The Ancient Maya and the Political Present

Author(s): Richard R. Wilk

Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 41, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 307-326
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630596
Accessed: 13/11/2008 14:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 THE ANCIENTMAYAAND THE POLITICALPRESENT
RichardR. Wilk
Departmentof SociologyandAnthropology
New MexicoState University,Las Cruces,NM 88003

Can archaelogists depictthepast with any accuracy,and is that theirgoal? Wheredo

archaeologists' comefromin thefirstplace?Thispapersuggeststhatarchaeological
ideas
discoursehasa dualnature:at thesametimethatitpursuesobjective, verifiable
knowledge
aboutthepast, it also conductsan informaland oftenhiddenpoliticalandphilosophical
debateaboutthe majorissues of contemporary life. Thispaperinvestigatesthis second,
hiddendialoguewithina singlesubfieldof archaeology, Whatgivespower
Mayaprehistory.
is thewayit is used topoliticalandphilosophical
to thepast, and to archaeology, ends.
Thetaskis to recognizethenatureof thedialogueand to takeresponsibility for it.

PROFESSIONAL ARCHAEOLOGISTS AREACCUSTOMED to changing explanations

and theories; they interpret such change as a sign of progress in the discipline.
Consciouslyor unconsciously,archaeologists tend to see the constant proposal,
evaluation, and rejection of new ideas and theories as a part of the scientific
method, one which leads us graduallycloser to objective truth.1Yet to many
laymen, amateurs, and students, the frequent change of explanations and re-
constructions of the past (excluding of course those based on "new discov-
eries") is somewhat bewildering. The perception that the latest theory is likely
to be short lived and that all aspects of the past are subject to interpretation
does not instill in nonarchaeologists a fascinationwith archaeologicalmethod-
ology or epistemology. Rather it leads to cynicism-to the perception that
views of the past are determined by fashion, by competition for status within
the profession (between individualsand/or groups and schools), by borrowing
from other disciplines, or by a reluctant accommodationto new discoveries.
The credibilityof archaeology suffers when serious scholarshipis perceived to
be some sort of arcane game.2
Defensiveness in the face of such criticism leads many archaeologists to
emphasize the part of their work which is rigorous and scientific. Frequent
assertions by professionals that archaeologicalhypotheses are formulatedand
evaluated in an objective and scientific manner are a direct bolster to the
"progressivist"view that archaeology is graduallyhoming in on explanations
that are right and true. This is an implicit, and sometimes explicit, denial of
the substance of the lay critiques-that archaeologists are just making up
stories about the past.
In this paper I suggest that neither the critique or the defense do justice to
the true complexity (or beauty) of archaeologists' relationships to the past.
The process of explainingthe past is not a frivolous game, but neither is it a
simple scientific quest for objective truth. There are elements of truth in lay
perceptions of the profession: hypotheses about and explanationsfor the past
are not generated in an abstract, objective way, and the acceptance and/or

307
308 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

rejectionof these hypothesesis not necessarilybased on rigorousscientific

testing. But to acceptthis as fact does not requirethat we adoptthe cynical
pose thatallprehistoryis just academicgamesmanship lackingin any scientific
credibility.
Archaeologyhas a dualnature;it simultaneously engagesin a fairlyrigorous
pursuitof objectivefacts aboutthe past andan informalandsometimeshidden
dialogueon contemporarypolitics,philosophy,religion,and other important
subjects.It is this seconddialogue,basedon archaeologists' perceptionsof the
present and their experienceof the world(including their experienceof field-
work), which brings motivation,passion,interest, and relevance to the whole
enterprise. This is whatmakes an
archaeology essentially "reflexive" science,
one whichreflectsbackon the presentas muchlightas it sheds on the past.
I have no intentionof takingan extremepositionlike that of some anthro-
pologists(e.g., Sahlins1976:220),whofeel thatthe pastis nothingbuta cultural
construct,lackinganyobjectivereality.This wouldbe as fallaciousas insisting
that the past is like an object whichthe archaeologistmerely uncoversand
puts togetherlikea brokenpot. The true situationis muchmorecomplexand
messy. Objectiveknowledgeof the past is interwovenand intertwinedwith
reflexivecommentary,andfor usualintentsand purposesit shouldprobably
remain so.
In this paper,however, I will try to disentangle,isolate, and dissect the
reflexivecomponentof a particular corpusof archaeological
explanationof the
past. My intentis not to singleout one groupof archaeologistsandpointan
accusingfingeror hold anyoneup for ridicule.Certainlyany other groupof
archaeologistswouldserve just as well. I have chosenMayanprehistoryonly
becauseI knowthis literaturebest.
The pointis to untiethe reflexiveelementof archaeologyfromits statusas
a naivelay criticism,to show that it really(even "objectively")
exists. Once
the topiccan be discussedfreely, we may reachthe conclusionthat there is
nothingshamefulabouta certainlackof objectivityin ourchoiceof explanations
andhypothesesconcerningthe past. Ratherthanbeingconsidereda pollution
of science, the reflexivityof archaeologyshouldbe viewed, I believe, as the
very elementwhichmakes it interestingand relevant.The ultimatepointis
not thatwe have to do somethingaboutthe situation,butinsteadthatwe may
be able to drawuponit andconvertit into a strength.

CONVENTIONAL
WISDOMON THE SOURCESOF THEORY

Consideringhow much introspectionhas gone into recent archaeological

writing,the endless discussionsof epistemologyandthe placeof archaeology
in the philosophyof science, it is strangeto findso littlehas been writtenon
the ultimateoriginsand sources of explanationand theory.We have hearda
greatdealaboutwhatto do withan explanation,a hypothesis,or a modelonce
it has been foundor formulated.But where do they come fromin the first
place?3
 ANDTHE POLITICAL
ANCIENTMAYA PRESENT 309

One of the majorelements of the self-consciousscientismof the "New

Archaeology" was a critiqueof inductivereasoning,then seen to be a char-
acteristicof the old cultural-historical
approach(see, for example,Watson,
LeBlanc, and Redman 1971:28; Fritz and Plog 1970:411-12). Binford (1968)
andothersthoughtthatthe idea of archaeological explanationsemergingfrom
datathroughempiricalanalysiswas bogus;when"oldarchaeologists" saidtheir
theoryemerged from the data they were reallyusing a whole series of un-
spoken,implicitassumptions, which could never be tested because they re-
mainedconcealed.
So the "NewArchaeology" was involvedin a critiqueof the originsof ex-
and
planation theory from the start. Whatalternativewas offeredto "unscien-
tific"inductivegeneralizations based on shakyassumptions?There were two.
One was to be explicitaboutassumptions,to differentiatebetween whatwas
a hypothesisto be tested andwhatwas data,andto be consciousof the process
by whichhypothesesare constructedand used (best exemplifiedby the ar-
gumentsin Watson,LeBlanc,and Redman1971). The other was a bit more
contentiousand considerablymore muddled-a call for a "deductivenomo-
thetic"methodologyby whichspecifichypothesesaboutprehistorywouldbe
derivedfrom"establishedsocial-sciencelaws"(Trigger1973:107).Ratherthan
generatetheirown hypothesesfromobservationsof the past, archaeologists
were to derive explanationsfrom elsewhere and then explicitlytest them;
followingHempel,a past phenomenonwouldbe explainedwhen it was sub-
sumedundersuch generallaws.
But where werethe generallaws of society? The very existence of such
lawshadbeena subjectof heateddebatesincethe Enlightenment. Sociocultural
anthropology onlyofferedsome cross-cultural statisticalregularities
whichwere
notparticularly useful(e.g., Murdock1949andthe HumanRelationsAreaFiles
research).For a whilethere appearedlists of where the laws were goingto
come from:culturalevolutionism,generalsystems theory,locationalanalysis,
demography, andpopulation theory(see Trigger1973:101-4;Leone 1972:25;
Redman1973:11-20; Watson,LeBlanc,and Redman1971). But it became
clear that these bodies of knowledgehad only general, and often untested,
assumptions to offerratherthanhard"laws,"andtheywere oftencontradictory.
Furthermore,there was some dissatisfaction withthe ideathatarchaeologists
couldonly test the laws producedby others-they shouldbe able to be law
producersas well as law consumers(Reid,Rathje,andSchiffer1974).
Finally,a commonpositionon the sources of theoryandlaw was borrowed
fromthe philosophersof science:thatit didnotmatterwherehypothesescame
from,whetherfromgenerallaws, fromobservation,or fromimagination. Sci-
entists should only be concerned with how hypotheses were tested (Hempel
1966:15, 16; Binford1977:2) not where they came from. Using this logic,
Watson,LeBlanc,andRedman(1971:33,7-8) condemned"oldarchaeologists"
forunscientificderivationof explanations andhypothesesandfollowedHempel
in stating that the sources or derivationsof hypothesesare unimportant. So
the critique that the "oldarchaeologists"'hypotheses were derivedincorrectly
was negatedalmostas soon as it was raised.
310 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

The acceptanceof Hempel'sassertionthat the originof theoryandexpla-

nationis irrelevantto science masks the importanceof the issue of where
archaeologists'ideas come from.Binfordstill takes archaeologiststo task for
being empiricistsand thinkingthat theory emerges from observationsand
generalizations.He recentlyhas restated his belief that "theoryrepresents
inventions of the human mind. . . . We invent, rather than discover, theories
or parts of theories"(Binford1985:583).Binfordis remarkablyconsistentin
his critique,butlikemost otherarchaeological theoristshe leaves unexamined
here the issue of howthose theoriesare invented.Do they appearin the brain
by divineinspiration,by dintof trainingin a goodgraduateschool,or by some
more complexmechanismthat does not inviteclose examination?
Conventional historiesof archaeology,likehistoriesof anthropology in gen-
eral, take what couldbe calleda "normalscience"view of the originof hy-
potheses (see, for example,WilleyandSabloff1973;Bernal1980). Scientists
work withina scientificmilieu, derivingand testing hypotheseswithinthe
traditionsof theirown fieldor subfield.They get theirideasfromeach other,
directlyor indirectly,andthe coherenceof this transmissionallowsthe iden-
tificationof "schools" andlinesof descentfromonegroupof scholarsto another.
Through a series of "begots"the historiantraces ideas back to influential
scholarsthroughtheirstudents,keepingthingswell withinthe boundsof the
discipline(Willeyand Sabloff1973:187).Of course at times there is cross-
fertilizationbetween disciplines,the collisionor meldingof differentresearch
traditions, even unaccountable
and wildinnovation.4These historiesdepicta
disciplinesomewhatisolatedfromthe world, engagedin dialoguewith itself
anda few close relatives,withan occasionalvisitorfromfarawaydroppingby
for a chat. Whilecontemporarypoliticsand culturalcurrentscouldinfluence
archaeological debates and archaeologycouldbe turnedto politicalpurposes
(as inearlydisputesoverAmericanIndianorigins,see WilleyandSabloff1973),
these influencesare consideredindirectin moder times. And some archae-
ologistsfindeven the possibilityof such influenceto be very threateningto
theirimageof objectivescience (e.g., Ford1973).
In the last few yearshowever,archaeologyhas becomemoreintrospective,
andalternativehistoriesof the field have appeared.Severalrecent analyses
of "regionaltraditionsof archaeological research"makestrongcases for direct
influenceof politicalchange on archaeology(see Triggerand Glover 1981;
Trigger1981;Chang1981;Lorenzo1981a;Bulkin,Klejn,andLebedev1982;
Bar-Yosefand Mazar1982). The best cases are made for the Soviet Union
and China,thoughIsraelshouldbe a strongrunner-upin the race for direct
politicalinvolvementin the interpretation of prehistory.In a similarvein, Kris-
tiansen(1981)offersa perceptiveanalysisof the historyof Danisharchaeology,
payingclose attentionto the class positionof the archaeologistsand their
audienceandto the culturalandpoliticalcontentof researchandpublications.
Contemporary researchhas also been the target of sociopoliticalanalysis,
in whichthe socialrole andstatus of the professionis shownto have guided
the choice of researchareas, topics, and methods(see Lorenzo1981b and
 ANCIENTMAYA
ANDTHEPOLITICAL
PRESENT 311

papersin Gero, Lacy, andBlakey1983). But even these finelytexturedand

highlyintrospectiveanalysesdo not go so far as to suggest that the actual
contentof explanationand theoryis affectedor determinedby contemporary
events. They suggest that archaeologymay be politicallymotivatedor serve
politicalpurposes;presumablythis occurs because archaeologistsare aware
of who they are andwhatthe past signifies.But it is anotherthingto say that
the theories, explanations,ideas, and specificreconstructionsof past events
are unconsciouslybut directlyreflectingcurrentevents.
Just suchan argumentis offeredby Trigger(1981),who, for example,links
the popularityof catastrophetheoryamongprehistorianswith the increasing
perceptionthat Westernsociety is headingtowardsa (presumablynuclear)
catastrophe.Similarly,Leone (1972:24)suggests thatinterestin generalsys-
tems theorystems from"thepervasivenessof certainaspects of technology
in modemAmericanCulture."And RathjeandSchiffer(1982)linkinterest in
migrationin early archaeologyto waves of immigrantscomingto the United
Statesandinterestin diffusionto colonialism. Tenuousandisolatedconnections
suchas these may appearto have onlya minorinfluenceon the mainflow of
archaeological discourse.If one believesthatsocialscienceis generallyobjec-
tive andvaluefree, thena few minorconnectionsbetweencurrentevents and
the interpretation of the past can be excused as regrettable,but understand-
able, deviations.
An alternativeview is that archaeology,like other social sciences, always
drawson currentevents and politicsas a source of generalorientation,as
criteriafor the choice of researchquestions,and as sources of specifichy-
potheses and explanationsaboutprehistory.From this perspective,the de-
pictionof the past is inseparablefrom the present in whichit is presented
(Leone1981).The empiricalquestionthen becomesone of just how close the
linkbetweenpresentandpast reallyis. I willsuggest thatthe connectionsare
muchmore common,specific,anddirectthanmost archaeologistsaccept.
Whilethe thematicconnectionsI draware more direct,I do not thinkthat
they flow fromthe consciousexpressionof politicalphilosophyby archaeolo-
gists. Rather,I believethatcorrelationsbetweenwhathappensin the present
and what is depictedto have happenedin the past flow from unconscious
processes. The exact natureof these processes remainsobscure, but they
clearlyinvolvethe application of ideas,conclusions,andquestionsderivedfrom
daily life andthought about current events to the professionalworkof archae-
ology.

THE PRESENT IN THE PAST:THE MAYACASE

The analysisthat followsis meantto be indicativeratherthanexhaustive.

I havenot priedintothe privatepapersor unpublished thoughtsof anyMaya-
nists, but have insteaddepended on the writingswhich best present current
"mainstream" and
interpretation explanation to other archaeologistsand the
public.5Mainstream Maya archaeology is best representedin Englishby a
312 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

topicalandsyntheticvolumes,whichusuallyincludepapers
series of influential
presented at conferences (suchas those at Cambridge Universityor the School
of AmericanResearch).The participants includea mixtureof olderestablished
authorities,a highlycompetitivemiddle-agedpeer groupinvolvedin active
fieldwork,anda few younger,ambitiousresearcherswhoaretryingto establish
theirreputations.Papersin the majorjournalsare also importantbut tend to
be muchless adventuresomeandmore orientedtowardsthe presentationof
data.It shouldbe notedthat these sources generallydo not includethe work
of French-and Spanish-speaking Mesoamericanists,whose contributions are
in
thereforenot included my analysis.
Mayaarchaeologyis a particularly goodfieldin whichto studythe influence
of the present on the past, because ClassicMayacultureis knownentirely
througharchaeological ratherthanhistoricalevidence.Tobe sure, ethnographic
analogyplays some part, but most prehistorianshave assumeda majordis-
junctionto exist between the Mayaof historyandtraditionandthose of the
Classicperiod,a barrierwhichconvenientlycorrespondswith the "collapse"
of ClassicMayasocietyjust beforethe earliestreliableethnohistoricevidence.
The realityor solidityof thisbarrierhas alwaysbeen a matterof some dispute.
In the earlyyears, when little actualexcavationhadbeen done, the imagi-
nationcouldrunriot, andimagesof the past tell moreaboutthe cultureof the
prehistorianthan about the Maya. For the first half of this century,Maya
archaeologywas morea meansof escapingthe presentthana reflectionof it,
andthere are few directparallelsbetweencurrentevents andtheoriesof the
past. Rather,the past comes acrossas an antithesisof the present,as a model
of howthingscouldor shouldbe in oppositionto the waythey are. Earlyviews
of the "OldEmpire"as beingruledby theologicallordsof the jungle,a unique,
peaceful,and artisticgroupholdingsway by dint of their intellectualaccom-
plishments(i.e., the ritualcalendar),are clearlyprojections.They fit well with
anearlytwentieth-century disillusionmentwiththe lackof harmonyandspiritual
valuesin the industrialage, attributeswhichhad supposedlybeen lost in the
recentpast.
Becker (1979) has publisheda particularly astute analysisof the Mayaar-
chaeologyof the "middleperiod"from1924to 1945.He tracesclearconnections
between upper-classanti-urbanism andJ. Eric Thompson'shighlyinfluential
model depictingMaya cities as empty "CeremonialCenters"where only a
religiouseliteresided(Becker1979:10-12).Thompson(1927)alsopopularized
the ideathatthe ClassicMayacollapsewas the resultof class warfare,as the
peasantsoverthrewan oppressiveelite. Beckertraces this theoryto Thomp-
son's class background and earlyexperienceon his family'sArgentineestate
and also to contemporarypoliticalevents duringThompson'scareer. "The
beginningsof Thompson'spopularpeasantrevolttheorycouldhave been the
eventstakingplacein moder, not ancient,Mexico"(Becker1979:13).
historical
Whenan ethnographerdrew on experiencewith "untouched" Mayain the
highlandsto supportthe view thatthe ancientMayawere anegalitarian,agrar-
ian, andnonurbansociety, buildingonlyreligiousmonuments,the same kinds
 ANCIENTMAYA PRESENT
ANDTHEPOLITICAL 313
of projectionwere operating(see Vogt 1961, 1964). We mightask why this
modelwas so popularandlasted so long (see SandersandPrice 1968; Price
1974), even afterits ethnographic basis was cast into doubt(Harris1964:26-
31). I thinkthe answeris that the imageof villagedemocracy,of egalitarian,
ruralpeople managingtheir own affairswithoutthe interferenceof political
ideologies,was animportantone in the age of the Peace Corps(founded1961).
Herewas a modelof democracyat the villagelevel, a system whichled to the
constructionof massivemonumentsandsophisticatedarton a voluntarybasis,
withoutcoercion,bureaucracy,class structure,or powerfulleaders. Here,
ancienthistoryserved as an antithesisto the present, an instructiveexample
of how thingscouldbe.
The parallelsbetween historicalevents and archaeologicalinterpretation
becomemore pronouncedanddirectduringthe late sixties, at the very time
that"relevance" becameanimportant concernof collegestudentsandteachers.
the
Certainly overriding historicalevent at this time, fromthe standpointof
the academiccommunity, was the growingescalationof the war in Vietnam.
Andindeed,the ancientMaya also went througha periodof militarization.
Whilethe Bonampak muralsdepictingviolentMayaconflictshadbeenknown
since 1946, they were not interpretedas evidencefor widespreadMayawar-
fare. Stelae portrayingboundwar captivesunderthe feet of spear-wielding
rulerswere also ignored.Insteadit was long believedthat "TheMaya. . .
were one of the least warlikenationswho ever existed"(GannandThompson
1931:63).Suddenly,in the late sixties interpretationsbegan to change, and
the militaristicaspects of Mayahistoryassumeda new prominence.Fortifi-
cationswere discoveredat majorsites; they hadbeen walkedover manytimes
beforebut were never recognizedbefore (see PulestonandCallender1967;
Webster1972).
The firstuse of warfareto explainMayaprehistoryin a systematicway was
in 1964 in a paper entitled"The End of ClassicMaya Culture"by George
Cowgill.In the same year, Adamspublishedan interpretation of ceramicevi-
dencethatled himto posita foreigninvasionof the MayaLowlandsjust before
the collapse.Wasit a coincidencethat this was the year of the Gulfof Tonkin
Resolution,whenAmericantroopstrengthinVietnamsurpassedfiftythousand?
As the warin Vietnamescalated,so didthe numberof paperswhichincluded
warfareas a majorelement of ClassicMaya history. Invasionby a foreign
imperialistpowerfroma moredevelopedareawas an acceptedpartof Classic
Mayaprehistoryby 1967 (see SabloffandWilley1967), the year when U.S.
troopstrengthin Vietnamreacheda peakof halfa million.
At first, warfareandinvasionwere implicatedin the collapseof Mayacivi-
lization(see Thompson1970;SabloffandWilley1967;Adams1971)andwere
considereddisruptiveinfluences,symptomsof pathology.Shortly,however,
conflictwas elevated from a symptomof collapseto a generalprincipleof
culturalevolution,an essentialpartof the causalprocess in the originof the
Mayastate (see Webster1972, 1974, 1975, 1977;Adams1977a).Again,foreign
imperialistinvaderswitheconomicmotives,this time fromTeotihuacan,were
314 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

part of the process. Thus warfare was transformedfrom an aberrationinto a

functionalpart of culturalevolution, a development which occurred elsewhere
in anthropologyas well (see Carneiro 1970; Chagnon 1967).
By the end of the 1960s and during the early 1970s, intellectualAmericans
became involved in a series of debates which were concerned with national
and even global policy. Trigger (1981) links these debates, which he calls
"middleclass movements," to pessimism about the future andlack of confidence
in technological progress. While the precise causes are likely more complex
than he suggests, each of these debates was immediatelyreflected in thought
about the Maya past. Oppositionto the Vietnam Warand a deep concern with
the effects of militarizationon contemporary society were certainly middle-
class movements, and they are reflected in interpretations of prehistory.
While ecological protectionism arose as a nationalissue in the early sixties,
the dangerto America'snaturalenvironmentdidnot become a pressing national
(and political)concern until the late sixties, culminatingwith the establishment
of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency in 1970.6 The peak of the movement
came in the early seventies with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the
Safe DrinkingWater Act of 1974. Environmentalissues became blended with
those of energy, overpopulation, and resource scarcity after the oil embargo
of 1973; no new significantenvironmentallegislation was passed after 1974.7
Beginningaround1962 (see Cowgill 1962; Sanders 1962, 1963; Sanders and
Price 1968), ecological and environmental causality came to Mesoamerican
prehistory. In this early stage, environment was seen mainlyas a limitationon
culturalgrowth in a conventional cultural-ecologicalframework based on the
ideas of Meggers (1954).8 But as the idea of environmentaldestruction (rather
than environmental limitation) became entrenched in the popular mind, the
ancientMayabegan to have more difficultrelations with their rainforest habitat.
Sanders (1972, 1973) restated his earlier work more forcefully,claimingthat
agriculturaloverexploitationhad led to environmentaldegradationthroughgrass
invasion and erosion. Despite the lack of material evidence, ecological catas-
trophe continued to be popular as at least a contributingfactor in explaining
the Maya collapse (e.g., Turner 1974; Harrison 1977; Rice 1978). The logical
underpinningsof such arguments are made clear in statements such as this:
"Followingthis [systems] model it is assumed that each socioculturalsystem
seeks equilibriumor harmony with its environment"(Sharer 1977:541). In-
volved here are important philosophical and political issues of balance and
harmonyand the dire consequences of disruptingthat balance.
Interest in environmentalmatters was expressed in other ways. Although
supported by remarkablylittle hard evidence, papers on ancient Maya agri-
cultureburgeonedin number,peakingin 1975-76 (perhapsrelated to the "back
to the land"movement?). Others (e.g., Hosler, Sabloff,and Runge 1977) drew
elaborate flow charts which showed how everything was related to everything
else. The end of the VietnamWarand the rise of the environmentalmovement
were paralleledin Maya archaeology by a shift from "external"to "internal"
models of culture change (see Sharer 1977; compare Puleston and Puleston
 ANDTHEPOLITICAL
ANCIENTMAYA PRESENT 315

1971 with Puleston1979:70;Adams1973 withAdams1981; or Cowgill1964

with Cowgill1979).
Closelyinterwovenwith themes of environmentaldisruptionare those of
runawaypopulationgrowth,leadingto stress on resources, socialdecay,and
impendingcrisis. Givenintellectualarmorby Ehrlich(1968) and works like
TheLimitsto Growth(Meadowset al. 1972), populationincreasebecame a
commonexplanation for starvationandpovertyaroundthe world.At the same
time, populationgrowth became a significantexplanatoryvariablein Maya
prehistory.Againthe emphasiswas first on populationgrowthas a danger,
contributing to the instabilityof Mayasociety and eventuallyto its downfall
(see several papersin Culbert1973;Culbert1974;andearlierworksby Sand-
ers). But populationgrowthwas quicklytransformed,admittedlyunderthe
influence Boserup's(1965)work,intothe drivingforceof culturalevolution,
of
responsiblefor the rise of Mayacivilization(see papersin Adams1977band
in HarrisonandTurner1978). Despite a generallackof datato supportthese
hypotheses(see Cowgill1975), for a briefperiodthey achievedthe status of
a universalexplanation.
In passingI shouldmentionanotherhuman-environmental interactionwhich
achievedprominenceduringthe late 1960s (especiallyon college campuses):
widespreaduse of hallucinogenic and euphoricdrugs. AncientMesoamerica
quicklyproducedits own literatureon the subject,includingdiscussionsof the
importanceof hallucinogens in the art andiconography of ancientcultures(see
Furst 1970, 1972; Dobkinde Rios 1974).
The stirringsof the women'smovementalsohada briefimpacton the ancient
Maya,as Molloyand Rathje(1974) proposedthat "sexploitation" was a part
of the Classicpoliticalsystem. It has not been until much more recently,
however,that studiesof womenin Mayasociety havebecomemore common
(see Pohl and Feldman1982; Nimis 1982). A real feministcritiqueof Maya
archaeologyhas yet to be publishedhowever.9
It is interestingthat the late 1970s, an uncertaintime in Americanpolitics,
was alsoanuncertaintimein archaeology. An"empiricalrevival"of sorts seems
to have occurred.Whilenew discoverieswere beingmade, especiallyin the
fieldsof Mayaoriginsand agricultural production,no clear,new explanatory
trends developed.The Hammondand Willeyvolumeof 1979 is remarkably
free of the ecologicaland populationpressure models of earlieryears. But
alreadyin this volumewere the seeds of futuredevelopments,in a paperon
the Maya collapseby Dennis Puleston (1979). He suggested that religious
prophesiesforecastingthe doomof Mayasocietyactuallyhada stronginfluence
on pushingthe society to its destruction.One can almostvisualizethe Maya
priests scurryingaroundtakingsurvivalistcourses andreadingup on how to
prosperduringthe comingPostclassicyears.
Puleston'spaperwas botha sensitivereactionto contemporary changesin
theAmericanpoliticalandsocialenvironmentanda harbinger of thingsto come.
Withthe growingconservatismand the increasingpower of fundamentalist
religiousmovementsinAmericansociety,religionbeganto figuremoreprom-
316 JOURNAL RESEARCH
OFANTHROPOLOGICAL

inentlyin prehistory as well (see, e.g., Marcus 1978; Coe 1981). Freidel (1979,
1981a, 1981b) argued that ideology, particularlythe religious ideology of the
politicallypowerful, was far more importantin shapingClassic society than was
populationgrowth or pressure on resources. Indeed, a spate of anti-ecological
models has spread all over Mesoamerica, each stressing the importance of
politicaland religious ideology over economic maximization(see, e.g., Brumfiel
1983; Blanton 1980; Kowalewski 1980; Freidel and Scarborough 1982). The
study of elites and elite culture became respectable once again, after years of
emphasis on the common folk, and the tracing of kingly lineages became in-
creasingly popular (see, e.g., Haviland1981; Adams and Smith 1981).
To religious fundamentalism,the "New Right"political agenda of the late
1970s and early 1980s adds an emphasis on the familyas a basic buildingblock
of society and a belief that "big government" is responsible for America's
economic decline. Each of these auxiliarythemes is reflected in recent expla-
nations of the Maya past. It is remarkablejust how little interest Mayanists
have shown in Maya familyand household organizationthrough the years, but
this has changed recently. I (Wilk and Rathje 1982) am guilty of pushing the
household and familyas importantunits in understandingMaya prehistory but
had little difficulty finding others to participate in a symposium on "Meso-
americanHouses and Households" co-organized with Wendy Ashmore at the
1983 meetings of the Society for AmericanArchaeology (soon to be an edited
volume).
Furthermore, the current idea that big government and the expense of
supporting it are a burden on the populace seems to be reflected in recent
work on the origin and demise of the Maya state. Where, previously, political
elites were considered functional(contributingto the maintenanceof the sys-
tem), now they appear as pernicious growths, maintainingthemselves at the
expense of the body politic through force (see Haas 1981). The "peasants-
rebelling-against-the-burden-of-elite" argumentfor the collapse of Maya society
has been revived (see Hamblinand Pitcher 1980). Cowgill (1979:62) hypoth-
esizes that the Maya collapse came about when the elite drove the system
into the ground in their efforts to expand the size and scope of the state.
Hosler, Sabloff, and Runge (1977:560) blame the collapse on "inadequacyof
bureaucratic technology." How long will it be before the Maya collapse is
interpreted as an attempt to "get government off the backs" of the ancient
Maya, perhaps accompaniedby a tax rebellion?
Figure 1 summarizes the close correspondence between current events and
explanationsin Maya archaeology. I have taken seven major edited volumes
of papers by prominentMayanistsand have placed them on a time line according
to when the papers were presented at symposia or submitted for publication,
rather than when they were actually published. The papers in each volume
were then placed in categories accordingto explanatorycontent. A single paper
was allowed to count in several categories if it was judged to deal with each
in a substantive way.10The volumes are close to a standardizedsample, as
 PRESENT
ANDTHE POLITICAL
ANCIENTMAYA 317

Explanation in Recent Maya Archaeology

Warfare,Ecology,andReligion
........................................................................................
10 LEGEND

9 -- ........ .........
....... .............'...................
. ... - Warfare
.....................................
/ ......... -- Ecology
0)
E ---- Religion
o0
-
-

.,
O>
Q.
0

o0
*
-

E
Z - *

I
r5 . w x -I
V I
66
66 7r' 72 74 75 76 77

Dotes !f
of V?lumes
Volumes Clean Air Act Weakened by Congress

Fall of Saigon to NLF, Fall of Cambodia

Safe DrinkingWater Act;

Aid to Saigon Reduced by House

Endangered Species Act; Arab Oil Embargo, Gas Lines;

Paris Peace Agreement, Major Troop Withdrawals

Marine Protection Act;

Kissinger Announces "Peace is at Hand";Nixon to China

Earth Day; National Environmental Policy Act Passed and Signed;

Cambodia Invasion and Bombing, Troop WithdrawalsBegin

NEPA Proposed;
First Bombing Halt, University Protests Continue

Major University Protests of War, Major Offensives by NLF in Vietnam

500,000 U.S. Troops in Vietnam, 400,000 CiviliansJoin War Protests in U.S.

Large-Scale Bombing of North Vietnam Begins, 380,000 Troops in South Vietnam

Figure 1. Explanationin Recent Maya Archaeology: Warfare, Ecology, and Religion

318 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

they tend to drawon the same smallcommunityof scholars,andthe editors

in each case triedto presentcurrentviews and"hot"topics.
The trendsare clear andcorrespondencesare striking.Most importantis
the sequencingof peaksof interest,firstin warfare,thenin ecology,andlastly
in religion.Alsoevidentby the late 1970sis an unexplained dropin the number
of explanatorypapersand a returnto earlierinterests in culturehistory,ar-
chitecture,art,andceramics.Does thismeanthatthe periodof correspondence
betweenMayaarchaeologyandcurrentevents is over? Or is there insteada
shiftto newtopicsandexplanations whicharedifficultto establishor understand
throughlackof perspective?It does seem a generalrulethatit becomesmore
difficultto pickout trendsas we get closer to the present.

SOME TENTATIVECONCLUSIONS

I do not intendto prove thateveryexplanationofferedby Mayanistshas its

ultimatesourceon the pagesof Timemagazine;manydo arisefromelsewhere
in the profession,fromanthropology,and throughgenuineoriginalthought.
Onthe otherhand,almostevery trendof importancein recent UnitedStates
historyfindssome reflection,sometimesaftera lag of a few years, in learned
analysesof the rise andfallof ancientMayacivilization.
But does the existence of this relationshipmean that the field is method-
ologicallybankrupt? Is it true that"thepast is an emptystage to be filledwith
actorsandactionsdictatedby ourmeansanddesires"(Fritz1973:76)andthat
allexplanations are thereforeopento attackas projections(orat best collective
representations)? Certainly,BinfordandSabloff(1982)seem to thinkthatsuch
arguments are attacks on the "rationality" of the field.They respondby em-
the of
phasizing importance regional traditions of anthropology andof the par-
adigms of culturewhich guidearchaeological research and by arguingfor"middle-
range" studies as solutions to the limitations of world view.
Several sociologicalaspects of the archaeological professionpromotere-
flexivityand hinderobjectivity. The rewards of the field,prestigeandposition,
go to those who propose new explanations, who have intriguingandrelevant
and
hypotheses,andnot to those who slowly ploddingly test those hypotheses
(Flannery1982).As competitionfor positionsandresearchfundingincreases,
we can thereforeexpect more pressurefor new explanations;andthere are
a limitednumberof sourcesforthese. Scholarscanhardlybe blamedforlooking
to modemAmerica(even if unconsciously)for inspiration.
Furthermore,most of the explanationsandhypothesesbeingproposedare
not subjectto disproofwith present techniquesand knowledge,considering
the generallackof bridgingargumentsandmiddle-range theory(Ascher1961;
BinfordandSabloff1982). Explanation can thereforeaccumulatemuchfaster
thanit canbe evaluated;in the absenceof disproofwe have onlydisapproval.
The stage is ideallyset for trendyscenariosof the past, evaluatedon the basis
of whatsoundsgood;andthatis likelyto be somethingwhichrelates directly
to the commonsense,everydayexperienceof the reader.This may be why
 ANCIENTMAYA
ANDTHEPOLITICAL
PRESENT 319

recent archaeologyhas dependedon quitemundanemodels of past peoples,

forgettingjust how exotic andbizarrethe ethnographic recordcan be. Expla-
nationshave to appealto commonexperience.
That is perhapsthe "darkside"of the pictureI have painted,one which
certainlyalarmssome of the leadersof our field(Flannery1982; Binfordand
Sabloff1982). As I saidin the introduction to this paper,the changeability of
the past in the handsof archaeologistscanalso leadto cynicismanddisillusion
on the partof lay people andacademicsin other fields. But there is another
side to the matter,for it is the very fact that the past is to a certainextent a
reflectionof the present that makes the past so fascinating.If the past bore
no relationto the present, andit can certainlybe arguedthat the connection
between the ancientMayaandmodemAmericansis tenuous(thoughRathje
[1982] disagrees),it wouldbe dreadfullyboring,even to archaeologists.By
theircommitmentto studyingthe past as a profession,archaeologistsaffirm
that there is a connectionbetween past andpresent andthat it is important
and relevant.They tend to believe that the appreciationof the past has a
positivesocialrole to playin the present.
Insteadof beingan escape fromthe present, the past todayserves specific
purposes,in a socialandpoliticalsense. The purposescanbe generallylumped
into "pastas charter"and "pastas bad example."In the first, the past, as a
reflectionof the present, serves to legitimizepresent courses of actionor
circumstances,muchas the OldTestamentis used by the state of Israel. In
the second, the past is also a reflectionof the presentbut serves as a source
of moralor pragmaticlessons showingwhy a presentpolicy,action,or trend
is wrongor deleterious.Inbothcases, the connectionbetweenpastandpresent
mustbe shownbeforethe lesson canbe drawn.Is it anywonderthatarchae-
ologistsparticipateinthe processby drawingtheirhypothesesandexplanations
fromthe present?
There is no reason for archaeologiststo be defensiveaboutexplicitlyor
implicitlydrawingon theirpersonal,cultural,andpoliticalexperiencein their
professionalwork. Like Hodder(1985), I thinkwe shoulddropthe pretense
of absoluteobjectivity.Further,I suggest thatdrawingon presentexperience
andinterestsis hardly"unscientific" andthatit strengthens,ratherthanweak-
ens, ourwork.The connectionbetweenpresentandpastis a sourceof power,
the power to offerlegitimacyor attackit. Archaeologistshave no monopoly
on this power (thoughthey do tend to resent others who intrudeon their
controlof the past), but they do have a strongclaimto it. Ratherthancon-
demningthose who "pervert"the past to their own politicalpurposes(Ford
1973), we shouldacknowledgethat there is no neutral,value-free,or non-
politicalpast-that if we take the present out of the past we are left with a
dry, emptyhusk. The challengeis to be awareof the weightof the task and
to take responsibilityfor the power inherentin interpretingthe past. Let us
not forget Orwell'sepigramfromNineteenEighty-Four:"Whocontrolsthe
past, controlsthe future:who controlsthe present, controlsthe past (Orwell
1949:251).
320 JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL
RESEARCH

NOTES

1. A version of this paper was presented at the 1983 meetings of the American
AnthropologicalAssociation in Chicago. Many of the ideas presented here were de-
veloped duringconversations with Diane Gifford,though they do not necessarily reflect
her opinions. I want to thank Hal Wilhite, Orvar L6fgren, Robert Netting, Cheryl
Claasen, Warren DeBoer, Anne Pyburn, Matt Cartmill, David Freidel, Bill Rathje,
MichaelSchiffer,and three anonymous reviewers who read and offered useful comments
on various drafts of this paper. I particularlyappreciate Freidel's support and interest,
though he is far from agreement with the contents of the paper.
2. This perception is not limited entirely to laymen and students. The lead article
in archaeology's majorjournalrecently suggested that explanationin Maya archaeology
has followed a circularpattern, with old ideas being rejected, allowed to rest, and then
recycled, through ignorance and blind reaction against predecessors' theories (Marcus
1983).
3. It is remarkable that Salmon's recent (1982) study of archaeology from the per-
spective of the philosophyof science is almost devoid of any discussion about the origins
of hypotheses. Apparently the issue is philosophically trivial, whatever its historical
importance.
4. The linealtransmission of ideas from teacher to student seems to be the prevailing
folk model among archaeologists. A rival model sees a source of innovation in the
rebellion of students against their teachers (Binford 1972).
5. It would indeed be a fascinating study to look at the papers in Maya studies which
have been rejected by the major journals or which were never even submitted by
authors. It would also be interesting to contrast the content of the writings of North
American Mesoamericanists with Mexican and French work to see if the different
culturalbackgrounds affect the explanatory content.
6. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962.
7. After 1975, in fact, most new legislation weakened existing environmental law.
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1977 weakened standards and controls established
in 1970.
8. A much earlier period had seen a good deal of descriptive work on the Maya rain
forest environment and Maya agriculture (e.g., Lundell 1934, 1937; Roys 1931). This
work seems largely devoted to showing that the Maya environment wasn't quite as
hostile as it appears and that it was quite capable of supporting a civilization, a position
that was later attacked by Meggers. There is no space in this paper to discuss how
this whole environmental limitation argument is related to the great highland/lowland
division between archaeologists in Mesoamerica.
9. An earlier paper on women in Maya art by Proskouriakoff(1964) merely points
out that women did indeed exist in Classic times, a fact that had been mostly overlooked
until then.
10. For the purposes of Figure 1, the categories have been condensed. Invasion
and warfare are conflated, as are agriculture and populationgrowth in the category of
ecology. In each volume the majority of papers were concerned with the "three C's"
(ceramics, chronology, culture history), while a minority (not tabulated) dealt with
sundry topics like art history and trade. Tabulationsfor the 1966 papers (Bullard 1970)
are somewhat more tentative than for later volumes. Because of the overwhelming
culture-historicalorientation of that volume, it contained only slight discussion of war-
fare, ecology, or religion. The dates for environmental events are mainly from Vig and
 MAYA
ANCIENT ANDTHEPOLITICAL
PRESENT 321

Craft(1984), whilethe VietnamWarwas coveredin Isaacs(1983)andAmter(1984).

The volumes'properreferences,the numberof substantivepapersin each (excluding
introductions
and summarypapers),andthe date the paperswere presentedor sub-
mittedforpublicationare as follows:Bullard1970, 10 papers,submitted1966;Culbert
1973,15 papers,conference1970;Hammond 1974, 14papers,conference1972;Adams
1977b,13 papers,conference1974;Hammond1977,22 papers,submitted1975;Ham-
mondandWilley1979, 13 papers,conference1976;Ashmore1981, 13 papers,con-
ference1977.

REFERENCES CITED

Adams,R.E.W., 1964, The CeramicSequenceat Altarde SacrificiosandIts Impli-

cations.Pp. 371-78 in 35th InternationalCongressof Americanists,vol. 1. Mexico
City:InstitutoNacionalde Antropologiae Historia.
Adams,R.E.W., 1971, The Ceramicsof Altarde Sacrificios,Guatemala.Papersof
the PeabodyMuseum63(1). HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Mass.
Adams,R.E.W., 1973, MayaCollapse:Transformation andTermination in the Ce-
ramicSequenceat Altarde Sacrificios.Pp. 133-64 in The ClassicMayaCollapse(ed.
by T.P. Culbert).Albuquerque:Universityof New MexicoPress.
Adams,R.E.W., 1977a,RioBec Archaeologyandthe Rise of MayaCivilization. Pp.
77-99 in The Originsof MayaCivilization(ed. by R.E.W.Adams).Albuquerque: Uni-
versityof New MexicoPress.
Adams,R.E.W., ed., 1977b,The Originsof MayaCivilization. Albuquerque: Uni-
versityof New MexicoPress.
Adams,R.E.W., 1981, SettlementPatternsof the CentralYucatanand Southern
CampecheRegions. Pp. 211-58 in LowlandMaya SettlementPatterns (ed. by W.
Ashmore).Albuquerque: Universityof New MexicoPress.
Adams,R.E.W., andW. Smith,1981, FeudalModelsfor ClassicMayaCivilization.
Pp. 335-50 in LowlandMayaSettlementPatterns(ed. by W.Ashmore).Albuquerque:
Universityof New MexicoPress.
Amter,J.A., 1984, VietnamVerdict.New York:Continuum.
Ascher,R., 1961,AnalogyinArchaeological SouthwesternJournalof
Interpretation.
Anthropology 17(4):317-24.
Ashmore,W., ed., 1981, LowlandMayaSettlementPatterns.Albuquerque: Uni-
versityof New Mexico Press.
Bar-Yosef,0., andA. Mazar,1982,IsraeliArchaeology.WorldArchaeology 13(3):310-
26.
Becker, M., 1979, Priests, Peasants, and CeremonialCenters: The Intellectual
Historyof a Model.Pp. 3-20 in MayaArchaeologyandEthnohistory(ed. by N. Ham-
mondandG. Willey).Austin:Universityof Texas Press.
Bernal,I., 1980,A Historyof MexicanArchaeology.London:ThamesandHudson.
Binford,L.R., 1968, Some Commentson HistoricalVersusProcessualArcheology.
SouthwesternJournalof Anthropology 24:267-75.
Binford,L.R., 1972, AnArchaeological Perspective.New York:SeminarPress.
Binford,L.R., 1977, GeneralIntroduction. Pp. 1-10 in For TheoryBuildingin Ar-
chaeology(ed. by L.R. Binford).New York:AcademicPress.
Binford,L.R., 1985, "BrandX"Versusthe RecommendedProduct.AmericanAn-
tiquity50(3):580-90.
322 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
Binford,L.R., andJ.Sabloff,1982,Paradigms,Systematics,andArchaeology. Journal
of Anthropological Research38(2):137-53.
Blanton,R.E., 1980, CulturalEcologyReconsidered.American Antiquity45(1):145-
51.
Boserup,E., 1965, The Conditionsof Agricultural Growth.Chicago:Aldine.
Brumfiel,E., 1983, Aztec State Making:Ecology,Structure,andthe Originof the
State. AmericanAnthropologist 85(2):261-84.
Bulkin,V.A., L. Klejn,andG. Lebedev,1982, AttainmentsandProblemsof Soviet
Archaeology. WorldArchaeology13(3):272-96.
Bullard,W., ed., 1970, Monographs andPapersin MayaArchaeology.Papersof the
PeabodyMuseum61. HarvardUniversity,Cambridge,Mass.
Carneiro,R., 1970,A Theoryof the Originof the State. Science169(3947):733-38.
Carson,R., 1962, SilentSpring.Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.
Chagnon,N., 1967, YanomamoSocialOrganization and Warfare.NaturalHistory
76:44-48.
Chang,K.C., 1981, Archaeologyand ChineseHistoriography. WorldArchaeology
13(2):156-70.
Coe, M., 1981, Religionandthe Rise of Mesoamerican States. Pp. 157-71 in The
Transitionto Statehoodin the New World(ed. by G. JonesandR. Kautz).Cambridge,
Eng.: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Cowgill,G.L., 1964,The Endof ClassicMayaCulture:A Reviewof RecentEvidence.
SouthwesternJournalof Anthropology 20(2):145-59.
Cowgill,G.L., 1975,OnCausesandConsequencesofAncientandModemPopulation
Changes.AmericanAnthropologist 77:505-25.
Cowgill,G.L., 1979, Teotihuacan,InternalMilitaristicCompetition,andthe Fallof
the ClassicMaya.Pp. 51-62 in MayaArchaeologyandEthnohistory(ed. by N. Ham-
mondandG. Willey).Austin:Universityof Texas Press.
Cowgill,U.M., 1962,AnAgricultural Studyof the SouthernMayaLowlands.American
Anthropologist 64:273-86.
Culbert,T.P., ed., 1973, The ClassicMayaCollapse.Albuquerque: Universityof
New MexicoPress.
Culbert,T.P., 1974,The LostCivilization:The Storyof the ClassicMaya.New York:
HarperandRow.
Dobkinde Rios, M., 1974, The Influenceof PsychotropicFloraandFaunaon Maya
Religion.CurrentAnthropology 15(2):147-64.
Ehrlich,R., 1968, The PopulationBomb.New York:BallantineBooks.
Flannery,K., 1982, The GoldenMarshalltown: A Parableforthe Archaeologyof the
1980s.AmericanAnthropologist 84(2):265-78.
Ford,R., 1973, ArcheologyServingHumanity.Pp. 83-94 in ResearchandTheory
in CurrentArchaeology(ed. by C. Redman).New York:JohnWileyandSons.
Freidel,D.A., 1979, CultureAreasandInteraction Spheres:Contrasting Approaches
to LowlandMayaEvolutionin Lightof the EvidencefromCerros,NorthernBelize.
AmericanAntiquity44(1):36-54.
Freidel,D.A., 1981a,The PoliticalEconomicsof ResidentialDispersionAmongthe
LowlandMaya.Pp. 371-84 in LowlandMayaSettlementPatterns(ed. byW.Ashmore).
Albuquerque: Universityof New MexicoPress.
Freidel,D.A., 1981b,Civilization as a State of Mind:The CulturalEvolutionof the
LowlandMaya.Pp. 188-227 in The Transitionto Statehoodin the New World(ed. by
G. JonesandR. Kautz).Cambridge,Eng.: Cambridge UniversityPress.
 MAYA
ANCIENT ANDTHEPOLITICAL
PRESENT 323

Freidel,D.A., andV. Scarborough,1982, Subsistence,TradeandDevelopmentof

the CoastalMaya.Pp. 131-56 in MayaSubsistence(ed. by K. Flannery).New York:
AcademicPress.
Fritz,J.M., 1973, Relevance,Archaeologyand SubsistenceTheory.Pp. 59-82 in
Researchand Theoryin CurrentArchaeology(ed. by C. Redman).New York:John
WilleyandSons.
Fritz,J., and F. Plog, 1970, The Natureof Archaeological Explanation.American
Antiquity35:405-12.
Furst,P., 1970,The Tsite (Erythrinaspp.) of the PopolVuhandotherPsychotropic
Plantsin Pre-Columbian Art. Paperpresentedat the AnnualMeetingof the Societyfor
AmericanArchaeology,MexicoCity.
Furst, P., ed., 1972, Flesh of the Gods. New York:Praeger.
Gann,T., andJ.E. Thompson,1931, The Historyof the Maya,fromthe Earliest
Timeto the PresentDay. New York:Scribner's.
Gero,J., D. Lacy, and M. Blakey,eds., 1983, The Socio-Politicsof Archaeology.
AnthropologicalResearchReport,no. 23. Universityof Massachusetts, Amherst,Mass.
Haas,J., 1981, Class Conflictandthe State in the New World.Pp. 80-104 in The
Transitionto Statehoodin the New World(ed. by G. JonesandR. Kautz).Cambridge,
Eng.: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Hamblin,R., andB. Pitcher,1980,The ClassicMayaCollapse:TestingClassConflict
Hypotheses.AmericanAntiquity45(2):246-67.
Hammond,N., ed., 1974, MesoamericanArchaeology:New Approaches.Austin:
Universityof Texas Press.
Hammond,N., ed., 1977, SocialProcess in MayaPrehistory.London:Academic
Press.
Hammond,N., and G.R. Willey,eds., 1979, MayaArchaeologyand Ethnohistory.
Austin:Universityof Texas Press.
Harris,M., 1964,Patternsof RaceintheAmericas.New York:WalkerandCompany.
Harrison,P., 1977, The Rise of the Bajos andthe Fallof the Maya.Pp. 470-509 in
SocialProcess in MayaPrehistory(ed. by N. Hammond).London:AcademicPress.
Harrison,P., and B.L. TurnerII, eds., 1978, Pre-HispanicMayaAgriculture.Al-
buquerque:Universityof New MexicoPress.
Haviland,W., 1981, Dower Houses and MinorCenters at Tikal, Guatemala:An
Investigationinto the Identificationof ValidUnits in SettlementHierarchies.Pp. 89-
120 in LowlandMayaSettlementPatterns(ed. by W. Ashmore).Albuquerque: Uni-
versityof New MexicoPress.
Hempel,C.G., 1966,Philosophyof NaturalScience.EnglewoodCliffs,N.J.:Prentice-
Hall.
Hodder,I., 1985, PostprocessualArchaeology.Pp. 1-26 in Advancesin Archaeo-
logicalMethodandTheory,vol. 8 (ed. by M. Schiffer).New York:AcademicPress.
Hosler,D., J. Sabloff,andD. Runge, 1977, SituationModelDevelopment:A Case
Studyof the ClassicMayaCollapse.Pp. 553-90 in SocialProcess in MayaPrehistory
(ed. by N. Hammond).London:AcademicPress.
Isaacs,A.R., 1983,WithoutHonor.Baltimore,Md.:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
Kowalewski,S., 1980,Population-Resource Balancesin Period1 of Oaxaca,Mexico.
AmericanAntiquity45(1):151-64.
Kristiansen,K., 1981,A SocialHistoryof DanishArchaeology(1805-1975).Pp. 20-
44 in Towardsa Historyof Archaeology(ed. by G. Daniel).London:Thames and
Hudson.
324 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
Leone,M., 1972, IssuesinAnthropological Archaeology. Pp. 14-27 in Contemporary
Archaeology(ed. by M. Leone). Carbondale, Ill.: SouthernIllinoisUniversityPress.
Leone, M., 1981, Archaeology'sRelationship to the Presentand the Past. Pp. 5-
14 in Modem MaterialCulture:The Archaeologyof US (ed. by R. Gouldand M.
Schiffer).New York:AcademicPress.
Lorenzo,J., 1981a,ArchaeologySouthoftheRioGrande.World Archaeology 13(2):190-
209.
Lorenzo,J., 1981b,Notes on the Historyof Ibero-American Archaeology.Pp. 133-
45 in Towardsa Historyof Archaeology(ed. by G. Daniel).London:Thamesand
Hudson.
Lundell,C.L., 1934, The Agricultureof the Maya.SouthwestReview19:65-77.
Lundell,C.L., 1937, The Vegetationof the Peten. Publication478. Washington,
D.C.: CarnegieInstitutionof Washington.
Marcus,J., 1978,Archaeology andReligion:A Comparison of the ZapotecandMaya.
WorldArchaeology10:172-91.
Marcus,J., 1983, LowlandMayaArchaeologyat the Crossroads.American Antiquity
48(3):454-88.
Meadows,D.H., D.L. Meadows,J. Randers,and W.W.Behrens III, 1972, The
Limitsto Growth:A Reportfor the Clubof Rome'sProjecton the Predicamentof
Mankind.New York:UniverseBooks.
Meggers,B., 1954, Environmental Limitation in the Developmentof Culture.Amer-
icanAnthropologist 56(5):801-24.
Molloy,J.P., andW.L. Rathje,1974, Sexploitation Amongthe Late ClassicMaya.
Pp. 431-44 in Mesoamerican Archaeology:New Approaches(ed. by N. Hammond).
Austin:Universityof Texas Press.
Murdock,G.P., 1949, SocialStructure.New York:Macmillan.
Nimis,M.M., 1982, The Contemporary Roleof Womenin LowlandMayaLivestock
Production.Pp. 313-26 inMayaSubsistence(ed. by K. Flannery).New York:Academic
Press.
Orwell,G., 1949, NineteenEighty-Four.New York:Harcourt,BraceandWorld.
Pohl, M., and L. Feldman,1982, The Traditional Role of WomenandAnimalsin
LowlandMayaEconomy.Pp. 295-312 in MayaSubsistence(ed. by K. Flannery).New
York:AcademicPress.
Price,B., 1974, The Burdenof the Cargo:Ethnographic ModelsandArchaeological
Inference.Pp. 445-66 in MesoamericanArcheology:New Approaches(ed. by N.
Hammond). Austin:University.ofTexas Press.
Proskouriakoff,T., 1964, Portraitsof Womenin MayaArt. Pp. 81-99 in Essays in
Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology(ed. by S.K. Lothropand others). Cambridge,
Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress.
Puleston,D., 1979,AnEpistemological Pathologyandthe Collapse,orWhythe Maya
Keptthe ShortCount.Pp. 63-74 in MayaArchaeologyandEthnohistory(ed. by N.
Hammond andG. Willey).Austin:Universityof Texas Press.
Puleston,D., and D.W. Callender,Jr., 1967, DefensiveEarthworksat Tikal.Ex-
pedition9:40-48.
Puleston,O., andD. Puleston,1971,AnEcologicalApproach to the Originsof Maya
Civilization.
Archaeology24:330-37.
Rathje,W., 1982, BraniffsRuin.EarlyMan(Autumn)1982:14-15.
 MAYA
ANCIENT ANDTHEPOLITICAL
PRESENT 325

Rathje,W., andM. Schiffer,1982,Archaeology. New York:Harcourt,Brace,Jovano-

vich.
Redman,C., 1973, ResearchandTheoryin CurrentArchaeology: An Introduction.
Pp. 5-20 in ResearchandTheoryin CurrentArchaeology(ed. by C. Redman).New
York:WilleyandSons.
Reid,J.J., W.L.Rathje,andM.B. Schiffer,1974, Expanding Archaeology. American
Antiquity39:125-26.
Rice, D.S., 1978, PopulationGrowthand SubsistenceAlternativesin a Tropical
LacustrineEnvironment.Pp. 35-62 in Pre-Hispanic MayaAgriculture(ed. by P. Har-
risonandB.L. Turner).Albuquerque: Universityof New MexicoPress.
Roys,R.L., 1931,The Ethno-Botany of the Maya.MiddleAmericanResearchSeries,
Publicationno. 2. TulaneUniversity,New Orleans,La.
Sabloff,J., andG.R. Willey,1967, The Collapseof MayaCivilizationin the Southern
Lowlands:A Consideration of Historyand Process. SouthwesternJournalof Anthro-
pology23(4):311-36.
Sahlins,M., 1976, Cultureand PracticalReason. Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.
Salmon,M., 1982, PhilosophyandArchaeology.New York:AcademicPress.
Sanders,W.T., 1962, CulturalEcologyof the MayaLowlands,Part 1. Estudiosde
CulturaMaya2:79-121.
Sanders,W.T., 1963, CulturalEcologyof the MayaLowlands,Part2. Estudiosde
CulturaMaya3:203-41.
Sanders,W.T., 1972, Population,Agricultural History,and SocietalEvolutionin
Mesoamerica.Pp. 101-53 in PopulationGrowth:Anthropological Implications (ed. by
B. Spooner).Cambridge,Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Sanders,W.T., 1973, The CulturalEcologyof the LowlandMaya:A Reevaluation.
Pp.325-66 inTheClassicMayaCollapse(ed. byT.P. Culbert).Albuquerque: University
of New MexicoPress.
Sanders,W.T., and B. Price, 1968, Mesoamerica:The Evolutionof a Civilization.
New York:RandomHouse.
Sharer,R.J., 1977,TheMayaCollapseRevisited:InternalandExternalPerspectives.
Pp. 532-52 in SocialProcess in Maya Prehistory(ed. by N. Hammond).London:
AcademicPress.
Thompson,J.E.S., 1927, The Civilizationof the Mayas. AnthropologyLeaflet
25. Chicago:FieldMuseumof NaturalHistory.
Thompson,J.E.S., 1970, MayaHistoryandReligion.Norman:Universityof Okla-
homaPress.
Trigger,B., 1973, The Futureof Archaeologyis the Past. Pp. 95-112 in Research
andTheoryin CurrentArchaeology(ed. by C. Redman).New York:WilleyandSons.
Trigger,B., 1981, AngloAmericanArchaeology.WorldArchaeology13(2):138-55.
Trigger,B., and I. Glover, 1981, Editorial:RegionalTraditionsof Archaeological
Research.WorldArchaeology13(2):133-37.
Turer, B.L., 1974,PrehistoricIntensiveAgriculture inthe MayaLowlands.Science
185:118-24.
Vig,N., andM. Kraft,1984,Environmental Policyfromthe Seventiesto the Eighties.
Pp. 3-27 inEnvironmental Policyinthe 1980s(ed. byN. VigandM. Kraft).Washington,
D.C.: CQPress.
326 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH

Vogt,E.Z., 1961, SomeAspectsof Zinacantan SettlementPatternsandCeremonial

Organization. Estudiosde CulturaMaya1:131-45.
Vogt,E.Z., 1964, Some Implications of ZinacantanSocialStructurefor the Studyof
the AncientMaya. Pp. 307-19 in 35th International Congressof Americanists,vol.
1. MexicoCity:InstitutoNacionalde Antropologia e Historia.
Watson,P.J., S. LeBlanc,and C. Redman,1971, Explanation in Archeology:An
ExplicitlyScientificApproach.New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Webster,D.L., 1972, The Fortificationsof Becan,Campeche,Mexico.Ph.D. diss.,
Universityof Minnesota,Minneapolis.
Webster,D.L., 1974, The Fortifications of Becan, Campeche,Mexico.Publication
31, MiddleAmericanResearchInstitute,TulaneUniversity,New Orleans,La.
Webster,D.L., 1975,Warfareandthe Originof the State:A Reconsideration. Amer-
icanAntiquity40:464-70.
Webster,D.L., 1977, Warfareand the Evolutionof MayaCivilization. Pp. 335-72
in The Originsof MayaCivilization (ed. by R.E.W.Adams).Albuquerque: University
of New MexicoPress.
Wilk,R.R., andW. Rathje,1982, HouseholdArchaeology. AmericanBehavioralSci-
entist 25(6):617-40.
Willey,G.R., andJ. Sabloff,1973,AHistoryofAmerican Archaeology. SanFrancisco:
W.H.Freeman.