Through the rearview mirror: Rethinking the Classic Maya Collapse in the light of Postclassic rural social transformation

Journal of Social Archaeology

13(2) 242–265

! The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1469605313487820

jsa.sagepub.com

Article

Through the rearviewmirror: Rethinking theClassic Maya Collapsein the light of Postclassicrural socialtransformation

Kevin R. SchwarzASC Group, USA

Abstract

Recent studies of post-collapse regeneration of early state societies have explained the

renewed growth of social complexity using the concepts of template regeneration and

stimulus regeneration. While such terms are useful generalized concepts, the discussion

around them in practice inhibits an understanding of the various social processes impli-

cated in the renewed growth of states, particularly due to the primary focus on elite

urban populations. Rather than emphasizing types of regeneration, my approach ana-

lyzes how agents transformed rural communities during collapse and subsequent

restructuring. Utilizing a case study from the Peten Lakes region, Guatemala, the article

makes the point that rural commoners must be considered active to adequately char-

acterize regeneration. An examination of the base of society focuses on intentional

choices made to change settlement patterns, architecture and stone tool procurement

and usage in order to better understand heterogeneity in the Classic-Postclassic

transformation of Maya society (AD 750–1200).

Keywords

agency, collapse of complex societies, Peten Lakes Maya, stimulus regeneration,

structuration theory, template regeneration

Corresponding author:

Kevin R. Schwarz, c/o ASC Group, Inc., 800 Freeway Drive North, Suite 101, Columbus, Ohio 43229, USA.

Email: [email protected]

Introduction

Through investigating rural communities with archaeology, important lessons canbe learned regarding how particular complex societies operated, what tensionsexisted and how sociopolitical dynamics played out in prehistory. Recent studiesof the collapse of ancient complex societies (Diamond, 2005; Gill, 2001; Webster,2002) have, however, focused on environmental processes, such as droughts, asexplanations. Responding to the interest in collapse, there also has been a spate ofstudies on post-collapse regeneration. These studies emphasize adaptation, resili-ence and renewed growth of complexity (McAnany and Yoffee, 2007; Schwarz,2004, 2009; Schwartz and Nicholls, 2006; Tainter, 2006). Most detailed archaeo-logical investigations have concentrated on collapses or their immediate aftermaths(Culbert, 1973; Rice et al., 2004; Tainter, 1988; Yoffee and Cowgill, 1988). Fewerstudies are on specific effects of collapse or the restructuring of society (Conlee,2006). Almost no studies have looked at how agency exercised in rural communitiesduring collapse was transformative and conditioned subsequent restructuring(Schwarz, 2004). Rather, the focus has been on how elites fared, transitions intrade (particularly of status-linked goods), politics, religion and how stratifiedpolitical systems re-emerged. This article examines rural communities and theactive choices they made to ensure their own survival, both creating heterogeneityamong communities and transforming society in ways that have not yet been dealtwith by regeneration studies.

As Yoffee (2006: 227) states, studies of regeneration are valuable because theyengage questions of ‘Why is the past recalled or one part of the past emphasizedand other parts forgotten?’ The role of rural commoners in collapse and regener-ation is particularly important to understand. They generated surpluses that sup-ported social stratification, urbanization, monumentality and related statepractices. To date, archaeologists have seen rural people mostly as passive recep-tacles on the receiving end of elite actions or elite-driven trends rather than asactive or creative (Lohse and Valdez, 2004; Robin, 1999, 2002; Schwarz, 2004;Schwartz and Falconer, 2003). Emphasis has been on the regeneration of the gov-ernment and re-emergence of elites rather than the resurgence of the baseof society.

Archaeologists (Bronson, 2006; Masson et al., 2006) have identified variousforms of regeneration such as template regeneration, a revival process based ona prior political system, and stimulus regeneration, regeneration based on externalmodels or historical memories. These concepts, while useful jumping off points,unfortunately in practice mask variability and have not led to holistic explanationsof social transformation. There is also vagueness to the existing discussion ofregeneration. The term is loaded by implying that states are in constant politicalflux and not whole and functioning unto themselves. Regeneration studies shouldfocus on potential drivers of change such as innovation, choices and social mobil-ity, which are increasingly evident in archaeological studies. This article presents atheoretical discussion and considers a case study on the theme of rural agency in

Schwarz 243

the regeneration of complex societies. The case study illustrates how LowlandMaya rural communities transformed their architecture, settlement patterns andlithic procurement in response to events of the Maya Collapse (AD 800–1000).

By looking through the rearview mirror, in this case at Maya societies of thePostclassic period (AD 1000–1525), the article contributes to the collapse andregeneration literatures. It focuses on how agency and innovation feature insocial processes unleashed by collapse, and how rural commoner agency andinnovation contribute to the regeneration of complex societies (Giddens, 1979,1984; Schwarz, 2004, 2009). I conceive of individuals as active within communitiesof practice (Hendon, 2010), a concept which overcomes limitations of previouspractice theory-based notions of community, as described below. I model innov-ation in material culture as occurring through a process Bourdieu (1977: 96)describes as ‘invention within limits’. Invention within limits suggests that actorsreadily utilize already existing materials within a culture to fashion new solutions toproblems as they arise. Agency and innovation produce iterative solutions andvariable practices in response to novel circumstances. Divergences occasioned bythe actions undertaken in communities lead to heterogeneity (Yaeger and Robin,2004) in the fate of polities, settlements and collectivities, which subsequently begeta changed society.

Regeneration of complex societies

Bronson (2006: 140) defines template regeneration as a revival process that adheresto a fully understood, well-recorded model. He states that regenerations in Chinatook advantage of previous forms of government organization as preserved bywidespread literacy, and particularly knowledge curated by Confucian scholar/bur-eaucrats. Stimulus regeneration is revival based on external models or historicalmemories – and some of the historical memories are probably incorrect. The polityregenerates due to these outside influences, although the development of central-ization anew is often made possible by ‘wrapping it in the mantle of a glorious past’(2006: 138–142). The archetypal example is the Holy Roman Empire, which tracedits putative roots to ancient Rome, although in actuality it had several diversesources, none of which were Roman.

Masson et al. (2006) write that the Postclassic Maya, particularly in theYucatecan city of Mayapan, participated in both template regeneration and stimu-lus regeneration. In their discussion, the authors focus on selective replication ofpolitical institutions and monumental architecture prevalent at Chichen Itza, anearlier Yucatecan center. They see some of these developments as emanating fromthe Maya Highlands and Central Mexico. These authors discuss institutional trans-formations based on structural change due to the selective recall of historicalmemories. The selective aspect of regeneration involved modified acceptance ofthe architectural canon from Chichen Itza and practices like tribute and gifting.Other new practices include a council form of government and increased mercan-tilism. Masson et al. (2006) view these as transformations of Classic polities, which

244 Journal of Social Archaeology 13(2)

were based on divine unitary kingships and displayed less evidence of mercantilism.Chase and Chase (2006) express a similar view of selective regeneration ofPostclassic polities in the Southern Lowlands of Guatemala and Belize. Yoffee(2006), in reviewing these chapters, states that Postclassic regeneration was a dras-tic rearrangement of social and ideological systems.

We can understand transformation only by looking holistically at the entiresocial and cultural system, however. There must be some accounting of the soci-ology of various segments of society because their responses differ followingcollapse. One of the most powerful ways to address the sociology of post-collapseperiods is to use agency theory (Giddens, 1984) in order to model the role ofintentional change and innovation in regeneration.

Giddens (1984) believes society is brought into being by intentional humanaction (agency) and is continually and iteratively renegotiated and modified.Individual action is not the only basis for agency since, during interaction, socialgroups often take the form of actors in some extended sense (Earle, 1997). Giddensnotes that actions often have unintentional consequences so that goals and inten-tions of the actors are not always met, and new problems spring up as the result ofaction. Archaeologists often overlook this point, but it is important because goal-driven actions are sometimes overshadowed by unintended consequences of action.

Giddens defines two types of resources: authoritative resources that are symbolicand ideological, and allocative resources that are material (land, labor and mater-ials). He distinguishes three structural dimensions of social systems: signification,domination and legitimation. First among related structural properties are ‘codesof signification’ involving authorization and legitimation of command over personsand objects in the ‘contexts of use’ that effectively link symbolic structure withsocial regulation (Giddens, 1979: 97–101; Giddens, 1984: 31). Social dominationtakes place by discursive communication resulting in specific modes of resourceauthorization, involving political institutions; resource allocation, involving eco-nomic institutions; and legitimation, involving the normative regulation of con-duct. Ideology links to all institutions and its employment leads to the creation of asymbolic order. Rural persons and collectivities are entrained in hierarchical struc-tures of the state within relationships (e.g. tribute obligations, subservient religiousand political roles and norms) with elite actors and state institutions. This entrain-ment can never be total; it is only partial and can only be maintained throughcontinual action reinforcing hierarchy.

If social domination is effective then authoritative and allocative resourcesare mobilized. This mobilization allows the transformative capacity of command,or power, over persons who then structure the material productions that sup-port this symbolic order (Giddens, 1984: 29–33). If social domination is ineffect-ive or fails, as in a political collapse, then presumably rural actors andcollectivities would create new forms of communication, e.g. through inventionwithin limits, and engage in new or modified material productions suited totheir needs and their shared or divergent histories, a process that leads to a newsymbolic order.

Schwarz 245

One critical intervention that updates structuration theory is Hendon’s (2010)application of communities of practice to archaeological contexts. The commu-nities of practice concept emphasizes learning that develops through shared prac-tice over time. This temporal emphasis is a needed corrective to Bourdieu’s conceptof habitus, which has come to be considered almost a fixed cultural background.Mostly due to the snapshot nature of Bourdieu’s ethnographic work, his formula-tion admitted very little cultural process. Communities of practice develop from theway in which mutual engagement in a joint enterprise is defined and sustainedthrough practice involving a shared repertoire (Wenger, 1998: 73). The dynamicconsequences of practice shift through time as day-to-day and long-term realitiesare produced (Hendon, 2010). Negotiation within the community is key to under-standing how a set of resources is made available for further engagement in practiceand the repertoire of practice may shift as the result of this process. Negotiationreflects the history of mutual engagement and may further innovation as practi-tioners jointly establish points of reference or norms and new meanings with theseresources as circumstances change (Hutson, 2010), but the process remains inher-ently ambiguous. In this context, these communities of practice are in dialogue andalternately maintained continuity or changed their architecture and obsidian pro-curement. These shared practices are intersubjective in their historical dimensionsand are based on distinctive material domains. They are contexts for rememberingand forgetting over time.

One might ask, why not adopt a Marxist perspective in this article? EarlyMarxist archaeologists like V. Gordon Childe saw social change as a unilinealunfolding of the forces of production. Thompson (1970) and Hamblin andPitcher (1978) stated that a peasant revolt led to the overthrow of the Classickings. However, few Mayanists endorse this view today. Most current researchersdo not support these views due to a lack of evidence across broad areas of theClassic Lowlands. This phenomenon does not appear to have been a prime moverin causing the collapse (Webster, 2002). More researchers see multiple factors atwork in the collapse, such as inter-elite competition and warfare, instabilities in theinstitution of divine kingship, elite/commoner conflict, which was localized, andecological or climatic instability. Many researchers consider some combination ofthese factors to be decisive and conflict between elites and commoners is only onecontributor. A structuration perspective factors in the role of agency and thestructuring effects of institutions in multi-causal processes. Such a perspectiveleads to explanations that deal better with known or suspected complexities ofthe Maya Collapse. A unilineal economism is poorly suited to Classic periodrealities.

Next, I discuss the collapse and regeneration of Maya states, specifically acase study of the Peten Lakes region, Guatemala. The presentation describesthree kinds of resources whose use was transformed during the Classic-Postclassic transition. I focus on authoritative resources, the organization of archi-tecture and settlement patterning, and an allocative resource, procurement ofobsidian tools.


Collapse and regeneration of Peten Lakes Maya societies

The Peten Lakes region is one of the few regions in the Southern Maya Lowlandswhere regeneration can be addressed. It is among the few regions where substantialPostclassic populations survived and are well enough researched and understood tobe discussed in depth (Figure 1). Other regions have not yet had as much investi-gation as the Lakes region. A chain of lakes extends east-to-west across centralPeten, in northern Guatemala. The largest is Lake Peten Itza, and Lakes Quexiland Petenxil are smaller lakes southeast of it. Larger Classic centers such as Tikaland Uaxactun were north of the Lakes region while other polity centers suchas Seibal, Dos Pilas and other Petexbatun region sites were to the southwest.The Lakes region was a periphery between these two cores.

Settlement patterns and architecture identify the symbolic spatial order by whichthe Maya lived their lives. The Maya made a major transformation between theLate Classic (AD 500–800) and Postclassic. Also, acquisition and manufacturing ofstone tools (procurement) are long-studied areas of subsistence economy. Lithictool procurement activities leave durable primary evidence and byproducts. Theseartifacts are useful gauges of certain forms of exchange. The interest is in compari-sons of status-linked obsidian, which was acquired from long distances (theHighlands of Guatemala and Mexico), versus locally available cherts (Rice,1984). Lakes communities modified how they acquired and consumed obsidianand chert in ways that indicate actively strategizing during a period of change.

Figure 1. Central Peten region with lakes and sites mentioned in the text.

Schwarz 247

Late Classic settlement was organized concentrically around large polity cap-itals. A four site-size hierarchy existed with minor centers and agricultural hamletsinhabiting broad areas around capitals. Capitals were major centers and had themost formal and substantial architecture, as well as carved monuments. Minorcenters had less formal masonry architecture, and were politically dependent onmajor centers. Agricultural hamlets were collections of primarily domestic struc-tures, often clustered within plaza groups. Individual houses, minimal residentialunits (MRU), are the smallest permanently inhabited sites (Ashmore, 1981). Themaintenance of polity space was such that agriculturists lived in rural areas, insmall hamlets or isolated MRUs, for example, around Tikal, apparently withoutsubstantial fear of raids. Thus, a dispersed settlement pattern existed in rural areas.

In the Lakes region, small centers were present both near the lakes and awayfrom the lakeshore (Moriarty, 2004; Rice, 1988). By the end of the Late Classic andduring the Terminal Classic (AD 800–1000), however, the Lakes region was in flux,as were the core areas. In place of the concentrically organized site hierarchy,smaller compact sites emerged in defensible locations on islands and peninsulasin the lakes. Examples are the Quexil Islands, Topoxte, Picu, Noj Peten, Zacpetenand Macanche Island (Figure 1) (Rice, 1988). Walls defended certain settlements,such as a wall at Zacpeten, which is built on a narrow peninsula extending intoLake Salpeten (Rice et al., 1998).

Quexil Basin ceramics indicate substantial continuity from the Late Classic tolater occupations. The Quexil Islands were first settled intensively in the TerminalClassic (Figure 2). As discussed elsewhere (Schwarz, 2004, 2009), the Quexil Islandswere settled by local people seeking refuge due to the uncertainties of the politicalsituation, which was in flux as capitals collapsed and elite protection of the polityspace ebbed. Formerly peripheral settlements had to make choices to assure theirown survival. Warfare was endemic in the late Late Classic and Terminal Classic.

Rural communities, such as those in the Quexil Basin, would have utilizedstrategies of survival and transformation to preserve themselves. In response to adeteriorating macropolitical situation, they chose to relocate to defensible loca-tions, an exercise of agency by rural persons and collectivities (Earle, 1997;Schwarz, 2004). Rural actors took independent action, which is unconstrainedby actions and sanctions of elites in the polity core and indeed is a response tothe failure of the polity. A heterogeneous situation (Yaeger and Robin, 2004: 150)existed in which the fate of individual communities does not approximate the fateof the polity. This independent action is not part of a template regeneration of thestate, but an active response leading to transformed settlement patterns.

The communities that emerged had a different symbolic order of architecture.They modified the architectural design canon to account for the more crowdedlocations, new socio-religious needs that de-emphasized monumentality and newEpiclassic styles (AD 750–1000; Ringle et al., 1998). Rice (1988: 230–237) andSchwarz (2004) describe Peten Lakes households and communities. Late Classichouses typically were in formal plaza-centered quadrangular groups with two tofour or more structures per group (Figure 3). An open plaza provided a large


ambient interaction space circumscribed by built space around the periphery.Structures faced one another across a single plaza, usually aligned with the cardinaldirections, and one structure often dominated the others in terms of height, areaand volume (Figure 4). In some cases, this larger structure was a burial shrine.Plaza groups sometimes stand alone, though multiple plazas occasionally formedcomplex larger groupings. Platforms with high, narrow benches dominated build-ing superstructures. Buildings with enclosing masonry walls were common. Frontalpatios, outset staircases and high stone-faced structure facades accentuated themonumentality of buildings, including in some domestic settings.

During the Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic (AD 1000–1200), the LakesMaya changed their architecture. They built compact ceremonial groups at thecrests of hilly island or peninsular sites with domestic groups flanking, oftenbeing built on terraces constructed on natural hillsides. In place of establishedClassic period ceremonial building forms, Postclassic sites referenced templatesderived from Yucatecan sites such as Mayapan (e.g. Zacpeten) or were focusedon low open halls and east-focused and central shrines (Pugh, 2001; Schwarz,2009). Architecture emphasized less hierarchical designs and less monumentality.More focus was on plaza-level facades and small altars. Postclassic houses gener-ally consist of rectangular masonry substructures 10–60 cm high with unwalledfronts. Rear portions are enclosed by C-shaped, I-shaped or L-shaped benches,often backed by low masonry walls. Rather than extensive plaza groupings, housesfeatured diminutive plazas with a bench structure and a kitchen or small domesticshrine. Larger houses, inhabited by higher status people, are found on elevatedareas and are flanked by smaller houses (Rice, 1988: 233–237).

Figure 2. Map of the Quexil Islands.

Schwarz 249

Figure 3. Late/Terminal Classic Petenxil Group 1.

Figure 4. East-structure focused groups used in Late Classic period and reused and modified

thereafter. (A) Tayasal T117-T124 (adapted from Chase, 1983: Figure 3–1b); (B) Motul de San

Jose Group D (adapted from Moriarty, 2004: Figure 4).


Previously I described the change in Lakes communities as a mosaic patternresulting from invention within limits, retention of Classic forms and acceptance ofnew styles (Schwarz, 2009), with the pattern varying by site. New and revisedbuilding forms became part of the Postclassic architectural canon. In other cases,the Maya actively adapted Classic period architectural practices to new settings oradopted a new Epiclassic International style (Ringle et al., 1998). Becker (1999) firststudied plaza plan 2 groups at Tikal, but east-structure focused groups are nowbroadly known across portions of the Maya Lowlands (Chase and Chase, 1994).Some east-structure focused groups were created in the Lake Peten Itza basin atClassic Tayasal and Motul de San Jose and continued to be modified and usedin the Terminal Classic and Postclassic (Chase, 1983; Moriarty, 2004) (Figure 4).C-shaped bench structures have Classic antecedents in residences at Seibal(Figure 5A) and a presentation palace at Dos Pilas (Figure 5B) but these styleswere transformed in the Terminal Classic, to emerge as open halls and distinctivePostclassic houses (Schwarz, 2004) (Figure 5C–E). Manahan and Canuto (2009)note that Early Postclassic residences clustered in linear groups at Copan andbuilders utilized distinctive T-shaped buildings. Early Postclassic Copan buildersalso reused Classic period sculptural stones, which were reset within houses so thesculptural elements were visible. Also, Classic stelae and altars were moved andrepurposed after the Late Classic. At Zacpeten, Classic stelae and altars wereincluded as structural elements in Postclassic buildings fronting the main cere-monial plaza and clearly were moved from their original contexts as standingmonuments (Pugh, 2001). Schwarz (2004) identified a stela fragment that wasutilized as an altar on a bench on the western Quexil Island (Figure 5D).

Figure 5. Classic to Postclassic transition in C-shaped benches. (A) Seibal A-38 (Tourtellot,

1988); (B) Dos Pilas N5-3/3A (Demarest et al., 2003: 125); (C) Bench at Michoacan in Quexil

Basin (Rice, 1986); (D) Q2, Western Quexil Island; (E) Q21, Eastern Quexil Island.

Schwarz 251

Fox (1987) and Tourtellot (1988) attribute changing architectural styles to in-migration of Maya or non-Maya from Seibal, Guatemala or the Chontalpa,Mexico, but recent reconstructions of the Classic-Postclassic transition focus onregional and cultural continuities, transformations (Rice et al., 1998; Schwarz,2004) and socio-religious change (Ringle et al., 1998). Increasingly, archaeologistssee the Terminal Classic as a period of cultural transformation, and, wherePostclassic communities succeeded, their survival and resurgence has been due toand resulted in broad scale changes in society. The author and Masson et al. (2006)agree on this point. However, while Masson et al. (2006) and others (e.g. Bronson,2006) state that social transformations occur during collapse, they present littlediscussion of the sociology of the posited transformations (cf. Chase and Chase,2006) and changes in the Lakes region do not approximate template regeneration.Although the Classic template is represented in the retention of some Classic archi-tectural forms (such as east-structure focused groups), the thoroughgoing shifts insettlement patterns and other architectural forms must be regarded, as Yoffee(2006) states, as part of a drastic rearrangement of social and ideological systems.Stimulus regeneration, also dealt with by Masson et al. (2006), is more evident atMayapan, with its connections to Chichen Itza. Less clear is the extent of externalstimulus in the Lakes region, which nonetheless experienced regeneration.Next, I turn to economics and examine obsidian and chert tool procurementstrategies.

Obsidian and chert procurement

Rice’s (1984) survey data for the Lakes region and other Postclassic data (Massonet al., 2006) provide a basis for comparison with recent Lakes region excavationdata (Pugh, 2002–4; Rockmore, 2006; Schwarz, 2004). In the Lakes region, obsid-ian was less commonly available during the Early Classic than during the LateClassic (Rice, 1987). Obsidian cores were common in both Late Classic rural andcenter contexts. Thus, Rice (1984) hypothesized that the Maya developed wide-spread distribution of obsidian throughout all levels of society during the LateClassic. This hypothesis is in contradistinction to models of centralized controlof the distribution of obsidian in Late Classic society (see below). While manyobsidian sources were used in the Classic period, Lakes region sites are character-ized by high levels of El Chayal obsidian, a source located in Highland Guatemala(Rice, 1984).

In the centralized control model, variations of which have been posited byAoyama (2001), Braswell and Glascock (2002) and Hruby (2007), larger centerswere active in obtaining, controlling and distributing obsidian, although specificmodes of distribution vary by model. Aoyama (2001: 355) writes that the statecontrolled obsidian distribution in Classic period Copan and institutionalized a‘centralized dispersing mechanism’ for obsidian cores, resulting in differentialaccess. In this view state actors monopolized obsidian procurement, productionand distribution, utilizing obsidian as a status marker and distributing it for


political advantage to supporters. The result was that many commoners had lim-ited access.

For the Lakes region Postclassic though, Rice (1984) indicates obsidian waseven more ubiquitous so the centralized control model is not tenable. Duringand after the Terminal Classic, the Maya chose to make and utilize chipped-stone arrow points in addition to blades and other bifacial tools common previ-ously. For the Maya, the use of chipped-stone arrow points was an innovation thatcreated enhanced abilities for warfare as well as for hunting in the reforested Peten.Cores were present at certain sites in limited amounts in the Lakes region. Rice(1984) indicates that core reduction followed by transport may have been commonas a means of provisioning certain sites with toolstone. It appears Lakes regionMaya chose distribution modes that were resistant to centralization. A decentra-lized system would have involved independent processing followed by transportand consumption developing within heterarchical systems of resource allocation.Exchange of already finished blades or other tools was a possible distribution route(Hruby, 2012). Rural sites still generally had less obsidian than larger centers,although differential access across society was less pronounced than in theLate Classic.

The Maya used chert, which was locally available, in place of obsidian for toolswhere and when obsidian was unavailable. Or, in certain cases, chert was likelyused by choice or for other reasons. Rice (1984) and Masson et al. (2006) comparedthe prevalence of obsidian versus chert artifacts. Obsidian was actively acquiredand was used strategically as a status marker while chert did not function as such.The idea is to measure the availability of obsidian, as a status-linked trade good,versus locally available chert.

The findings of Masson et al. (2006) are instructive of expectations. They com-pared the percentage of obsidian versus chert tools found in archaeological con-texts at urbanized Late Postclassic Mayapan versus rural Postclassic Caye Cocoand Laguna de On. They organized the data by interval categories: 0 percent, 0.1–19.9 percent, 20–39.9 percent, 40–69.9 percent, 70–89.9 percent, 90 or more per-cent. At Mayapan, 25 percent of residential archaeological contexts had no obsid-ian tools (0%). A total of 26.9 percent of archaeological contexts had 40–69.9percent obsidian tools, with lesser percentages of residences in the other intervalcategories (Table 1). This bimodal pattern indicated to Masson et al. social inequal-ity in access to lithic resources from a distant place, as expected for a highlystratified urban population. At Caye Coco and Laguna de On, no residential con-texts had less than 20 percent obsidian tools (the balance being chert tools). At 61.3percent of residential contexts, obsidian tools were 40–69.9 percent of the stonetool assemblages (Table 1). Masson et al. (2006) state that both the everyday reli-ance on obsidian tools and the locations of Caye Coco and Laguna de On, closer tohighland obsidian sources than Mayapan, illustrate the developing interregionaltrade in obsidian affecting these sites.

However, lack of detailed comparisons of lithic tool procurement at these sitesappears to mask diversity and complexity, as Masson et al. (2006: 202) mention but

Schwarz 253

do not address. The Quexil Islands, San Jeronimo II and Zacpeten (Figure 1) in theLakes region provide a comparable set of sites. The analysis focuses on agency,choice, innovation and strategy as evident in the material record. Obsidian artifactsfrom these three sites, described below, were sourced via visual sourcing techniquesadvocated by Braswell et al. (2000: 272). Obsidian analyses were carried out underthe supervision of Prudence Rice and utilized a comparative obsidian type collec-tion. Recent X-ray fluorescence analysis of obsidian from Zacpeten indicatesbroadly the pattern of source acquisitions prevalent at this Lakes region site(Rice and Cecil, 2009), as is discussed below.

Lakes region Postclassic Maya abandoned and lost chipped-stone tools anddebris in a wide variety of places at their settlements. The recovery loci illustratethe diverse social and economic strategies that Maya agents employed and thechoices they made. Recovery contexts of these obsidian and chert artifacts areprimarily from domestic structures and their environs in both elite and commonercontexts, illustrating commoners’ access to and role in stone tool production anduse. Chipped-stone artifacts come from on-floor deposits within structures, some ofwhich are in situ primary contexts occasioned by rapid abandonment of certainsites. Some tools are secondary refuse found in formal middens and de facto refusedeposits around structures. These deposit types reference a number of acquisition,site maintenance and waste disposal practices, including production, tool mainten-ance, recycling and tool exhaustion and disposal. A very limited amount of chippedstone from the Quexil Islands and Zacpeten is from ritual assemblages, mostlyprimary contexts within Postclassic shrines and temples (e.g. Rice and Cecil,2009: 332).

Local Quexil-Petenxil basin communities of practice innovated and the resultwas a change in procurement and technological choices. At the Quexil Islands, asmall Terminal Classic-Postclassic village, 50 percent of contexts sampled (in thiscase structures) had between 20 and 39 percent obsidian tools (Figure 6A) with thebalance being chert (Figure 6B–C; Table 1). This is the lowest modal interval of any

Table 1. Prevalence of contexts with obsidian tools versus chert tools.

Interval

Category Mayapan

Caye Coco/

Laguna de On Quexil Is. San Jeronimo II Zacpeten

0% 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1–19.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20–39.9% 9.6 16.1 50.0 0.0 0.0

40–69.9% 26.9 61.3 42.9 20.0 60.0

70–89.9% 21.2 22.6 7.1 46.7 40.0

90% or more 17.3 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Bolded cells are highest percentage prevalence of obsidian tools for the site.


of the Postclassic sites discussed here. Interestingly, the Quexil Islands, in additionto having obsidian blades, also had large numbers of chert blades (n¼ 411). Theseblades had similar morphologies as the obsidian blades at the site (n¼ 323), butwere more commonly found. Chert blades were rare prior to the Terminal Classicperiod. Generally these blades were more than twice as long as wide, and haddorsal flake scar(s) running parallel to the straight margins of the blade. Chertblades were usually 4 cm long or longer. Occasionally the makers notched theproximal margin of one or both sides of the blade base. Possibly the Mayachose to haft these tools. Overall, the chert blades were similar to the obsidianblades but exhibited more irregularity in their morphology, particularly flake ter-minations. The difference relates to knappers’ difficulty in controlling the blademaking with heterogeneous chert raw materials rather than the imported obsidian.

Neither San Jeronimo II nor Zacpeten had as high a proportion of chert bladesas the Quexil Islands. Chert blades (n¼ 212) were also found at deposits inStructure 101 at the Late/Terminal Classic Petenxil Group 1, an isolated hamletin a smaller lake basin adjacent to the Quexil Basin (Figures 1, 3). The mainoccupation of the structure was during the late Hobo phase (AD 700–900) asevidenced by the Terminal Classic Jato Black-on-Gray, fake Fine Gray, and

Figure 6. Lithic tools from the Quexil Islands. (A) obsidian projectile points; (B) chert pro-

jectile points; (C) chert bifaces; (D) two cores, including a blade core.

Schwarz 255

Terminal Classic ash paste sherds found there (Schwarz, 2004: 148). Thus, theMaya chose to rely on chert blades as a major strategy for obtaining lithic toolsat Petenxil Group 1 and the Quexil Islands, perhaps due to local shortages ofobsidian during the Terminal Classic, when trade routes and access to obsidianmay have been disrupted or shifted (Braswell, 2003; Rice, 1984).

The Maya of San Jeronimo II created a specialized lithic workshop in whatappears to be a conscious and active effort to make a place for themselves in theemerging Postclassic economy. San Jeronimo II was a rural hamlet on the LakePeten Itza shoreline (Figure 1). Excavation operations there examined three struc-ture groups (Rockmore, 2006). Operations 1 and 2 identified high levels of obsidiantools in comparison to the two other Lakes region sites (Table 1). A total of 46.9percent of contexts (again structures) had 70–89.9 percent obsidian tools, and 33percent of contexts had 90 percent or more of obsidian tools. Operation 3 uncov-ered a chert tool workshop in extra-mural space and across adjacent structures.Rockmore (2006) identified over 57,000 chert artifacts, although deposits were sodense they could only be sampled. Preforms and reduction debris indicate thatlarge utility bifaces were produced at this workshop. The scale of productionclearly was suited for exchange. It is likely that workshop production was anintegrated part of the regional economy owing to the ease of access of inhabitantsof this site to Postclassic settlements around Lake Peten Itza via canoe. It is unclearif the obsidian present at the site in other groups (Operations 1 and 2) was acquiredvia exchange for the chert bifaces, or by some other means, but obsidian tools werecertainly highly available.

Elites at Zacpeten sought to control obsidian blade production in what was amonopolization of resource authorization. Five domestic structure groups at thesite have quantified obsidian and chert artifacts. Sixty percent of these groups have40–69.9 percent obsidian tools. The remaining 40 percent have 70–89.9 percentobsidian tools (Table 1). Pugh (2002–4: 363–365) indicates that the majority ofobsidian blade cores were in the largest elite residence, which was rapidly aban-doned around the Spanish Conquest (AD 1697). Pugh infers that elites atZacpeten, which was a much more substantial center than the other two sitesdiscussed, chose to exercise control of obsidian production and even engaged inblade production themselves. In this view, Zacpeten elites doled out obsidianblades to lesser status individuals as part of a strategy of maintaining social andpolitical influence. They also used obsidian as a symbol of their higher status.

Peten Lakes Maya embraced innovation in certain blade production and distri-bution practices. Excavations at the Quexil Islands and San Jeronimo II recoveredvery few obsidian blade cores. No spatial pattern of obsidian cores and chert cores(Figure 6D) of any kind was detectable at these two sites. For these two sites, thelithic patterning suggests the Maya produced blades off-site. Finished blades werethen exchanged for other goods, perhaps a strategy or choice by local residents oran expediency of regional procurement practices.

Hruby (2012) notes that for late deposits at El Zotz, a Classic center withTerminal Classic and Early Postclassic occupations west of Tikal, pecking and


grinding of obsidian blade cores led to more efficient blade production. Braswellet al. (2004) indicated a similar pattern for obsidian from Terminal Classic depositsin Calakmul, Campeche. Also, Healan (2009) states that in Western Mesoamerica,for example at Tula, Mexico, Postclassic blademakers prepared their core plat-forms by pecking and grinding. In Hruby’s view, the Peten blades passed throughmany hands before reaching final destinations. Hruby’s limited examination ofPeten Lakes material indicated pecking and grinding of obsidian blade coreswere common there as well (Hruby et al., 2012), meaning the Postclassic LakesMaya embraced this innovation. Presumably, they engaged in down-the-line tradeor another distribution mechanism to provide finished blades to settlements such asthe Quexil Islands in the Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic.

Rice (1984) indicates varying obsidian-chert artifact ratios (including debitageand tools) of between 0.02 and 0.17 with one outlier for the Lakes region (Table 2).Large Classic centers have ratios as high as 1.1–1.2. Schwarz’s (2004) findings fromPetenxil Group 1 (a Late/Terminal Classic group) show a low 0.03 obsidian-chertratio while the Quexil Islands had higher ratios (0.07 for the eastern island and 0.08for the western island). These findings support the notion that Postclassic Maya

Table 2. Obsidian/chert artifact ratios in Peten.

Site

Obsidian/

chert

artifact

ratio Temporal affiliation Source

Seibal 1.2 Multiple (primarily Late-Terminal

Classic)

Rice (1984)

Uaxactun 1.1 Multiple (primarily Late-Terminal

Classic)

Rice (1984)

Peten Lakes 0.02–0.17* Multiple Rice (1984)

Petenxil Gr. 1 0.03 Late-Terminal Classic Schwarz (2004)

Western Quexil Is. 0.08 Terminal Classic-Early Historic Schwarz (2004)

Eastern Quexil Is. 0.07 Terminal Classic-Early Historic Schwarz (2004)

San Jeronimo II (Op. 1) 0.05 Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic Rockmore

(2006: 398)

San Jeronimo II (Op. 2) 0.08 Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic Rockmore

(2006: 398)

Zacpeten

(domestic strs.)

0.19 Terminal Classic-Early Historic

(domestic deposits studied

are Late Postclassic-Early

Historic)

Pugh (2002–4)

Note: *Excludes one outlier.

Schwarz 257

acted to make obsidian more available than was prevalent in the Late Classic, evenin small communities (Table 2). San Jeronimo II Operations 1 and 2 had ratiosof 0.05 and 0.08. The rural Terminal Classic-Postclassic settlements had higherlevels of obsidian than the one local Late/Terminal Classic site for which dataare available. Late Postclassic-Early Historic Zacpeten, a larger settlement, had0.19 obsidians per chert, more than double the ratio of the earlier, smallersettlements.

Rice (1984) states that by the Early Postclassic the majority of obsidian arti-facts were derived from the Ixtepeque source. Ixtepeque is another HighlandGuatemalan source and it is unclear why the shift in sources occurred. WhileLakes region Maya still used El Chayal obsidian, it was no longer the primaryimported source for most sites. Certainly, data from the Quexil Islands, SanJeronimo II and Topoxte (Braswell, 2000) are indicative of this pattern. AtZacpeten, recent X-ray fluorescence analysis of obsidian indicates that, of thelargely Late Postclassic/Early Historic specimens, there were nearly equal plural-ities of both El Chayal and Ixtepeque source materials dominating the assem-blage. Rice and Cecil (2009) hypothesize that inhabitants of Zacpetenparticipated in a differing exchange sphere that emphasized El Chayal to agreater degree than inhabitants of sites in the western Peten Itza basin, such asthe Quexil Islands and San Jeronimo II. Rural Lakes region Postclassic peopleschose to participate in the obsidian trade with other regions, and the complexitiesof these patterns are just now emerging (Rice and Cecil, 2009). However, there ismuch less evidence of participation in interregional exchange of ceramic vessels.It is not clear why.

Table 3. Changing structural properties in Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic Peten Lakes

communities.

Structure

Changes in structural properties

(e.g. institutions) Interpretation

Signification Symbolic order of architecture De-hierarchization of architecture, less

ostentatious facades; re-use of Classic

sculptural stone; crowding of structure

groups

Domination Maintenance of polity space ebbs

as Classic states collapse

Collapse leads Peten Lakes communities to

adopt nucleated defensible settlement

pattern

Legitimation System of resource provisioning

transformed

Obsidian, which was formerly relatively

restricted, becomes more available in

the Peten Lakes region (e.g. for rural

commoners). A variety of obsidian and

chert tool procurement strategies are

noted

Source: Giddens (1984).


Discussion and conclusions

This study has summarized evidence, presented elsewhere (e.g. Schwarz, 2004,2009), that the Peten Lakes Maya transformed their settlement patterns, archi-tecture and economy during the Terminal Classic-Postclassic transition, theMaya Collapse, in what were partially active and intentional changes.Archaeologists posited previously that environmental changes (e.g. Gill, 2001)or in-migration of outsiders (Fox, 1987; Tourtellot, 1988) were responsible forcausing the transformation in Maya society, but in recent years evidence hasaccumulated of internal continuity in certain regions, e.g. in the Lakes region(Rice et al., 1998; Schwarz, 2009). In the face of the collapse and abandon-ment of larger polity capitals, such as Tikal, Seibal and Dos Pilas, the survivalof rural Lakes communities begs the question of heterogeneity in the fate ofindividual communities (Yaeger and Robin, 2004). Heterogeneity implies thatsome communities or segments of society took positive actions to survive,transform themselves and adapt to new conditions. This heterogeneity is visiblein the larger literature on collapse. Bowersock (1988) demonstrates that villageswere better able to reconstitute themselves politically and economically afterthe collapse of the Roman Empire than cities, which shrunk precipitously.Ladurie (1949) wrote that following the Black Death of the 1300s someFrench minor elites expanded their land holdings after rapid depopulation ofrural areas. They emerged in stronger social positions versus other groups,including other elite groups, some of which had previously dominant positions.For example, some elites, due to their urban residencies, were affected dele-teriously by the collapse of society, but the rural minor elites were able toseize opportunities while avoiding the worst effects of the plague and thusgained an increased share of real wealth.

As Rice (1984) indicated, Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic rural communitieshad greater access to obsidian than did a similar community during the LateClassic. Lithics were an area of active strategizing. Lakes region Postclassic peoplesacted in a variety of ways to obtain and create obsidian and chert tools. I identified,earlier, diverse procurement practices evident from the archaeological data.A decentralized system would have involved modified systems of resource alloca-tion from the Classic centralized system. Local communities of practice developedconnections with the outside world, made choices and innovated in ways thatcreated greater access to tools in politically tempestuous times.

The overall pattern of greater availability of obsidian, a previously high-statusgood, and the diversity of procurement strategies fit with emerging models ofPostclassic societies (Rice et al., 1998; Schwarz, 2004, 2009) as heterarchical witha greater degree of hierarchy developing through time. It would have been difficultfor re-emergent elites to monopolize or administer tool acquisition by rural com-moners, after widespread distribution of obsidian blades developed in the post-collapse period. However, evidence from Late Postclassic/Early Historic Zacpetenindicates that political control and provisioning of obsidian by elites to supporters

Schwarz 259

eventually re-emerged. The phenomenon of greater post-collapse availability ofvalued materials has parallels in other societies. In her study of the aftermath ofthe Wari collapse in Nasca, Peru, Conlee (2006: 111) notes that villagers acquiredhighly valued Spondylus shells outside the political hierarchy. During the Wariperiod, these prestige goods were unavailable to such villages. Apparently, non-elites, who previously lacked full access to status-linked goods, gained andexploited through their own actions the ability to obtain these goods once politic-ally based controls fell away.

A model of social transformation is needed rather than a covering descriptionof template regeneration and stimulus regeneration. Giddens’ structuration the-ory provides such a model, which I briefly sketch to conclude this article.For Giddens, society mobilizes two kinds of resources, authoritative resources(e.g. the organization of architecture and settlement) and allocative resources(e.g. land, labor and materials). The political collapse of states created openingsfor changes in how actors utilized these resources, changes which wereprofound transformations in the structural properties (e.g. institutions) ofsociety (Table 3). Thus, the Maya decreased expressions of hierarchy and monu-mentality in their architecture and created less ostentatious building facades.This de-hierarchization is a modification of signification, the symbolic order ofuse of space.

The collapse also created opportunities for communities of practice to activelytransform the built environment and their historical referencing and thus recall ofthe Classic architectural order. The reuse of Classic sculptural stone, stelae andaltars, which were adapted for inclusion in Postclassic buildings at Copan and thePeten Lakes region, is such an example. It appears that, as Hendon (2010) wouldsuggest, Postclassic communities of practice chose to use these architectural elem-ents to selectively remember and incorporate the prior symbolic order in theirtransformed buildings.

Elsewhere, I argued that the architectural transformation was partially a con-scious choice; the Maya exercised agency, rather than it being the result strictly ofimmigration of people with differing architectural styles (Schwarz, 2004, 2009).However, not all architectural change is intentional or goal-driven, and unintendedconsequences to actions often occurred (Joyce, 2004). Giddens (1984) makes thepoint that goal-driven actions sometimes set off a cascade of unintended conse-quences, which may overshadow the effects of the original actions. Thus, whenTerminal Classic and Postclassic communities moved to defensible places due toinsecurity, they moved to hilly, restricted areas. They necessarily had to crowdstructure groups, truncating formerly large structure groups, for example resi-dences, and diminished the sizes of their plazas and buildings. These changesare, in effect, unintended consequences. Insecurity of communities also meantthat few hinterland MRUs were present in the Postclassic, another modificationof settlement patterns.

The action of building defensible communities alone is a clear indication of ruralagency. Here I draw upon notions of group agency (Earle, 1997). Once political


domination fell away and control of the space of the polity ebbed, people looked tolocal leadership to guide these sorts of defensive movements and, thus, resettledthemselves.

In the Terminal Classic, the Maya transformed their system of resourceallocation – for example, their economy, or how obsidian was distributed andin what quantities rural peoples could obtain obsidian. This transformation is achange in the structural property of the legitimation of arrangements in society,i.e. the political economy of resource acquisition. Braswell (2003) and Hruby(2012) have ably described mechanisms of trade of obsidian in the Postclassic,and the modes of exchange are debatable, but for this article it is the increasedavailability of obsidian and diversity of lithic patterning at the Quexil Islands andSan Jeronimo II which indicate that a status-linked good was increasingly usedby commoners and various strategies enacted to obtain lithic resources. Thesepatterns evidence forms of social mobility or status striving by rural non-elitegroups. It may be that this case study is unique in terms of Postclassic lithicprocurement patterning and not characteristic of other Maya regions. We do nothave enough interregional data to know at this point. Hopefully this study willspur more investigations of changes in lithic procurement during periods of col-lapse and regeneration.

I have sketched the transformation in the mobilization in both authoritativeand allocative resources, which reshaped structures of signification, dominationand legitimation. This transformation is much more of a drastic rearrangementof social and ideological systems, as Yoffee (2006) states, rather than a tem-plate regeneration, which reproduces older arrangements, or a stimulus regen-eration which draws wholesale from other state systems or hazy historicalmemories (cf. Masson et al., 2006; Bronson, 2006). The prevalence of theterms template regeneration and stimulus regeneration in this discussionmasks the diversity of strategies actors pursued in various segments of society.It is evident that the regeneration literature, with a few exceptions (Chase andChase, 2006; Conlee, 2006), has been making regeneration into a straw man.I argue we should be trying to develop more sophisticated sociological orpolitical models of transformation. Social change during state collapse andregeneration is highly dynamic and grasping it is critical to understandingthe succeeding periods of growth. We must draw on a more holistic view ofMaya society, or societies generally, in the study of regeneration (Conlee,2006), including rural commoners and minor sites, rather than simply focusingon polity capitals and elites. Instead of using covering terminology for variouskinds of regeneration we ought to closely analyze the sociology of these socie-ties (Chase and Chase, 2006). Giddens’ structuration theory provides powerfulmeans for looking at human agency in the regeneration of society and elicitingthe heterogeneity (Yaeger and Robin, 2004) that exists in communities’ differ-ing actions and outcomes. Thus, in conclusion, I would state that the study ofpost-collapse social organization remains in its infancy, but the focus should beon heterogeneity, rather than strictly on types of regeneration.

Schwarz 261

Funding

Funding for the Quexil Islands Project was received from the National Science Foundation(BCS-0002831) and Foundation for Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (02007).

Acknowledgments

Thanks are given to Dr. Don Rice and Dr. Prudence Rice for encouragement to pursue thisresearch. Field research was undertaken at the Quexil Islands under the auspices of theInstituto de Antropologıa e Historia of Guatemala. Comments of three anonymousreviewers resulted in improvements to the article. Any errors or omissions in this article

remain my own.

References

Aoyama K (2001) Classic Maya state, urbanism, and exchange: Chipped stoneevidence of the Copan Valley and its hinterland. American Anthropologist 103(2):

346–360.Ashmore W (1981) Some issues of method and theory in Lowland Maya settlement archae-

ology. In: Ashmore W (ed.) Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. Albuquerque: University

of New Mexico Press, pp. 37–70.Becker M (1999) Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal: Groups with Shrines. Tikal

Report No. 21. Philadelphia: University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Bourdieu P (1977) Outline of the Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bowersock G (1988) The dissolution of the Roman Empire. In: Yoffee N and Cowgill G

(eds) The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations. Tucson: University of ArizonaPress, pp. 165–175.

Braswell G (2000) Industrie lıtica clase tallada: Obsidiana. In: Wurster W (ed.) El Sitio MayaTopoxte: Investigaciones en una isla del lago Yaxha, Peten, Guatemala. Mainz: Verlag

Philipp von Zabern, pp. 208–221.Braswell G (2003) Obsidian exchanges spheres in Postclassic Mesoamerica. In: Smith M and

Berdan F (eds) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: University of Utah

Press, pp. 131–158.Braswell G and Glascock M (2002) Emergence of market economics in the Ancient Maya

world: Obsidian exchange in Terminal Classic Yucatan, Mexico. In: Glascock M (ed.)

Geochemical Evidence of Long Distance Exchange. Westport, CT: Bergin, pp. 33–52.Braswell G, Clark J, Aoyama K, McKillop H and Glascock M (2000) Determining the

geological provenance of obsidian artifacts from the Maya region: A test of efficacy of

visual sourcing. Latin American Antiquity 11(3): 269–282.Braswell G, Gunn J, Domınguez Carrasco M, et al. (2004) Defining the Terminal Classic at

Calakmul, Campeche. In: Demarest A, Rice R and Rice D (eds) The Terminal Classic inthe Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. Boulder: University of

Colorado Press, pp. 162–194.Bronson B (2006) Patterns of political regeneration in Southeast and East Asia. In: Schwartz

G and Nichols J (eds) After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press, pp. 137–143.Chase A (1983) A Contextual Consideration of the Tayasal-Paxcaman Zone, El Peten,

Guatemala. PhD Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.


Chase A and Chase D (1994) Maya veneration of the dead at Caracol, Belize. In: Robertson

M and Fields V (eds) Seventh Palenque Roundtable, 1989. San Francisco, CA: Pre-Columbian Library, pp. 53–60.

Chase D and Chase A (2006) Framing the Maya collapse: Continuity, discontinuity, method

and practice in the Classic to Postclassic Maya lowlands. In: Schwartz G and Nichols J(eds) After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies. Tucson: University ofArizona Press, pp. 168–187.

Conlee C (2006) Regeneration as transformation: Postclassic society in Nasca, Peru.

In: Schwartz G and Nichols D (eds) After Collapse: The Regeneration of ComplexSocieties. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 99–113.

Culbert T (1973) Classic Maya Collapse. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Demarest A, Morgan K, Woolley C and Escobedo H (2003) The political acquisition ofsacred geography: The Murcielagos complex of Dos Pilas. In: Christie J (ed.) MayaPalaces and Elite Residences. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 120–153.

Diamond J (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin.Earle T (1997) How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford,

CA: Stanford University Press.Fox J (1987) Maya Postclassic State Formation Segmentary Lineage Migration in Advancing

Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Giddens A (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Contradiction in

Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Giddens A (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Gill R (2001) The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. Albuquerque: University

of New Mexico Press.

Hamblin R and Pitcher B (1980) The Classic Maya Collapse: Testing class conflict hypoth-eses. American Antiquity 45: 246–267.

Healan D (2009) Ground platform preparation and the ‘banalization’ of the prismatic blade

in Western Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 20(1): 105–111.Hendon J (2010) Houses in a Landscape. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Hruby Z (2007) Ritualized chipped stone production at Piedras Negras. In: Flad R and

Hruby Z (eds) Rethinking Craft Specialization in Complex Societies: Archaeological

Analysis of the Social Meaning of Production, Vol 17. Washington, DC: ArchaeologicalPapers of the American Anthropological Association, pp. 68–87.

Hruby Z (2012) The Evolution of Lithic Technologies among the Maya. Paper presented at

the Society for American Archaeology Meetings, Memphis, Tennessee.Hruby Z, Glover J and Shackley S (2012) El Rayo y El Mar: Un Analisis de la Obsidiana de

Vista Alegre, Quintana Roo, Mexico. Paper presented at the Simposio de Investigaciones

Arqueologicas, Guatemala.Hutson S (2010) Dwelling, Identity, and the Maya: Relational Archaeology at Chunchucmil.

Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Joyce R (2004) Unintended consequences? Monumentality as a novel experience inFormative Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Theory and Method 11(1): 5–29.

Ladurie P (1949) The Peasants of Languedoc. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Lohse J and Valdez F (2004) Ancient Maya Commoners. Austin: University of Texas

Press.McAnany P and Yoffee N (2007) Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Ecological

Vulnerability, and the Aftermath of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwarz 263

Manahan K and Canuto M (2009) Bracketing the Copan Dynasty: Late Preclassic and Early

Postclassic settlements at Copan, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 20(4): 553–581.Masson M, Hare T and Peraza Lope C (2006) Postclassic society regenerated at Mayapan.

In: Schwartz G and Nichols J (eds) After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex

Societies. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 188–207.Moriarty M (2004) Settlement archaeology at Motul de San Jose, Peten, Guatemala:

Preliminary results from the 1998–2003 field seasons. Mayab 17: 1–30.Pugh T (2001) Architecture, Ritual, and Social Identity at Late Postclassic Zacpeten, Peten,

Guatemala: The Identification of the Kowoj. PhD Thesis, Southern Illinois University,Carbondale.

Pugh T (2002–4) Activity areas, form, and social inequality in residences at Late Postclassic

Zacpeten, Peten, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology 29(3/4): 351–364.Rice D (1988) Classic to Postclassic household transitions in the Central Peten, Guatemala.

In: Wilk R and Ashmore W (eds) Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past.

Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 227–248.Rice D (1986) The Peten Postclassic: A settlement perspective. In: Sabloff J and Andrews E

(eds) Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic. Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico, pp. 301–347.

Rice D, Rice P and Pugh T (1998) Settlement continuity and change in the Central PetenLakes region: The case of Zacpeten. In: Ciudad Ruiz A (ed.) Anatomia de UnaCivilizacion: Aproximaciones Interdisciplinarias a la Cultura Maya. Madrid: Sociedad

Espanola de Estudios Mayas, pp. 207–252.Rice P (1984) Obsidian procurement in the Central Peten Lakes region of Guatemala.

Journal of Field Archaeology 11(2): 181–194.

Rice P (1987) Macanche Island, El Peten, Guatemala. Gainesville: University of FloridaPress.

Rice P and Cecil L (2009) Postclassic trade: The sources of obsidian at Zacpeten. In: Rice P

and Rice D (eds) The Kowoj: Identity, Migration, and Geopolitics in Postclassic Peten,Guatemala. Boulder: University of Colorado, pp. 327–340.

Rice P, Demarest A and Rice D (2004) The Terminal Classic and the ‘Classic MayaCollapse’ in perspective. In: Demarest A, Rice P and Rice D (eds) The Terminal

Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation. Boulder:University Press of Colorado, pp. 1–11.

Ringle W, Gallerta Negron T and Bey G (1998) The return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence

for the spread of a world religion during the Epiclassic Period. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:183–232.

Robin C (1999) Toward an Archaeology of Everyday Life: Maya Farmers of Chan Noohol and

Dos Chombitos Cikin, Belize. PhD Thesis: University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Robin C (2002) Outside of houses: The practices of everyday life at Chan Noohol, Belize.

Journal of Social Archaeology 2(2): 245–267.

Rockmore M (2006) The Classic/Postclassic Transition: The Maya of San Jeronimo, Peten,Guatemala. PhD Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, State College.

Schwartz G and Falconer S (2003) Archaeological Views from the Countryside: VillageCommunities in Early Complex Societies. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution

Press.Schwartz G and Nicholls J (2006) After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies.

Tucson: University of Arizona Press.


Schwarz K (2004) Understanding Classic to Postclassic Household and Community Spatial

Transformation: The Rural Maya of the Quexil-Petenxil Basins, Guatemala. PhD Thesis,Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.

Schwarz K (2009) Understanding the Classic to Postclassic survival and transformation of a

Peten Maya village. Latin American Antiquity 20(3): 413–442.Tainter J (1988) The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Tainter J (2006) The archaeology of overshoot and collapse. Annual Review of Anthropology

35: 59–76.Thompson J (1970) Maya History and Religion. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Tourtellot G (1988) Excavations at Seibal: Department of Peten, Guatemala: Peripheral

Survey and Excavation – Settlement and Community Patterns. Memoirs of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology, Vol. 16. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Webster D (2002) The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse.

London: Thames & Hudson.Wenger E (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Yaeger J and Robin C (2004) Heterogeneous hinterlands: The social and political organiza-

tion of commoner settlements near Xunantunich, Belize. In: Lohse J and Valdez F (eds)Ancient Maya Commoners. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 147–174.

Yoffee N (2006) Notes on regeneration. In: Schwartz G and Nichols J (eds) After Collapse:

The Regeneration of Complex Societies. Tucson: University of Arizona Press,pp. 222–228.

Yoffee N and Cowgill G (1988) On the Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations. Tucson:

University of Arizona Press.

Author Biography

Kevin R. Schwarz is principal investigator for archaeology for an archaeologicalconsulting firm in Columbus, Ohio. He attended graduate school at SouthernIllinois University at Carbondale where he worked with Dr. Don S. Rice andDr. Prudence M. Rice. His field research involves extensive survey and excavationof Terminal Classic and Postclassic Maya sites in Belize and Guatemala and workon the prehistoric archaeology of the Ohio Valley. His dissertation researchinvolved excavations focused on understanding the Quexil Islands, a small ruralPostclassic community that survived the Maya Collapse in the Peten Lakes region,Guatemala. He previously had teaching positions at SIUC and University ofMissouri, Saint Louis.

Schwarz 265

Documents

Through the rearview mirror: Rethinking the Classic Maya Collapse in the light of Postclassic rural social transformation