Notes
Notes Chapter 1 1. In particular, David Webster and William Sanders have argued that the Maya were not an urban society or a civilization in anthropological terms. While they are certainly correct that the Maya were not like the densely packed, pre-Columbian urban cities of central Mexico and Peru, that fact alone does little to help understand the Maya themselves . So, in this volume I do not intend to debate the issue. Instead, I will both refer to the Maya as a civilization and refer to their large population agglomerates as cities. While I am in fact taking a stance on the issue, my terminology is largely for the convenience of the reader. 2. The literature on the subject of archaeological epistemology is vast. However, two recent contrasting positions are taken by Binford (2001) and Hodder (1986), both based upon decades of work in opposing theoretical camps. 3. Elsewhere, I have argued that the Blue Creek project is a good example of the dynamism of this process. For a more in-depth discussion, see Guderjan (2004a). 4. See Guderjan (1991), Guderjan and Garber (1995), Guderjan, Garber, and Smith (1989), and Glassman and Garber (1999) for some of the results of the Ambergris Caye project. 5. Guderjan (1991). 6. Harry Shafer (personal communication 1994). 7. Barrett and Guderjan (2006). 8. The literature on population size is vast, but perhaps the most comprehensive treatment is a volume edited by Culbert and Rice (1990). 9. Happily, our work for several years was assisted by Lauren Sullivan and Lorraine Williams-Beck. While their assistance was on a part-time basis, it was very real. See Kosakowksy and Lohse (2003) for a discussion of the ceramic complexes at Blue Creek. 10. See Garber et al. (2003); Clark and Hansen (2001). 11. The belief that these attributes did not exist into the Classic period derives from Richard Adams’s (1971) analysis of the ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. Despite much discussion and verbal consensus that they in fact did and that dates as well as population estimates were being badly skewed, it was not until Kerry Sagebiel’s doctoral dissertation (2005) that this situation was corrected. 12. Hammond et al. (1998). 13. Padilla, Morgan, and Lohse (2006). 14. Xnoha is named after Xnoha Creek, which drains into the Río Hondo from the north. It has also been spelled “Ixnoha” by Gonzalez (2005a, 2005b). 15. De Perigny (1908); Guderjan, Bedford, and Preston (2002). 16. Guderjan, Haines, et al. (1994). 17. Gonzalez (2005a, 2005b). 18. The first modern work at La Milpa was our mapping project in 1990. Since then, Norman Hammond and his colleagues have conducted a decade of fieldwork at the site. Their reports include Hammond et al. (1996, 1998) and Tourtellot, Everson, and Hammond (2003). 19. Bey et al. (1998); A. Chase and D. Chase (1987); Puleston (1983); Tourtellot, Everson, and Hammond (2003). 20. Durst (1995); Guderjan (1996); Renaud and Popson (1997); Lohse and Sagebiel (2005). 21. There are numerous publications relating to Lamanai: some key publications are Pendergast 1981, 1986, 1991, and 1992. Chapter 2 1. This chapter is significantly rewritten from an article published in Ancient Mesoamerica (Guderjan 2004b). 2. Freidel et al. (1993:63). 3. Reilly (1994). 4. Mathews and Garber (2004). 5. Ashmore (1991, 1992). 6. Houk (1996). 7. Roys (1954). 8. Freidel (1986). 9. See Scarborough and Wilcox (1991) for a discussion of the importance of ballcourts and ballgames throughout Middle America. 10. Guderjan (1991). 11. Driver argues that there is also a third plaza at Blue Creek,“Plaza C,” located a hundred meters or so south of Plaza A (Clayton et al. 2005). In this, we simply disagree. I interpret his Plaza C as one of many such elite residences located south of the core area along the top of the escarpment. I have seen several of these and do not believe that Driver has seen any of the others. 12. This discussion of Structure 1 derives largely from previous discussions by David Driver (1995, 1996, 2002). 13. In the system employed at Blue Creek, construction episodes are first numbered in the order encountered, meaning the latest episode has the lowest number. So, Structure 11st is the most recent and Structure 1-6th is the earliest episode. However, once excavation is complete, these are renumbered so that the earliest construction has the lowest number; Roman numerals are employed to distinguish between the two systems. So, Structure 1-I is the earliest construction while Structure 1...
OR
