1

ANALYSIS OF EARLY CLASSIC INTERACTION BETWEEN TEOTI HUACAN AND THE MAYA AS DERIVED FROM EVIDENCE FOUND AT THE MAYA LOWLAND

CITY OF COPÁN Outline A. Introduction B. Current Theories C. Premises and Archaeological Evidence D. Analysis of Premises and Theories E. Conclusion Abstract Debate among Mesoamerican scholars persists concerning the interaction between the Central Mexican city of Teotihuacan and the many Classic Maya lowland cities of Central America. David Stuart, Clemency Chase Coggins, and Geoffery E. Braswell are three such prominent figures who speculate different and intriguing theories regarding this subject. While the evidence presented within is not exhaustive, this paper examines the key archaeological finds discovered at the Maya city of Copán, and subsequently analyzes this evidence in order to weigh the strengths or weaknesses of the three theories put forth by Stuart, Coggins, and Braswell regarding this mid-fifth century relationship. By examining the evidence and applying the subsequent analysis to a set of premises which evaluate these theories, Geoffery Braswell’s theory of interaction proves to be the strongest theory of the three. Introduction It has been well documented that for over a thousand years, the Central American area extending from Guatemala to the Yucatan peninsula was once called home by the ancient civilization of the Maya. A dominant power from as early as 300 B.C. and on through approximately A.D. 925 (the Late Preclassic through the Terminal Classic periods of Maya history), the Maya established and maintained their way of life by interacting with each other as well as their surrounding neighbors. It is the interaction of the Maya, however, with their neighbors that I want to focus on here, particularly the contact between the central Mexican highland city of Teotihuacan and the prominent lowland Maya centers during the Early Classic period of Mesoamerica. This interaction continues to cause debate among scholars, giving rise to many possible theories regarding this tumultuous topic. Although evidence exists throughout Mesoamerica regarding the influx of Teotihuacan ideals and artifacts into the Maya area, it is through the archaeological evidence found at the Maya lowland city of Copán during the mid fifth century that I will examine the relationship between Teotihuacan and the Maya civilization as related to several existing theories. Current Theories

2

The arrival of Teotihuacan ideals into the Maya area has been well documented to have existed at the lowland Maya city of Tikal by A.D. 360-378, reaching its peak and declining quickly as evidenced similarly at other lowland Maya cities such as Kaminaljuyú and Copán around A.D. 450-480 (Braswell 2003; Sharer 2003; Fash and Fash 2000; Marcus 2003). In fact, it has been established that talud tablero architecture and a host of other Teotihuacan artifacts have been found and dated to the Early Classic period, most heavily in Copán, Tikal, and Kaminaljuyú (Fash and Fash 2000: 442). The details and theories surrounding these three cities and their ties to Teotihuacan are abundant. Furthermore, there exists a great amount of archaeological evidence at a number of other lowland Maya sites beyond these three to lend support to each theory. David Stuart has defined the opposing nature of the Teotihuacan/Maya relationship theories in existence. He writes that Mayan scholars and their ideas have been polarized by two conflicting views which he calls the “internalist” and “externalist” perspectives. The internalist view maintains that the Teotihuacan remains found in the lowland Maya area are better seen as an example of Mayan rulers adapting Teotihuacan influences for their own purposes of legitimizing their rulership and militaristic ideology. In other words, the Maya controlled and chose the Teotihuacan features that they wanted to apply to their own culture. Conversely, the externalist view holds that Teotihuacan elite maintained more of a direct political control over the Maya (Stuart 2000: 465-466). Within these opposing perspectives, three prominent theories reside that encompass the wide range of possibilities concerning the nature of the interaction of the Maya and Teotihuacan. First, leaning more toward the externalist view is Clemency Chase Coggins's theory of priestly emissaries or a militant priesthood sent by the Teotihuacan elite into the Maya area as part of an expansive religious design. Coggins indicates that according to Teotihuacan religious beliefs, both Kaminaljuyú and Copán were located on what was referred to as the “latitude of the beginning of time,” inspiring the establishment of a militant priesthood or priestly emissaries with the intention of marking the astronomically defined edges of Mesoamerica (Coggins 1993: 151; Aveni 2000). Indeed, archaeological evidence has been found of calendar reforms at these cities as well as Tikal during the heaviest time of Teotihuacan contact (Coggins 1993: 149; Fash and Fash 2000). The second theory is also of an externalist leaning and is discussed by David Stuart as based on his work at Tikal and Copán. Stuart asserts a more warlike domination existed over the Maya area by Teotihuacan. His interpretation is derived from scripts found on stelae at both Tikal and Copán. As posited by Stuart, the events that transpired at Tikal involved a possible Teotihuacan military takeover of the city by Siyah K’ak’ followed by the accession of Nun Yax Ayin, the son of the theorized Lord of Teotihuacan, Spear Thrower Owl (Stuart 2000: 487-489). Stuart goes on to suggest some intriguing similarities between Siyah K’ak’ of Tikal and K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’, the dynastic founder of Copán. For example, both characters usurped the previous rulers and both were given the title Ochk’in Kalomte’ or “West Kalomte.” Interestingly, this is also the title carried by the War Serpent god of Teotihuacan. The War Serpent god is believed to be related to the Teotihuacan cult of war and sacrifice, and is a common emblem found on the helmet or headdress of Mayan warriors (Stuart 2000: 493-494). A

3

similar comparison is made by Barbara and William Fash, while other known Teotihuacan linked war icons used by the Maya (specifically the Storm god, the feathered serpent, and Venus) are discussed by René Millon and J.C. Langley (Fash and Fash 2000: 446; Millon 1993: 24, 17; Langley 1993: 136). Finally, based on a more internalist perspective, is Geoffery E. Braswell’s theory of emulation by the Maya of Teotihuacan iconography and practices in order to legitimize their rulership and ties to exotic lands. Braswell looks at the lack of conclusive direct evidence for a Teotihuacan takeover and suggests instead that local rulers traveled to Teotihuacan for rites of legitimization. In fact, he speculates that the “arrivals” of “K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ of Copán and Siyah K’ak’ of Tikal [could] describe returns from such pilgrimages of legitimization (Braswell 2003a: 140; Emphasis his).” In addition, his theory is supported by the writing of the Popol Vuh according to Barbara and William Fash. They write, “Certainly, the record of the Quiché kings ‘obtaining the tools of kingship’ from the Tollans of the four directions that is recorded in the Popol Vuh makes it clear that royal visits to large, ancient cities to obtain the accoutrements of office were part of Maya rituals of accession (2000:458).” Certainly, the three theories discussed above are not the only theories that exist to explain the complex relationship that existed between these two great cultures. However, I have intentionally left out theories such as Kenneth L. Brown’s port-of-trade theory, which suggests that control of the area was split between Kaminaljuyú and San Antonio Frutal, both maintaining their political independence but regulating trade throughout the area (Braswell 2003a: 108). Also excluded is Charles D. Cheek’s economic theory of Teotihuacan dominance of Kaminaljuyú (Braswell 2003a: 106). Arthur A. Demares and Antonia E. Foias and their theory of Mayan elite using Teotihuacan imagery to enhance their elite status among the commoners is barred from this discussion as well. (Braswell 2003a: 113). I do not mean to disregard these theories, however, I am restricting this analysis to the theories put forth by Coggins, Stuart, and Braswell, because I feel that the theories I have left out follow from one of the three theories under analysis. Proving one of the analyzed theories will necessarily give merit to the theories I have left out. Premises and Archaeological Evidence Turning now to the examination of archaeological finds pertaining to Teotihuacan at Copán, it is necessary to establish certain premises that are relevant to this discussion of Copán and the broader analysis of the three theories of interaction as outlined above. To assert or deny that Teotihuacan played a dominating or expansionist role within the Maya area, the demonstration or contestation of four fundamental premises is essential. The first premise is that evidence of direct presence of Teotihuacan rulers or elites is required. Secondly, a direct link between Teotihuacan and Maya cities should be evident through trade or architecture. Third, the indication of the existence of tribute or reference to Teotihuacan authority is essential. Finally, the fourth premise is that the continuation of the line of rulership and ideals established after the local political upheaval should be apparent. These premises, as described here and applied to the broader question of the nature of the relationship between the Maya and Teotihuacan through evidence as gathered at Copán, will help demonstrate the most probable of the three theories under analysis.

4

A great amount of research has been done at the Maya city of Copán by a great number of scholars. Concerning the influx of Teotihuacan influences, it is believed that most of the Teotihuacan artifacts discovered at Copán coincide with the arrival of K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ in A.D. 427 (Fash and Fash 2000: 442). Debate among scholars continues to surround this enigmatic figure and his connection to Teotihuacan as evidenced by archaeological finds. Altar Q of Copán, commissioned by the sixteenth ruler of Copán, tells us the story of the arrival of K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ from the west after a journey of five months (Marcus 2003: 95). Then according to text on Copán Stela E, there was conflict between the previous ruler and K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ that ultimately led to the takeover of Copán by K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ (“the founder”) and the subsequent establishment of a new Copán dynasty that would then last for the next four hundred years (Sharer 2003: 157-158; Fash and Fash 2000: 442). It is believed that his remains have been discovered by Robert Sharer while excavating the Hunal tomb, a Teotihuacan style building at the center of Copán (Sharer 2003: 150; Marcus 2003: 95). After analysis, he was believed to be of royal descent due to his cranial deformation and the jade inlays that filled several of his teeth. These features were indicative of rulership in Mesoamerica during this period (Marcus 2003: 95). The burial goods discovered also reflected Teotihuacan ties and the offering vessels strongly resembled those vessels of the same type found at Early Classic Teotihuacan burial sites (Sharer 2003: 150). Despite the amount of Teotihuacan artifacts found buried at the Hunal tomb, after performing a strontium isotope analysis on his bones, it has been concluded that K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ was not from Teotihuacan, but rather he was from an unknown lowland Mayan Peten site (Sharer 2003: 152). Also of interest concerning K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ and his origins was the discovery below the Motmot structure of “an Early Classic disc altar beneath the Hieroglyphic Stairway … [which] shows us the most contemporary portrait of this founder king.” Thought to be created by the second ruler, the founder’s son, it shows no outward signs of “Teotihuacan or foreign association (Stuart 2000: 499-500).” Given the amount of Teotihuacan artifacts and icons that surrounded the founder’s Early Classic rulership, these finds present profound implications concerning the origins of the founder. Although K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ was clearly of Maya origin, some of the architecture found at the site of Copán and commissioned by the founder himself has clear Teotihuacan influence. The Hunal structure mentioned above has proven to be most interesting. Described as the “core of the Copán kingdom” by Barbara and William Fash, Hunal serves as the dynastic center of Copán and boasts the almost exclusive residence of the Teotihuacan style artifacts discovered in Copán. The Hunal structure itself was built in talud-tablero fashion (considered a Teotihuacan trademark) with Teotihuacan murals decorating the external walls (Fash and Fash 2000: 442). The artifacts found within Hunal, as well as the architecture itself, indeed provide overwhelming indication of Teotihuacan influence. However, there has been some dispute concerning the talud-tablero architecture and its use as a Teotihuacan “calling card.” It has been argued that this style of architecture does not signal any kind of political or militaristic domination by itself, but rather a growth of interaction through trade, religion, or alliance (Marcus 2003: 92). In fact, Marcus has asserted that talud-tablero architecture appears “100-200 years before the arrival of “foreigners” in A.D. 378 (2003: 91; Emphasis hers).” She goes on to say

5

that this style of architecture has been found at sites such as Puebla and Tlaxcala prior to its use at Teotihuacan (Marcus 2003:91). Geoffrey Braswell also argues that talud-tablero architecture doesn’t even suggest a physical presence of Teotihuacanos, suggesting instead that “the local elite [could have] gained enough wealth to sponsor foreign (or foreign-trained) architects who built structures in the full talud-tablero style.” Braswell feels that this architectural evidence is too ambiguous to rely on as indication of Teotihuacan interaction (2003a: 107). Clearly, the existence of talud-tablero architecture in the Maya area weakly supports any Teotihuacan/Maya interaction theory. However, stronger archaeological finds which do support contact can be seen in the existence of trade relations between Teotihuacan and Maya sites. Indeed, in 1932, pottery shards identified as Maya in origin were found during the excavation of Teotihuacan (Linné 1934: 97). Again, in 1978, murals painted in a Maya fashion as well as Maya pottery were also discovered at Teotihuacan (Miller 1978: 68). In addition, found in the Merchants Barrio of Teotihuacan, Lowland Maya polychrome pottery suggests the visitation of Maya foreigners to Teotihuacan (Adams 1997: 47). As evidenced here, not only were Teotihuacan artifacts found throughout Mesoamerica, but also Mayan artifacts were found in Teotihuacan. This undoubtedly indicates interaction between these two great civilizations. Suggesting more specific trade relations with Teotihuacan was the obtainment and use of green obsidian from the Pachuca source located near Teotihuacan by K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ (Ayoma 2001). Found within the Copán Motmot structure was the previously built Yax substructure. The importance of the Yax substructure was suggested to scholars upon the discovery that it contained large amounts of green obsidian from the Pachuca source (Fash and Fash 2000: 443). In fact, the Yax structure was found to have one of the highest percentages of green obsidian in the classic Maya lowlands, second only to Tikal. Interestingly, there is a near absence of green obsidian within the cities located nearest Copán (Ayoma 2001: 352). It has also been concluded that green obsidian artifacts made in Teotihuacan were possibly given as gifts representing relationships between elite Maya and Teotihuacanos (Braswell 2003a: 112). In turn, the absence of green obsidian around Copán and its abundance at Copán suggests the use of the foreign green obsidian and its probable distribution by K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ to the local elite as a means to legitimize his political authority and influence (Ayoma 2001: 357). Clearly, K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’, while not originating directly from Teotihuacan, indeed possessed strong ties to the central Mexican city. However, the founder’s successor, his son K’inich Popol Hol, made no effort to carry on his father’s ideals or connections and began reverting Copán back to Maya ideology and architecture soon after his accession (Sharer 2003: 161). For example, the architecture of the central Acropolis, specifically Hunal and its talud-tablero architecture, was replaced with the Yehnal and Margarita structures. Both of these replacement structures were built with “lowland Maya apron moldings on their facades (Sharer 2003: 156).” Given that K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ reigned in Copán for a mere ten years, the Hunal structure and its architecture had a relatively short lifespan before being turned into a Peten style building (Sharer 2003: 160). In regards to the events occurring after the reign of K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’, Barbara and William Fash write that it has been concluded by other

6

scholars that, “thereafter the architecture reverts to local styles, and the importation of craft goods from Teotihuacan and even the production of local imitations of Teotihuacan ceramic styles and decorative techniques declines rapidly (2000: 450).” For any conquest theory to hold ground, it would need to be established that unless a local uprising occurred, later rulers continued to reflect Teotihuacan ideals. It is plainly shown at sites such as Altar Q that K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ was succeeded by his son K’inich Popol Hol after his death in 437 A.D (Marcus 2003: 95). At this time, as discussed previously, K’inich Popol Hol began reemphasizing more Maya architecture and ideals in the city of Copán, a trend that would continue with the next fourteen rulers. Clearly there was a brief period of Teotihuacan influence, but given that the return to Maya ideals was done by the son of the founder and not a Maya usurper intent on overthrowing a foreign ruling power, the evidence fails to indicate a conquest of Copán by Teotihuacan rulers or priests. Analysis of Premises and Theories The evidence as laid out above clearly indicates strong ties with Teotihuacan ideals and commodities. However, concerning the Maya city of Copán, there is no clear antagonistic interaction between the Maya and Teotihuacan. Returning to the four premises given above, the trade of valuable commodities, specifically green obsidian in Copán, can indeed be traced back to Teotihuacan and Maya elite; however the architectural evidence is simply too weak to rely on. Furthermore, Teotihuacan ideals and influences decline after the first ruler of the new dynasty not by another usurper, but by the peaceful accession of the founder’s own son. Finally, there is no direct evidence, archaeological or epigraphic, indicating tribute or subordination to a ruling city. While there is indication of direct contact between elites, the archaeological evidence refutes rather than confirms any antagonistic interaction. Therefore, the evidence as derived from findings at Copán and Teotihuacan is not strong enough to support any theory of interaction other than the existence of contact between Teotihuacan and the Maya. Regarding David Stuart’s imperialistic interpretation of the stelae at Tikal and Copán as explained earlier, his theory is based (reasonably, to be sure) more on speculation than on direct evidence. His interpretation relies on the “Lord of the West” title given to K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ of Copán and the existence of Teotihuacan warrior icons present on the headdresses and shields of figures depicted on Stelae found in the Maya area. While it is undeniable that the Teotihuacan cult of war and sacrifice symbols appeared throughout the Maya area, given that the strontium isotope analysis has concluded that the Copán dynastic founder was not of Teotihuacan origin but of lowland Peten origin, these symbols were evidently used willingly rather than coercively. The evidence indicates that Mayans were indeed influenced by Teotihuacan, but the abundance of Teotihuacan cult of war and sacrifice symbols throughout the Maya area weakly asserts any conquest theory, as does the retrograding of Copán back to the more Maya ideals and styles by the founder’s own son. The analysis thus far of evidence found at Copán has clearly disputed any theory of direct Teotihuacan conquest. However, two theories remain to be analyzed: Coggins theory of a priestly emissary or militant priesthood and Braswell's theory of emulation and legitimization. Concerning Coggins theory, the analysis above disputes a militant priesthood as effectively as it disputes a Teotihuacan conquest. However, the arrival of priestly emissaries retains merit. It has been shown that a clear connection existed

7

between the Maya and the Teotihuacan, and many Teotihuacan ideals are found throughout Mesoamerica. Priestly emissaries, moving throughout the Maya area as discussed by Coggins (1993), spreading Teotihuacan ideals to local elites in a fashion similar to missionaries of our day could have given rise to the heavy “Teotihuacan stage” of Maya rulership as has been demonstrated to have existed at Copán. The rulers of the more western Maya cities (hence the title given K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ of “Lord of the West”) could have adapted these Teotihuacan customs and ideals, as presented to them by Teotihuacan priests, and subsequently implemented those ideals at the cities these same Mayan elites then conquered. The lack of continuation of these ideals by the next generation of rulers indicates that Teotihuacan ideals simply fell out of favor and a return to a more Maya ideology was implemented. Geoffrey Braswell’s theory of Teotihuacan emulation to legitimize rulership is also a theory that works well within this analysis of Copán. The monopoly held by K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’ on green obsidian at Copán would indicate an attempt to boost his status among the surrounding kingdoms under his authority. This evidence in combination with the writings of the Popol Vuh strengthens Braswell’s admitted “minimalist hypothesis (2003a: 140).” The heavy use of Teotihuacan iconography and ideals prevalent throughout Copán, the subsequent disfavor of such practices by K’inich Popol Hol, as well as the evidence that indicates K’inich’ Yax K’uk’ Mo’s Maya origin all lend favor to Braswell’s theory. The writings of the Popol Vuh concerning the practice of sending Maya elites to powerful cities to “obtain the accoutrements of office” further strengthen his argument (Braswell 2003a:140). Conclusion This paper focuses on three theories and the evidence to support or dispute each theory from the archaeological finds from the city of Copán. It could be argued then that this evidence is not strong enough to support or deny any theory explaining the greater Maya and Teotihuacan relationship, only that relationship as it occurred in Copán. However, it has been shown by several other scholars that similar finds and patterns existed at other Mayan centers known for their interaction with Teotihuacan such as Tikal and Kaminaljuyú (Borowicz 2003; Ponce De León 2003; Braswell 2003; Marcus 2003). There also exists an interesting connection between Tikal and Copán with the Tikal usurper, Siyah K’ak’, and his 439 A.D. presence in Copán as inscribed on the Xukpi Stone (Fash and Fash 2000: 446; Sharer 2003: 156). That the evidence at Tikal and Kaminaljuyú, as well as the possible link between Tikal and Copán, corresponds with the evidence found at Copán concerning the aspects of interaction as discussed here is intriguing and grants Copán the capability of supporting or refuting the theories derived to explain the Teotihuacan and Maya relationship. It is evident that Teotihuacan ideals were heavily prevalent throughout the Maya area during the Early to Middle Preclassic stage and that those ideals had a lasting impact on the Maya civilization. In fact, Teotihuacan ideology was so strong at this time that it was referenced later by the Late Classic Maya as discussed by such prominent figures as David Stuart (2000) and William and Barbara Fash (2000). However strong those ideals were, the nature of their arrival into the Maya area will continue to be a mystery. However, the Early Classic evidence found at Copán and other sites support a less invasive interaction between Teotihuacan and the Maya during this time. Coggins theory of a priestly interaction lacks direct evidence but it coincides with the evidence

8

presented. Braswell’s theory also concurs with the facts presented and, coupled with the writings of the Popol Vuh as direct evidence, his emulation theory logically appears to be the most probable at this time.

Works Cited Adams, Richard E. W. 1997. Ancient Civilizations of the New World. Westview Press, Boulder. Aveni, Anthony F. 2000. Out of Teotihuacan: Origins of the Celestial Canon. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, 2000, Edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, pp 253-268. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Ayoma, Kazuo. 2001. Classic Maya State, Urbanism, and Exchange: Chipped Stone Evidence of the Copán valley and its Hinterland. In American Anthropologist. 103(2): 346-360. Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2003a. Understanding Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyú and Central Mexico. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, 2003, Edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp 105-142. University of Texas Press, Austin. Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2003b. Dating Early Classic Interaction between Kaminaljuyú and Central Mexico. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, 2003, Edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp 81-104. University of Texas Press, Austin. Coggins, Clemency Chase. 1993. The Age of Teotihuacan and Its Mission Abroad. In Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods, 1993, Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Esther Pasztory, pp 140-153. Thomas and Hudson, New York. Fash, William L and Barbara W Fash. 2000. Teotihuacan and the Maya: A Classic Heritage. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, 2000, Edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, pp 433-463. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Langley, J.C. 1993. Symbols, Signs, and Writing Systems. In Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods, 1993, Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Esther Pasztory, pp 129-139. Thomas and Hudson, New York.

9

Linné, S. 1934. Archaeological Researches At Teotihuacan, Mexico. Victor Pettersons Bokindustriaktiebolag, Stockholm. Marcus, Joyce. 2003. Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology. In Journal of Archaeological Research. 11(2): 71-148. Millon, René. 1993. The Place Where Time Began: An Archaeologist’s Interpretation of What Happened in Teotihuacan History. In Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods, 1993, Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Esther Pasztory, pp 17-43. Thomas and Hudson, New York. Miller, Arthur G. 1978. A Brief Outline of the Artistic Evidence for Classic Period Cultural Contact between Maya Lowlands and Central Mexican Highlands. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: A.D. 400-700, 1978, Edited by Esther Pasztory, pp 63-70. Columbia University Press, New York. Sharer, Robert J. 2003. Founding Events and Teotihuacan Connections at Copán, Honduras. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, 2003, Edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 143-165. University of Texas Press, Austin. Stuart, David. 2000. “The Arrival of Strangers”: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya History. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, 2000, Edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, pp. 465-513. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.