In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER 8 The Spatial Mobility of Non-Elite Populations in Classic Maya Society and Its Political Implications takeshi inomata Movements of non-elite populations over a landscape have significant implications in the study of political processes in a complex society. They are common means for non-elites to adjust to political and economic circumstances and to resist the oppression by the ruling class and state. The control of the subject population by the state tends to be more difficult when social, economic, and cultural factors allow non-elites to maintain a great degree of mobility. Conversely, non-elite populations with less mobility, particularly in aggregated settlements, are more amenable to state control. Thus, some states systematically try to limit the mobility of their population and to create aggregated settlements around their political centers. A well-known example is the Spanish strategy of congregación (congregating ) applied to the indigenous population during the Colonial period.The Maya people under this policy still maintained a considerable level of mobility , and movements remained one of the most effective measures of resistance against colonial rule (Farris 1984:72–79, 199–223; Fox and Cook 1996). What was the degree of mobility of Maya non-elites during the Classic period? How and when did they move? I will discuss these problems by examining the settlement history of Aguateca, Guatemala. Elites and Non-Elites Before addressing the issue of mobility, it is necessary to discuss the question of who the Maya non-elites, or ‘‘commoners,’’ were. Commoners are often contrasted with elites or nobles. Whereas elites or nobles are seen as distinct categories, commoners are often treated as ‘‘the rest of society,’’ that is, not the elite. Jon Lohse and Fred Valdez (this volume) point out a 176 Takeshi Inomata lack of focus, definition, and adequate theoretical framework in the study of Maya commoners. These problems of research focus and definition are not due to the lack of interest in commoners. Instead, they probably reflect the diversity in the social reality of Maya commoners and the complexity of the theoretical problems involved. A comparison with elites serves as a point of departure in defining the positions of non-elites in society. Elites may be defined as a minority of powerful people who, through their control of social institutions, bring about effects of broad significance for society at large (Giddens 1974:4; Marcus 1983:10–13; see Chase and Chase 1992; Houston and Stuart 2001; Inomata 2001a, 2001b for the discussion of Maya elites). Elites often share a common identity as members of the minority group, which may be expressed in an exclusive lifestyle and culture (Marcus 1983). My intention here is not to overemphasize the unity of elites; they are not internally homogeneous and are often characterized by factional conflicts (Brumfiel 1994). Yet the nature of the elite as a social group with a certain level of shared collective interests, lifestyle, and culture is more conspicuous than that of non-elites. Commoners cannot be considered as the homogeneous masses. Those who engage in fishing, craft production, and trade may have lifestyles and value systems quite different from those of full-time farmers. Even among farmers, shared identity and collective interests are generally found mostly at the level of smaller groups, such as kin groups, local groups, and subclasses (see Dunning, this volume; Yaeger and Robin, this volume). It is important to remember that in European societies, the unity of commoners has been sought and expressed more strongly than in many other parts of the world. This tendency derives partly from the Greek and Roman traditions, in which an identity as commoners developed through political struggles with more privileged classes. Such patterns do not necessarily apply to non-Western societies. In the case of the Contact period Maya, commoners were called mazehualob as opposed to almehenob, with the latter constituting the noble class. This native terminology does not necessarily indicate a lack of social mobility among two classes or the presence of a monolithic commoner class (Restall 1997). In addition, the identity as mazehualob was probably one imposed by the ruling classes, and did not derive from the social consciousness of the ‘‘mazehualob’’ themselves. Moreover, it is not clear how closely a Nahuatl-derived term such as mazehual reflects the social reality in Classic times. Thus, we need to be cautious in using Contact period analogies for the study of earlier periods (see Marcus, this volume, for a [18.220.154.41] Project...

Share