2022
DOI: 10.25222/larr.114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Re-visioning Classic Maya Polities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…External trade was fundamental for financing Maya rulers [ 103 ] who highly valued their participation in the prestige economy [ 104 , 105 ] and where networked principals [ 106 ] used high-status items to symbolize their power and authority. From the top-down, the monopolization and control of exchange routes and networks were fundamental to power relations [ 9 , 14 , 107 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…External trade was fundamental for financing Maya rulers [ 103 ] who highly valued their participation in the prestige economy [ 104 , 105 ] and where networked principals [ 106 ] used high-status items to symbolize their power and authority. From the top-down, the monopolization and control of exchange routes and networks were fundamental to power relations [ 9 , 14 , 107 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Specifically, polities in which principals relied on the external resources, such as the monopolization of trade networks, were characterized by higher degrees of inequality than polities in which fiscal financing was based on internal resources. In the Maya region, highly crafted prestige goods and valued raw materials were distributed through exchange networks [ 109 – 111 ] that linked the powerful polities in the western Maya area, including the Central Petén [ 10 ] and along the Usumacinta River [ 103 , 107 , 112 ]. Although glyphic texts provide few direct indications that Maya polities in the east participated in these principal alliance and exchange networks [ 113 ], evidence for long distance political connections nonetheless exists for some eastern Maya polities including those in southern Belize [ 56 , 59 , 106 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Where we have in-depth prehispanic written accounts, for the Classic Maya and the Postclassic Mixtec kingdoms (also less collectively organized), we have ample evidence that legitimation, rulership, and the political process was indeed highly transactional, revolving around the personal and kin networks of powerful leaders, their courtly dependents, and elite allies and rivals (e.g., Feinman 2017;Jackson 2013;Marcus 1992;Spores 1967). We lack such personalized historical accounts for the seemingly most collectively organized centers (Feinman and Carballo 2018), which in itself may be telling, but clearly more in-depth investigation of these axes of variation is needed (Smith et al 2016a).…”
Section: Political/bureaucratic Organizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…29 For this essay, the crucial queries then become, if Maya rulers did not directly control economic production, how did Maya governing institutions secure funding, and how did these economic foundations change late in the Preclassic period, enabling the exclusionary consolidation of power and wealth by select lords? 30 During the Classic period, the Maya cities along the Usumacinta, the central Petén, and adjacent areas erected the most stela, had some of the most elaborate royal courts and lavish burial contexts, and were central to the most far-ranging networks of elite economic and political interactions. 31 These areas were the epicenter where Late Preclassic and Classic Maya exclusionary power was materialized to the greatest degrees.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%