JULIA

A. HENDON Harvard University

Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: An Archeological Study

This article uses archeological data to examine how social relations allocate economic andpolitical power in ancient complex societies. Based on recent excavations in the Copan Valley, Honduras, the socioeconomic organization o f the basic residential group is reconstructed and the existence o f a pervasive social hierarchy demonstrated. I argue that during the Late and Tenninal Classic periods, the Maya were organized into a series o f internally ranked and externally stratifid status lineages (Goldman 1970) that structured social, economic, and political relationships.

HIS ARTICLE EXPLORES THE ROLE OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE as a shaper of economic and political systems in ancient complex societies using archeological data from the Lowland Maya area of Mesoamerica. Rather than consider social structure only as a normative or ideal set of constructs, I approach it from the perspective of a system defined by actual human behavior (Wolf 1990). I will focus on those social relations which seem to be of critical importance for the behaviour of members of the society, so that if such relations were not in operation, the society could not be said to exist in that form (Firth 1963:31). Cross-cultural studies have shown that certain aspects of the relations produced by this behavior may be fossilized in architecture, spatial patterns, mortuary customs, and style (Hendon 1991; Tainter 1978). Fundamental to my interest in the archeological manifestations of social structure is a concern with the ways that a particular system of organization orders and regulates the allocation of power and the control of human energy (Wolf 1990). Adams ( 1975:10) defines power as that aspect of social relations that marks the relative equality of the actors or operating units; it is derived from the relative control by each actor or unit over elements of the environment ofconcern to the participants. Power derives first from energy and second from the ability to direct that energy; in other words, on the control of resources and the productive means to exploit and distribute these resources. It is thus socially defined power, since the particular elements of the environment considered worthy of control will be to a large extent culturally determined (Adams 1975). The role of monumental architecture, exotic materials, and stylistic elaboration as embodiments of energy and resource control and thus of power is well demonstrated (Trigger 1990). Integral to a consideration of the distribution and form of power is a concern with social rank and stratification. As Adams (1975: 165-1 73, 246-247) has argued, ranking is universal, not unique to humans, and cannot be restricted to a particular stage of human social evolution. It cannot be correlated with a specific form of political organization nor easily limited to one level of some ideal typology (see also Trigger 1984). From this vantage point, a ranking system orders a group of people within a particular socially defined set, acting at the same time as a coordinating device and a setter of priorities. Stratification is a kind of macro-ranking that operates on these sets, ranking them with respect to one another. [Tlhe sets are themselves distinguished by the fact that the members of
JULIA

A . HENDONis Indexer, Touer Library, and Research Associate, Peabody Museum OfArchaeology and Ethnology, Haruard Universily, 21 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, M A 02138.

894

Hendon]

STATUS AND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

895

one are extremely unequal, as a collectivity, to the members of the other (Adams 1975:247). In many precapitalist, nonindustrialized societies, ranking and stratification are based on the concept of the inherent superiority of the line of descent (Goldman 197O:xvi),a concept both stable and flexible. Kinship and descent thus become the mechanisms by which individuals are ranked within their social group and such groups are stratified across the society as a whole. Such ranking creates a series of nested inequalities both within a particular group and vis-8-vis other groups. The elite produced by this system of social status (Goldman 1970:4) are linked, on the one hand, by shared rank and associated privilege to one another and, on the other hand, to the commoner segment of their own social group. Although grounded in control of material resources, the existence and form of the status system are legitimated by ideology that ascribes superior worth, power, and ability to the elite (Adams 1975:234-239; Godelier 1978; Goldman 1970:16). Epigraphic evidence clearly shows the importance of genealogy and ideology in the creation, definition, and maintenance of a social status system among the pre-Hispanic Lowland Maya (Demarest 1989; Schele 1991; Tate 1986). The hieroglyphic inscriptions, however, attest primarily to the political aspects of this stratification and focus mainly on the ruling line (Carlson 1980). We must turn to other facets of the archeological record, such as settlement patterns, architecture, material culture, and burials, to address effectively the social and economic relations of the system as a whole. In this article, I focus on the evidence available for the activities, social organization, and economic role of the rest of the elite. By this phrase, I designate a group of people of high status who nevertheless are not part of the rulers immediate family and are, at least in ideal terms, his political subordinates. Members of this group appear occasionally in inscriptions that record their titles, genealogy, and certain stereotyped activities (e.g., Riese 1989; Schele 1991; Tate 1986). The archeological manifestation of this group can be clearly seen in the zoned settlement pattern common to many Maya sites. In this pattern, size and monumentality-defined by Trigger (1990: 1 19) as scale and elaboration exceed[ing] the requirements of any practical functions-of residences decrease with distance from the civic-ceremonial center. This pattern typically creates three zones: ( 1) the center itself with the most elaborate residences and other monumental construction; (2) an adjacent area of large, well-built, and often decorated residences; and (3) an outer zone of smaller and more dispersed residences (e.g., Fash 198313; Kujack 1974; Willey and Leventhal 1979). The amount of energy invested in these structures (Abrams 1989; Gonlin 1985) and the associated artifacts provide evidence of differential control of and access to material resources, the foundation of power. At the same time, the design, decoration, and construction of the residences provide a visual statement of this power (Hendon 1991). Drawing on data from the Late to Terminal Classic periods in the Copan Valley, Honduras (ca. A.D. 650-1000), I examine residential sites in one such elite inner zone. My analysis has two parts. I first discuss the kinds of activities, their spatial distribution, and their association with types of buildings in order to look at what the residents of these sites did and where they did it. These patterns allow me to draw certain conclusions about consumption, production, and ritual behavior of direct relevance to the study of social relations. This part of the paper speaks directly to the recent archeological interest in the household through its charting of the behavior of co-residential groups (e.g., MacEachern, Archer, and Garvin 1989; Wilk and Ashmore 1988). The household, however, is not the primary focus of my analysis; rather, I use the evidence for shared activities as a way to examine the social relations of the occupants of these sites. The second part of my analysis concentrates on the evidence for differences in status among the residents of the area. Such differences manifest themselves in three aspects of the archeological record: ( 1) architectural elaboration; (2) the presence of scarce, exotic, and culturally valued materials; and (3) the treatment of the dead. By combining these patterns with other sources on the Maya and more general analogies, I propose a model

896

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

of Maya social organization that considers the composition of the major social groups, their residential patterns, and their interrelationships. Many previous discussions of Maya social structure have focused on economics, arguing that differences in status should result from occupational specialization or, more broadly, from the control of craft production and distribution (e.g., Adams 1970; Kurjack 1974; McAnany 1989). However, the evidence for craft specialization among the Maya suggests to me that it augmented rather than created elite power (see Aldenderfer, Kimball, and Sievert 1989; Mallory 1984). As I will show, this is certainly the case for the Copan Valley, where neither control of raw materials nor of specialized production created or sustained the elite in the inner zone. The one clearly established example of largescale specialized production for regional exchange in the Maya Lowlands during the Late Classic period occurs at the site ofColha in Belize, a small center in a peripheral location (Shafer and Hester 1983). Patronage of craft specialists or control over the distribution of their products no doubt gave the elite additional ways to reinforce their high status through personal display or gift giving but did not serve as the primary basis of rank or power. Such power was based on the control of basic productive resources-land and labor-and was structured through descent and kinship. This structure, underwritten by a validating ideology that gave certain individuals and groups higher status by virtue of descent, created a series of ranked coordinate groups (Adams 1975:210) that were relatively autonomous economically even while centralized politically under the politys ruling lineage (see Demarest 1989; Sanders 1989; cf. Carrasco 1976; Goldman 1970; Kan 1989). Much discussion of ancient Maya social, political, and economic organization has taken place within the context of settlement pattern studies that rely more on surface survey and limited excavation than on large-scale excavations. Thus, visible architectural features and their spatial relations have been emphasized at the expense of artifacts and their associations. Such work also privileges the discussion of administrative hierarchies or regional economic networks (e.g., Ashmore 1981). My own data derive from four years of excavation carried out by the Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copin Fase I1 (PAC 11) under the direction of William T. Sanders. Working in the eastern part of the inner zone of occupation within one kilometer of the civic-ceremonial center, the project excavated three large residential sites from 1981 to 1984 that collectively offer a rich set of material ideally suited to address the issue of Maya social structure and power relations. By exposing the final phase construction of each site and then trenching, the project recovered information on architectural plans, construction techniques, trash deposits, in situ artifacts, and interments. This methodology yielded an impressive sample of completely exposed buildings, of artifacts from primary and midden contexts, and of burials (Sanders 1986a). It has allowed me to concentrate on the in-depth study of the buildings and associated artifacts from these three sites rather than on the generation of broad patterns (see Harrison 1970; Willey and Leventhal 1979). Such an approach both complements settlement pattern studies and reveals greater internal variation within residential sites than is usually accommodated in the broad categories typically used in the analysis of surface remains (see Hendon 1990).

The Copan Valley

The Valley of Copan lies in western Honduras at an elevation of 600 m above sea level. It is watered by the Copan River, which flows west-southwest, eventually draining into the Motagua River in Guatemala. Prehistoric settlement radiates out from the main civilceremonial center (the Main Group) to cover most of the fertile valley floor and enclosing foothills. Test-pitting and excavation programs carried out since 1975 have established the broad function and chronology of these sites (Fash 1983b; Freter 1988; Webster and Gonlin 1988; Willey and Leventhal 1979). Most served as places where people lived and most date from A.D. 650-1000, with some occupation continuing as late as A.D. 1200

Hcndon]

STATUS AND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

897

(Vie1 1983; Webster and Freter 1990; Willey and Leventhal 1979). The basic settlement unit consists of the patio, made up of three or more structures arranged around an open courtyard. Closely spaced clusters of such patios are considered to be one site. In PAC terminology, these clusters are known as groups and are numbered using a valleywide grid system (Fash 1983b). Baudez (1983), Longyear (1952), and Sanders (1986b, 1990) discuss the valleys physical and archeological features in depth. The three groups studied here appear in Figure 1. They are Gr. 9N-8, one of the largest in the valley with at least fifteen patios, Gr. 9111-22, a three-patio group, and Gr. 9M-24, which has only one patio (Hendon 1987:75-80). Figures 2-4 show the patios (designated by letters) and structures of each group after excavation (see Hendon 1987:ch. 4 for individual structure descriptions). I focus on 54 buildings from Patios A-F, H, K, and Alpha of Gr. 9N-8,24 from Patios A and B of Gr. 9M-22, and 5 from Gr. 9M-24. Although a large burial sample from all excavations is currently under analysis (Storey 1985, 1986), I will discuss only the subset for which detailed information on grave goods and type of interment is already available.

10

11

Figure 1 Inner zone o f Copan Valley showing location of Groups 9N-8,9M-22, and 9M-24.

898

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93,1991

Domlnwnt Structuro

Figure 2 Excavated patios of Group 9N-8.

10m

Activity Distribution and Building Use in the Copan Valley

As a first step in creating a model of ancient Maya social structure, I focus on identifying the kinds of activities ordinarily carried out in residential sites and their association with particular kinds of structures. Of necessity, such an analysis cannot be based solely on the form or distribution of the structures themselves but must also, and primarily, concentrate on an adequate collection of associated artifacts. Merely charting the distribution of artifacts across space is also inadequate; one must consider the kinds of artifacts as well as their location. For the Copan settlement, a large data base is available that incorporates a wealth of architectural and artifact information on the excavated structures. I have used as many kinds of artifacts from primary contexts as possible. Although it is clearly impossible to identify or adduce evidence for the entire range of activities that may have occurred in

Hcndon]

STATUS AND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

899

Dominant Strvctures

Dominant Structure

l a

Dominant Structure

Figure 3 Patios A and B of Group 9M-44.

Figure 4 Group 9M-44.

the residential groups due to the realities both of human behavior and archeological formation processes (see Hendon 1987:lOO-104),the data base available from PAC I1 ex-

900

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

cavations offers the opportunity to identify some of the activities most commonly associated with residential groups cross-culturally (Hendon 1989; Wilk and Rathje 1982). In my analysis, which is summarized here and presented in detail in Hendon (1987, 1988, 1989, 1991), I chose five classes of activities as most pertinent to the examination of residential areas: (1) food preparation and cooking, (2) food serving and consumption, (3) ritual observances, (4) manufacturing and production, and (5) storage. A sixth class, sleeping, was also included, although no artifacts were associated with it (Hendon 1987:ch. 1; 1989). The summary presented below stems from the comparison of the content and location of these deposits. Their distribution has been studied through the identification of artifacts function (based on a comparison of formal properties, analogy with modern Mesoamerican groups, and use-wear analysis [Mallory 1984]), the evaluation of the kinds of activities from which these artifacts derived, and the location and spatial association of artifacts using both physical and statistical co-occurrences. Certain kinds of artifacts are studied most intensively because they seem to relate more to quotidian activities than to expressions of social status. These classes are: (1) ceramic vesselfonn, considered more meaningful than type, (2) ground-stone artifacts (principally manos and metates), (3) bone artifacts and unworked animal bone, and (4) lithic artifacts, both chert and obsidian. The distribution of artifacts and activities in the data base as a whole has been studied using two statistical techniques, principal components analysis and cluster analysis. The two approaches produce complementary results that suggest common associations between certain kinds ofartifacts, which in turn suggest that they had been used in the same activities (Hendon 1987:ch. 5). As a second approach, I also look at the in situ material (features) to see what kinds of artifacts occurred together in these deposits and where these different sets occur (Hendon 1987:381-390). In addition, I divide the material from primary contexts by location-rooms, terraces, and platforms-and compare their relative artifact frequencies and distribution using stem-and-leaf plots and chi-square analysis (Hendon 1987:ch. 6; 1989). In this way I have been able to gather information on which activities predominate in these different locations. Once the distribution of artifacts representing these activities is established, it is possible to examine their patterned relationships with various formal features of the structures, such as building plan, room layout, and size. Among the possibilities investigated are (1) that certain activities occur more often in certain kinds of rooms or structures and (2) that activities overlap in distribution, indicating a multifunctional use of space. There are two basic types of structures in the inner zone, those with and those without superstructures. Those with superstructures are compared on the basis of the number of rooms present as well as on room layout, orientation, access, and interior details, such as benches, niches, ledges, and cord-holders. The amount of terrace space is also considered. Although the superstructures vary in size, number of rooms, arrangement, and furniture, certain regularities exist, some of which are discussed below. Those without superstructures, here called platforms, have been compared in terms of location within patios, distribution across patios, and size. The conjunction of these lines of evidence makes it possible to identify relationships between artifact distribution and certain regularities in building layout. Based on this work I have identified three major functional types of structures in the inner zone: (1) ancillary structures, (2) residential structures, and (3) ritual structures. The first category is the most uniform in form, distribution, and associated activities. The second type, residential structures, can be subdivided into several distinct spatial components-rooms without benches, rooms with benches, and terraces. The fine-grained artifact studies have made it possible to show the kinds of activities associated with these components. Ritual structures are variable in form, location, and distribution.
Ancillary Structures

The first distinct type consists of buildings used as storehouses and as cooking and food-preparation areas. Artifacts from deposits associated with these structures display

Hendon]

STATUS AND POWER IN CUSIC MAYA SOCIETY

901

a consistent and statistically significant preponderance of large and small jars and small bowls with restricted necks, whose formal properties and similarity to modern and historic Maya vessels lead me to interpret them as storage vessels (see Hendon 1987:314361, 456473; 1988, for a discussion of vessel form and function). Food-preparation artifacts, such as three-pronged braziers, manos, and metates, also occur. A general lack of the decorated bowls, plates, and cylinders used for food serving and of the censers used in ritual observances further characterizes these deposits. They also lack evidence for manufacturing activity, such as bone needles, awls, or spindle whorls. Most of the platforms have associated midden deposits as well. This distinctive artifact profile coordinates with a unique set of architectural traits. All except two of these ancillary structures are platforms that either never supported a building at all or had a superstructure built entirely of perishable materials. The two exceptions, in Gr. 9M-24, have low cobble wall bases supporting perishable walls. Such construction contrasts with the residential structures in the inner zone, where stone walls predominate. Size also differentiates ancillaries from residences. O u t of a sample of nineteen, all but two are under 25.0 m2 in surface area. In fact, the entire set of ancillary structure areas falls within the range of most individual rooms in residential structures (Hendon 1987:figs. 6.3-6.5). Although consistent in size, ancillary structures are quite inconsistent in distribution. Of the nineteen identified, thirteen are in Gr. 9111-22, while Gr. 9M-24 has two (Figures 2, 4). Gr. 9N-8, despite being the largest group, has only four: three in or near Patio C and one in Patio H. Half of the platforms abut the backs or sides of residential structures. Some of these are very low constructions. The rest, however, are as high or only slightly lower than their adjacent residential structures. The remaining ones, which are freestanding, are found in the corners of the patio or behind residential structures, often outside the boundaries of the patio area. These patterns of size, location, and construction only come together in a meaningful way when considered in conjunction with the artifact distribution data referred to earlier. It is the confluence of these regularities that causes me to identifjr the structures as storage and food-preparation, rather than living, space. Residential Stmctures Based on artifact clusters and architectural features, most of the structures in the three sites fall into this category. Functionally, residential structures are used for sleeping and many tasks associated with daily living. In the Copan Valley, this includes not only food preparation and consumption but ritual observances and small-scale specialized production as well (Hendon 1989; see also Gonlin 1985; Webster and Gonlin 1988).Formally, residential structures stand apart from ancillary ones through the possession of a partially or completely stone superstructure built on top of the raised substructure. The top of the substructure surrounding the superstructure forms a paved open space referred to as a terrace. Traits distinguishing the superstructures from one another include number of rooms, room access and orientation, and presence or absence of a bench. Benches are built-in furniture constructed ofa dirt-and-cobble fill retained by one or more stone walls topped by a cobble paving and often a thick coat of lime plaster. They come in three shapesrectangular, L-shaped, and U-shaped. Ledges, niches, and cord-holders are examples of other built-in features. Many rooms, even in multiroom superstructures, have their own doorway onto the terrace, face onto the patios courtyard, and have one rectangular bench. Some rooms with benches are built on the ends of the superstructures and face away from the courtyard. There is also a class of rooms that cannot be entered directly from the terrace and usually lack a bench. Benchless rooms serve as the functional equivalents of ancillary structures based on in situ artifacts and statistical associations. Artifacts related to cooking, food preparation, and storage, such as metates, three-pronged braziers, and large basins, dominate these assemblages (Hendon 1987:ch. 5; 1988). In one case, ballgame paraphernalia was stored

902

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

in a residential structure in Patio A of Gr. 9N-8 (Webster, Fash, and Abrams 1986). A quite different set of activities can be inferred from yet another in situ deposit. Two rooms in Patio Hs western structure contained clear evidence of the production of shell ornaments and the storage of associated materials (Hendon 1987228-232; Widmer 1983). The location of rooms without benches contrasts markedly with the storage platforms, however. Most of these rooms are found in Gr. 9N-8 (10 of 17). Small, with an area usually under 7.0 m2, close to three-quarters of these rooms open into another room rather than onto the terrace. Patio Alpha of Gr. 9N-8 has two rooms with benches that contained in situ material like that found in benchless rooms (Hendon 1987:table 5.31). These rooms are part of a complex of five rooms around a paved area built in the small space between Patios B and H (see Figure 2). Access to Patio Alpha is restricted to a single corridor between the north and central superstructures of Patio Hs western building. Thus, although they have benches, these sequestered rooms are as difficult to get to as the Fnchless rooms elsewhere in the group. A very high percentage (between 60% and goo/,) of the rooms studied possess at least one bench, which takes up from 60% to 80% of the available room area and almost invariably sits opposite the entrance. Most such rooms have their own entrance leading onto the terrace. The varying combinations of artifacts in the primary deposits associated with these rooms suggest a wide range of activities (Hendon 1988, 1989). Artifacts indicative of food serving (e.g., cylinders, plates, and small decorated bowls and dishes) and artifacts representing ritual activities are common. In addition, some rooms were the locus of production of certain items such as shell or bone objects or, in Gr. 9M-24, obsidian tools. This indicates that both rooms with and without benches were used for such purposes. Working of shell as well as animal bone probably took place in rooms with benches in Patios D and H, as well as in the benchless room already described. Tools related to weaving (bone picks), spinning (spindle whorls), and sewing (bone needles) occur most frequently in room contexts. Their distribution indicates that activities related to cloth production were fairly widespread in Gr. 9N-8 and Gr. 9M-22 (cf. Freter 1988:197; Sanders 1989). Several studies have suggested that benches were used as sleeping and sitting platforms in Lowland Maya residences (Adams 1970; Harrison 1970:152-1 74). These conclusions are based on the size of the bench and its placement within the room, as well as on the occurrence of cord-holders, which may have supported some sort of partition. Other indicators are the presence ofwall niches that might have been used for storage, a generally domestic constellation of artifacts, and similarities between the actual benches and ones depicted in painted or carved scenes. All of these criteria are found in Copans inner zone, with the addition of a much larger artifact data base with more specific contextual associations than is usually available. Wall niches and narrow ledges are found in some benched rooms, while cord-holders occur in a number of rooms on the inside of the front wall. The location of cord-holders can be seen as determining who controls access to the buildings interior space (Hohmann and Vogrin 1982:80-81). The fact that all structures whose cord-holders are preserved have them on the inside walls indicates that their use was controlled by people inside the rooms. Cases where a benchless room attaches to one with a bench form a suite, with the side rooms serving as the storage area. Not all rooms with benches have an associated storage room, however. Some of these rooms have a narrower bench, leaving a small side area, which could have served as a less private substitute. Numerous ancillary structures make up for this lack in Gr. 9M-22 and Gr. 9M-24. It would have been much easier to limit access to benchless rooms or side areas than to platforms, suggesting a greater control of storage space in Gr. 9N-8 and in certain structures of the two other groups. Such differences in location and type of storage space may indicate a greater atomization of storage and food preparation in Gr. 9N-8 than in Gr. 9M-22 or Gr. 9M-24. It does not necessarily

Hendon]

STATUSAND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

903

follow, however, that only the residents of the adjacent living room had rights to the contents of the rooms or to the results of the activities carried out therein. The social organization of the residents of the different structures in the patio determined use of the spaces or of the items they contained. The spatial patterns do imply that control of these spaces was probably greater in Gr. 9N-8 and that access to the rooms themselves was correspondingly more restricted. All of the residential structures have wide front terraces running the length of the substructure. Two factors suggest that terraces were more than walkways facilitating movement from one room to another. The first is the presence of in situ artifact deposits on some terraces. Food-preparation (grinding stones, obsidian blades, jars, and animal bone), food-serving (decorated plates and cylinders), ritual (censers and figurines), and weaving artifacts are common components of terrace primary deposits (Hendon 1987:table 5.31). Statistical comparison of terrace deposits with those of rooms and platforms suggests that cooking, indicated by a higher-than-expected frequency of comals and three-pronged braziers, took place outside of the superstructures on the terraces as well as on platforms (Hendon 1989). The second factor that indicates the importance of terraces is the construction of raised platforms. The placement of many of these elevated terraces, flanking superstructure entrances, actually impedes movement between rooms or superstructures. Other raised terraces attach to the side of the superstructure. Most elevated terraces are under 7.0 m2 although the side terraces tend to be much larger than the front ones. The artifacts in terrace deposits, as suggested above, reflect most strongly activities related to food preparation, such as maize grinding, food processing (especially of meat), and cooking. The conjunction of the artifacts with a specific architectural feature leads me to interpret elevated terraces as deliberately constructed workbenches to be used by the occupants of the nearby residence for tasks requiring good light (e.g., weaving) and/ or ventilation (e.g., cooking). The terrace can thus be added to the rooms as an integral part of a residence. At its most elaborate, then, a Copan Valley residence has not only a suite of rooms for living and storage but a large exterior work space as well. Therefore, it is not surprising that elevated terraces are more common in Gr. 9N-8 and Gr. 9M-24 (perhaps providing space for obsidian tool production) than in Gr. 9M-22 with its numerous ancillary platforms.

Ritual Structures
There are six structures distinguished from residential and ancillary structures both by their architectural form and the associated artifacts (Hendon 1987:ch. 7; 1989; see also Gerstle 1985). They distribute unevenly across the three groups-none in Gr. 9M-24, one in each of the two patios of Gr. 9M-22, and four in Gr. 9N-8 (see Figures 2-4 for their location). Although marked by a relative dearth of associated artifacts when compared to the other types of structures, those present tend to be related to ritual activities, such as censers, candeleros, and figurines. In contrast to the residences, they rarely have associated caches or burials. Three of these structures, in Patios A and H of Gr. 9N-8 and Patio A of Gr. 9M-22, have a relatively higher and squarer substructure than do residences or ancillary platforms (see Figures 3 and 4 for their location). Furthermore, each has a predominantly or completely perishable superstructure with one large room and a poorly preserved, unusually small bench. These three structures approximate to a certain extent the formal features of the temple as defined by Becker (1971) for Tikal and widely accepted since. The fourth ritual structure is a very small platform built in the courtyard of Gr. 9N-8s Patio E (Figure 3). It resembles, both in form and location, mid-patio shrines found at Mayapan (Proskouriakoff 1962) and elsewhere Uoyce 1986; Leventhall983). The fifth structure, located in Patio D of Gr. 9N-8, has a single large room with no bench and two entrances. The final structure, in Patio B of Gr. 9M-22, was worse preserved than most,

904

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

making it difficult to say anything about its form (Figure 4). It is, however, a large, freestanding substructure with no obvious superstructure (see Mallory 1984). The identification of these structures as ritual is thus based partly on resemblances to buildings so interpreted at other Mesoamerican sites. Of equal importance, however, are the differences from the other kinds of structures in the three groups-the absence of middens behind the substructures, the lack of benches or their small size relative to that of the room, and the differences in form. As noted above, two commonly cited features of ritual structures, especially templesburials and caches-are missing or rare. The lack of burials suggests that, unlike those found at civic-ceremonial centers, inner zone temples did not serve primarily as funerary monuments. Caches are associated with only two ritual structures. The temple in Patio H contained a cylindrical censer housing a Spondylus shell and a carved greenstone pectoral (Gerstle 1985). The building in Patio D had a dog buried below the floor of its large room (Gerstle 1988). In contrast, most residential caches consist of a single polychrome bowl, plain cylinder, or cylindrical censer, although manos have also been found (Hendon 1987:ch. 4; Willey and Leventhal 1979). They are usually found well inside the fill of the structure, placed at the time of construction of a new version of the building. Summary o f Activities and Their Distribution

To sum up, then, I have identified certain distributional patterns that indicate variation in the location and organization of domestic, economic, and ritual activities. Evidence for essential activities of daily living, including food preparation, food consumption, and storage, is found in all patios examined, but in different locations. Independent platforms are used in Gr. 9M-22 and Gr. 9M-24 for storage and food preparation as opposed to benchless rooms and terraces in Gr. 9N-8. Gr. 9M-24 also uses terraces perhaps in connection with the production of obsidian tools. Some terraces, especially in Gr. 9N8, have been improved as work areas by the addition of an exterior bench. Specialized production exists, but on a very small scale. Gr. 9N-8 residents concentrated on such high-status items as shell jewelry and, possibly, bone objects. In contrast, Gr. 9M-24s residents produced obsidian blades, the basic tool in the Copan Valley. Weaving tools and unworked bone found in a number of rooms indicate that other production, possibly of utilitarian items for household use, also took place. Finally, ritual activities can be analyzed on two levels. First, the distribution of ritual artifacts shows that religion was an integral part of residential group life (Hendon 1989). Second, the occurrence of special ritual structures is uneven, as they are not found in all patios studied.

Evidence for Ranking and Stratification in the Copan Valley

The repeated occurrence of the basic activities considered here suggests that each patio functioned as a separate social-residential unit. Overall, the distribution of activities indicates a degree of autonomy on the part of each patio, counteracted only by the uneven distribution of ritual structures in Gr. 9N-8. As I have suggested elsewhere (Hendon 1989), the location ofa ritual structure between Patios A and B suggests it was shared by their residents and possibly those of Patio C. This is the only example ofsupra-patio ritual integration in the three groups. Nevertheless, despite their evident organizational independence, differences exist in the distribution of building material and architectural decoration, of certain kinds of artifacts, and of burials, within and across patios. These differences provide evidence of unequal access to resources and energy, allowing us to evaluate the existence and nature of ranking within the patio-based residential unit and of stratification (as defined earlier) within and across the three groups. Architectural Materials and Decoration Comparison of the three groups to one another and to the Main Group and other excavated sites (e.g., Webster and Gonlin 1988; Wiley and Leventhal 1979) reveals a series

Hendon]

STATUS AND POWER IN CUSSIC MAYA SOCIETY

905

of contrasts in building material, layout, and decoration. Superstructures in the Copan Valley, for example, may be built completely of stone, of a combination of stone and perishable materials, or entirely of wattle-and-daub. The stone used may be roughly faced river cobbles, shaped blocks of green tuff, or finely dressed tuff ashlars. The latter predominates in the Main Group, while wattle-and-daub houses are most common in the outer zone (Hohmann and Vogrin 1982; Webster and Gonlin 1988). Three kinds of roofs are known-vaulted, beam-and-mortar, and thatch. Energetic studies by Abrams ( 1989) and Gonlin (1985) have demonstrated that the greater permanence and visual impact of stone construction, particularly when using ashlars, require a correspondingly greater expenditure of time and/or labor. The difference between perishable and stone construction in the inner zone is mostly functional. As detailed above, perishable structures are by and large storage and foodpreparation loci, although some are ritual structures. Stone structures are either residences or ritual buildings. Most of these superstructures use a mixture of tuff ashlars and cobbles. The tuff is generally placed on the front of the building, while cobbles form the back and side walls, suggesting a desire to display the tuff as prominently as possible (Hendon 1987:ch. 4; 1991). Although considerable variation exists within each group, it is instructive first to compare the three groups to one another. Over half (57.6%) of Gr. 9N-8s superstructures use only stone and around one-third have vaulted or beam-andmortar roofs. In contrast, only 15% of Gr. 9M-22s superstructures, either residential or ritual in function, have completely stone walls or nonthatched roofs. Twenty percent of Gr. 9M-24s buildings have stone walls, but all have thatched roofs (Hendon 1987:121125). Eight residences and one temple have architectural decoration in the form of sculpture or hieroglyphic inscriptions. Seven residences and the temple are in Gr. 9N-8; the other residence is in Gr. 9M-22. Within Gr. 9N-8, the decorated buildings are concentrated in Patios A (four), B (two), C (one), and D (one). A greal deal of contrast is evident in the visibility of the sculpture-in terms of quantity, size, and placement on the buildingand its themes, whether portraits of individuals, supernaturals, animals, or abstract motifs. One can arrange the buildings in a hierarchy of decreasing visibility of decoration and specificity of theme (Hendon 1991). The most complex and detailed ornamentation is found on Structure 9N-82C, the southern building ofGr. 9N-8s Patio A, and Structure 9M-l95B, Gr. 9M-22s decorated building. These two buildings have large figures placed high up on all four sides with a second set of figures lower down (Fash 1989; Sheehy 1981). Structure 9N-82C also has a bench carved with a long hieroglyphic inscription featuring a nonruling member of the elite (Riese 1989). The exterior sculpture or texts on the other buildings are all placed on the lower part of the front wall only. Several of the buildings have abstract sculpture; those cases of anthropomorphic or zoomorphic sculpture do not represent individuals. This contrasts with the upper figures on Patio As southern building, which are held to be portraits of humans (Baudez 1989; Fash 1989). The one other text, on the northern building of Gr. 9N-8s Patio C, is much shorter than the hieroglyphic bench but also mentions a nonruling elite (R. Joyce, personal communication, 1990). The use of tuff and the addition of decoration add to the energetic requirements of construction and the monumentality of the building (Abrams 1989; Trigger 1990). The themes and the texts are expressions of the same ideology displayed in the iconography and inscriptions of the ruler found in the center but with the emphasis shifted to the occupants of the residences (Hendon 1991; cf. Schele 1991). More generally, the elaboration of residences, both in their basic materials and their ornamentation, provides an example of the use of architecture to reinforce the social hierarchy by making visible differences in power-that is, differences in the control of energy, in access to resources, and in the ability to manipulate cultural symbols (Trigger 1990).

906

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93,1991

Dominant Structures

The data show status differences within each patio as well. Every completely excavated patio except H and Alpha of Gr. 9N-8 has at least one residential structure noticeably better built (cf. Gonlin 1985; Haviland 1968). These buildings, which I have called dominant structures, can be characterized as extremely finely constructed and highly decorated versions of the residential structures (Figures 2-4). Most dominant structures are on the north or west sides of the patios. They have higher substructures and more compact superstructures, and are of superior construction compared to others in their patio. These statements do not indicate, however, that for each patio only its dominant structure is well built and has a vaulted roofor decoration. Nevertheless, these particular structures show a consistent association with these elements that is lacking in other structures. Patios as a whole also vary in the quality of construction and architectural elaboration of their buildings. Only the dominant structure in Patio E, for example, is built ofdressed tuff with a vaulted roof. Furthermore, it is smaller and less decorated than almost all the structures of Patios A, B, or C. All but one of these structures has a multi-roomed superstructure with one large room facing onto the patio and one or two benchless side rooms or areas. In addition, one or more rooms with benches, oriented away from the patios, are built on the ends of the superstructure. The main room is large, with a generously proportioned rectangular bench. The independent, perpendicular rooms, on the other hand, are usually small and often have an L- or U-shaped bench. Formal tombs are found near some of these buildings below the patio surface; less commonly they are found inside the substructures. Although not all such structures have nearby tombs, most of the contemporary tombs found in the excavations are associated with this sort of building. In contrast, the majority of burials in or near other structures lack any sort of formal grave, although they often have burial offerings. When compared to other residences, these dominant structures have less associated primary and midden material. What is present, however, indicates food serving or consumption and ritual but not food preparation. In all cases, however, one or more of the adjacent structures have clearly marked food-preparation areas. In some cases, a platform has been built next to or abutting the dominant structure. This is the case for Structure 9M-195B in Gr. 9M-22s Patio A. In other cases, one of the neighboring superstructures has one or more benchless rooms or terraces where food was prepared (see Hendon 1987:table 7.8). Although similar structures have been interpreted as administrative buildings or family lineage shrines (i.e., Leventhal 1983), their form and associated artifacts indicate to me that they are residences and domestic structures (see Gonlin 1985; Haviland 1968). Rather than indicating a different function, their better construction and greater decoration suggest a higher social rank for their occupants. The large size of the main room, with more bench and floor space than usual, suggests that it may also have been the site of meetings involving occupants of the other residences in the patio. At the same time, the size of the room may serve as a marker of the higher status of the buildings residents. The ability to command a larger amount of interior space may be related more to social standing than to family size. This idea is supported by the fact that, despite a number of burials, all rooms in Gr. 9M-24, even in its dominant structure, are smaller than those in the other two groups. A hierarchy of dominant structures exists within either of the multi-patio groups (i.e., 9N-8 and 9M-22). In Gr. 9N-8, the dominant structure of Patio A, Structure 9N-82C, is the most elaborate and the largest of the entire group. Besides its exceptionally fine construction and sculpture, it has onc of only three hieroglyphic benches reported to date outside of the Main Group. If may have had the most public function of any of these structures. However, I would still argue, on the basis of its form and associated artifacts, that it was used as living space. As noted earlier, the dominant structure of Gr. 9M-22s

Hendon]

STATUSAND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

907

Patio A, Structure 9M-195B7 parallels that of Gr. 9N-8s Patio A in the quantity and placement of its exterior sculpture. Structure 9M-195Bs western neighbor lacks the sculpture and is slightly smaller but otherwise is identical to the dominant structure in quality of construction and plan. Both of these buildings are larger and more impressive than Patio Bs dominant structure. None of the other patios shows such a pairing.

ImportGd and Local Fancy Ceramics

Thirty percent of the ceramic rims from middens and primary contexts, the sample used in this section, are what I call fancy ceramics (Hendon 1987:317). I intend this term to reflect the complexity of their surface treatment. It refers to decoration and does not imply that such ceramics are necessarily nonutilitarian in function or more expensive to produce or acquire. They usually take the form of cylinders, bowls of various kinds, or tripod plates. My study of vessel function has shown that most were used for food serving and consumption in residential, domestic contexts despite their elaborate decoration, showing that type of decoration is not a good indicator of vessel use (Hendon 1987:326361). Their appearance in caches and burials, however, implies that such vessels also played an important part in certain rituals. Several prominent types of fancy ceramics, including Copador Polychrome, Gualpopa Polychrome, and Chilanga Red-on-Usulutan, have been shown definitively to have been produced within the Copan Valley (Beaudry 1984). Another set offancy types are clearly imported. Given their symbolic role in the society and the presence of imports, representing an exotic and scarce resource, the distribution of such ceramics may serve as another material expression of differences in social status. I have merged together related types to create four categories: Surlo, Copador Polychrome, Locally produced polychromes other than Copador (hereafter Local), and Foreign polychromes (described more fully in Hendon 1987:314-3 17; 1988). Surlo ceramics are distinguished by orange-brown paste and a variety of surface treatments including modeling, carving, and incising (Viel 1983). Almost 40% of the fancy ceramics considered here belong to this category. Copador Polychrome, with a fine-grained, white-beige paste, the distinctive use of red paint containing specular hematite, and a suite of characteristic motifs, is held to be the hallmark of the Copan Late Classic (Longyear 1952; Willey and Leventhal 1979). Given this identification of Copan with Copador polychromes, it is interesting that only onequarter of my sample in fact belongs to this type. The category of other local polychromes brings together types such as Caterpillar Polychrome, Gualpopa Polychrome, and Chilanga Red-on-Usulutan that have the same paste as Copador but lack specular hematite paint (Viel 1983). It also includes some related painted and incised types and eroded rims with appropriate paste. One-third of the fancy group are Local polychromes. The inclusion of eroded sherds has inflated this figure somewhat but not significantly. The final category, Foreign polychromes, contains all those whose decoration, form, and paste (based on macroscopic inspection) identify them as having been produced outside of the valley. Viels analysis (1983), unfortunately based on a small proportion of the ceramics recovered, indicates that the majority comes from central Honduras, an area that includes Lake Yojoa, the Naco Valley, and the Santa Barbara region (see also Joyce 1986, 1988). Others are of the type Arambala Polychrome, called False Copador by Longyear, and probably come from western El Salvador (see Beaudry 1984). The occurrence of each of these four groups in each patio appears in Table 1 as a percentage of the total fancy rims in the patios middens and primary contexts. Burials and caches are excluded. Clearly, Gr. 9N-8 has the most imported ceramics. Within the group, the occurrence parallels the architectural hierarchy discussed earlier. Patio A has the highest percentage (1 1.5) and Patios E and F the lowest (3.2) (see Gerstle 1988:11& 133 for an alternative analysis).

908

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

Table I Distributionof fancy ceramics from middens and primary contexts in each patio of Groups 9N-8,9M-22, and 9 M 2 4 . '
Copador
Group and Patio 9N-8 Patio A Patio B Patio C Patio Db Patios E and F Patio H 9M-22 PatioA Patio B 9M-24
~

Local
(YO)

Surlo

Imported
(%)

0 0 )

(YO)
38.1 48.2 33.7 34.3 30.9 41.8 36.8 22.0 69.3

Total fancy sherds 485 926 350 3,291 786 1,468 685 2,385 1,696

19.6 32.4 22.3 36.2 30.9 29.6 14.0 14.6 4.9

30.7 12.5 38.3 22.9 35.0 21.7 46.1 63.4 24.4

11.5 6.9 5.7 6.6 3.2 6.8 3.1 0.0 1.3

"Expressed as a percentage of total fancy sherds from each patio. bIncludes some material from Patios I and K.

The indigenous fancy ceramics in the Gr. 9N-8 assemblages distribute fairly evenly with some variation in which category dominates. A very different pattern appears in the other two groups. In Gr. 9M-22, Local polychromes are heavily represented, especially at the expense of Copador. Gr. 9M-24, on the other hand, has a great amount of Surlo relative to the other fancy sherds. As expected, imports are much less available and appear to correlate well with the intra- and intergroup social hierarchy based on the architectural evidence. The representation of fancy ceramics at two other inner zone sites excavated in the 1970s by the Harvard University Copan Valley Settlement Pattern Project, Gr. 9N-18/ CV-43-47 and Gr. 9M-27lCV-20, has been reported by Beaudry ( 1984:228-233). From her data, one can see that 90.5% of fancy ceramics from the site of Gr. 9M-27 are Copador, 2.7% are Gualpopa Polychrome (a Local type), and 6.8% are Babilonia Polychrome (i.e., Foreign). For the site ofGr. 9M-18, 75% are Copador, 8.0% Gualpopa, and 2.0/0 Babilonia. Copador dominates the fancy ceramic assemblage of these two sites much more heavily than in Groups 9N-8, 9M-22, or 9M-24. However, the rarity of the Foreign ceramics is similar. Certain methodological differences may explain these differences, at least in part. Beaudry considers only one of the several types merged in my Local polychrome class, does not include Surlo, and has no midden material to draw on. At the same time, these patterns may also reflect, in part, variation in preference for one or the othkr sort of locally produced polychrome. It is instructive to compare these inner zone samples with those found in the outer zone. Based on preliminary data supplied by Nancy Gonlin from the excavation of seven small sites, fancy ceramics make up 10% or less of the sherd assemblage from each site. From 88%-95% of the fancy ceramics from these sites were too eroded to type, but the distinctive Copador/Local paste was obvious. Of the remaining, less than 1% are imports. In other words, fancy ceramics in general are less common in these outer-zone small sites, while the imported polychromes are almost nonexistent. O n the other hand, Copador and Local polychromes dominate more clearly in the small sites' fancy assemblages than in the inner zone ones analyzed here. These data agree with Beaudry's analysis of earlier test-pitting operations, which found that fancy ceramics occur throughout the valley and that the locally produced ones predominate over imports (1984:223-228).
Obsidian

Despite the existence of local chert adequate for tool production, obsidian blades are the basic tool throughout the Copan Valley (Mallory 1984:258-259). Coming from the

Hendon]

STATUSAND POWER IN CLASSIC M A Y A SOCIETY

909

Ixtepeque source in Guatemala (Freter 1988:108-113), obsidian was brought into the area in sufficient quantity to supply both the inner and outer zones. As mentioned earlier, several sites show evidence of intensive but small-scale blade production and use. Despite such specialization, Mallorys study of lithic manufacture shows that most residential groups produced their own tools as needed. Based on these data, access to obsidian was not restricted nor was production centralized.

Ornaments
The objects considered here are all items ofpersonal adornment or use. The ornaments are made of imported materials, including greenstone (such as jade or serpentine), obsidian, shell or turtle shell, and local animal bone. They include earspools, beads, pendants, and, possibly, hair ornaments (Hendon 1987:311-313, 361-371). Such artifacts are found in small numbers in middens or primary contexts such as rooms. Gr. 9M-24 and Gr. 9M-22 Patio A have no examples at all, while Gr. 9N-8 Patio A has only a couple of bone ornaments. Most stone ornaments and pieces ofworked shell, turtle shell, or bone are found in Patios B, D, or H of Gr. 9N-8 or Patio B of Gr. 9M-22. Because of the contextual associations of most of the shell and bone from Patios D and H, however, their high numbers are due more to their being produced there than to their use as markers of social status. Figurines Based on a preliminary analysis of figurines and whistles from all contexts excavated by PAC 11, almost 70% are imported from west and north of the Copan Valley (cf. Gerstle 1988:115-I 17, 147-150). I have identified one group whose style and paste, a finegrained orange micaceous clay, suggest an origin in the northern Ulua Valley or Central Alluvium, where such sites as Travesia and Santa Ana are found (Gordon 1898; Joyce 1985). A second group contains figurines with a paste similar to the first but without the inclusion of mica. This paste and their style indicate that they may have come from central Honduras around Lake Yojoa or possibly the southern part of the Ulua Valley (Baudez and Becquelin 1973;Joyce 1985). There is no real difference in the frequency of these two paste groups in my sample54% of the imported figurines have micaceous clay, while 47% do not. Unlike the ornaments, figurines are found in middens and primary contexts, such as on terraces or in rooms, in all patios ofall groups (Gerstle 1988:117; Hendon 1987:tables 5.31,6.24,6.37). There seems to have been little emphasis on figurine manufacture but considerable importance placed on figurine possession and use. Burials One might argue that if the artifacts discussed above served primarily as markers of an individuals social rank or position, they would be rare in trash deposits or in situ remains. This expectation is borne out for the ornaments but not for the fancy ceramics or the figurines, suggesting a different social role for these objects. Fancy ceramics had quite a utilitarian function as receptacles for food and drink while at the same time indicating social differences among their users. Figurines, I believe, were important components of religious observances at the level of the residential unit, accounting for their widespread distribution. Therefore, in order to gain more insight into material expressions of social structure, I will consider burial practices. I emphasize certain broad patterns, an approach necessitated by incomplete publication of the data and ongoing skeletal analysis (Storey 1985, 1986). A progression of interment types can be seen starting with stone-walled, vaulted tombs with niches, like ones found in the Main Group (Joyce 1986; Longyear 1952), and moving to smaller, unvaulted stone-lined crypts. A third type is marked by direct placement in dirt or building fill. The body is placed with care, usually in a flexed position, and it is

910

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

probable that a grave was originally dug. The final type is not strictly speaking a kind of burial at all, since the bodies are essentially thrown away with no care given as to placemen t. Location of burials is also patterned. Most tombs are either found below the courtyard floor in front of the dominant structure or within its substructure. Some patios such as Gr. 9N-8 C and E have tombs associated with other structures as well (see below). Crypt burials occur in substructures of nondominant structures or below the patios surface. Burials in simple graves, the most common type, are placed along the fronts and sides of substructures below the patio. Unlike tombs and crypts, more than one burial of this type can be and often is associated with a single structure. Another place for graves is in the midden deposits found behind many buildings and some have also been found inside substructures. The throwaways also turn up in middens as well as substructure fill. In at least one case both simple graves and crypt burial were found in association with one building (Hendon, Fash, and Aguilar 1990). Plain Surlo cylinders and flaring-walled dishes are the most common ceramics placed in vaulted tombs. Usually two of each were included, placed in the wall niches. Shell or greenstone earspools, pendants or buttons (i.e., objects sewn on clothing), obsidian blades, stingray spines, and Spondylus shells also appear. Other fancy ceramics are found in tombs as well, including Foreign, Local, and Copador polychromes (see also Beaudry 1984; Gerstle 1988). Crypts have a similar range of offerings. Burials in graves usually lack pottery or the more elaborate sorts ofjewelry. Ceramic beads, bone tools, or obsidian blades are more common. Figurines have also been found in burials of both adults and children (Gerstle 1988:157, 182-186; Webster, Fash, and Abrams 1986:228). There are two known examples, both in Gr. 9N-8, of tombs or crypts in residential structures whose contents were removed by later occupants. In each case, the tomb, located in the substructure, was cleaned out and filled with dirt prior to construction of the next phase of the building (Diamanti 1992; Hendon et al. 1990). As noted above, a second tomb is found in association with the dominant structure for both patios. A wealth of data on social organization and status exists in the PAC I1 burial sample, which can be touched on only briefly here. Comparison across patios is difficult because of incomplete data, but a few observations are possible. Neither Gr. 9M-24 nor Patio A of Gr. 9N-8 has tombs or well-made crypt burials (Gonlin 1985; Webster, Fash, and Abrams 1986). This lack in Gr. 9M-24 may be seen as another instance of its relative lack of resources and prestige compared to the other groups. Such an explanation does not work for Patio A, however. Excavation of this patio put less emphasis on structure trenching, however, and this may account for the overall low number of burials (Storey 1986). Within patios, social differences among the individual residents appear clearly in the range of burial types and offerings. Even Gr. 9M-24 shows this through the variety of mortuary goods, despite the lack of variation in interment type. A few burials have fancy ceramics or greenstone associated, while the rest have nothing (Gonlin 1985). Storeys (1985, 1986) preliminary remarks show that such variation is not solely by sex or age, although more tomb occupants are adult males than females or subadults. The emptying of tombs in two patios when rebuilding the associated structures suggests that preeminence in the residential-social group could shift over time. We do not know what was done with the original contents of the tombs. However, in at least one case, a secondary burial, possibly of bones from the tomb itself, was created. In Patio C, disarticulated bones were found above the replaced capstones of the emptied tomb along with three fancy vessels. This makes the deposit look much more like a cache than a true burial.

A Model of Maya Social Structure

In the preceding pages, I have argued that each patio was a residential unit by showing the occurrence of such basic domestic activities as cooking, storage, sleeping, eating, and production for household use. This constellation of activities is repeated in each of the

Hendon]

STATUSAND POWER IN CLASICMAYA SOCIETY

91 I

patios studied here with consistent architectural associations. Artifacts used in ritual observances, such'as censers, figurines, and candeleros, occur in all patios in intimate association with residences. Production of basic necessities, such as obsidian tools and cloth, is dispersed. In contrast, specialized manufacture of shell and bone ornaments is concentrated in Patios D and H of Gr. 9N-8. It is this repetition and lack of specialization that lead me to see the patios or, more properly, their occupants as enjoying a great deal of economic and religious autonomy. Based on the evidence for shared ritual activities, economic self-sufficiency, and residence, it seems clear that the people living in each patio formed a corporate social group defined not only by shared residence but also by kinship. The large number of burials of both sexes found in all patios, ranging in age from neonates to mature adults, strongly supports this interpretation (Storey 1985). Physically linked residential structures also suggest close social ties. In many cases, two or more independent superstructures share the same substructure. Others, once freestanding, are joined by the interpolation of new rooms. Substructures also merge with their neighbors to form L- or U-shaped platforms (see Figures 2 and 3). The two multi-patio groups represent examples of larger social groupings. Certain physical remains suggest a great deal of cooperation and amity among residents of the patios. Patios A and B ofGr. 9N-8 share a raised, artificial platform. Patios B and C share an actual building, which simultaneously forms the west side of Patio B and the east side of C (see Figure 2). Although all the rooms face onto Patio B, a staircase built on the opposite side leads from the courtyard of Patio C to the building's rear terrace. Once on the terrace, one can walk into Patio B at the south end of the building. In addition, three small rooms that face onto Patio C and were clearly used by its residents abut the north wall of this shared building (Hendon et al. 1990; Hendon, Fash, and Aguilar 1990). Patio Alpha is an example of wall sharing that involves three patios. Rear walls of structures from Patio B, Patio D, and Patio H became room walls for the five small rooms built in the narrow space between these patios. In Gr. 9M-22, abutting low platforms that were used for food preparation filled the space between Patios A and B (Hendon 1987:507-512). Another indicator of social integration is the sharing of a possible ritual structure by Patios A, B, and C of Gr. 9N-8. Counterbalancing this autonomy and cooperation is the marked variation within and across patios in residential construction and decoration, mortuary offerings, and possession of certain imported goods. These patterns indicate unequal access to resources and human energy. They also indicate differences in the use and, by implication, the right to use material symbols of cultural significance (Hendon 1991; Trigger 1990). Access to foreign polychrome ceramics, shell, and greenstone is more restricted because of their importance as markers of social status. The other main imports, obsidian and figurines, did not fill this role and therefore are much more widely distributed in domestic and ritual contexts. All patios and, by extension, all three groups show this internal variation. Such physical hierarchy, which I take to reflect a social hierarchy, is most strongly marked in Gr. 9N-8. The use of ancillary structures in Groups 9M-22 and 9M-24, versus benchless rooms in Gr. 9N-8, shows differences in the allocation and control of space and in the activities carried out in that space. Not only are the ancillary structures more accessible but they are often associated with more than one residential structure (see Figures 3 and 4). This suggests in turn that a larger subsection of the residents of Groups 9M-22 and 9M-24 shared the use of each ancillary structure for food preparation and storage than in Gr. 9N-8, where benchless rooms are generally associated with a single superstructure. These patterns of domestic autonomy, cooperation, and nested social differentiation suggest the existence of a stratified society that clearly distinguishes among groups of individuals but also emphasizes strongly the descent group and the importance of kinship ties (cf. Kan 1989:84-101). Ranking within the descent group, based possibly on some combination of birth order, gender, and individual genealogy (as suggested by epigraphic

912

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

evidence), would result in the variation in architecture and burials found within the patios (cf. Goldman 1970). The most senior members would occupy the dominant structures and be buried in the tombs. Ranking among the descent groups would lead in turn to a stratified elite marked by the uneven distribution of well-built residences, architectural decoration, and rich burials within the area around the Main Group. An alternative explanation for the within-patio differences, and specifically for the smaller and shoddier houses, is that they were used by servants employed by the resident family (Haviland 1968; Leventhal 1981). This interpretation assumes a more contractual, less kinship-oriented relationship. It seems to me more likely that these houses were those of lower-ranking members of the descent group or other bilateral kin, whose relationship gave them the right to reside in the patio but whose low rank or indirect connection placed them in a subservient position. Although they may have functioned essentially as servants, both their obligations and their rights were determined by kinship, not contract. Such people may be represented by those burials relatively poor in offerings that nevertheless are carefully placed below the patio floor or behind the structures. Although quality and quantity of offerings differentiate these burials from richer ones, their placement does not. I interpret these descent groups as localized, ranked lineages consisting of several generations of kin sharing descent from common, known, and venerated ancestors. Each patio contains one such lineage, while each group forms a larger, more inclusive maximal lineage or clan (Sanders 1989). The existence and importance of genealogy and ancestor worship to the Maya may be inferred from their delineation in contemporaneous inscriptions (Schele 1991), in historic Maya societies (Tozzer 1941), and through the application of more general ethnographic analogy (Carrasco 1976; Goldman 1970; Kan 1989). Most discussions of ancient Maya lineages have assumed them to be patrilineal (e.g., Haviland 1968; Hopkins 1988; Kurjack 1974; Sanders 1989). However, records of descent from women and of women title holders in hieroglyphic monuments, of the inheritance of titles from matrilineal kin and ancestors in Late Postclassic Yucatan, and the occurrence of women in tombs suggest that the matriline also had significance in determining certain rights (Fox and Justeson 1986;Joyce 1981; Tozzer 1941:98-99). Like many similar societies, the Maya emphasized descent as the source of rank and entitlement because of their belief in the divine origin of secular power (Demarest 1989; Tate 1986). Descent not only orders a group of living relatives but also determines closeness to the powerful apotheosized ancestors and other supernaturals. In other words, descent from senior members of the lineage may be more significant than from one particular sex. This leads to the acceptance of multiple determinants (such as seniority) at the expense of preservation of a strict unilineality. The very ambiguity of such a system allows a society more flexibility in the distribution of power and assignment of rank. This type of descent group, which Goldman has called a status lineage, provides ways to overcome the inevitable disjunction between personal ability and socially mandated role to which any aristocratic political system is at times subject (Goldman 1970:418-430; Kan 1989). I conceive of these status lineages as multigenerational extended families. Sanders (1989), in a recent discussion of this same issue, has postulated widespread polygyny, at least among the residents of Gr. 9N-8. Because each patio has a finite number of rooms, an increase in the number ofwives for any one lineage member would leave less room for adults of succeeding generations and their families. His argument is grounded mainly in the structure of certain African societies seen as appropriate analogs and on an apparent preponderance of female adult burials in Patios E and F (Webster 1989). The activities carried out in Patio E and the presence of a dominant structure, however, conform to the social model of residential status lineages outlined in this paper. Polygyny has not been given much weight for the Classic Maya, perhaps because there is no clearly established reference to it in the inscriptions and the ethnohistoric documents conflict. Certainly later societies in Mesoamerica practiced this form of marriage among

Hcndon]

STATUS AND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

913

the elite, including the Mixtec (Spores 1984) and even, possibly, the Postclassic Maya of Yucatan (Tozzer 1941:lOO-101). This is not a question easily decided on the basis of the available archeological evidence. Completion of the skeletal analysis may indeed show the presence of more adult females than males. The question remains open, however, as to why this imbalance exists. It may reflect problems of sampling and preservation (Storey 1985). It may also reflect something about the makeup of the residential group, but the social identity of the women remains open. They may have been wives; they may have been sisters and daughters (i.e., members of the lineage). At present, the issue cannot be resolved. While not ruling out multiple marriages for lineage heads, my own opinion is that the majority of the residences were occupied by married adult kin, not additional wives. The hierarchical nature of Maya society can be explained in large part by the existence of these ranked and stratified status lineages whose power and importance were buttressed by control over tangible assets, such as land and people, but were grounded fundamentally in their descent and associated ritual powers (Adams 1975; Demarest 1989; Godelier 1978). Clearly, high rank was not limited to the ruling lineage. Rather, the royal lineages form the top of an elite stratum made up primarily of groups like those found in the sites studied here. At the same time, the elite are members of social groups that also contain people of lower rank, possibly even commoners. Their primary loyalties may have been to their immediate status lineage and its larger maximal lineage or clan rather than to their fellow elite or to the ruler. Thus, although the elite constitute a definite entity they are not really a separate class (Kan 1989:83-101). Heretofore I have concentrated on the area immediately around the Main Group. Excavations using a comparable methodology in the outer zone have not sampled the full range ofsites, concentrating rather on the smallest ones (Webster and Gonlin 1988). This sample is not appropriate for the kind of cross-site comparisons I have carried out here. Nevertheless, I would extend my model to include the rural zone where the similarity in site layout, the general residential function, and the preponderance of small sites lead me to conclude that lower-rank lineages or lower-ranked members of the inner zone lineages lived here. Sites in the outer zone are not uniformly smaller or less well built, however. A number oflarge sites with multiple patios, large structures, stone construction, and sculpture have been mapped and test-pitted (Fash 1983b; Freter 1988). Fash (1983a) has argued that they were built by families who achieved their position too late in the Late Classic period to build in the inner zone, but he does not explain the source of their rank or wealth beyond a general reference to feudalism. Given that access to land, labor, and products was mediated and structured by kinship, it seems likely that the elite exercised rights over all three, independent of the ruler. Although it is possible that large groups in the foothills represent an attempt by the ruler to break free of this framework through land grants to lower-ranking individuals or lineages, the relatively small size of the valley and large number of elite suggest that large tracts of unclaimed land did not exist by the Late Classic period. Rather, I propose that the large rural groups were members of elite status lineages designated by their lineage to live outside of the inner core for economic or perhaps demographic reasons (cf. Sanders 1989). The Maya during the Late to Terminal Classic periods, as seen from the Copan Valley, were organized into a socially stratified society held together by a series of nested descent groups crosscut by differences in rank. These differences, which were created by rights to land, people, and ritual power, were validated by divine sanction, ancestor worship, and a strong aristocratic principle. Kinship structured social relations at all levels, including those between the ruler and the elite and the elite and the commoners. Although trade and craft production existed, they were not significant sources of socioeconomic power or political control.

914

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

Notes
Acknowledgments. My participation in the excavations of PAC I1 and my use ofdata from all work carried out by the project used in this article were made possible by the kind permission of the Instituto Hondureiio de Antropologia e Historia, its former directors, Lic. Ricardo Agurcia F. and Lic. Victor Cruz R., and the director of the project, Dr. William T. Sanders. Support for my research by NSF Dissertation Improvement Grant BNS-8319347, the Owens Fund of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, and the Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copin is gratefully acknowledged. The comments of Wendy Ashrnore, George Cowgill, Meli Diamanti, Rosemary Joyce, Gordon Willey, and three anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper are greatly appreciated. I would like to thank Rosemary Joyce for her comments on the Structure 9N-69 hieroglyphic inscription and Nancy Gonlin for making available the data on outer-zone ceramic assemblages. I am fully responsible for any errors found herein. The help ofAlison M. and Rufus S. Hendon with the illustrations is greatly appreciated. Part of this paper was presented at the 53rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1988.

References Cited
Abrams, Elliot M. 1989 Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Perspective. Archaeological Method and Theory 1~47-87. Adams, Richard E. W. 1970 Suggested Classic Period Occupational Specialization in the Southern Maya Lowlands. In Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology. W. R. Bullard, Jr., ed. Pp. 487-502. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 61. Adams, Richard N. 1975 Energy and Structure: A Theory of Social Power. Austin: University of Texas Press. Aldenderfer, Mark S., Larry R. Kimball, and April Sievert 1989 Microwear Analysis in the Maya Lowlands: The Use of Functional Data in a ComplexSociety Setting. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:47-60. Ashmore, Wendy 1981 Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland Maya Settlement Archaeology. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. Pp. 37-69. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Baudez, Claude F. 1983 [ed.] Introducci6n a la arqueologia de Copin, Honduras. 3 vols. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. 1989 The House of the Bacabs: An Iconographic Analysis. I n The House of the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras. D. Webster, ed. Pp. 73-81. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 29. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Baudez, Claude F., and Pierre Becquelin 1973 Archiologie de 10s Naranjos, Honduras. Etudes mesoamiricaines, Vol. 2. Mexico City: Mission Archiologique et Ethnologique Franqaise au Mexique. Beaudry, Marilyn P. 1984 Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Southeastern Maya Periphery: Late Classic Painted Serving Vessels. BAR International Series, Vol. 203. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Becker, Marshall J. 1971 The Identification of a Second Plaza Plan at Tikal, Guatemala and Its Implications for Ancient Maya Social Complexity. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. Carlson, John B. 1980 On Classic Maya Monumental Recorded History. I n Third Palenque Round Table, 1978, Part 2. M. G. Robertson, ed. Pp. 199-203. Austin: University ofTexas Press. Carrasco, Pedro 1976 Los linajes nobles del MCxico antiguo. I n Estratificaci6n social en la MesoamCrica prehispinica. P. Carrasco et al., eds. Pp. 19-36. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones Superiores, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. Demarest, Arthur A. 1989 Ideology and Evolutionism in American Archaeology: Looking beyond the Economic Base. I n Archaeological Thought in the Americas. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, ed. Pp. 89-102. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Hendon]

STATUS AND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

915

Diamanti, Melissa 1992 Excavaciones en el Conjunto 9N-8, Patios E y F (Operaci6n XV). In Proyecto Arqueo16gico Copdn Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el drea urbana de Copdn, Vol. 4. W. T. Sanders, ed. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretma de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. (In press.) Fash, William L., Jr. 1983a Deducing Social Organization from Classic Maya Settlement Patterns: A Case Study from the Copan Valley. In Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. R. M. Leventhal and A. L. Kolata, eds. Pp. 261-288. Albuquerque and Cambridge, MA: University of New Mexico Press and the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnolow1983b Reconocimiento y excavaciones en el Valle. In Introducci6n a la arqueologia de Copan, Honduras, Vol. 1. C. F. Baudez, ed. Pp. 229-469. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estad0 en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. 1989 The Sculptural FaGade of Structure 9N-82: Content, Form, and Significance. In The House of the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras. D. Webster, ed. Pp. 41-72. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 29. Washington, DC:Dumbarton Oaks. Firth, Raymond 1963 Elements of Social Organization. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Fox, John A., and John S. Justeson 1986 Classic Maya Dynastic Alliance and Succession. In Ethnohistory. R. Spores, ed. Pp. 734. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4. V. R. Bricker, gen. ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. Freter, AnnCorinne 1988 The Classic Maya Collapse at Copan, Honduras: A Regional Settlement Perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. Gerstle, Andrea I. 1985 La arquitectura ceremonial de las Sepulturas, Copin. Yaxkin 8:99-109. 1988 Maya-Lenca Ethnic Relations in Late Classic Period Copan, Honduras. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. Godelier, Maurice 1978 Economy and Religion: An Evolutionary Optical Illusion. In The Evolution of Social Systems. J. Friedman and M. J. Rowlands, eds. Pp. 3-1 1. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Goldman, Irving 1970 Ancient Polynesian Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gonlin, Nancy 1985 The Architectural Variation ofTwo Small Sites in the Copan Valley, Honduras: A Rural/ Urban Dichotomy? M.A. thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Pennsylvania State University. Gordon, George B. 1898 Researches in the Uloa Valley, Honduras. Cambridge, MA: Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 1, No. 4. 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, Department ofAnthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. Haviland, William A. 1968 Ancient Lowland Maya Social Organization. New Orleans, LA: Middle American Research Institute, Publication 26, pp. .. 93-1 17. Hendon, Julia A. 1987 The Uses of Maya Structures: A Study of Architecture and Artifact Distribution at Sepulturas, Copan, Honduras. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard Unibersity. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. 1988 Form and Function of Three Classes of Artifacts from las Sepulturas, Copan: Ceramic Vessels, Bone Tools, and Pottery Whorls. (Unpublished ms. in authors possession.) 1989 Elite Household Organization at Copan, Honduras: Analysis of Activity Distribution in the Sepulturas Zone. In Households and Communities: Proceedings of the 21st Chacmool Conference. S. MacEachern, D. J. W. Archer, and R. D. Garvin, eds. Pp. 371-380. Calgary, Alberta: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary.

916

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

1990 Are Survey Data Adequate for Studying Site Function and Social Status? Two Case Studies from the Maya Lowlands. (Unpublished ms. in authors possession.) 1991 Architectural Symbols of the Maya Social Order: Residential Construction and Decoration in the Copan Valley, Honduras. In Ancient Images, Ancient Thought: The Archaeology of Ideology. Proceedings of the 23rd Chacmool Conference. Calgary, Alberta: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. (In press.) Hendon, Julia A., Ricardo Agurcia F., William L. Fash, Jr., and Eloisa Aguilar P. 1990 Excavaciones en 9N-8, conjunto del Patio C. In Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copan Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el area urbana de Copin, Vol. 2. W. T. Sanders, ed. Pp. 11-109. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. Hendon, Julia A., William L. Fash, Jr., and Eloisa Aguilar P. 1990 Excavaciones en 9N-8, conjunto del Patio B. In Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copan Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el area urbana de Copin, Vol. 2. W. T. Sanders, ed. Pp. 110-293. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. Hohmann, Hasso, and Annegrete Vogrin 1982 Die Architektur von Copan (Honduras). Graz: Akademische Druck und Verlagsanstalt. Hopkins, Nicholas A. 1988 Classic Mayan Kinship Systems: Epigraphic and Ethnographic Evidence for Patrilineality. Estudios de Cultura Maya 17:87-121. Joyce, Rosemary A. 1981 Classic Maya Kinship and Descent: An Alternative Suggestion. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 13:45-57. 1985 Cerro Palenque, Valle del Ulua, Honduras: Terminal Classic Interaction on the Southern Mesoamerican Periphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of 11linois at Urbana-Champaign. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. 1986 Terminal Classic Interaction on the Southeastern Maya Periphery. American Antiquity 51~313-329. 1988 The Ulua Valley and the Coastal Maya Lowlands: The View from Cerro Palenque. In The Southeast Classic Maya Zone. E. H. Boone and G. R. Willey, eds. Pp. 269-295. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Kan, Sergei 1989 Symbolic Immortality: The Tlingit Potlatch of the Nineteenth Century. Washington, DC:Smithsonian Institution Press. Kujack, Edward B. 1974 Prehistoric Lowland Maya Community and Social Organization: A Case Study at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. New Orleans, LA: Middle American Research Institute, Publication 38. Leventhal, Richard M. 1981 Settlement Patterns in the Southeast Maya Area. In Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. W. Ashmore, ed. Pp. 187-209. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1983 Household Groups and Classic Maya Religion. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. E. Z. Vogt and R. M. Leventhal, eds. Pp. 55-76. Albuquerque and Cambridge, MA: University of New Mexico Press and the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Longyear, John M., 111 1952 Copan Ceramics: A Study ofsoutheastern Maya Pottery. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, Publication 597. MacEachern, Scott, David J. W. Archer, and Richard D. Gamin, eds. 1989 Households and Communities: Proceedings of the 21st Chacmool Conference. Calgary, Alberta: Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Mallory, John K., I11 1984 Late Classic Maya Economic Specialization: Evidence from the Copan Obsidian Assemblage. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. McAnany, Patricia A. 1989 Introduction. In Prehistoric Maya Economies of Belize. Pp. 1-13. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 4. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1962 The Artifacts of Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. H. E. D. Pollock, R. L. Roys, A. L. Smith, and T. Proskouriakoff. Pp. 87-140. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution, Publication 619.

Hendon]

STATUSAND POWER IN CLASSIC MAYA SOCIETY

917

Riese, Berthold 1989 The Inscription on the Sculptured Bench of the House of the Bacabs. In The House of the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras. D. Webster, ed. Pp. 82-88. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 29. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Sanders, William T. 1986a Introducci6n. In Proyecto ArqueoMgico Copin Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el irea urbana de Copin, Vol. 1. Pp. 9-25. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. 198613 [ed.] Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copin Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el ire, urbana de Copin, Vol. 1. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. 1989 Household, Lineage, and State at Eighth-Century Copan, Honduras. In The House of the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras. D. Webster, ed. Pp. 89-105. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 29. Washington, DC:Dumbarton Oaks. 1990 [ed.] Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copin Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el area urbana de Copin, Vol. 2. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. Schele, Linda 1991 The Demotion ofChac-Zutz: Lineage Compounds and Subsidiary Lords at Palenque. In Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986. V. M. Fields, vol. ed. M. G. Robertson, gen. ed. Pp. 61 1. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Shafer, Harry J., and Thomas R. Hester 1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48:519-543. Sheehy,James J. 1981 Notas preliminares sobre las excavaciones en CV-26, Copin. Yaxkin 4: 133-143. Spores, Ronald 1984 The Mixtecs in Ancient and Colonial Times. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Storey, Rebecca 1985 La paleodemografia de Copin. Yaxkin 8:151-160. 1986 Entierros y clase social en Copin, Honduras: Aspectos biol6gicos. Yaxkin 9:55-61. Tainter, Joseph A. 1978 Mortuary Practices and the Study of Prehistoric Social Systems. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 1. M. B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 105-141. New York: Academic Press. Tate, Carolyn E. 1986 The Language of Symbols in the Ritual Environment of Yaxchilan, Chiapas, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms. Tozzer, Alfred M. 1941 Landas Relaci6n de las cosas de Yucatan: A Translation. Cambridge, MA: Papers of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 18. Trigger, Bruce G. 1984 Archaeology at the Crossroads: Whats New? Annual Review of Anthropology 13:275300. 1990 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology 22: 1 19- 132. Viel, RenC 1983 Evoluci6n de la cerimica en Copin: Resultados preliminares. In Introducci6n a la arqueologia de Copin, Honduras, Vol. 1. c. F. Baudez, ed. Pp. 471-549. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. Webster, David 1989 The House of the Bacabs: Its Social Context. In The House of the Bacabs, Copan, Honduras. Pp. 5-40. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 29. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks. Webster, David, William L. Fash, Jr., and Elliot M. Abrams 1986 Excavaciones en el Conjunto 9N-8, Patio A (Operaci6n VIII). In Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copin Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el irea urbana de Copin, Vol. 1. W. T. Sanders, ed. Pp. 155-3 17. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo.

918

AMERICAN

ANTHROPOLOGIST

[93, 1991

Webster, David, and AnnCorinne Freter 1990 Settlement History and the Classic Collapse of Copan: A Redefined Chronological Perspective. Latin American Antiquity 1:66-85. Webster, David, and Nancy Gonlin 1988 Household Remains of the Humblest Maya. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:169-190. Widmer, Randolph 1983 Excavaciones en el Conjunto 9N-8, Patio H (Operaci6n XXII). In Proyecto Arqueol6gico Copin Segunda Fase: Excavaciones en el Brea urbana de Copin, Vol. 5. W. T. Sanders, ed. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaria de Estado en el Despacho de Cultura y Turismo. (Forthcoming.) Wilk, Richard R., and Wendy Ashmore, eds. 1988 Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Wilk, Richard R., and William L. Rathje 1982 Household Archaeology. In Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. R. R. Wilk and W. L. Rathje, eds. American Behavioral Scientist 25:617-639. Willey, Gordon R., and Richard M. Leventhal 1979 Settlement at Copan. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory. N. Hammond and G. R. Willey, eds. Pp.75-102. Austin: University of Texas Press. Wolf, Eric R. 1990 Distinguished Lecture: Facing Power-Old Insights, New Questions. American Anthropologist 92:586-596.

Thc Rrvinu o f Ambaeohgv publishes comprchensivc rcvicws of basic contempomy literature in uducology and related sciences. Thse artida arc written by rnembcrs of the pand of Conmbuting Editors as d 2~ by disringuished gucst reviewen. Their aim is to ournine critically the many kinds of records that affkt the conduct of ardueology and the interpretation of prehltory.

s.brrcchu
l y a r $15.00

2yars $28.00 3ycars $40.00

Adb.I

Thc Rrvinu o f A r h & 10 L i k Street