Everyday Life Matters: Maya Farmers at Chan

Notes

205 Notes Chapter 2. Social Theory and Everyday Life 1. The group of scholars that I bring together in this chapter represent my attempt at formulating a critical everyday life perspective. Although the book-length reviews of everyday life thinkers are more in depth than this chapter, they are equally selective in their review. Gardiner’s (2000) Critiques of Everyday Life, for example, brings together the work of the Dadaists, Surrealists, Bakhtin, Lefebvre, the Situationist International, Heller, de Certeau, and Smith. Highmore’s (2002a) Everyday Life and Cultural Theory: An Introduction highlights Simmel, Surrealism, Benjamin, Mass-Observation, Lefebvre, and de Certeau. Sheringham’s (2006) Everyday Life: Theories and Practices from Surrealism to the Present follows the French tradition, with a focus on the work of Lefebvre, Barthes, de Certeau, and Perec. Highmore’s (2002b) Everyday Life Reader provides the most comprehensive set of readings in everyday life, including excerpts from thirty-six authors. Chapter 5. Situating Chan 1. Given that 562 mounds were identified across the 3.2 km2 Chan survey area, I estimate that there were 552 mounds within a 1 km radius of the Central Group. Detailed excavations at a 10 percent sample of Chan’s mound groups allowed me to gauge what percentage of these mounds were residential. Twelve type 1 single mounds were investigated. Of these, full-scale horizontal excavations were undertaken at eight type 1 mounds. The remaining type 1 mounds were investigated only through extramural post-hole testing. Of the eight intensively excavated type 1 mounds, seven were residential (Kestle 2012; Robin 1999, 2002a, 2002b; Wyatt 2008a, 2008b, 2012) and one was nonresidential (Cap 2012). Thus, for the purpose of calculating populations, I estimate that seven-eighths of type 1 mounds were residential. Chan’s single type 7 mound group, the Central Group, was mapped with nine mounds, only one of which was residential (Robin, Meierhoff, and Kosakowsky 2012); thus, for this group I include only one residential mound in the population estimates. For type 4 to 6 mound groups, which represent the households of head or higher-status families across Chan (Blackmore 2008, 2011, 2012; Robin, Meierhoff, and Kosakowsky 2012), two-thirds of mounds were residential and one-third were ancillary structures based on excavation data. For type 2 mound groups where all mounds in a group were excavated, 206 · Notes to Chapter 5 in two cases all mounds were residential (Robin 1999, 2002a) and in one case one mound was residential and one was an ancillary structure (Hearth 2012). For the type 3 mound groups investigated, investigations did not explore all mounds in a group (Blackmore 2008, 2011, 2012; Kestle 2012). For type 2 to 3 mound groups, I estimate that five-sixths of mounds were residential. The extensive program of posthole testing that extended from the architectural cores of mound groups for 30 to 50 meters beyond the architectural core and in two cases extended across whole neighborhoods allowed exploration of the existence of nonmound architecture (Blackmore 2008, 2011, 2012; Hearth 2012; Robin 1999, 2002a; Robin, Meierhoff , and Kosakowsky 2012). Indeed, a number of nonmound structures were identified through posthole testing, but all of these were ancillary structures; they include the lithic workshop within mound group C-199 (Hearth 2012) and the ancillary structures in the humble farming mound groups located south of the Central Group (Robin 1999, 2002a). I do not believe that substantial numbers of residences were missed by the survey. Using the figures discussed above, I estimate that there were 436 residential mounds within a 1-kilometer radius of the Central Group. This number is generated from the number of mounds present in a group at the end of its occupation history; thus, it may overrepresent the number of mounds in a group from earlier periods of Chan’s occupation . Given that deeply buried earlier architecture is likely to be underrepresented in the surface collection samples, I feel it is appropriate to use mound counts based on the number of mounds present in a group at the end of its history as a proxy for all time periods. Not all residences in a community will be inhabited contemporaneously, particularly where there are extended family compounds and perishable houses, as at Chan. The residence of an older couple in a compound, upon their death, may go out of use for a time. Likewise, the residence of a young family may go out of use for a time when they move elsewhere in the community or to another community and...