Territory, Trust, Growth, and Collapse in Classic Period Maya Kingdoms

Abstract

Drawing on theoretical understandings of the relationship between civil society and the state, the authors argue that the collapse of the kingdoms of Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan in the ninth century AD resulted from the same political processes that permitted the expansion of dynastic power in preceding centuries. Populations initially clustered around the dynastic capitals of these kingdoms, where daily spheres of interaction facilitated trust building among its residents. The image and performance of the polity was focused on the monarch, and participation in communal efforts, such as construction, warfare, and feasting, nurtured generalized trust within society as a whole, strengthening the polity. As populations expanded over the course of the Classic period and polities grew in territorial extent, spheres of interaction were more diffuse and trust-building efforts were increasingly focused on activities and individuals outside of the king and his court. The result was a breakdown of uniform trust across the kingdom and the failure of dynastic polities. Beyond a study of historical particularities in two kingdoms, this article is intended to suggest ways to more broadly frame interpretations of political processes in Maya polities within the broader context of ancient and modern complex societies worldwide. The model may also be applicable in other cultural contexts where emergent states contended with the challenges of maintaining coherency across an expanding territory.

Cite this

Charles J. Golden, A. Scherer (2013). Territory, Trust, Growth, and Collapse in Classic Period Maya Kingdoms. Current Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1086/671054

@article{j2013territory,
  title  = {Territory, Trust, Growth, and Collapse in Classic Period Maya Kingdoms},
  author = {Golden, Charles J. and Scherer, A.},
  year   = {2013},
  journal = {Current Anthropology},
  doi    = {10.1086/671054}
}

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 143 citations exist upstream.

References

Cited by