Site Interaction and Political Geography in the Upper Usumacinta Region during the Late Classic: A GIS Approach
Site Interaction and Political Geography in the Upper Usumacinta Region during the Late Classic: A GIS Approach Armando Anaya Hernandez
BAR International Series 994 2001
British Archaeological Reports arc published by John and Erica Hedges Ltd and by Archacopress This volume has been published by: John and Erica Hedges Ltd British Archaeological Reports 1 Longworth Road Oxford 0X2 6RA England
Tel/Fax +44(0) 1865 511560 E-mail:
[email protected] www.barhedges.com Enquiries regarding the submission of manuscripts for future publication may be sent to the above address
BAR S994 Site Interaction and Political Geography in the Upper Usumacinta Region during the Late Classic: A GIS Approach
© Armando Anaya Hernández 2001.
Volume Editor: Erica Hedges Printed in England by Biddles Ltd ISBN 1 84171 195 0
All BAR titles available from: Hadrian Books 122 Banbury Road Oxford 0X2 7BP England The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and meajis of payment, is available free from Hadrism Books All volumes are distributed by Hadrism Book Ltd
ABSTRACT The reconstruction of the political organisation of the Maya lowlands during the Classic period has been the subject of continuous testing and debating of explanatory models. These have ranged from the strong centralised state of the Old Empire to the ephemeral peer polity/fragmented states models. Except for Puleston (1974) who argued on behalf of approaching a regional study from the periphery, everyone else has focused his or her studies from the centres. Hence most archaeologists have readily adopted models derived from Central Place Theory and Nearest Neighbour Analysis. However in order to apply these models archaeologists had to draw the line between primary centres and subsidiary centres. Before the advent of the “cpigraphic revolution”, site hierarchy was determined by quantitative methods, i.e. number of monuments present, number of courtyards, volumetric analysis, etc. With the discovery of the nature of the emblem glyph the pursuit of a site hierarchy continued, but following a different path. Based on their presence or absence the emblem glyphs where used to differentiate primary centres from subsidiary centres. But what about hierarchy between those sites that did have an emblem glyph. In this context first Barthel (1968) and later Marcus (1973) argued for the existence of four regional capitals in the Maya world. Mathews (1991) after a more detailed analysis of emblem glyphs concluded that these denoted the existence of completely autonomous polities. Hence the debate continued between those who favoured a strong centralised state, and those who favoured a scheme of basically small autonomous states. Recently Grubc and Martin (1995, 1998) have come up with a "middle ground” model. Through their analysis of a series of glyphs that express political subordination they have proposed the existence of two hegemonic powers, Tikal and Calakmul. In this scheme virtually the rest of the Maya world revolved in a succession of political alliances. Grube and Martin’s discovery seems to have resolved the contradictions that the two previous models were unable to resolve. Aliphat (1996) in his doctoral dissertation reached the conclusion that the physical landscape of the Upper Usumacinta played a pivotal role in shaping the settlement