Maya who enthusiastically held various calendrical rituals, katun-ending ceremonies occurring only a few times in the life of an individual were particularly important. Many stelae from various Maya centers commemorated these events. At Tikal, a newly constructed twin pyramid complex was most likely the main stage of a katun- ending ceremony in which residents throughout the community participated (Jones 1969). Each time, an ever larger twin pyramid complex was built, reaching the apex in Twin Pyramid Complexes Q and R commissioned by Yax Nuun Ayiin II during the late 8th century (Harrison 1999:167-173). Despite these efforts, Tikal appears to have been reaching the point where a congregation of the entire population in one space was physically difficult. The problem may have been mitigated by the use of causeways as additional theatrical stages. Harrison (1999:158, 160) suspects that Yikin Chan Kawiil, who appears to have commissioned Temples IV and VI, was responsible for the construction of the Maler, Maudslay, and Mendez Causeways that connected these temples with other areas. The Mendez Causeway measured 50 to 80 m in width, the Tozzer Causeway 50 to 80 m, the Maler Causeway 20 m, and the Maudslay Causeway 30 to 50 m. Segments of these causeways were as large as plazas of small centers, and their width exceeded the practical needs of daily transport (cf. Chase and Chase 2001a). These wide streets were probably stages for processions by elites, which may have been viewed by a large audience 26 occupying spaces along their edges (see Reese-Taylor 2002; Ringle 1999). The lintels of Temples I and IV depict rulers seated on elaborate litters, which suggests that rulers were carried through causeways before they reached the main stages in front of the temples. The use of causeways as stages of mass spectacle is comparable to that of carnivals and festive parades in large cities of modern societies. At Copn, the Great Plaza and Middle Plaza were constructed at the beginning of the 5th century, which may correspond with the establishment of a dynasty by Kinich Yax Kuk Mo (Traxler 2004). A substantial amount of fill was placed to create a plaza, which suggests to Cheek (1983b:344) that its construction involved a significant part of the community. From the beginning, the plaza appears to have had a dimension and layout comparable to those of the later stage, with its northern end marked by Structure 10L-2 and its southern portion occupied by a ball court. A notable difference is that the area south of the ball court was originally a patio surrounded by platforms, and Cheek (1983b:342-345) proposes that this area served for residential and private use whereas the northern sections were used for public and communal activities. In the later part of the Early Classic, the Copanecos gradually raised the plaza floors, covering some platforms and creating an open space that would become the Court of the Hieroglyphic Stairway. They also laid out the floor of the East Plaza at the beginning of the Late Classic (Cheek 1983a). This sequence may reflect an effort to expand the plaza space as the population of Copan grew. Although over the centuries the Copanecos constructed ever higher pyramids on the southern side, they appear to have consciously preserved plaza spaces. The configuration of the Great Plaza of Copn as a theatrical space may have been altered during the 8th century by the 13th ruler, Waxaklajuun Ubaah Kawiil, who erected a series of stelae in the central section (Figure 2). This arrangement of monuments may imply a 27 somewhat different use of space than that of the Tikal Great Plaza. Fash (1998:240) suggests that the stairs surrounding the Great Plaza of Copn may have provided seating areas for audiences. If so, in many of public events performers may have occupied the central part of the plaza while spectators sat or stood along its edges. Structure 10L-4, located in the center of the open space, probably served as a focal point of such performance. At Aguateca, the Main Plaza was built at the time of the centers foundation around AD 700. Whereas the stelae of the early rulers were placed mainly in front of Structure L8-5 on the eastern edge of the plaza, the last ruler, Tahn Te Kinich, erected his monuments in front of Structures L8-6 and L8-7 located in the southeastern corner, as well as in the middle of the plaza. This may reflect a shift in main theatrical stages with the construction or renovation of these buildings. Prior to the final abandonment, Tahn Te Kinich was in process of constructing a large temple on the western edge (Inomata et al. 2004). Thus, having sufficient plaza space, the ruler of Aguateca did not have to expand it, but the use of this space apparently changed through generations. These analyses show that the configuration of theatrical spaces in terms of movements and placements of performers and spectators varied from one center to another. In some cases, even the use of the same plaza changed over time with the construction of associated buildings and monuments. This observation points to the inherent flexibility of plazas as theatrical spaces. Yet the most important implication of these histories of plazas is that securing sufficient spaces for public events was a primary concern in the design of Maya cities. This means that plazas were meant to accommodate a large number of individuals and such gatherings were extremely important for Maya polities. Plazas and causeways were not secondary spaces defined after the placements of temple pyramids, but social spaces of extreme importance in their own right 28 (Ringle and Bey 2001:278).
Politics of Performance in Classic Maya Society Although some Maya cities held a large population, a significant portion of residents were scattered over wide areas. Dispersed settlement patterns probably fostered a tendency toward the breakup of subject populations from the central authorities (Demarest 1992). Economically, rural non-elites appear to have been largely independent of the central authorities in the acquisition of many economic items, with possible exceptions of foreign materials such as obsidian and of dry- season water supplies from central reservoirs in certain areas (Bishop et al. 1982; Fry 1979; Rice 1987; see Lucero 1999; Scarborough and Gallopin 1991). The centrifugal tendency of Maya populations may have been further strengthened by the high mobility of farmers who could change their residences--and possibly their political affiliations --relatively easily, as did their descendents during the Colonial period (Inomata 2004; see Farris 1984:72-79; Restall 1997:174). It is not clear how important the ties to a specific dynasty were for identities of individual farmers in relation to their connections with kin groups and smaller local groups. I argue that critical elements that held together this precarious integration of Maya communities were mass theatrical events sponsored and organized by the elite. Mass spectacles, in which a large portion of a community assembled and worked together, provided opportunities for individuals to witness and sense the bodily existence and participation of other members. Not only did such gatherings facilitate occasions for exchanging goods, communicating information, and finding mates, but they also created moments of real communities. Large-scale theatrical events gave the physical reality to a community and helped to ground unstable community identities on tangible forms through the use of symbolic acts and objects. In other words, those 29 who gathered for spectacles made a community. Classic Maya communities, thus, were not something totally imagined. This also means that the real community of the Classic Maya was only temporary. The continuous cohesion of a community probably required constant repetitions of physical gatherings of its members. As shown in the Bonampak murals and various ceramic paintings, some spectacles involved numerous elites as performers, but the strong emphasis on rulers found in stelae indicates that symbolically, and often physically, at the center of public gatherings was the body of the sovereign. Rulers were at once the sponsors, organizers, and protagonists of many of the large theatrical events. The visibility of the ruler and other elites was retained to certain degrees even in political and diplomatic meetings of smaller scales that were held in royal compounds and spaces associated with elite residences (Inomata 2001a; Inomata et al. 2002). A Maya term for ruler, ajaw, may be literally translated as he who shouts (Houston and Stuart 1996:295), implying that the origin of Maya rulership was associated with verbal performance in theatrical events. Similar concepts appear to have been shared by other Mesoamerican societies. An Aztec word for ruler, for example, was tlatoani, which means one who speaks, and many Mesoamerican arts depict speech scrolls representing acts of utterance. The centrality of rulers in communal events suggests that the identities of a Maya community revolved around the images of supreme political leaders. Mass spectacles were probably the occasions on which people felt their ties with the ruler most strongly. Large gatherings also gave the best opportunities for the elite to impose their ideologies and cultural values on the rest of society through performance. In public events, rulers often emphasized their divine nature through the impersonation of deities and glorified themselves through the cerebration of victories in warfare and the performance of ballgames that mimicked battles (Freidel and Schele 1988; Houston and 30 Stuart 1996; Inomata and Triadan 2003; Looper 2003; Schele and Miller 1986). Theatrical complexes made up of temples and plazas were also resting places of royal ancestors, which constantly reminded the participants of dynastic continuity. Social memory of dynastic history and tradition, then, was not timeless entity, but a constant process of reiteration and recreation through performance, which at once allowed room for their transformation and for the invention of new traditions. It also means that the references to the dynastic past and royal prerogatives made in theatrical events did not homogenize perceptions and emotions of the participants but provided objectified notions on which they could reflect and act. During the Classic period the number of dynasties increased as new rulers emerged at minor centers. Emergent political leaders were those who took advantage of this flexibility in the system to invent new traditions that legitimized their political power through the claim of divine sanction. These observations highlight the nature of hegemony, which is not a static or given structure, but a process that requires constant attention and action. It is not confined in the narrow domains of political institutions, but involves the wholeness of interrelations between the political, social, and cultural as experienced and acted upon by all those involved (Williams 1977). It follows that theatrical events were not political tools used one-directionally by the dominant groups. Rulers and nobles were strongly bound by the cultural and aesthetic values of theatricality that elites and non-elites alike subscribed to (Inomata and Houston 2001; see Bloch 1986:177). Not only did rulers and courtiers have the right to conduct ritual human sacrifice but also they had the obligation to perform auto-sacrifice of bloodletting accompanied by severe pain and the risk of infection. If they lost in battle, they were the ones who were to be sacrificed. In this sense, emergent rulers at minor centers cannot be viewed purely as the creation of self- 31 aggrandizing individuals. The growing populations of such settlements may have desired figures who would take the central stage in communal events. In addition, the demands of spectacles by elites and non-elites may have been driving forces for political changes not foreseen by the participants. Large theatrical events required careful planning and logistical organization. As the population of centers grew significantly during the Classic period, the organization of ever larger theatrical events and related affairs possibly prompted changes in administrative organizations with the establishment of specialized offices. Moreover, we should note that representations of political relations and values through performance were in constant danger of failing. Theatrical performance as an interaction among participants inherently involved a process of evaluation by viewers. The meaningfulness and acceptability of performance were constructed and negotiated through interactions among participants who shared certain knowledge and expectations but at the same time held divergent, or even conflicting, views. Theatrical events, thus, were dangerous occasions for actors. Poor performance in political theater may have meant the loss of power and status. The strong emphasis on the performance and visibility of rulers implies that they were under constant scrutiny. The political effects of theatrical events were also conditioned by the physical properties of the polities, particularly their demographic and spatial scales. This is precisely because the social significance of performance is rooted inevitably in the physicality of direct interaction and bodily co-presence. In this sense, large Late Classic Maya polities, such as Tikal, Calakmul, and Caracol, may have been reaching a size where political integration through public performance was no longer sustainable. To avoid misunderstanding, I should reiterate that public theatrical events are politically significant in societies of any size, ranging from small hunter-gatherer 32 groups to modern nation states. Yet, their effects are not the same in diverse social contexts. Although Tikal and other large Maya centers invested considerable effort to secure theatrical spaces for mass spectacles, gatherings of the entire community--thus face-to-face contact between elites and non-elites--were becoming increasingly difficult. These large centers may have been moving toward the establishment of a bureaucratic system of a more impersonal nature (Houston et al. 2003:234). It is suggestive that royal compounds of these large centers generally had more restricted access, and their occupants were more shielded from outside than those of smaller centers. The later course of history in the Maya area through the collapse of many Classic-period polities and the emergence of Postclassic centers, however, tells us that Maya society never completely crossed this threshold.
Conclusion Large plazas of Classic Maya centers were designed to accommodate a large number of individuals. The plazas of small to medium-sized centers, in particular, most likely held the majority of the community members on ceremonial occasions. Although the accommodation of the entire population in one plaza became increasingly difficult at large centers as the polity grew, their residents still made a significant effort to secure spaces for mass spectacles by creating plazas outside of core areas and constructing wide causeways. Along with prominent representations of rulers on stone monuments placed in plazas, these data indicate that the Classic Maya strongly emphasized the theatrical performance and visibility of rulers. Theatrical events probably held together a Maya community around the ruler and the royal court, compensating for a tendency toward fragmentation. The elite may have taken advantages of these opportunities to advance their political agendas, but they were at the same time under 33 constant evaluation by viewers. The presence of plazas of varying sizes at a center suggests that theatrical events also divided the community, separating those who were allowed to participate in exclusive performance from the less privileged. These observations remind us that human sociality is rooted in the sensory perceptions of others. Public performance is politically significant in any society precisely because this fundamental aspect of social engagement plays out prominently in theatrical events. Still, social effects of spectacles are particularly evident in premodern centralized polities, in which constant face-to-face interactions of members were no longer possible and print media and other technologies of mass communication were not widely available. In Classic Maya society, and possibly in various other ancient polities in the world, public events gave physical reality to the imagined community as the participants witnessed the bodily presence of others and shared common experience. The political importance of public performance in diverse historical contexts also derives from the process in which it objectifies otherwise abstract notions of cultural and moral values through embodied acts and materialized symbols. Such objectified notions do not necessarily represent homogenized meaning shared by different individuals and groups but provide tangible, common points of reference upon which people can reflect and negotiate. In other words, theatrical events set stages for the creation and imposition of power relations and associated ideologies, as well as resistance to and subversion of them. Instead of assuming the existence of collectively-held subjective meaning in performance, we need to address how performance becomes meaningful in terms of political processes with its inherent multivocality and the inescapable physicality of human bodies, spaces, and objects that condition and effect the social reality as perceived and acted out by the participants.
34 Notes 1 I thank Lawrence Coben, Stephen Houston, and Daniela Triadan for stimulating discussion on this subject. Patricia McAnany and Julia Sanchez, as well as anonymous reviewers, provided thoughtful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.
References Cited ANDERSON, BENEDICT. 1991. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origins and spread of nationalism. 2 nd ed. London: Version. AUSTIN, J. L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BAKHTIN, MIKHAIL M. 1968[1965]. Rabelais and his world. Helene Iswolsky, trans. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. BAILEY, F. G. 1996. Cultural performance, authenticity, and second nature, in The politics of cultural performance. Edited by D. Parkin, L. Caplan, and H. Fisher, pp. 1-17. Providence: Berghahn Books. BAINES, J., AND N. YOFFEE. 1998. Order, legitimacy, and wealth in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, in Archaic states. Edited by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 199-260. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. BARRERA VASQUEZ, ALFREDO. 1965. El libro de los Cantares de Dzitbalch. Mxico, D.F: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia. BARRET, JOHN C. 1994. Fragments from antiquity: An archaeology of social life in Britain, 2900-1200 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. BASSIE-SWEET, KAREN. 1991. From the mouth of the dark cave: Commemorative sculpture of the Late Classic Maya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 35 BECKER, M. J. 2003. Plaza plans at Tikal: A research strategy for inferring social organization and processes of culture change at lowland Maya sites, in Tikal: Dynasties, foreigners, & affairs of state. Edited by J. A. Sabloff, pp. 253-280. Santa Fe: SAR Press. BEEMAN, WILLIAM O. 1993. The anthropology of theater and spectacle. Annual Review of Anthropology 22:369-393. BELL, CATHERINE. 1992. Ritual theory, ritual practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -----. 1997. Ritual: Perspectives and dimensions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. -----. 1998. Performance, in Critical terms for religious studies. Edited by M. C. Taylor, pp. 205-224. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. BERGMANN, B. 1999. Introduction: The art of ancient spectacle, in The art of ancient spectacle. Edited by B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon, pp. 9-35. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art; and New Haven: Yale University Press. BISHOP, RONALD L., ROBERT L. RANDS, AND GEORGE R. HOLLEY. 1982. Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective. Advances in Archaeological Methods and Theory.5:275-330. BLOCH, MAURICE. 1974. Symbols, song, dance and features of articulation. Archives europenes de sociologie 15: 55-81. -----. 1986. From blessing to violence: History and ideology in the circumcision ritual of the Merina of Madagascar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BOURDIEU, PIERRE. 1977[1972]. Outline of a theory of practice. Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -----. 1984[1979]. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Richard Nice, trans. Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press. 36 -----. 2000[1997]. Pascalian meditations. Richard Nice, trans. Stanford: Stanford University Press. BRADLEY, RICHARD. 1984. The social foundations of prehistoric Britain: Themes and variations in the archaeology of power. Harlow: Longman. CALHOUN, CRAIG (ed.). 1992. Habermas and the public sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CANUTO, MARCELLO A., AND JASON YAEGER (eds.). 2000. The archaeology of communities: A New World perspective. London: Routledge. CHASE, ARLEN F., AND DIANE Z. CHASE. 2001a. Ancient Maya causeways and site organization at Caracol, Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:273-281. -----. 2001b. The royal court of Caracol, Belize: Its palaces and people, in Royal courts of the ancient Maya, volume 2: Data and case studies. Edited by T. Inomata and S. D. Houston, pp. 102-37. Boulder: Westview Press. CHEEK, C. D. 1983a. Excavaciones en la Plaza Principal, in Introduccin a la arqueologia de Copn, Honduras, Tomo 2. Edited by Proyecto Arqueolgico Copn, pp. 191-289. Tegucigalpa: Secretara de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. -----. 1983b. Excavaciones en la Plaza Principal: resumen y conclusiones, in Introduccin a la arqueologia de Copn, Honduras, Tomo 2. Edited by Proyecto Arqueolgico Copn, pp. 319-348. Tegucigalpa: Secretara de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. CIUDAD REAL, ANTONIO DE. 1976. Tratado cuioso y docto de las grandezas de la Nueva Espaa: Relacin breve y verdadera de algunas cosas de las muchas que sucedieron al padre fray Alonso Ponce en las provincias de la Nueva Espaa siendo comisario general de aquellas partes. 2 vols. Mxico, D.F.: Instituto de Investigaciones Histricas, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico. 37 CLARK, JOHN E. 2004. Mesoamerica goes public: Early ceremonial centers, leaders, and communities, in Mesoamerican Archaeology. Edited by J. A. Hendon and R. A. Joyce, pp. 43-72. Oxford: Blackwell. COE, WILLIAM R. 1990. Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acropolis of Tikal. Tikal Reports No. 14. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. COGOLLUDO, DIEGO LOPEZ DE. 1971 [1654]. Los tres siglos de la dominacin espaola en Yucatn o sea historia de esta provincia. 2 vols. Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlangsanstalt. COMAROFF, JEAN, AND JOHN L. COMAROFF. 1991. Of revelation and revolution: Christianity, colonialism, and consciousness in South Africa, vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CONNERTON, PAUL. 1989. How societies remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CULBERT, T. P., L. J. Kosakowsky, R. E. Fry, AND W. A. Haviland. 1990. The population of Tikal, Guatemala, in Precolumbian population history in the Maya lowlands. Edited by T. P. Culbert and D. S. Rice, pp. 103-121. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. DA MATTA, R. 1984. Carnival in Multiple Planes, in Rite, drama, festival, spectacle: Rehearsals Toward a theory of cultural performance. Edited by J. J. MacAloon, pp. 209-240. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. DEMAREST, A. A. 1992. Ideology in ancient Maya cultural evolution: The dynamics of galactic polities, in Ideology and Pre-Columbian civilizations. Edited by A. A. Demarest and G. W. Conrad, pp.135-158. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. 38 DE MARRAIS, ELIZABETH, LUIS JAIME CASTILLO, and TIMOTHY EARLE.1996. Ideology, materialization, and power strategies. Current Anthropology 37:15-31. DIETLER, M. 2001. Theorizing the feast: Rituals of consumption, commensal politics, and power in African contexts, in Feasts: Archaeological and ethnographic perspectives on food, politics, and power. Edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 65-114. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. DURKHEIM, MILE. 1965[1915]. The elementary forms of the religious life: A study in religious sociology. Joseph Ward Swain, trans. New York: Free Press. ELIADE, MIRCEA. 1959. The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion. Willard R. Trask, trans. London: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. ESTRADA MONROY, AGUSTIN. 1979. El mundo K'ekchi' de la Vera-Paz. Guatemala: Editorial del Ejrcito. EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. E. 1974. Nuer religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. FARRIS, NANACY M. 1984. Maya society under colonial rule: The collective enterprise of survival. Princeton: Princeton University Press. FASH, W. L. 1998. Dynastic architectural programs: Intention and design in Classic Maya buildings at Copan and other sites, in Function and meaning in Classic Maya architecture. Edited by S. D. Houston, pp. 223-270. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. FASH, BARBARA, WILLIAM FASH, SHEREE LANE, RUDY LARIOS, LINDA SCHELE, JEFFREY STOMPER, AND DAVID STUART. 1992. Investigations of a Classic Maya council house at Copn, Honduras. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:419-42. FERNANDEZ, JAMES. 1972. Persuasion and performances: On the beast in every body...and 39 the metaphors of everyman. Daedalus 101(1):39-60. FISCHER-LICHTE, ERIKA. 1992[1983]. The semiotics of theater. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones, trans. Bloomington: Indian University Press. -----. 1995. Theatricality: A key concept in theatre and cultural studies. Theatre Research International 20:85-89. FOUCAULT, MICHEL. 1977[1975]. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. New York: Pantheon. FREIDEL, DAVID A., AND LINDA SCHELE. 1988. Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The instruments and places of ritual power. American Anthropologist 90:547-567. FREIDEL, DAVID A., LINDA SCHELE, AND JOY PARKER. 1993. Maya cosmos: Three thousand years on the shamans path. New York: W. Morrow. FRY, ROBERT E. 1979. The economics of pottery at Tikal, Guatemala: Models of exchange for serving vessels. American Antiquity 44:494-512. FUTRELL, ALISON. 1997. Blood in the arena: The spectacle of Roman power. Austin: University of Texas Press. GEERTZ, CLIFFORD. 1973. The Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. -----. 1980. Negara: The theatre state in nineteenth-century Bali. Princeton: Princeton University Press. GIDDENS, ANTHONY. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of California Press. GOFFMAN, ERVING. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor. -----. 1967. Interaction ritual. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor. 40 GRIMES, R. L. 1987. Ritual Studies, in Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 12. Edited by M. Eliade, pp. 422-425. New York: MacMillan. GRUBE, NIKOLAI. 1992. Classic Maya dance: Evidence from hieroglyphs and iconography. Ancient Mesoamerica 3:201-18. HABERMAS, JRGEN. 1991. The structural transformation of the public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Thomas Burger, trans. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. HALL, EDWARD. 1966. The hidden dimension. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday Anchor. HANDELMAN, DON. 1990. Models and mirrors: Toward an anthropology of public events. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HARRISON, PETER D. 1970. The Central Acropolis, Tikal, Guatemala: A preliminary study of the functions of its structural components during the Late Classic period. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. -----. 1999. The lords of Tikal: Rulers of an ancient Maya city. London: Thames and Hudson. HILL, WARREN D., AND JOHN E. CLARK. 2001. Sports, gambling, and government: Americas first social compact? American Anthropologist 103:331-345. HODDER, IAN. 1986. Reading the past: Current approaches to interpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press. HOBSBAUN, ERIC J., AND TERRENCE O. RANGER, (eds.) 1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. HOUSTON, S. D. 1998. Classic Maya Depictions of the Built Environment, in Function and meaning in Classic Maya architecture. Edited by S. D. Houston, pp. 333-372. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. HOUSTON, S. H. ESCOBEDO, M. CHILD, C. GOLDEN, AND R. MUOZ. 2003. The moral 41 community: Maya settlement transformation at Piedras Negras, Guatemala, in The social construction of ancient cities. Edited by M. L. Smith, pp. 212-253. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Books. HOUSTON, STEPHEN, AND DAVID STUART. 1996. Of gods, glyphs and kings: Divinity and rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity 70:289-312. HYMES, DELL H. 1975. Breakthrough into performance, in Folklore: Performance and communication. Edited by D. Ben-Amos and K. S. Goldstein, pp. 11-74. The Hague: Mouton. INOMATA, TAKESHI. 1997. The last day of a fortified Classic Maya center: Archaeological investigations at Aguateca, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:337-351. -----. 2001a. The Classic Maya royal palace as a political theater, in Ciudades mayas: Urbanizacin y organizacin espacial. Edited by A. Ciudad Ruiz, M. J. Iglesias Ponce de Len, and M. del C. Martnez Martnez, pp.341-362. Madrid: Sociedad Espaola de Estudios Mayas. -----. 2001b. The power and ideology of artistic creation: Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42:321-349. -----. 2004. The spatial mobility of non-elite populations in Classic Maya society and its political implications, in Maya commoners. Edited by J. Lohse and F. Valdez, Jr. Austin: University of Texas Press. -----. n.d. Politics and theatricality in Maya society, in Archaeology of performance: Theaters of power, community, and polities. Edited by T. Inomata and L. Coben. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. In press. INOMATA, T., AND L. COBEN. n.d. An invitation to the archaeological theater, in 42 Archaeology of performance: Theaters of power, community, and polities. Edited by T. Inomata and L. Coben. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek. In press. INOMATA, T., AND S. HOUSTON. 2001. Opening the royal Maya court, in Royal courts of the ancient Maya, volume 1: Theory, comparison, and synthesis. T. Inomata and S. Houston, pp. 3-23. Boulder: Westview Press. INOMATA, TAKESHI, ERICK PONCIANO, OSWALDO CHINCHILLA, OTTO ROMN, VRONIQUE BREUIL-MARTNEZ, AND OSCAR SANTOS. 2004. An unfinished temple at the Classic Maya centre of Aguateca, Guatemala. Antiquity 78:798-811. INOMATA, TAKESHI, ERICK PONCIANO, RICHARD TERRY, DANIELA TRIADAN, AND HARRIET F. BEAUBIEN. 2001. In the palace of the fallen king: The royal residential complex at the Classic Maya center of Aguateca, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 28:287-306. INOMATA, T., AND DANIELA TRIADAN. 2003. El espectculo de muerte en las tierras bajas mayas, in Entrar en el camino: La muerte en la civilizacin maya. Edited by A. Ciudad Ruiz, M. H. Ruz Sosa, and M. J. Iglesias Ponce de Len, pp. 195-208. Madrid: Sociedad Espaola de Estudios Mayas; and Mxico, D.F.: Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad de Autnoma de Mxico. INOMATA, TAKESHI, DANIELA TRIADAN, ERICK PONCIANO, ESTELA PINTO, RICHARD E. TERRY, AND MARKUS EBERL. 2002. Domestic and political lives of Classic Maya elites: The excavation of rapidly abandoned structures at Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 13:305-330. JONES, CHRISTOPHER. 1969. The twin-pyramid group pattern: A Classic Maya architectural assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania. -----. 1996. Excavations in the East Plaza of Tikal. Tikal Reports No. 16. Philadelphia: 43 University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. JOYCE, R. 1992. Images of gender and labor organization in Classic Maya society, in Exploring gender through archaeology: Selected papers from the 1991 Boone Conference. Edited by C. Claassen, pp. 63-70. Madison: Prehistory Press. KERTZER, DAVID I. 1988. Ritual, politics, and power. New Haven: Yale University Press. KOWALSKI, JEFF K. 1987. The House of the Governor: A Maya palace at Uxmal, Yucatan, Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. LVI-STRAUSS, CLAUDE. 1963. Structural anthropology. New York: Basic Books. LOOPER, MATTHEW G. 2001. Dance performances at Quirigu, in Landscape and power in ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by R. Koontz, K. Reese-Taylor, and A. Headrick, pp. 113-136. Boulder: Westview Press. -----. 2003. Lightning warrior: Maya art and kingship at Quirigua. Austin: University of Texas Press. LUCERO, LISA J. 1999. Water control and Maya politics in the southern Maya lowlands, in Complex polities in the ancient tropical world. Edited by E. A Bacus and L. J. Lucero, pp. 35-50. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association No. 9. Arlington. -----. 2003. The politics of ritual: The emergence of Classic Maya rulers. Current Anthropology 44:523-558. MAC ALOON, J. J. 1984a. Introduction: Cultural performances, culture theory, in Rite, drama, festival, spectacle: Rehearsals toward a theory of cultural performance. Edited by J. J. MacAloon, pp. 1-15. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. -----. 1984b. Olympic games and the theory of spectacle in modern societies, in Rite, drama, festival, spectacle: Rehearsals toward a theory of cultural performance. Edited by J. J. 44 MacAloon, pp. 241-280. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. MARTIN, SIMON, AND NIKOLAI GRUBE. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya kings and queens: Deciphering the dynasties of the ancient Maya. London: Thames and Hudson. MESKELL, LYNN M., AND ROSEMARY A. JOYCE. 2003. Embodied lives: Figuring ancient Maya and Egyptian experience. London: Routledge. MILLER, MARY ELLEN. 1986. The murals of Bonampak. Princeton: Princeton University Press. MOORE, JERRY D. 1996. Architecture and power in the ancient Andes: The archaeology of public buildings. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press. MOORE, S. F., AND B. G. MYERHOFF. 1977. Introduction: Secular rituals: Forms and meanings, in Secular ritual. Edited by S. F. Moore and B. G. Myerhoff, pp. 3-24. Netherland: Van Gorcum, Assen. MUNN, NANCY D. 1992. The cultural anthropology of time. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:93-123. PALMER, GARY B., AND WILLIAM R. JANKOWIAK. 1996. Performance and imagination: Toward an anthropology of the spectacular and the mundane. Cultural Anthropology 11:225- 258. PAUKETAT, T. 2000. The tragedy of the commoners, in Agency in archaeology. Edited by M. Dobres and J. Robb, pp. 113-129. London: Routledge. PAVIS, PATRICE. 1998[1980]. Dictionary of the theatre: Terms, concepts, and analysis. Christine Shantz, trans. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. PEARSON, MIKE, AND MICHAEL SHANKS. 2001. Theater/archaeology. Routledge, London. 45 RAPPARPORT, ROY A. 1999. Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. READ, ALAN. 1993. Theatre and everyday life: An ethics of performance. London: Routledge. REENTS-BUDET, D. 2001. Classic Maya concepts of the royal court: An analysis of renderings on pictorial ceramics, in Royal courts of the ancient Maya, volume 1: Theory, comparison, and synthesis. Edited by T. Inomata and S. D. Houston, pp. 195-236. Boulder: Westview Press. REESE-TAYLOR, K. 2002. Ritual circuits as key elements in Maya civic center designs, in Heart of creation: The Mesoamerican world and the legacy of Linda Schele. Andrea Stone, pp. 143-165. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. REESE-TAYLOR, K., AND R. KOONTZ. 2001. The cultural poetics of power and space in ancient Mesoamerica, in Landscape and power in ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by R. Koontz, K. Reese-Taylor, and A. Headrick, pp. 1-28. Boulder: Westview Press. RESTALL, MATTHEW. 1997. The Maya world: Yucatec culture and society, 1550-1850. Stanford: Stanford University Press. RICE, P. M. 1987. Economic change in the lowland Maya late Classic period, in Specialization, exchange, and complex societies. Edited by E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle, pp. 76-85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RINGLE, W. M. 1999. Pre-Classic cityscapes: Ritual politics among the early lowland Maya, in Social patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Edited by D. C. Grove and R. A. Joyce, pp. 183-224. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. RINGLE, W. M., AND G. J. Bey, III. 2001. Post-Classic and Terminal Classic courts of the northern Maya lowlands, in Royal courts of the ancient Maya, volume 2: Data and case 46 study. Edited by T. Inomata and S. D. Houston, pp. 266-307. Boulder: Westview Press. ROBBINS, JOEL. 2001. Ritual communication and linguistic ideology. Current Anthropology 42:591-614. ROBIN, CYNTHIA. 2003. New directions in Classic Maya household archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11:307-356. ROCKFELLER, STUART ALEXANDER. 1999. There is a culture here: Spectacle and the inculcation of folklore in highland Bolivia. Journal of Latin American Anthropology 3:118- 149. SANCHEZ, JULIA L. 1997. Royal strategies and audience: An analysis of Classic Maya monumental art. Ph.D. dissertation. University of California Los Angeles. SCARBOROUGH, VERNON L., AND GARY G. GALLOPIN. 1991. A water storage adaptation in the Maya lowlands. Science 251:658-662. SCHECHNER, RICHARD. 1977. Essays in performance theory: 1970-1976. New York: Drama Book Specialists. -----. 1988. Performance theory, revised edition. New York: Routledge. -----. 1994. Ritual and performance, in Companion encyclopedia of anthropology: Humanity, culture and social life. Edited by T. Ingold, pp. 613-647. London: Routledge. SCHELE, LINDA, AND PETER MATHEWS. 1998. The code of kings: The language of seven sacred Maya temples and tombs. New York: Scribner. SCHELE, LINDA, AND MARY ELLEN MILLER. 1986. The blood of Kings: Dynasty and ritual in Maya art. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum. SCOTT, JAMES C. 1990. Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcript. New Haven: Yale University Press. 47 SINGER, MILTON B. 1959. Traditional India: Structure and change. Philadelphia: American Folklore Society. -----. 1972. When a great tradition modernizes. London: Pall Mall. SMITH, ADAM T. 2000. Rendering the political aesthetic: Political legitimacy in Urartian representations of the built environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:131- 163. -----. 2003. The political landscape: Constellations of authority in early complex polities. Berkeley: University of California Press. SMITH, A. LEDYARD. 1982. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Major architecture and caches. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 15, No. 1. Cambridge, MA.: Havard University. STAHL, ANN BROWER. 2002. Colonial entanglements and the practices of taste: An alternative to logocentric approaches. American Anthropologist 104:827-845. STONE, ANDREA J. 1995. Images from the underworld: Naj Tunich and the tradition of Maya cave painting. Austin: University of Texas Press. SUHLER, C., AND D. FREIDEL. 2000. Rituales de terminacin: Implicaciones de la guerra maya, in La guerra entre los antiguos mayas: Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque. Edited by S. Trejo, pp. 73-104. Mxico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia. TAMBIAH, STANLEY J. 1979. A performative approach to ritual. Proceedings of the British Academy 65:113-169. TAUBE, K. 1988. A Study of Classic Maya Scaffold Sacrifice, in Maya Iconography. Edited by E. Benson and G. Griffin, pp. 331-51. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 48 TRAXLER, L. P. 2004. Redesigning Copan: Early Architecture of the Polity Center, in Understanding Early Classic Copan. Edited by E. E. Bell, M. A. Canuto, and R. J. Sharer, pp. 53-64. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. TOKOVININE, ALEXANDRE. 2003. A Classic Maya term for public performance. http://www.mesoweb.com/features/tokovinine/performance.html. TOZZER, ALFRED M. 1941. Landa's Relacin de las cosas de Yucatan. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 18. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University. TRIK, HELEN, AND MICHAEL E. KAMPEN. 1983. Tikal report No. 31: The graffiti of Tikal. University Museum Monograph, Vol. 57. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. TURNER, VICTOR W. 1957. Schism and continuity in an African society. Manchester: Manchester University Press. -----. 1967. The forest of symbols. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. -----. 1972. The ritual process. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. -----. 1986. The anthropology of performance. New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications. VAN GENNEP, ARNOLD. 1960. Rites of passage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. WILLIAMS, RAYMOND. 1977. Marxism and literature. Oxford: Oxford University Press. WEBSTER, D., AND A. FRETER. 1990. The demography of Late Classic Copan. in Precolumbian population history in the Maya lowlands. Edited by T. P. Culber and D. S. Rice pp. 37-61. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. WUTHNOW, ROBERT. 1987. Meaning and moral order: Explorations in cultural analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press. 49 Table 1: The Sizes and Estimated Capacities of Plazas of Tikal, Copan, and Aguateca
Area (m 2 ) Estimated Capacities (Number of people and the percentage of the total population) 0.46 m 2 /person 1 m 2 /person 3.6 m 2 /person
Tikal (estimated population = 62,000) Great Plaza 8,506 18,491 29.8 % 8,506 13.7 % 2,363 3.8 % West Plaza (include areas in front of Temple III) 22,918 49,822 80.4 % 22,918 37.0 % 6,366 10.3 % East Plaza 6,969 15,150 24.4 % 6,969 11.2 % 1,936 3.1 % Total Central area 38,393 83,463 134.6 % 38,393 61.9 % 10,665 17.2 %
Area in front of Temple IV (include parts of the causeways) 30,068 65,365 105.4 % 30,068 48.5 % 8,352 13.5 % Area in front of Temple VI 25,963 56,441 91.0 % 25,963 41.9 % 7,212 11.6 %
Aguateca (Estimated population = 8,000) Main Plaza 11,456 24,904 311.3 % 11,456 143.2 % 3,182 39.8 % Palace Group Plaza 3,289 7,150 89.4 % 3,289 41.1 % 914 11.4 %
Note: The areas of plazas include the surround terrace steps. The capacities of terrace steps are based on their areas regardless of the number of steps.
50
Figure 1. Map of the Maya area with the locations of the centers mentioned in the text. 51
Figure 2. Stela H of Copn that depicts the ruler, Waxaklajuun Ubaah Kawiil, in elaborate ceremonial attire. Behind it is the stairway that defines the eastern edge of the Great Plaza. 52
Figure 3. A graffiti found at Tikal, which depicts a ruler carried on a large litter with a statue (Trik and Kampen 1983: Figure 72). 53
Figure 4. Map of Tikal. 54
Figure 5. Map of Copn.
55
Figure 6. Map of Aguateca.
56
Figure 7. The Great Plaza of Tikal viewed from Structure 5D-71 of the Central Acropolis. 57
Figure 8. The Middle Plaza and the Great Plaza of Copn viewed from the ball court. 58
Figure 9. The throne of Structure 5D-119 of the Central Acropolis, which faces the Great Plaza.