Defining Rurality at La Joyanca (Peten, Guatemala): Architecture, Land Use, and Social Dynamics

Abstract

Considering the Classic Maya lowlands as an intricate landscape of nested settlements with cities, villages, and farmsteads in the middle of agricultural land, the rural/urban conceptual contrast would apparently apply, yet, is still debated. By combining detailed studies of the relationships between populations of both categories, one can better understand what rurality and urbanity meant in ancient Maya societies, and evaluate the dichotomy. Judging by the spatial distribution of architecture and the social dynamics, rural/urban relationships would have reached beyond the scope of agro-economies. Based on the study of La Joyanca (Peten, Guatemala), a medium-sized settlement surrounded by villages and hamlets, this article explores the topic of rurality as contrasted with urbanity through the parameters of potential land use, visible architectural variation, and plausible population mobility. We aim at assessing the relationships between the center and its hinterland as an attempt at furthering the implied concepts.

Rethinking the Rural in Ancient Maya Studies

“…My emphasis here on rural research is not a call to abandon scholarship on ancient Maya cities. Urbanism studies are as critical as rural research since the two mutually inform each other and, as shown by some of the following contributions, urban and rural life are interconnected and can be interdependent (Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; also see Garrison et al 2019; Hutson 2016; LeCount and Yaeger 2010; Yaeger 2003). For this reason, some scholars (e.g., Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; Marcus 1983; Yaeger 2003) have argued that they should, in fact, be studied together.…”

“…Urbanism studies are as critical as rural research since the two mutually inform each other and, as shown by some of the following contributions, urban and rural life are interconnected and can be interdependent (Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; also see Garrison et al 2019; Hutson 2016; LeCount and Yaeger 2010; Yaeger 2003). For this reason, some scholars (e.g., Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; Marcus 1983; Yaeger 2003) have argued that they should, in fact, be studied together. To do so, however, requires increasing the number and intensity of rural-focused investigations to comparably reach the abundance of information gained on major and secondary ancient Maya centers.…”

“…Moreover, through formalized settlement classifications, archaeologists recognized significant variation among and between a range of settlements. Settlements identified as “rural” have been found to differ in their distance from larger centers, spatial organization, and architectural elements, some of which were originally assumed to exist in only major centers (Connell 2010; Hutson et al 2015; Iannone and Connell 2003; Sheets et al 2015; Walling et al 2005; see also Fisher 2022; Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Valdez et al 2022). These findings, along with the architectural variation identified within settlements, challenged earlier notions that sites within the same settlement rank were functionally and socially redundant and led many archaeologists to argue that ancient Maya social stratification was more complex than a two-class (elite versus commoners) model (Carmean 1991; Chase 1992; Hammond 1991; Hendon 1991; McAnany 1993; Sharer 1993).…”

“…Although a few edited volumes and sole-authored books have focused on the rural ancient Maya, this Special Section differs from these publications in its breadth. The contributors present research across the Maya area, spanning from the Preclassic through the Classic to address diverse topics such as public rituals and spaces (see Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022; Pantoja et al 2020), physical mobility (see Fisher 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022), social inequality including health outcomes (see Lamb 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; Pantoja et al 2022; Tiesler and López Pérez 2022), place-making (see Fisher 2022; Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022), rural resilience and longevity (see Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Pantoja et al 2022; Valdez et al 2022), and inter-polity relations (see Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Tiesler and López Pérez 2022; Valdez et al 2022). The authors work at various scales of analysis, from individual buildings to interregional comparisons, using a variety of datasets including settlement and landscape patterns, architecture, portable goods, iconography and epigraphy, and human remains.…”

“…Diverse theoretical approaches and concepts are applied, such as practice and agency, heterarchy, embodiment, historical ecology, political economy, and biocultural dialectics. While some are explicit in considering and even defining “rurality” (Fisher 2022; Ingalls and Yaeger 2022; Lamb 2022; Valdez et al 2022), others do so more tacitly through comparing rural and city experiences and processes (Lemonnier and Arnauld 2022; McNeil et al 2022; Tiesler and López Pérez 2022). Yet amidst this heterogeneity, the articles in this Special Section share the notions that rural sites are interesting places worthy of study, that the countryside is necessary to understand city and polity dynamics, and that rural people and places were integral in broader social processes of continuity and change, albeit in diverse ways.…”