Crisis of Identity

Society for American Archaeology
A Crisis of Identity: Late Classic Competition and Interaction on the Southeast Maya
Periphery
Author(s): Edward Schortman and Seiichi Nakamura
Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 2, No. 4 (Dec., 1991), pp. 311-336
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971781 .
Accessed: 10/03/2014 02:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A CRISIS OF IDENTITY: LATE CLASSIC COMPETITION
AND INTERACTIONON THE SOUTHEAST MAYA PERIPHERY
EdwardSchortmanand Seiichi Nakamura
Archaeologistsfrequently assumethat whenculturesinteractwitheachotherthe mostcomplexpartnerdominates

the transactions.We propose that this is a misleadinglysimple view of a complex process. A frameworkfor
modelingintersocietalinteractionand understandingits sociopoliticalconsequencesis outlinedhere. This theo-
reticalstructurecalls attentionto who is actually involvedin the interactionprocess,how these transactionsare
carriedout, and whatthe goals of the contactpartnersare. The complex materialpatternsfrom two neighboring
areas of Late Classic(A.D.600-950) southeastMesoamericaare then examinedusing theproposedmodelto see
what insightsinto ancient interactionprocessesit can provide.
Los arqueologosfrecuentementeasumen que las culturasson entidadeshomogeneasque interactuanmutua-
mente,y cuandoesto sucede,la parte mas complejadomina. En este trabajose proponeque este es un punto de
vistaerroneoy demasiadosimplista,ya que el procesoes complejo.Las interacciones entresociedadesse lleva a
cabo no por culturas,sino porfacciones dentrode las sociedadesen cuestion.Estasfacciones interactuanbajo la
perspectivade la identidadsocial, en tanto que categoriaaceptadapor todas las partes. El marco de referencia
del modelo de interaccionde sociedades y de sus consecuenciassociopoliticasesta disenado utilizando este
concepto.Esta estructurateoricapone enfasissobreel agenteinvolucradoen el procesode interaccion,en laforma
en que estas relacionesse llevan a cabo y en las metas que tienen las partesen contacto.
En dos regionesadyacentesdel surestede Mesoamerica(el valledel Bajo Motagua, Guatemala,y la regionde
La Entrada,Honduras)duranteel ClasicoTardfo(60s900 D.C.), se observarontrespatronescomplejoscon base
en datos arqueologicos.Estos son: el patron de las tierrasbajas mayas, el patron del Bajo Motaguay el patron
de transformacionculturalintermedia.En este artfeulo,se examinan estos tres patrones utilizandoel modelo
propuestopara verqueperspectivasemergenrespectodelprocesode interaccionen la antiguedad.En consecuencia,
se proponeuna hipotesisque consideraque la formacion de estos trespatronesde interaccionentre las elites se
originapor competenciasobrerecursosy por el deseo de las elites defacilitar, controlary monopolizarlosflujos
interregionales.Asimismo, en el transfondode la formacion de estos ambientesse supone que se encuentrael
conflictoentre Copany Quirigua,duranteel siglo VIII.
This articleaddressesgeneralquestionsof interregionalinteractionwithin the context of a specific

portion of the southeast Maya periphery(easternGuatemala,westernHonduras,and E1Salvador).
The areasunderscrutinyarethe lowerMotaguaValley,northeasternGuatemala,and the neighboring
La Venta and Floridavalleys (togethercomprisingthe La Entradaregion),northwesternHonduras
(Figure1). Traditionally,southeastMaya peripheryresearchhas been phrasedin terms of contrasts
and contact between two monolithic culturalentities, the Lowland Maya, representedat the sites
of Quiriguaand Copan, and non-Maya. Research has focused on the former with the non-Maya
portions of the southeastreceiving systematicattention only over the past 25 years. This disparity
follows from the often implicit assumption that non-Maya polities were relatively simple, passive
recipientsof LowlandMaya innovations(cf. Beaudry1987;Earnestand Demarest 1987; Schortman
and Urban 1986). We have also tended to ignore the behavioral implications of the attribution
"LowlandMaya."Those of us workingin the southeasthave been guilty,therefore,of two common
archaeologicalshortcomings:(1) thinkingof cultures(Maya and non-Mayain this case) as homog-
enous entities that act and interact as though alive (e.g., see papers in Hodder [1978]); and (2)
EdwardSchortman,Departmentof Anthropologyand Sociology,KenyonCollege, Gambier,OH 43022

Seiichi Nakamura, La Entrada ArchaeologicalProject, Colonia Vanessa,La Entrada, Copan, Honduras,
CentralAmerica
Latin American Antiquity, 2(4), 1991, pp. 331-336.
Copyright (B) 1991 by the Society for American Archaeology
311

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991
312N.M.
< O MOTAGUA
Lakelzabal ga zJ j ,
m ,_,< .J;. :r i,:
k: f MS *E; N
( 10 PARAISO
<;) > / > 0 W 11 LAS PILAS

_r \ 12 EL A BR A
rJ / 13 EL PUENTE
14 LAS TAPIAS
15 LOS H IGOS
0 10 20 k m 16 NUEVA SUYA PA
17 RONCADOR
18 AZACUALPA
Figure 1. The Lower Motagua and La Venta Regions, illustrating the location of major sites mentioned in
the text.
assuming that intersocietaltransactionsare always dominated by the most complexly organized

interactionpartner.
We will attempt to undermineboth premises. In doing so two relatedqueries will be addressed
with broad implications for the study of prehistoricinteractionprocesses:(1) What social entities
actuallytake part in intersocietalcontacts?,and (2) How do these transactionsovercome obstacles
of languageand mistrustthat frequentlyseparatesocieties?One of us has discussedthese points in
some detail elsewhere (Schortman 1989; Schortmanand Urban 1987). In essence, we argue that
intersocietalinteractionis carriedout not by culturesbut by factions within them. These factions
deal with each other in terms of social identities,mutually agreed upon, self-ascribedcultural
categoriesto which are attached specific behavioral expectations(Rapoport 1982:170, 183, 191).
In order for this classificationscheme to be useful affiliationsmust be expressedby easily visible,
prominentcues such as elementsof dress,physique,and ornamentation(Deagan 1983;Wobst 1977).
These cues are cultural-orientationdevices that clarifyto the participantswhat categoriesof people
are present and, hence, what behaviors to expect (Rapoport 1982:181-183; Wiessner 1983:257).
People have a number of differentsocial identities that they can actualize, though limits to the
availableset may be imposedby factorsover whichindividualshave no control(Lymanand Douglass
1973; O'Brien 1986:899; Shennan 1989:28; Worsley 1984:246).
This consideration takes us from an appreciationof identities as static features of the social
landscapeto the dynamics of their manipulation.Interpersonalinteractions,in this view, are seen
as competitionsover resources.In orderto succeedin these strugglesindividualschoose from among
their availableaffiliationsthe ones that will give them the greatestadvantagesvis a vis other social

Schortman and Nakamura] CRISIS OF IDENTITYON THE SOUTHEAST MAYA PERIPHERY 313
actors who, themselves, are displaying particularidentities (Cohen 1978:388; Handelman 1977:
187-189,193-194; Royce 1982:24,26; Vincent 1974:376).Socialaffiliations,therefore,form around
encountersfocused on specific resources,the importanceof which regularlybringspeople together
and requirespredictableinteractionconducted in terms of agreedupon conceptualcategoriespro-
claimedby generallyunderstoodsymbols (Barth1969:15-18; Cohen 1978:388;Shibutaniand Kwan
1965:38-39, 67-68). Salient social identitiescoalesce around a particularlyimportantresourceset
(Basham 1976:8; Blu 1980:33; Cohen 1978:396). These are the most commonly used affiliations
within an individual'srepertoire.They develop wherepeople holdingthe same identityconsistently
unite in opposition to individuals proclaimingother social identities at the same level of general-
ization (Handelman1977:196-197; Shibutaniand Kwan 1965:208-210; Worsley 1984:247).Salient
affiliationsserve as the basis for group action to secureand/or maintain control over an important
resource(s)(Rapoport 1982:191-192; Worsley 1984:249). This feeling of solidarity is ultimately
founded on sharedpatternsof behavior motivated by similar assumptions,values, and standards
of evaluation (Barth 1969:10, 13; Cohen 1978:383, 386-387; Royce 1982:18, 25; Shibutani and
Kwan 1965:40-41, 43-44; Vincent 1974:376).
The relationbetweensalientidentitiesand competitionover importantresourcesis amplyattested
in the ethnographicand ethnohistoricliterature.The Hausatradingnetworkin contemporaryNigeria
is a web of spatiallydispersedenclaves the membersof which sharea salient Hausa identity formed
and maintained around their monopoly over long-distancetrade in certain items (Cohen 1969).
Participationin this commerce is limited to those expressingthe Hausa affiliationsymbolized by
the public manipulationof recognizeddiacriticsincludingelementsof languageand religion(Cohen
1969). The Hausa are merely the most recentexample of a whole series of earlieridentity networks
in west (e.g., Curtin 1975) and east Africa (e.g., Donley 1982) the roots of which extend back into
the precolonialera (see also Curtin 1984). In all of these cases interregionaltrade was carriedout
among and monopolized by holders of the same salient affiliationresidingat crucial points within
exchangenetworks.Numerous salient affiliationsalso arose in colonial Africa and South America
based on competition over a variety of resources,includinggovernmentjobs (e.g., Despres 1975;
O'Brien 1986; Skinner 1975). In each of the above cases salient identities, symbolized by a wide
rangeof easily visible, generallyrecognizedsymbols, were strategicallyused to obtain and control
a desired resource. Subsequent interaction was conducted, despite competition, across identity
boundaries,guided by the behavioralexpectationsassociatedwith these affiliations.
Salientidentities develop, therefore,as means to an end and may exist on a local or interregional
scale dependingon the natureand distributionof the resourcesundercontention(Kamp and Yoffee
1981:89; McGuire 1982:160-161). These categories are not immutable; rather their importance
varies in accordancewith their changingrelationto resources(Lymanand Douglass 1973; O'Brien
1986:898-902; Worsley 1984:251). Colonial administrationsin East Africa favored groups under
theircontrolwith "tribal"identities,while the nationalistleaderswho followedthem did not. Tribal
loyalties conflicted with allegiance to newly independent states. Since government favor could
determinesuccessin obtainingemploymentin the bureaucracy,therewas a markeddecreasein the
numberof people proclaimingtribal affiliationsafter independencein East Africa (Arens 1978).
The advantage of the social-identity concept is that it shifts attention from spatially distinct
culturesto interactionnetworksmaintainedby social categories.It also forces us to try and answer
such basic questions as, "Who is actuallyinvolved in intersocietaltransactionsand what are their
goals?" The recognition of salient identities in the archaeologicalrecord is certainly not easy.
Attentionmust focuson patternedassociationsof stylisticchoicesthatreflectthe sharedassumptions,
values, and standardsof identity holders. Style is stressed because the configurationsmust result
from choices made among a numberof options. Patternswhose form and distributionare narrowly
determined by environmental or physical constraints reveal very little about the presence and
distributionof salientaffiliations.A particularlyeffectiveadaptivestrategy,for example,may spread
among people who have little else in common (Barth 1969:11-13; Kamp and Yoffee 1981:95). All
archaeologicallyrecovered materials, therefore, do not have equal potentials for symbolizing or
reflectingsocial-identitymembership.In this articlewe focus on aspectsof site planning,the nature
and distributionof monuments, structureform and decoration,and artifactstyles in reconstructing

314 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991
identity patternsin the areasunderstudy. As arguedelsewhere(Schortman1984, 1989, 1993), each

of these variablesinvolves some element of choice. They also relate to proxemic, ideological, and
social assumptions,standards,and values that are at the core of a people's perceptionof themselves
and their place in the world.
The present essay focuses on interactions among elites. This privileged group usually has the
greatestfreedomof any social faction to initiate and sustaincontactsbeyond their immediate social
boundaries.They also have the power to precipitatewide-rangingchangeswithin the polities they
rule as a resultof these contacts.Concentrationon the relationsamongparamounts,therefore,offers
the greatestopportunityto reconstructprocessesof interregionalinteractionand understandtheir
sociopolitical effects (Barnes 1986; Renfrew 1986; Schortman and Urban 1987). On a practical
level, we also know a greatdeal more about elite-relatedmaterialpatternsthan those pertainingto
commoners. As noted below, this is especially the case in the lower Motagua Valley. We will,
therefore,operateon the assumptionthat elite interactionsare those with the greatestsociopolitical
significance,at least in prehistory.This assumption,in turn,is no more than a hypothesisdemanding
evaluation againsta much broaderdata base.
THE REGIONS
Prehistorichuman occupation within the southeast Maya peripheryextends from at least the
Early Preclassic(1200-800 B.C.) through to the Spanish Conquest in the sixteenth century A.D.
(see papersin Boone and Willey [1988] for a recent review). Sociopoliticalcomplexity within the
area seems to have peakedduringthe Late Classic period (A.D. 600-950) when centerscontaining
monumental architecture(platforms 1.5 m or higher) are found in all investigated regions. The
Quiriguaand Copan polities, whose rulingdynastieswere probablyincorporatedwithin a Lowland
Maya identity networkduringthe precedingEarlyClassic interval (A.D. 200-600), both achieved
their maximum arealextents and greatestdegreesof political centralizationduringthe Late Classic
(e.g., Fash 1988; Sharer 1990). Extanthieroglyphictexts from both centers provide some insights
into their complex interrelations.Subordinateto Copan in the seventh century,Quiriguaobtained
its independencein A.D.737 when its rulerCauacSky defeatedand capturedthe Copanparamount,
18 Rabbit (Riese 1988; Sharer 1990). The Copan polity, despite a brief renaissanceunder the
leadershipof Yax Pac, soon suffereda decline culminatingin the abandonmentof the site core in
the earlyninth century(e.g., Fash 1983,1988; Webster1988;Websterand Gonlin 1988). Quirigua's
rulerssurvived somewhat longer, but the center had lost its political significanceby the end of the
same century(Sharer1990). It is often assumed, as noted above, that these polities dominated the
contemporarysoutheastthroughoutthe Classicperiod. Two of the zones that supposedlyfell within
their sway were the lower MotaguaValley northeastof Quiriguaand the La Entradaregion east of
Copan.
The lower MotaguaValley is a massive, southwest-northeast-trending physiographiczone, rough-
ly 100 m asl, coveringca. 2,000 km2of broad, flat, agriculturallyproductiveflood plain of the Rio
Motagua(Figure1). Boundedon the northwestand southeastby the steep escarpmentsof the Sierra
de las Minas and EspirituSanto rangesrespectively,the valley begins 7 km southwestof Quirigua,
where the Motagua issues from its narrowly defined course through the hills, and runs to the
Caribbeancoast. Ten majortributariesfeed the lower reachesof the Motaguaprovidingboth water
and, on the southeast in particular,passes over the high mountains to adjoiningregions. Much of
this moist, tropical-lowlandenvironmentis now devoted to cattle pastureand commercialbanana
cultivation.
The La Entradaregionlies ca.22.5 km to the southeastacrossthe Sierrade EspirituSanto (Figure
1). This zone contains the adjoiningLa Venta (on the east) and Florida (on the west) valleys along
with naturalcorridorsleading to neighboringareas. Wateredby the Rio Chameleconand three of
its principaltributaries,the La Venta Valley covers 65 km2 of flat-to-rollingbottomland 400-500
m asl. Relativelylargeexpansesof arableland are found here. The FloridaValley, in turn,is drained
by the Rio Chameleconand two of its principaltributaries,which have their headwatersnear the
Guatemalanborder. This zone covers 75 km2 of flat-to-undulatingterrain 450-550 m asl. Large
expanses of arable land are located only over its central and southern extent. Rainfall levels are

MAYAPERIPHERY
ON THESOUTHEAST
Schortmanand Nakamura] CRISISOF IDENTITY 315
relativelyhigh in both valleys, 1,20>2,000 mm per year (AID ResourcesInventory Center 1966:
L7-B; SECOPT 1986:74-75), roughly equivalent to the annual averageprecipitationin the lower
MotaguaValley (Vivo Escoto 1964:213; West and Augelli 1976:45; Whetten 1974:Table 1). The
higher elevation of the La Entrada region places it in the Tropical Dryforest and Subtropical
Rainforestzones (SECOPT 1986:82-83) as opposed to the Tropical RainforestZone in which the
lowerMotaguaValleyfalls (Wagner1964:Figure1).The fertilebottomlandsof the La Entradaregion
are primarilydevoted to cattle pastureand maize cultivation. Passes exiting the region follow the
Chamelecon and its tributaries,including three that breach the Sierra de EspirituSanto heading
towardthe lower MotaguaValley (Nakamura 1987a, 1988; Nakamuraet al. 1991).
The La Entradaand lowerMotaguazones have been overshadowedby theirbetter-knownLowland
Maya neighbors.Earlier,superficialsurveys in both areas(e.g., Berlin [1952]; Sapper[1895, 1897];
Stromsvik[1936] in the lowerMotaguaValley;Lothrop[1921];Morley[1920:384-386];Pahl [1977];
Richardson[1940]; Sapper[1898]; Squier[1883:468-480]; Yde [1938:48-57] for La Entrada)have
been succeeded by systematic investigations only in recent years (Nakamuraet al. 1991; Nowak
1973a, 1973b, 1975; Schortman1984, 1986). The data bases resultingfrom the latterworkare very
different.This is due to both the varied goals of the lower Motaguaand La Entradaprojects and
the logistical problems they faced. Within the lower MotaguaValley our focus was on the nature
of Late Classic Lowland Maya/non-Mayacontacts and their effects on the interaction partners.
"LowlandMayaculture"is traditionallydefinedby elite materialpatterns.Consequently,the lower
MotaguaValley Projectconcentratedon the location and study of only the largestwider-valleysites,
the presumedcapitals of local polities and centers of elite activity. The sheer size of the valley as
well as the deep burialof small sites and pre-LateClassicloci by river-depositedalluvium (Ashmore
1981) also encourageda narrowresearchfocus on physicallysalient,LateClassiccenters(Schortman
1984, 1993). Specifically,investigation concentratedon 180 km2 in the southeast portion ofthe
regionwhere earlierwork had identifieda dense aggregationof sizable settlements(Nowak 1973b).
Within this valley segment 13 sites were recorded,9 of which contained monumentalarchitecture
(Table 1). In addition to mappingthese loci, 23 structuresand 4 monumentsettingswere excavated
at Choco, Playitas,and Las Quebradas,3 of the largestcenters.This work, plus the analysis of the
12,095 ceramicsand 2,474 other artifactsrecovered,forms the basis for reconstructinglocal chro-
nology, materialpatterns,and the directionand intensity of intersocietalties. Nakamuracontinued
the surveyin 1987. He and his colleaguesexamined previouslyuninvestigatedareasalong potential
communicationroutes leading into the lower Motaguafrom La Entrada(Nakamura 1988). Three
monumentalsites incorporatedin this discussion were located and at least partiallymappedduring
the reconnaissance.
The La EntradaProject was motivated by a desire to fill the data vacuum between Copan and
more remote areas such as the Sula Plain, Naco Valley, and the middle Ulua region. Work in this
strategicallysituated zone was, therefore,designed to accumulatebasic archaeologicaldata on the
full rangeof ancient settlementsand occupation sequences.These data form the basis for a second
phase of more intensive studies. As a result, 150 km2comprisingthe La Venta and Floridavalleys
along with naturalcorridorsexiting the area were thoroughlyexamined. Subsequentlythe survey
was extendedtowardthe QuimistanValley and the TrasCerrospocket.The latteris a 15 km2valley
situated 620-660 m asl within the Sierrade EspirituSanto range (Figure 1). A total of 688 sites
representingvarious levels of complexity has been located, and nearly all of those containing
structures(344 sites)have been mapped.Test pitting,gearedto collectingchronologicalinformation,
was pursued at 37 sites (Nakamuraet al. 1991). A total of 8,960 ceramic rim sherds has been
analyzed(Sato 1991) along with 12,126 lithic items (Aoyama 1991).
Sites were defined differentlyon the two projects.Whereas Schortmantended to group closely
spaced monumentalloci into single "site zones," Nakamura(1987a:132) distinguishedindividual
sites if they were separatedby 100 m or more of apparentlyopen space. Consequently,loci within
the lower MotaguaValley that would be defined as separatesites by Nakamuraare often grouped
into single largeentities by Schortmanand vice versa in La Entrada.This discrepancyis accounted
P
or ln our comparlsons.
. .
Our respective data bases are, therefore,not strictly comparable.Both projectshave, however,

Table 1. Principal Monumental Centers in the lower Motagua

and La Entrada Regions.
Number of Number of
Site Name Court Group Structures
Lower Motagua network
Playitas 4a 253
Las Quebradas 3 295
Quebrada Grande 4 49
Choco 1 84
Comanche Farm 1 23
Juyama 2 109
Bobos 1 34
Mojanales 1 7
Arapahoe Viejo 1 23
Tepemechin 1 43
Las Animas 1 I.I.
Rio Negro 1 I.I.
Techin 1 66
Tras Cerros 5 62
Intermediate acculturation
Nueva Suyapa 1 16
Roncador N.A. 208
Lowland Maya network
Los Higos N.A. 27
E1 Abra 3 193
Las Pilas 3 197
E1 Puente N.A. 200
Las Tapias N.A. 34
Note: The numbers of structures given for each site include both disturbed
and undisturbed constructions and are conservative. Playitas, Las Quebradas,
and the nine sites studied by the La Entrada Project (Techin to Las Tapias in
the list) were the most thoroughly surveyed loci, the others were more cursorily
investigated. Additional work would almost surely reveal more constructions
at each site. Only Category S sites from the La Entrada region are included
here. "I.I." indicates that insufficient information is available even to estimate
the number of structures at these sites. "N.A." indicates that these sites do
not possess court groups but are dominated by a single large plaza complex.
aOne of the Playitas quadrangles seems to predate the other three, falling
within the period A.D. 700-750,while the remainder date to the century or
so following A.D. 750.
generatedconsiderableinformationon LateClassicmajorcenters,dominatedby monumentalpatio

groups,the presumedcapitals of ancient political units (these include La Entradasites in Category
5 of the regionalsite hierarchy,listed in Table 1 [Nakamura 1987a:133; Nakamuraet al. 1991]).
A comparison of the material patternsrelated to these sites should shed some light on elite orga-
nization, interregionalcontacts, and the extent to which these variableswere influencedby dealings
with Lowland Maya rulers.
MATERIALAND SOCIOCULTURALPATTERNS
The two areas under study contained at least three Late Classic elite networks defined by the
distributionof materialforms: LowlandMaya, lower Motagua,and intermediateacculturation.
The Lowland Maya
The materialpatternscharacteristicof Quirigua,Copan,and their immediate hinterlandsare well
known and have been describedin detail elsewhere(e.g., Ashmore 1981, 1984, 1991; Baudez 1983;

Fash 1983, 1988;Jones and Sharer1986; Jones et al.1983; Sanders1986; Sharer1978, 1988, 1990;
Webster 1988). Sufficeit to say that Quirigua,Copan, and the large sites in their immediate hin-
terlandsgenerallyshareelements of LowlandMaya elite materialculture:elaboratelycarved mon-
uments with hieroglyphicinscriptions;massive substructureplatforms faced with cut stone and
surmountedby masonry superstructuresin a variety of temple, shrine, and palace forms, often
roofed using the corbel vault; ball courts and other distinctive structuregroupingsincluding an
acropolis and quadrangleforms (Schortman 1986:116-117). These material patterns reflect the
existence of centralizedsociopolitical systems the leadersof which maintainedextensive and close
ties with similarlyconstituted elite throughoutthe Maya Lowlands(Ashmore 1981; Freidel 1979,
1981; Sabloff 1986; Schortman 1986; Sharer 1990).
Five La Entradaregionalcenters(Las Pilas, E1Abra, E1Puente, Los Higos, and Las Tapias),also
fall within this interactionsystem, possessing material and sociopolitical patternssimilar to those
attestedat Copan and Quirigua.These massive loci are each dominatedby one or more rectilinear
plaza groups defined by 4-20 monumental structures,the largest of which stand 12 m high. The
sizes of these plaza units point to the presence of powerfulelite residents within them. Site-core
organization,however, varies among loci. In some cases the site core is a quadrangle(e.g., Las Pilas,
E1Abra;Figures2 and 3) with 2-3 cornersclosed by construction.These arenot preciselycomparable
to lower Motaguaforms as La Entradaexampleslack the complex arrangementof adjoiningcourts.
E1Abra(Figure3), Los Higos (Figure4), and LasTapias(Figure5) reflectthe diversityof monumental
structuregroups. Distinctive Maya structuretypes such as temples, identified by their pyramidal
substructures,have been noted at Los Higos (Str. 1), E1Puente (Str. 1), E1Abra (Str. 1) and Las
Tapias (Str. 14). Monumentalsubstructuresat these centers are faced with cut-stone blocks, most
fashionedfrom locally availabletuff, therebyconformingto LowlandMaya canons of construction
(Las Tapias is an exception in that tuff masonryis only found on Str. 14).
Monumentalsubstructurefacings are liberallycovered with plasterin the five La Entradacases.
Summits of large platformsprobablysupportedat least partialmasonryconstructionsas indicated
by the numerousfragmentsof stone sculpturefound at all but one center. Vault stones have been
recoveredfrom Los Higos and E1Puente implying the Lowland Maya practiceof corbel vaulting.
The arrangementof humbler, nonmonumental platforms attests to considerable diversity in
intrasite planning. At E1Abra low platforms are generallynucleated around monumental cores.
Nonmonumentalpatio groups are situated at some remove from the E1Puente and Las Pilas site
centers. Humble platformsare almost entirely lacking at Los Higos and Las Tapias. Information
on nonmonumentalplatform construction from La Entradaremains sparse. At centers near tuff
quarries,such as E1Puente and E1Abra, at least some humble structureswere faced with cut blocks
of this material.Platformsummits probablysupportedperishableconstructions,little evidence of
standingmasonryhaving been recovered.
The ceramics of these centers show their greatest similarities with both utilitarian and "fine"
vessels from Copan. Of 21 Late Classic ceramic groups preliminarilydefined for the La Entrada
region, nine have close analogsat Copan (Sato 1991). These taxa include large,unslippedjars with
light coffee-brownpaste (TangosGroup in La Entrada,Zico Group in Copan),a wide rangeof red-
painted and/or incised utilitarianjars and bowls of apparentlocal manufacture(Masica Incised
Group in La Entrada,Reina, and Cruz Incised types in Copan; Nicolas Group in La Entrada,
Lorenzo Group in Copan). Elaboratelydecorated polychromesare very common in Late Classic
excavated and surfacecollections with the possible exception of Los Higos.
Sculpturefragmentsand hieroglyphicinscriptions are found at these centers as well as at some
smallerLa Entradamonumentalsites. Many pieces of La Entradasculptureare stylisticallysimilar
to Copan examples. Glyphic texts were found on Stela 1 from Los Higos (Morley 1920:384-386,
Figure62; Pahl 1977; Schele 1991) and on an alabasterbowl reportedlyfrom E1Abra (Nakamura
et al. 1991; Riese 1984, 1988:88;Schele 1991). Fragmentaryinscriptionshave been recoveredfrom
Las Pilas (Nakamuraet al. 1991; Schele 1991), Los Higos (Nakamuraet al. 1991; Schele 1991), El
Puente (Yde 1938), and on a Surlo vessel presumablyfrom E1Abra. Emblem glyphs have been at
least tentatively identifiedfor Las Pilas and Los Higos (Pahl 1977:139; Schele 1991). The E1Abra
vase inscriptionmentions the sixteenth Copan ruler, Yax-Pac (Schele 1991). The Los Higos Stela

° 200 m
l l l l l l
Figure 2. Site of La Pilas.
1 text refers to the individual depicted on the monument as an ahau, a term reserved for Maya
nobles of the highest rank (Schele 1991). This person wears distinctive Copanec symbols of power,
including the turban headdress and pectoral, and is engaged in such Lowland Maya elite practices
as bloodletting and structure dedication (Pahl 1977:136; Schele 1991). These data confirm the
existence of close ties between Late Classic Los Higos and Copan, possibly cemented by intermarriage
among the elite houses (Pahl 1977:141-142; Schele 1991).
Each La Entrada center is the capital of an autonomous polity. Their independence is inferred
from the equivalent sizes of the centers in question, the considerable amounts of labor invested in
their monumental constructions, and their fairly regular spacing. Smaller subsidiary administrative
loci (Category 3-4) as well as the humbler residences of the nonelite population are distributed
around the capitals. The development of these polities is most likely contemporary with Copan's
growth and expansion during the Middle Classic (Nakamura et al. 1991).
The Lower Motagua

Beginning 12 km northeast of Quirigua are 12 large centers whose residents did not participate
in the Lowland Maya pattern. The contemporaneity of these loci and Quirigua is indicated by their
sharing a large number of ceramic taxa, which also points to close communication on some level.
The large size of many Late Classic lower Motagua centers suggests that their lack of Lowland Maya
material patterns is not due to the absence of powerful elites outside Quirigua. The sites incorporated
within this network are found both within the lower Motagua Valley and outside it: Techin in the

o
NM.
*1
- o
3
2
O 10 30 50 lOOm
S .
Figure 3. Site of El Abra.
natural corridor linking the lower Motagua and Florida valleys, and the monumental sites of Tras
Cerros and Piladeros in the intermontane pocket between the lower Motagua and Quimistan valleys
(Figure 1). All are large centers dominated by sizable monumental courts, which alone suggest the
presence of powerful, resident scions. The visible constructions at these centers were apparently
built, used, and abandoned over a limited portion of the Late Classic, roughly A.D. 700-850
(Schortman 1984, 1993). This estimate is based on comparison of excavated and surface-collected
ceramics with the Quirigua sequence (no material suitable for radiocarbon assays has been recovered).
The short duration of occupation is also supported by the paucity of artifacts recovered from
construction fill and the shallowness of recovered middens (Schortman 1993). Excavations under-
taken at Choco, Playitas, and Las Quebradas serve as the basis for interpreting patterns seen at
unexcavated sites.
Lower Motagua monumental foci consist of at least one quadrangle composed offour long, massive
platforms 2-8 m high arranged at right angles around a court. At least two corners providing access
to the court were closed by construction linking adjoining platforms; commonly all four corners
were sealed. The courts thus enclosed ranged from 920 to 5,330 m2 and were variably surfaced,
with pebbles or stone slabs in some cases, and elsewhere left as exposed earth. The quadrangle was
the basic module from which monumental courts were constructed; elaborate versions consisted of
two to four adjoining court complexes sharing a structure(s) between them (Figures 6-8). The largest

320 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991
*17 * 1B *19 .2Q
';' 0 ; ; 0 / f ' 5 LINE OF 510NES
- -6 -7 - B _ 9 -10 -11 -12
0 30m
Figure4. Site of LosHigos.
centers, Playitas, Las Quebradas,QuebradaGrande, Las Animas, and Tras Cerros, have several
contemporaryquadranglesranked in terms of their overall sizes and complexity (Figure 7). The
smaller sites in the sample are generally dominated by one or, at most, two relatively simple
quadrangles.Techin and Choco are exceptions, their large(13,350 m2 and 15,675 m2 respectively)
and complex court units are not accompaniedby a gradedseries of simpler quadrangles(Figures6
and 8). Excavationsconductedwithin the court complexesyielded quantitiesof utilitarianceramics
alongwith chipped-and ground-stonetools. This evidence suggeststhat the quadranglesfunctioned,
in part, as elite residences.
Smallerstructuressurroundthese architecturalfoci. They appeareithersinglyor, more commonly,
in groups of three to six around a common patio. Excavation of six humble platformsrecovered
domestic ceramic and lithic debris. Most likely these patio groups are the physical remains of
nonelite households. Lower structurestend to concentrate around the quadranglesat a center,
droppingoSin densityaway from monumentalconstructions.The largest,most complex courtunits
within multiplequadranglesites serve as foci for the densestaggregationsof smallerstructures,while
each successively simpler court is surroundedby fewer and more dispersed constructions(Figure
7). Thoughvariationsin site planningexist, there is still a remarkableabsenceof structuraldiversity
and organizationalpatternsthroughoutthe centersof this network.Such distinctive Mayastructures
as the temple, palace, or ball court have not been clearly identifiedhere.

321
Schortman and Nakamura] CRISIS OF IDENTITYON THE SOUTHEAST MAYA PERIPHERY
Quebrsda Ei
Es p ' r i tu a,
*1 _u
O 10 30 50 lOOm
Figure5. Site of LasTapias.
Monumentalplatformswere almost invariablyfaced on all four sides by low terraces.Unworked

rivercobbles form the 35-40-cm-high risersand are surmountedby schist-slabtreadsthat run back
ca. 40 cm to the next ascendingterrace(Figure9). These units (referredto here as "step terraces")
ascend up and inwardto the summit. The use of plasterto cover terracefaces was restrictedto Str.
200-77, the largestPlayitasplatform.Monumentalsuperstructures werebuilt of perishablematerials,
most commonly bajareque (wattle and daub), frequentlyset on low stone foundations. Humbler
structuressurroundingthe principalcourts are earthen platformsfaced with low cobble walls and
supportingbajareque superstructures.Cut-blockmasonrywas only observed on the upperterraces
of one of the largestChoco structures(Str. 212-2).
Sites in the lower Motagua network share a number of utilitarianpottery taxa. These include
large,unslippedjars with a highly micaceous paste (MojanalGroup in the lower Motagua,Entrada
Groupin La Entrada),unslippedjars with curvilinearincised designson their necksand red-painted
decorationson rim and/or neck (EncantadoGroup in the lower Motagua,Masica Incised Group in
La Entrada).Orange-slipped,open bowls (Bobos Group in the lower Motagua,Venta Group in La
Entrada),and fine-paste,unslipped, burnishedbowls (Tipon Group, lower Motagua,Surlo Group
in La Entrada;see Sato [1991] and Schortman[1984] for more detailed ceramic descriptions)are
also found in both networks.Many of these ceramicgroupshave close counterpartsat contemporary
Quirigua.Incensario forms are also very similarbetweenQuiriguaand lower Motaguaassemblages.
Only one of six incensariotaxa from the lower Motagua lacks a counterpartat Quirigua(Benyo
1979; Schortman 1984, 1993). Equallysignificantas these commonalities is the virtual absence of
locally made or imported polychromes. This contrasts with other Late Classic southeast regions
where elaboratelypainted vessels are a significantpart of collections from sites of all sizes (Urban
and Schortman1987, 1988). Elite status items, includingcarved shell and jade, are not represented
in lower Motaguaartifactcollections.

: 1 1 4
322 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No 4, 1991
74
56
76 57 %
7 55
54
11
1' i 1 3 [<13
60 l l
63 2 53
n 61 I
o 62 <i11 N 12
50
9C
67 8
51:
72 69 65 @ 64
LAJs S n 68
52
66
70 u
71
49
N
MAG
48
47
43
{ :: 44 46
22
CHOCO 25
OP. 21 2 23 45
26
24 <
30 31
l l l l l g l 28
0 100 200M w. o 32 39 42
27 g
33
S 40
29
Agal
Figure6. Site of Choco.
Quirigua'ssculpturalflorescencedid not extendinto the lowerMotagua.Ten uncarvedmonuments

wererecordedhere:fourpecked-stonespheresca. .5 m in diameter;one shapedcolumn;one massive
unmodified slab; three quartz boulderseach 1.0 m in diameter;and one low7squat stone cylinder
ca. .6 m across. Seven of the monuments are from Las Quebradas;the remainingthree were found
at Arapahoe Viejo, Las Animas, and Rio Negro. These stones were almost invariably recovered
within the confines of the massive closed courts, and monuments of differenttypes did not share
the same court. Excavationsin the environs of four Las Quebradasmonuments revealedthat they

| I :P N sZ =
g 8, s wt N | >
MAYAPERIPHERY
ON THESOUTHEAST 323
Schortmanand Nakamura] CRISISOF IDENTITY
N wi o //
i ,
Et1C; ii 4, ,>s
ns ''' c8>
1;;1 ')a; t I 7g:; " '2 Z

-0n0;0! f2fW A,
.\ Cm .
\ I _ o
X oO
\ Ho @ .o8 Q
a t ° E "° X _
l U Us S mS -
0 Wzo'
"!"S3<. 4
, X ,
C9s \
\
* @, fS
\\\
u .es
-> V D
* rt
Figure 7. Site of Las Quebradas.

NwM.
o5 L oN
0 30m
I . . I
Figure8. Site of Techin.
were faced by a stone pavement, at least on one side, and associated in three instances with large
quantitiesof incensario sherds (the fourth case was insufficientlyexcavated to test this linkage).It
seems likely that the investigated stones, and perhapsall lower Motagua monuments, were ritual
foci used by the inhabitantsof the surroundingmonumentalstructures.The only other evidence of
sculptureis the tenoned stone decorations recorded by Berlin (1952) from Playitas Str. 200-77.
These renditionsof humanheads,torsos,appendages,masks,and assortedornamentsarestylistically
similar to examples from Copan (Berlin 1952) and southern Florida examples (Nakamura 1988:
18).
The social systems representedby the Late Classic lower Motaguaremains have been described
elsewhere(Schortman1984, 1993). There appearto have been at least seven autonomous polities
linkedwithin the lower Motaguanetwork,each dominatedby a largecenter:Las Animas, Quebrada
Grande,Las Quebradas,Playitas,Techin, Tras Cerros,and Choco. All are multiple-quadranglesites
save for Techin and Choco. The roughlyequivalentsizes of these centers,the considerableamounts
of labor invested in their monumentalconstructions,and their fairlyregularspacing,averaging5.9
km apart within the lower Motagua Valley, all suggest the independenceand power of their elite
residents.The differentsizes of courtcomplexes at multiplequadranglecentersimplies that the elite
occupants of these units exercised differentialcontrol over labor. Those residing in the largest

; S S C C>-s gyj:g-
Schertman and Nakamura] CRISIS OF IDENTITYON THE SOUTHEAST MAYA PERIPHERY 325
0 4M
l l l l l
I N
- ts,
U1
l l l l l
Figure 9. Example of step-terrace-styleconstruction:Str. 200-23, Playitas, lower MotaguaValley.
quadranglescould call on the exertions of the greatestnumber of adherentsto raise their edifices.
The inhabitants of smaller court complexes had the support of fewer nonelites, reflectedin their
relatively diminutive quadranglesand reduced number of surrounding,humble platforms. Each
lower Motagua domain was probably administeredthrough one or two smaller quadranglesites.
The existence of court complexes at these second-level centers points to the presenceof a resident
elite. The smaller court sizes reflect the lower level of power and labor control exercised by these
notables vis a vis their counterpartsin the paramountcenters.
Intermediate AccuZturation
Situated physically and culturallyon the peripheriesof the lower Motagua and Lowland Maya
networksare monumental centers that are not part of either of them but share featureswith both.
Nueva Suyapais one example (Figure 10). Located in the northernFlorida Valley, Nueva Suyapa
lies roughlyequidistantfrom lower Motaguaand Lowland Maya centers. The site core consists of
a double quadranglereminiscentof lower Motaguaexamples. Nevertheless,the largeplatformsare
apparentlyfacedwith a mix of tuffmasonryand roughlymodifiedschist slabsinsteadof step terraces
(Nakamuraet al. 1991). Late Classic ceramics recoveredin test pitting most closely resemble the
contemporaryCopan assemblage,includinglargeamounts of CopadorPolychrome.A mix of lower
Motagua and Lowland Maya patternsare present here with the balance weighted in favor of the
latter.
The large site of Roncadorin the northeasternLa Venta Valley exhibits yet anothercombination
of features (Figure 11). A ball court and some additional platformsare faced with cut tuff blocks
reflectingLowland Maya borrowings,while other sizeable platforms were apparentlybuilt using
roughly modified limestone (Nakamuraet al. 1991). Perishablewalls, not masonry, capped the
summits of all platforms, though plaster covered monumental substructurefacings. No sculpture
or hieroglyphicinscriptions were found. The form of the site core, with the ball court situated
immediately south of a massive rectilinearopen plaza, conforms generallyto the Lowland Maya
template (Ashmore 1986, 1987). Late Classic pottery from the site exhibits close typologicallinks
with the lower Motaguanetwork.CopadorPolychrome,in particular,is almost absent (Sato 1991).
Roncador representsyet another synthesis of Lowland Maya and non-Maya elements within a
crossroadlocation for Late Classic interaction.

:: 3; X
326 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991]
N.M.
03 < S
*2't
X D;X)-, ts
() 3Om
I * l I
Figure 10. Site of Nueva Suyapa.
DISCUSSION
Gaps remain in our understandingof La Entradaand lower Motaguadevelopments. Recovered

data are sufficient,however, to reveal a very complex patternof elite interaction.Fourteenpolities
apparentlycoexisted here in the Late Classic, linked into at least two interaction networks;the
LowlandMaya and lower Motagua.The rulersof Nueva Suyapaand Roncadoroccupied an inter-
mediateground.The systems are definedby easily visible symbols relatedto basic proxemic,social,
and ideological assumptions,standards,and values of the rulingelite. The materialpatternschar-
acterizingthe lower Motaguaand LowlandMaya networksare not closely controlledby featuresof
the physical environment. River cobbles and schist slabs used in step-terraceconstructions, for
example, are widely distributed, and yet this monumental construction style is limited to one
network.Fashioningstone blocks and sculpturewas possible in lower Motaguacentersand yet was

O J ss 53 lUOm
Figure 11. Site of Roncador, Northwest Group.

MM.
I/fS
Lake Izabat
QuimistanValley
f J XCJJ * Lowland Maya Pattern
/ # q X * Lower Motagua Pattern
J \ * Intermediate Pattern
La Venta Vattey __*

A Other archaeological Sites
Potencl al Com mun' catzo n Route
0 10 20km
* * .
Figure 12. Potential communication routes linking the lower Motagua, La Entrada, and Quimistan valleys
during the Late Classic.
rarelydone. Aspects of site organizationand structureform, which are little restrictedby physical
environmentalfeatures,vary considerablyacross these areasas well. The materialforms described
above, therefore,seem to result from choices made by the rulers of the 14 polities under study.
These choices are patterned,shared over wide areas, and indicate, we argue,the existence of two
salient elite identities linking the paramountsof independentpolities.
As noted earlier,salientaffiliationsare employedin competitionover resources.One way in which
these personalisticties are used strategicallyis in facilitatingand controllinginterregionalexchange.
By sharingan affiliation,the tradingdiasporasof precolonialand contemporaryAfricanoted earlier
overcamebarriersof distrustand languagethat frequentlyseparatethe membersof diffierentpolities
(Cohen 1969; Curtin 1975, 1984). These universal impediments to interregionalinteractionmay
well have been surmountedby the LowlandMaya and lower Motaguaelites in much the same way.
Sharing an identity can also be used to monopolize control of the imports obtained through
intersocietalcontacts. The case has been made (e.g., Rathje 1972) that the movement of goods
across the Classic Maya Lowlandswas an elite prerogative.Allowing only those who prominently
displayed Lowland Maya identity symbols to participatein intersocietalexchangeswould be one
way to ensure elite control over commerce (e.g., Cohen 1981; Kipp and Schortman 1989; Wobst
1977). The use of identity membershipand its symbols to restrictaccess to imports is commonly
attestedin historicallyknown situationssuch as the tradingdiasporasof the Swahili(Donley 1982),
Hausa (Cohen 1969), and JahaankeMori (Curtin 1975) of Africa. The imports acquiredthrough
these contacts could then be used as badges of office, separatingrulers from ruled, and/or as gifts
to dependents,cementingintrasocietalalliances and stimulatingsurplusproduction(Brumfieland
Earle 1987; Earle 1987; Ekholm 1978; Friedman 1982; Friedman and Rowlands 1978:224-232;
Spencer1982). Paramountelite control of these items would forgeties of dependency,strengthening

the power of local rulers(Brumfiel1987; Ekholm 1978; Friedman 1982; Friedmanand Rowlands
1978:224-232; Strathern1971). Interregionalinteraction,intersocietalelite-identity systems, and
local politicalhierarchiesare all closely related(the Hopewell [Braun1986; Broseand Greber1979],
Chavin [Patterson1971], and Bell Beakerinteractionnetworks[Shennan1982,1986] also exemplify
this process).The LowlandMaya and lower Motaguaelite affiliations,therefore,served to promote
interpolitycommunicationand exchangewhile vestingcontrolover these politicallychargedcontacts
in the hands of participatingrulers.
Whywerethe lowerMotaguanotablesnot simplyincorporatedwithinthe LowlandMayanetwork?
There were no serious obstacles to contact among polities linked by the diffierentidentity systems.
In fact, the most dramaticphysical barrierto interaction,the Sierrade EspirituSanto range,failed
to impede the formationof the lower Motaguanetwork.Direct evidence of interaffiliationcontact
appearsin the form of ceramic and incensario taxa sharedamong members of the Lowland Maya
(Quirigua)and lower Motaguasystems. In attemptingto answerthis question we will offierseveral
hypothesesthat must be tested throughadditional work.
Given the general association between spatially extensive identity networks and the control of
interregionalexchange, we would argue that the lower Motagua interaction system developed in
competition with the Lowland Maya network. Lower Motaguaelites were trying to forge trading
links with the Honduran side of the sierra independent of Lowland Maya interference.There is
some tentative support for this view. The strongestevidence is the location of the largest lower
Motaguacenterseitherwherepotentialcommunicationroutesto Hondurasenterthe valley or along
these passes in restrictedareas of land high in the Sierrade EspirituSanto. It is hard to account for
the presence of large centers, such as Techin, in intramontanepockets with so little arable land
unless their very existence was a function of communicationalong these routes (Figure 12 defines
potential Late C:lassicroutes and their relation to known centers. Those following the Rios Bobos
and Chinamitoare still used today as indicatedby informantreportsand the trail systems outlined
on the 1/50,000 topographicmap of the Guatemalan-Honduranborder (see Nakamura 1987b,
1988:14-15). Eachof these channelswould have providedaccess to areasof northwesternHonduras
that supportedsizable, complexly organizedpopulationsin the Late Classic-the La Entradazone,
and the Quimistan and Naco valleys among them (Hendersonet al. 1979; Schortmanet al. 1991;
Urban 1986a, 1986b; Urban et al. 1988).
The very rapiditywith which these centersseem to have been raisedalso arguesfor their creation
as part of a conscious plan executed by ruling elite. The lack of acculturationbetween the lower
Motagua and Lowland Maya patterns can also be understood in this light. It has been generally
observedthat intergroupcompetition promotesthe proliferationof visible materialsymbols, which
serve to diffierentiateidentity holders and work againstthe adoption of culturalpatternseven when
the people in question are in regularcontact. The abstractqualities of opposition and competition
are physicallyexpressedthroughmaterial symbols which reinforcecooperationwithin the salient
affiliationsin conflict (e.g., Blu 1980; Hodder 1977, 1979). The Lowland Maya might, therefore,
have consciously striven to restrictthe trappingsof their identity, thus excluding lower Motagua
potentatesfrom pan-lowlandexchangenetworksby refusingthem access to the critical symbols of
LowlandMaya identity membership.Denied participationin this network,lower Motaguanotables
createdtheir own interactionsystem incorporatingvery little from their Lowland Maya neighbors
and set about monopolizingcontacts with other Maya and non-Maya portions of the southeast.
The kinds of evidence needed to supportthis interpretation,i.e., the goods that lower Motagua
notables wanted to control, are still only sparsely representedin our collections. Obsidian is the
largestcategoryof imported materialsrepresentedin lower Motaguaassemblages,but the precise
route(s) by which it arrived is not certain (the chipped-stone assemblage excavated from lower
Motaguacentersconsists almost exclusively of this material).It is possible that Quirigua'sstrategic
position astridethe Rio Motaguagave it a local edge in competition over access to obsidianderived
from large flows within the GuatemalanHighlandsto the southeast (Ashmore 1981; Sharer 1978,
1990). LowerMotaguarulers,seekingto breakthis monopoly, would then be forcedto forgenorth-
south links across the sierra.These ties would permit the lower Motaguapolities to tap into other
commercialnetworksalong which Guatemalanobsidian was moved as well as new sources of this

stone fromHonduras(e.g., LaEsperanza).Recentneutron-activationanalysesof La Entradaobsidian

combined with visual assessments, in fact, suggest the presence of an as yet unidentified flow(s)
somewhere in the La Entrada/lowerMotagua area (Aoyama and Glascock 1991). Material from
this provisionallyidentifiedsource(s)is found in fairlylargeamounts within both the northeastLa
Venta Valley and the Tras Cerrospocket. Effiortsto control such a deposit(s) may have motivated
the creationof the lower Motaguanetwork.
Some pottery,the sources of which most likely lie within northwesternHonduras,has also been
identifiedin lowerMotaguaassemblages,albeitin smallamounts.LowerMotaguaartifactcollections
are quite small, and we have yet to excavate significantportions of these massive centers. The
rigoroustesting of the above propositions,therefore,must await furtherfieldwork.
What set oWthis patternof networkbuildingin the last Late Classic centuries?One possibility is
a weakeningof the powerfulcenterof Copan.While datingof lower Motaguasites remainstentative,
it is interestingto note that Quirigua'smuch-touted victory over Copan in A.D. 737 (Jones and
Sharer 1986; Riese 1986; Sharer 1978, 1988, 1990) coincides with the apparentinitiation of the
lower Motaguanetworkand the buildingof its monumentalfoci. The Quirigua-Copanconflictmight
be symptomatic of an interval of instability and confrontationin the southeast. The Late Classic
marks a period of sociopolitical florescencethroughoutthe southeast, and this was especially the
case in western Honduras (Ashmore et al. 1987; Henderson 1983; Schortmanet al. 1986, 1991;
Urbanet al. l 988). Polities in many areasreachedlevels of complexityand centralizationunmatched
in earlieror later epochs. This expansion may have upset preexistingpower balances.Under such
circumstanceselites would have acted to enhancetheir local positions throughforgingnew ties and
throwing oWthe domination of earlier preeminent societies, in particular,Copan. This seems to
have been the case at Quirigua(Sharer1978, 1988, 1990), where we are fortunateto have written
texts to which we can refer. The activity along the lower Motagua network suggeststhat similar
processeswere in operationhere as well.
ThreatenedCopan rulershad to adapt to these volatile times. The increasingmilitarismevident
in LateClassicCopaniconographyundoubtedlyreflectsone such reaction(Baudez1986; Fash 1988;
Fash and Fash 1990). The establishmentof new, or reinforcementof old, alliance networks was
another.The latterstrategyseems to be reflectedin the materialpatternsof Late ClassicLa Entrada.
Copan most likely forged ties with the southern La Venta and Florida valleys during the rule of
Butz Chan in the late sixth centuryA.D. (e.g., Schele 1991). On or aroundA.D. 672, Butz Chan's
successor,Smoke Imix, may have establishedhegemony over Quiriguaas recordedon Monument
12 (Altar L) from the latter center (Fash 1988:160;Fash and Fash 1990:30;Sharer 1990:64, 106).
The sixth throughseventh centurieswitnessedboth the consolidationof centralizedcontrol within
the Copan core and militaristic expansion beyond it (Fash 1988:160). Evidence for a Copanec
presencein the La Entradaregionremainsweak at this time, most effiortsof the early dynastsbeing
directedtoward Quirigua.
It has been arguedelsewherethat Copan'sinterestin Quiriguaderived from the latter'sstrategic
position along importantjade and obsidian exchangenetworks(Fash 1988:160; Hammond 1972;
Sharer 1990:101-102; 106-107). The emphasis shifts dramaticallyfollowing A.D. 737. The dated
hieroglyphicinscriptionsfrom Los Higos and El Abra both fall near the end of the eighth century
and explicitlyenunciateMaya ceremonialthemes as well as intereliteexchanges(Pahl 1977; Schele
1991). The concentrationoftexts after A.D. 737 stronglyindicates an intensificationof Copan-La
Entradaalliances during this intervai. Along the same lines, Altar 1 from the large center of Rio
Amarilloca. 30 km east of Copan on a potentialroute to the La Entradazone also dates to the late
eighth century (Riese 1988:87). This inscription makes referenceto Yax-Pac, the last significant
Copanlord. Rio Amarillo,like more distantLos Higos and Las Pilas, may have had its own emblem
glyph (Pahl 1977:142-148).
The spreadof distinctive Maya elite behavioralforms to the La Entradaregion and intervening
zones may well have been part of Copan's strategyto strengthenits ties with centers strategically
positionedto controlexchangeswith largeportionsof the southeast(also see Urban and Schortman
1988). These ties would help compensatefor Quirigua'ssecession from the Copan-focusednetwork
and growingcompetition from the lower Motagua interaction system. The most effiectiveway to

secure these new alliances would be throughthe extension of the Lowland Maya elite identity to
the scions of the La Entradapolities, alliances possibly reinforcedthroughthe actual exchange of
elite personnel(Pahl 1977; Schele 1991).
The intermediate acculturationpolities probably representthe results of complex interaction
processesthat occurredin crossroadlocationsnot fully incorporatedwithin a singleidentitynetwork.
Instead,sites such as Nueva Suyapaand Roncadorseem to have been venues for exchangesamong
participantsin several such systems.
Whatwe have presentedarespeculationsthatraisea host of questions.We hope that ourcolleagues
will be sufficientlyinspired, or frustrated,by this exposition to pursue more intensive researchon
issues of identity formation.Whateverthe fate of our hypotheses,however,we think it is clear that
polities on the marginsof developed states are not passive recipientsof core initiatives, ideas, and
practices."Peripheral"rulers,instead, forge their own solutions to regionalproblems.At times, as
in some parts of La Entrada,these solutions bring them into closer contact with core paramounts
and encouragethe adoption of at least some trappingsfrom the latter.In other cases, as in the lower
Motaguanetwork,the elite choose or arecompelledinto competitionwith theircomplexlyorganized
neighbors, stressingtheir distinctiveness from them. The results of these complex processes and
decisions are the materialpatternswe recover.In the southeastsuch "traits"have traditionallybeen
used to define the limits of a static Lowland Maya culture (e.g., Longyear 1947; Lothrop 1939).
Looked at in another way, they have much to tell us about dynamic processes of interactionand
sociopoliticalchange.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank all of those scholarswhose comments on earlierdrafts of this
papergreatlycontributedto its development.These includeWendyAshmore,RutgersUniversity,RobertSharer,
University of Pennsylvania,and PatriciaUrban?Kenyon College for their insightfuland tactful remarks.We
are also deeply indebted to the National GeographicSociety, National Science Foundation(BNS 76-24189),
University Museum (FrancisBoyer Museum Fund) Mr. LandonT. Clay (lower Motaguaand Quirigua),and
the JapanInternationalCooperationAgency(La Entrada)for their financialsupportof our work. The Instituto
Hondureno de Antropologiae Historia and the Instituto de Antropologiae Historia (Guatemala)provided
invaluableassistancethroughoutour researchefforts,and we extend our heartSeltthanksto their directors(Lic.
Cruzand Arq. Casco, Honduras,and Lics. Lujanand Polo Sifontes,Guatemala)and staff.We are also grateful
to PrudenceRice, editor,LatinAmericanAntiquity,and threeanonymousreviewersfor the time and intelligence
they devoted to improvingan earlierversion of this article.Needless to say, all lapses of logic, sense, and taste
remain our fault alone.
REFERENCESCITED
AID ResourcesInventoryCenter
1966 HondurasAID/RIC GIPR No. 5. Inventarionacionalde recursosfisicos: CentralAmericay Panama.
AIR ResourcesInventoryCenter,Corpsof Engineers,Washington,D.C.
Aoyama, K.
1991 Litica. In Investigacionesarqueologicasen la regionde La Entrada,departamentosde Copany Santa
Barbara,Honduras,C.A.:Primerafase,vol. 2, editedby S. Nakamura,K. Aoyama,and E. Uratsuji.Instituto
Hondurenode Antropologiae Historia, Servicio de VoluntariosJaponeses para la Cooperacioncon el
Extranjero,San Pedro Sula, in press.
Aoyama, K., and M. Glascock
1991 Analisis de activacion neutronica(NAA) para identificarlas fuentes de obsidiana-examen ciego de
los resultadosdel analisisvisual. In Investigacionesarqueologicasen la regionde La Entrada,departamentos
de Copany Santa Barbara,Honduras,C.A..Primerafase, vol. 2, edited by S. Nakamura,K. Aoyama, and
E. Uratsuji. Instituto Hondurenode Antropologiae Historia, Servicio de VoluntariosJaponeses para la
Cooperacioncon el Extranjero,San Pedro Sula, in press.
Arens, W.
1978 ChangingPatternsof Ethnic Identityand Prestigein East Africa.In Perspectiveson Ethnicity,edited
by R. Holloman and S. Arutiunov,pp. 21 1-220. Mouton, The Hague.
Ashmore,W.
1981 PrecolumbianOccupationat Quirigua:SettlementPatternsin a ClassicMaya Center.Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.University Microfilms,Ann Arbor.
1984 QuiriguaArchaeologyand History Revisited. Journalof Field Archaeology11:365-380.
1986 Peten Cosmology in the Maya Southeast:An Analysis of Architectureand Settlement Patternsat
Classic Quirigua.In The Southeast Maya Periphery,edited by P. Urban and E. Schortman,pp. 35-49.
Universityof Texas Press, Austin.

332 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991
1987 CobbleCrossroads:GualjoquitoArchitectureand ExternalElite Ties. In Interactionon the Southeast

MesoamericanFrontier:Prehistoricand HistoricHondurasand El Salvador,edited by E. J. Robinson, pp.
2848. BAR InternationalSeries 327. BritishArchaeologicalReports,Oxford.
1991 PrecolumbianOccupationat Quirigua,Guatemala:SettlementPatternsin a ClassicMaya Center.Ms.
on file, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania(to be published in QuiriguaReports, Museum
Monographs,University Museum, University of Pennsylvania).
Ashmore, W., P. Urban, E. Schortman,J. Benyo, J. Weeks, and S. Smith
1987 Ancient Society in Santa Barbara,Honduras.National GeographicResearch3:232-254.
Barnes,G.
1986 Jiehao, Tonghao:Peer Relations in East Asia. In Peer Polity Interactionand SociopoliticalChange,
edited by C. Renfrewand J. Cherry,pp. 79-91. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Barth,F.
1969 Introduction.In Ethnic Groupsand Boundaries:TheSocial Organizationof CultureDifference,edited
by F. Barth,pp. 9-38. Little, Brown,Boston.
Basham,R.
1976 Ethnicityas a Total Institution.Proceedingsof the CentralStates AnthropologicalSociety, Selected
Papers2:8-17.
Baudez,C.
1986 Iconographyand History at Copan. In The Southeast Maya Periphery,edited by P. Urban and E.
Schortman,pp. 17-26. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Baudez,C. (editor)
1983 Introducciona la arqueologlade Copan, Honduras.3 vols. Secretariadel Estado en el Despacho de
Culturay Turismo, Tegucigalpa.
Beaudry,M.
1987 Commentson FrontierInteraction.In Interactionon the SoutheastMesoamericanFrontier:Prehistoric
and HistoricHondurasand El Salvador,edited by E. J. Robinson, pp. 446A54. BAR InternationalSeries
327. BritishArchaeologicalReports,Oxford.
Benyo, J.
1979 The Pottery Censers of Quirigua,Izabal, Guatemala.Unpublished Masters thesis, Departmentof
Anthropology,State University of New York, Albany.
Berlin,H.
1952 Novedades arqueologicas.Annalesde Antropologlae Historiade Guatemala2:4146.
Blu, K.
1980 The LumbeeProblem:The Makingof an AmericanIndian People.CambridgeUniversity Press,Cam-
bridge.
Boone, E., and G. Willey (editors)
1988 The SoutheastClassicMaya Zone. DumbartonOaks, Washington,D.C.
Braun,D.
1986 MidwesternHopewellianExchangeand SupralocalInteraction.In Peer Polity Interactionand Socio-
politicalChange,editedby C. RenfrewandJ. Cherry,pp.117-126. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Brose?D., and N. Greber(editors)
1979 HopewellArchaeology:The ChillicotheConference.Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.
Brumfiel,E.
1987 Elite and UtilitarianCraftsin the Aztec State. In Specialization,Exchange, and ComplexSocieties,
edited by E. Brumfieland T. Earle,pp. 102-118. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Brumfiel,E., and T. Earle
1987 Specialization,Exchange,and Complex Societies:An Introduction.In Specialization,Exchange, and
ComplexSocieties, edited by E. Brumfieland T. Earle,pp. 1-9. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Cohen, A.
1969 Custom and Politics in UrbanAfrica:A Study of Hausa Migrants in YorubaTowns. University of
CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.
1981 The Politics of Elite Culture.University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.
Cohen, R.
1978 Ethnicity:The Problemand Focus in Anthropology.In AnnualReviewsin Anthropology,vol. 7, edited
by B. Siegel, A. Beals, and S. Tyler, pp. 379403. Annual Reviews, Palo Alto.
Curtin,P.
1975 Economic Change in PrecolonialAfrica. Senegambia in the Era of the Slave Trade. University of
WisconsinPress?Madison.
1984 Cross-CulturalTradein WorldHistory.CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Deagan,K.
1983 SpanishSt. Augustine:TheArchaeologyof a ColonialCreoleCommunity.AcademicPress,New York.
Despres,L.
1975 Ethnicityand ResourceCompetitionin GuyaneseSociety. In Ethnicityand ResourceCompetitionin
Plural Societies, edited by L. Despres, pp. 87-117. Mouton, The Hague.

Donley, L.
1982 House Power:Swahili Space and Symbolic Markers.In Symbolicand StructuralArchaeology,edited
by I. Hodder, pp. 63-73. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Earle,T.
1987 Specializationand the Productionof Wealth:HawaiianChiefdomsand the Inka Empire.In Special-
ization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by E. Brumfieland T. Earle, pp. 64-75. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Earllest,H., and A. Demarest
1987 The SouthernFrontieras a CulturalBoundary:DifferentialRates of Changein Centraland Western
E1Salvador.In Interactionon the SoutheastMesoamericanFrontier:Prehistoricand HistoricHondurasand
El Salvador,edited by E. J. Robinson, pp. 215-226. BAR InternationalSeries 327. BritishArchaeological
Reports,Oxford.
Ekholm,K.
1978 ExternalChangeand the Transformationof CentralAfricanSocial Systems.In TheEvolutionof Social
Systems,editedby J. Friedmanand M. Rowlands,pp. 115-136. Universityof PittsburghPress,Pittsburgh.
Fash, W.
1983 Classic Maya State Formation:A Case Study and Its Implications.UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation,
Departmentof Anthropology,HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.
1988 A New Look at Maya Statecraftfrom Copan, Honduras.Antiquity62:157-169.
Fash, W., and B. Fash
1990 Scribes,Warriors,and Kings:The Lives of the Copan Maya.Archaeology43:26-35.
Freidel,D.
1979 CultureAreas and InteractionSpheres:ContrastingApproachesto the Emergenceof Civilization in
the Maya Lowlands.AmericanAntiquity44:36-54.
1981 Civilizationas a State of Mind. In Transformationsto Statehood,edited by G. Jones and R. Kautz,
pp. 188-227. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Friedman,J.
1982 Catastropheand Continuity in Social Evolution. In Theoryand Explanation in Archaeology:The
SouthamptonConference,edited by C. Renfrew,M. Rowlands,and B. Segraves,pp. 175-196. Academic
Press, New York.
Freidman,J., and M. Rowlands
1978 Notes Towardan EpigeneticModelof the Evolutionof Civilization.In TheEvolutionof Social Systems,
edited by J. Freidmanand M. Rowlands,pp. 201-276. University of PittsburghPress, Pittsburgh.
Hammond, N.
1972 ObsidianTrade Routes in the MayanArea. Science 178:1092-1093.
Handelman,D.
1977 The Organizationof Ethnicity.Ethnic GroWs 1:187-200.
Henderson,J. (editor)
1983 Archaeologyin NorthwesternHonduras:Interim Reportsof the ProyectoArqueologicoSula, vol. 1.
IntercollegeProgramin Archaeology,CornellUniversity, Ithaca.
Henderson,J., I. Wallace,A. Wonderley,and P. Urban
1979 ArchaeologicalInvestigationsin the Valle de Naco, NorthwesternHonduras:A PreliminaryReport.
Journalof Field Archaeology6:169-192.
Hodder, I.
1977 The Distributionof MaterialCultureItems in the BaringoDistrict,WesternKenya.Man 12:239-269.
1979 Economicand Social Stressand MaterialCulturePatterning.AmericanAntiquity44:446-454.
Hodder, I. (editor)
1978 The Spatial Organisationof Culture.University of PittsburghPress, Pittsburgh.
Jones, C., and R. Sharer
1986 ArchaeologicalInvestigationsin the Site Core of Quirigua,Guatemala.In The SoutheastMaya Pe-
riphery,P. Urban and E. Schortman,pp. 27-34. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Jones, C., W. Ashmore, and R. Sharer
1983 The QuiriguaProject:1977 Season. In QuiriguaReports,vol. 2, edited by E. Schortmanand P. Urban,
pp. 1-38. Museum Monographs,The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,Philadephia.
Kamp, K., and N. Yoffee
1981 Ethnicityin Ancient WesternAsia During the EarlySecond Millenium B.C.: ArchaeologicalAssess-
ments and EthnoarchaeologicalPerspectives.Bulletin of the AmericanSchoolfor OrientalResearch237:
85-104.
Kipp, R., and E. Schortman
1989 The Political Impact of Trade on Chiefdoms.AmericanAnthropologist91:370-385.
Longyear,J. III
1947 Culturesand Peoples of the SoutheasternMaya Frontier.TheoreticalApproachesto Problems3. Car-
negie Institution,Washington,D.C.

Lothrop,S.
1921 The Stone Statuesof Nicaragua.AmericanAnthropologist23:311-319.
1939 The SoutheasternFrontierof the Maya. AmericanAnthropologist41:42-54.
Lyman,S., and W. Douglass
1973 Ethnicity:Strategiesof Collective and Individual ImpressionManagement.Social Research40:344-
365.
McGuire,R.
1982 The Studyof Ethnicityin HistoricalArchaeology.Journalof AnthropologicalArchaeology1:159-178.
Morley, S.
1920 The Inscriptionsat Copan. PublicationNo. 219. CarnegieInstitution of Washington,Washington,
D.C.
Nakamura,S.
1987a ArchaeologicalInvestigationsin the La EntradaRegion, Honduras:PreliminaryResultsand Interre-
gionalInteraction.In Interactionon the SoutheastMesoamericanFrontier:PrehistoricandHistoricHonduras
andEISalvador,editedby E.J. Robinson,pp. l 29- 141. BAR InternationalSeries327. BritishArchaeological
Reports,Oxford.
1987b Proyecto arqueologicoLa Entrada,temporada 1986-1987: Resultados preliminarese interaccion
inter-regional.Revised version of a paperpresentedat the IV Seminarode la ArqueologiaHondurena,La
Ceiba, Honduras.Ms. on file, La EntradaArchaeologicalProject,Copan, Honduras.
1988 Reconocimientoarqueologicoen el valle inferiordel Motagua,Izabal,Guatemala.Ms. on file, Instituto
de Antropologiae Historia, GuatemalaCity.
Nakamura,S., K. Aoyama, and E. Uratsuji(editors)
1991 Investigacionesarqueologicasen la regionde La Entrada,departamentosde Copany Santa Barbara,
Honduras,C.A.:Primerafase. 3 vols. Instituto Hondurenode Antropologiae Historia, Servicio de Vol-
untariosJaponesespara la Cooperacioncon el Extranjero,San Pedro Sula, in press.
Nowak, T.
1973a Mercantilismand Colonization:A Studyof PrehistoricRegionalCommunityPatterningand Cultural
Change in the Lower Motagua Valley, Guatemala. Ms. on file, Peabody Museum, HarvardUniversity,
Cambridge.
1973b The LowerMotaguaValley SurveyProject:First PreliminaryReport.Ms. on file, PeabodyMuseum,
HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.
1975 PrehistoricSettlementand InteractionNetworksin the LowerMotaguaValley,Guatemala:A Regional
Analysis. Ms. on file, Peabody Museum, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.
O'Brien,J.
1986 Towarda Reconstitutionof Ethnicity:CapitalistExpansionand CulturalDynamicsin Sudan.American
Anthropologist88:898-907.
Pahl, G.
1977 The Inscriptionsof Rio Amarilloand Los Higos:SecondaryCentersof the SoutheasternMayaFrontier.
Journalof Latin AmericanLore 3:133-154.
Patterson,T.
1971 Chavin:An Interpretationof Its Spreadand Influence.In TheDumbartonOaks Conferenceon Chavin,
edited by E. Benson, pp. 29-48. DumbartonOaks, Washington,D.C.
Rapoport,A.
1982 The Meaning of the Built Environment.A NonverbalCommunicationApproach.Sage, BeverlyHills.
Rathje,W.
1972 Praise the Gods and Pass the Metates: A Hypothesis of the Development of Lowland Rainforest
Civilization.In ContemporaryArchaeology,edited by M. Leone, pp. 365-392. SouthernIllinois University
Press, Carbondale.
Renfrew,C.
1986 Introduction:Peer Polity Interactionand Socio-PoliticalChange.In PeerPolity Interactionand Socio-
Political Change,edited by C. Renfrewand J. Cherry,pp. 1-18. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Richardson,F.
1940 Non-Maya MonumentalSculptureof CentralAmerica. In The Maya and TheirNeighbors,edited by
C. Hay, R. Linton, S. Lothrop,H. Shapiro,and G. Vaillant,pp. 395-416. Dover, New York.
Riese, B.
1984 Una escudilla de alabastrocon inscripcionesMaya, procedentede La Florida de Copan, Honduras.
Ms. on file, InstitutoHondurenode Antropologiae Historia,Tegucigalpa,Honduras.
1986 LateClassic RelationshipBetweenCopanand Quirigua:Some EpigraphicEvidence.In The Southeast
Maya Periphery,edited by P. Urban and E. Schortman,pp. 94-101. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1988 Epigraphyof the SoutheastZone in Relationto OtherPartsof Mesoamerica.In TheSoutheastClassic
Maya Zone, edited by E. Boone and G. Willey, pp. 67-94. DumbartonOaks, Washington,D.C.
Royce, A.
1982 Ethnic Identity.Strategiesof Diversity.IndianaUniversity Press, Bloomington.

Sabloff,J.
1986 InteractionAmong Classic Maya Polities:A PreliminaryExamination.In Peer Polity Interactionand
Socio-PoliticalChange, edited by C. Renfrewand J. Cherry,pp. 109-116. CambridgeUniversity Press,
Cambridge.
Sanders,W. T. (editor)
1986 Excavacionesen el area urbanade Copan,tomo I. Secretariade Culturay Turismo,InstitutoHondureno
de Antropologiae Historia,Tegucigalpa.
Sapper,K.
1895 AltindianischeAnsiedlungenin Guatemalaund Chiapas.Veroffentligingenaus den KoniglichenMu-
seum zur Volkerkund.Bd. IV, heft I.
1897 Das NordicheMittel-Americanebst CinemAusflugnach dom HochlandvonAnakuac.Berlin.
1898 Die Ruinen von Mixco in Guatemala.InternArch. fir Ethnografie,Bd. II.
Sato, E.
1991 Ceramica.In Investigacionesarqueologicasen la region de La Entrada, departamentosde Copan y
Santa Barbara,Honduras,C.A.:Primerafase, vol. 2, edited by S. Nakamura,K. Aoyama,and E. Uratsuji.
Instituto Hondurenode Antropologiae Historia, Servicio de VoluntariosJaponesespara la Cooperacion
con el Extranjero,San Pedro Sula, in press.
Schele, L.
1991 The Inscriptionsof La EntradaRegion, Copan. In Investigacionesarqueologicasen la region de La
Entrada, departamentosde Copan y Santa Barbara,Honduras, C.A.: Primerafase, vol. 2, edited by S.
Nakamura,K. Aoyama, and E. Uratsuji. Instituto Hondurenode Antropologiae Historia, Servicio de
VoluntariosJaponesesparala Cooperacioncon el Extranjero,San Pedro Sula, in press.
Schortman,E.
1984 ArchaeologicalInvestigationsin theLowerMotagua Malley,Izabal,Guatemala:A Studyin Monumental
Site Functionand Interaction.Ph.D. dissertation,University of Pennsylvania.University Microfilms,Ann
Arbor.
1986 Maya/Non-MayaInteractionAlong the Late Classic SoutheastMaya Periphery:The View from the
LowerMotaguaValley,Guatemala.In TheSoutheastMaya Periphery,editedby P. Urbanand E. Schortman,
pp. 114- 137. University of Texas Press, Austin.
1989 InterregionalInteractionin Prehistory:The Need for a New Perspective.AmericanAntiquity54:52-
65.
1993 ArchaeologicalInvestigationsin theLowerMotaguaMalley,Izabal,Guatemala:AStudyinMonumental
Site Functionand Interaction.QuiriguaReports,vol. 4. Museum Monographs,The University Museum,
University of Pennsylvania,in press. Ms. 1991.
Schortman,E., and P. Urban
1986 Introduction.In. The Southeast Maya Periphery,edited by P. Urban and E. Schortman,pp. 1-14.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
1987 ModelingInterregionalInteractionin Prehistory.In Advancesin ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory,
vol. 11, edited by M. B. Schiffer,pp. 37-95. Academic Press, New York.
Schortman,E., P. Urban, W. Ashmore, and J. Benyo
1986 InterregionalInteractionin the SoutheastMaya Periphery:The Santa BarbaraArchaeologicalProject
1983-1984 Seasons.Journal of Field Archaeology13:259-272.
Schortman,E., P. Urban, M. Ausec, S. Connell, L. Neff, C. Siders, S. Smith, L. True, L. Aldrete, E. Bell, S.
Buchmueller,L. Collins, J. Douglass, H. Henderson,K. Miller,N. Ross, and S. Yates
1991 SociopoliticalHierarchyand Craft Production:The Economic Bases of Elite Power in a Southeast
MesoamericanPolity. Submittedto Instituto Hondurenode Antropologiae Historia, Tegucigalpa,Hon-
duras.Copies availablefrom the authors.
SECOPT
1986 Guiapara investigadoresde Honduras.Secretariade Communicaciones,ObrasPublicas,y Transporte,
Tegucigalpa,Honduras.
Sharer,R.
1978 Archaeologyand History at Quirigua,Guatemala.Journalof Field Archaeology5:51-70.
1988 Quiriguaas a Classic Maya Center.In The SoutheastClassicMaya Zone, edited by E. Boone and G.
Willey, pp. 31-65. DumbartonOaks, Washington,D.C.
1990 Quirigua.A ClassicMaya Centerand Its Sculpture.CarolinaAcademic Press, Durham.
Shennan,S.
1982 Ideology,Change,and the EuropeanEarlyBronzeAge. In Symbolicand StructuralArchaeology,edited
by I. Hodder, pp. 155-161. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
1986 Interactionand Changein ThirdMillenniumBCWesternand CentralEurope.In PeerPolityInteraction
and Socio-PoliticalChange,edited by C. Renfrewand J. Cherry,pp. 137-148. CambridgeUniversityPress,
Cambridge.
1989 Introduction:ArchaeologicalApproachesto CulturalIdentity.In ArchaeologicalApproachesto Cultural
Identity,edited by S. Shennan,pp. 1-32. Unwin Hyman, London.

Shibutani,T., and K. Kwan

1965 Ethnic Strati.fication: A ComparativeApproach.Macmillan,New York.
Skinner,E.
1975 CompetitionWithin Ethnic Systems in Africa. In Ethnicityand ResourceCompetitionin Plural So-
cieties, edited by L. Despres, pp. 131-157. Mouton, The Hague.
Spencer,C.
1982 The CuicatlanCanadaand MonteAlban:A Study of PrimaryState Formation.AcademicPress,New
York.
Squier,E.
1883 AncientLabourersand Princesof GranChimuandNew Granada.FrankLeslie'sIllustratedNewspaper,
April.
Strathern,A.
1971 The Rope of Moka. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
Stromsvik,G.
1936 The Ruins ofthe 'ComancheFarmsin the MotaguaValley. Maya Research3:107-109.
Urban, P.
1986a Systems of Settlementin the PrecolumbianNaco Malley,NorthwesternHonduras.Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania.University Microfilms,Ann Arbor.
1986b PrecolumbianSettlementin the Naco Valley, NorthwesternHonduras.In The SoutheastMaya Pe-
riphery,edited by P. Urban and E. Schortman,pp. 275-295. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Urban, P., and E. Schortman
1987 Copanand ItsNeighbors:Patternsof InteractionReflectedin ClassicPeriodWesternHonduranPottery.
In Papersfrom the 1985 Maya CeramicsConference,edited by P. Rice and R. Sharer,pp. 341-395. BAR
InternationalSeries 345. BritishArchaeologicalReports,Oxford.
1988 The SoutheasternZone Viewed from the East:LowerMotagua-NacoValleys.In TheSoutheastClassic
Maya Zone, edited by E. Boone and G. Willey, pp. 223-267. DumbartonOaks, Washington,D.C.
Urban, P., E. Schortman,S. Smith, J. Miller,L. Neff, L. True, M. Ausec, S. Kane, H. Mahan,M. Dall, C. Eaton,
D. Schafer,L. Collins, P. Reed, P. Whooley,N. Condon, and R. Goebels
1988 The Naco Valley ArchaeologicalProject, 1988 Season Summary.Ms. on file, InstitutoHondurenode
Antropologiae Historia,Tegucigalpa,Honduras.
Vincent, J.
1974 The Structuringof Ethnicity.Human Organization33:375-379.
Vivo Escoto, J.
1964 Weatherand Climate in Mexico and CentralAmerica. In NaturalEnvironmentand Early Cultures,
edited by R. C. West, pp. 187-215. Handbookof Middle AmericanIndians,vol. 1, R. Wauchope,general
editor. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Wagner,P.
1964 NaturalVegetationof Middle America. In NaturalEnvironmentand Early Cultures,edited by R. C.
West,pp.216-263. Handbookof MiddleAmericanIndians,vol.1, R. Wauchope,generaleditor.University
of Texas Press,Austin.
Webster,D.
1988 Copan as a Classic Maya Center. In The Southeast Classic Maya Zone, edited by E. Boone and G.
Willey, pp. 5-30. DumbartonOaks, Washington,D.C.
Webster,D., and N. Gonlin
1988 Household Remains of the Humblest Maya.Journalof Field Archaeology15:169-190.
West, R., and J. Augelli
1976 MiddleAmerica.Its Lands and Peoples.2nd ed. PrenticeHall, EnglewoodCliffs,New Jersey.
Whetten,N.
1974 Guatemala.The Land and the People.GreenwoodPress, Westport,Connecticut.
Wiessner,P.
1983 Style and Social Informationin KalahariSan ProjectilePoints. AmericanAntiquity48:253-276.
Wobst, H.
1977 StylisticBehaviorand InformationExchange.In For TheDirector:ResearchEssays in Honorof James
B. Grifgin,edited by C. Cleland,pp. 317-342. AnthropologicalPapersNo. 61. Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan,Ann Arbor.
Worsley,P.
1984 The Three Worlds.University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.
Yde, J.
1938 An ArchaeologicalReconnaissanceof NorthwesternHonduras.PublicationNo. 9. Middle American
ResearchInstitute,Tulane University, New Orleans.
ReceivedNovember19, 1990; acceptedOctober3, 1991


Crisis of Identity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crisis of Identity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Society for American Archaeology

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

EdwardSchortmanand Seiichi Nakamura

Archaeologistsfrequently assumethat whenculturesinteractwitheachotherthe mostcomplexpartnerdominates

This articleaddressesgeneralquestionsof interregionalinteractionwithin the context of a specific

EdwardSchortman,Departmentof Anthropologyand Sociology,KenyonCollege, Gambier,OH 43022

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

m ,_,< .J;. :r i,:

<;) > / > 0 W 11 LAS PILAS

assuming that intersocietaltransactionsare always dominated by the most complexly organized

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

identity patternsin the areasunderstudy. As arguedelsewhere(Schortman1984, 1989, 1993), each

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

Table 1. Principal Monumental Centers in the lower Motagua

generatedconsiderableinformationon LateClassicmajorcenters,dominatedby monumentalpatio

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

Figure 2. Site of La Pilas.

The Lower Motagua

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

Figure 3. Site of El Abra.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

*17 * 1B *19 .2Q

';' 0 ; ; 0 / f ' 5 LINE OF 510NES

- -6 -7 - B _ 9 -10 -11 -12

Figure4. Site of LosHigos.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

Figure5. Site of LasTapias.

Monumentalplatformswere almost invariablyfaced on all four sides by low terraces.Unworked

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

322 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No 4, 1991

Quirigua'ssculpturalflorescencedid not extendinto the lowerMotagua.Ten uncarvedmonuments

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

1;;1 ')a; t I 7g:; " '2 Z

Figure 7. Site of Las Quebradas.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

Figure8. Site of Techin.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

326 LATIN AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 2, No. 4, 1991]

Figure 10. Site of Nueva Suyapa.

Gaps remain in our understandingof La Entradaand lower Motaguadevelopments. Recovered

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

Figure 11. Site of Roncador, Northwest Group.

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

f J XCJJ * Lowland Maya Pattern

/ # q X * Lower Motagua Pattern

La Venta Vattey __*

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

stone fromHonduras(e.g., LaEsperanza).Recentneutron-activationanalysesof La Entradaobsidian

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

1987 CobbleCrossroads:GualjoquitoArchitectureand ExternalElite Ties. In Interactionon the Southeast

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

Shibutani,T., and K. Kwan

ReceivedNovember19, 1990; acceptedOctober3, 1991

This content downloaded from 64.106.42.43 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 02:04:32 AM

You might also like

17 1B *19 .2Q