Water Control and Maya Politics in theSouthern Maya Lowlands

Lisa J. LuceroNew Mexico State University

ABSTRACT

In this chapter, I present a model of the development of Classic Maya polities in which economy andideology articulated to form the basis of political power. Power is manifested by the ability to acquiretribute from subjects. Many of the largest Maya polities grew in areas without lakes or rivers butwith seasonal water sources such as natural rain-fed aguadas and/or swamps or bajos. At large Mayacenters, rulers built immense reservoirs that would have met daily water needs during the annual dryseason (January through April/May). I argue that control of water resources, symbolism and ritualsduring seasonal drought provided the means to amass and maintain the increasing political powerevident during the Classic period (ca. A.D. §50-850) in the southern Maya lowlands. Counteractingthe centripetal forces of water resources during drought, however, were the centrifugal distribution ofother vital economic sources, specifically, dispersed agricultural land. In addition, standing water, ifnot maintained, can result in a dangerous build-up of noxious chemicals. Emerging Maya rulersassociated their abilities to keep the water clean through ritual and symbolism to attract hinterlandfarmers and their labor.

There is an old saying in the water business: "There are two things you cannottake out of water...salt and politics" (Alexander Home, Professor, Department of

Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC-Berkeley)

The distribution of economic resources affects becomes, how can political aspirants convince peoplehow people settle across the landscape and are to expand the political economy? In this chapter, Iorganized socially and politically (Roscoe 1993). present a model of the development of Classic May aConcentrated critical resources (natural and/or polities in which economy and ideology articulatedconstructed), such as alluvial land and water, result to form the basis of political power. Specifically, Iin the concentration of people, their labor, and their attempt to demonstrate that control of waterinability to leave (Gilman 1981; Johnson and Earle resources, symbolism and rituals during seasonal1987:247). In contrast, when key resources are drought provided the means to amass and maintaindispersed, settlement patterns can mirror this the increasing political power evident during thedistribution. A scattered population presents unique Classic period (ca. A.D. 550-850) in the southernchallenges for aspiring leaders who, to increase their Maya lowlands.power, must use centripetal strategies to bring people Economic sources of power derive from "thetogether. Power is manifested as the ability to impose ability to restrict access to key productive resourcestribute demands (goods and labor). The question then or consumptive goods" (Earle 1997:7). Ideological

35

36 Lisa J. Lucero

sources of power derive from the ability to redefineworld views and codes of social behavior to explain"why specific rights and obligations exist" (Earle1997:8,143;cf.Blantonetal. 1996). Together, thesesources of power provided the means for emergingMaya leaders to expand the political economybeginning in the Late Preclassic period (ca. 400 B.C.-A.D. 250), specifically through water managementand cosmologically based symbolism and rituals. In

addition to building immense reservoirs to providewater during annual drought (January through April/May), Maya leaders sponsored large-scaleceremonies and feasts at temples, plazas andballcourts. These events unified people physicallyand emotionally, and at the same time legitimizedpolitical agendas and increased the prestige of Mayaelites and nascent rulers (see Bourdieu 1977; 183-184,1990:109-110; Cohen 1974:82; Earle 1997:151;

Gulf of Mexico

CaribbeanSea

•Mirador /£] r •Nakbe* Rio Azul; f

Uaxactun a } j^S Pilar• N a r a n j o ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ y C T 6 6 ^

Yaxha* • * • Cahal Pec"

) i CaracolSeibal r\^

sPilas

Piedras Negras

•Tonina \

Bonampak

Altar de Sacrifjdos

Iximche •AbajTakal,k

PacificOcean

Figure 3.1 The southern Maya lowlands. The BRASS research area is located between El Pilar, Barton Ramie andXunantunich in west-central Belize.

Water Control and Maya Politics 37

Giddens 1979:188-195, 1984:257-261). Thetemporary character of such events, however,required leaders to implement additional strategiesthat resulted in permanent and long-term benefits.To accomplish this goal, elites often incorporatedfeatures into their ceremonies that would have hadsociety-wide significance (e.g., water purification).In addition, ceremonies typically were performed atspecialized loci (e.g., temples) at specific timesaccording to a ritual calendar. By directly associatingthemselves with vital natural forces of day-to-daylife, Maya rulers extended their influence beyond theceremonial events themselves. By the Early Classicperiod (ca. A.D. 250-550), Maya leaders becamedirectly involved in the continuity of natural forces,including, for example, the perpetuity of rain andclean water.

ECONOMIC POWER:WATER MANAGEMENT

In the southern Maya lowlands, many of thelargest centers and their densely settled hinterlandsare located in fertile agricultural areas withoutpermanent surface water such as lakes or rivers, butwith seasonal water sources including aguadas(natural rain-fed sinkholes) and bajos (seasonalswamps) (Bronson 1978; Fedick and Ford 1990; Ford1986). Tikal, Caracol, Calakmul, Naranjo, and ElMirador are a few examples (Figure 3.1) (see A.Chase and D. Chase 1987, 1996; Folan et al. 1995;Healy et al. 1983; Matheny 1987; Scarborough et al.1994, 1995). The varied economic landscape of theMaya lowlands affected ancient subsistence practicesand techniques, as well as settlement distribution andsociopolitical organization (Demarest 1996; Dunninget al. 1998; Fedick 1996; Pyburn 1998). Thisdiversity also partly accounts for why anthropologistshave explained ancient Maya political organizationin several ways (e.g., city-states, superstates,centralized regional states, weakly centralizedsegmentary states, galactic polities and feudal states)(Lucero n.d.). Maya political systems are bestviewed on a spectrum between small local politiesand large regional ones. Rulers and elites were boundnot so much by strong political ties, but throughinteraction with one another vis-a-vis inter-centerbattles, ballgames, alliances, marriage and visitations(Culbert 1991a; Demarest 1992, 1996; Fry 1990;

Hammond 1991; Hirth 1992; Marcus 1976, 1993;Pohl and Pohl 1994; Sharer 1991; Webster 1998;Yoffee 1991).

I focus on Tikal (Peten, Guatemala) and itshinterlands to illustrate how complex politiesdeveloped in the southern Maya lowlands. Thisregion has an extensive corpus of archaeological,iconographic and epigraphic data.

Maya Settlement

The Maya first settled along coastal areas andrivers. Beginning in the Middle Preclassic period (ca.900-400 B.C.), they moved inland to fertileagricultural areas located in the karstic uplands likethe Peten (Ford 1986:59, 80-82). The karstic hillsalso have aguadas, some of which can hold wateryear round. El Mirador and Nakbe are two well-known large Preclassic centers in the Peten; both ofthese centers were abandoned at the end of thePreclassic period (ca. A.D. 150) (Matheny 1987),perhaps due to a failure of their water managementsystems caused by the build-up of silt (Scarborough1993; see also Dahlin 1983). The Tikal area was oneof the last areas settled (Ford 1986:3-4, 1991); it islocated in the uplands on a natural promontorybounded on the east and west by bajos, and on thenorth and south by artificial earthworks. After ElMirador's demise, Tikal, Uaxactun, and Calakmulemerged to fill the political vacuum. Tikal becamethe most imposing and powerful polity during theEarly Classic period (ca. A.D. 250-550) (Marcus1993; Mathews 1985) and was also home to one ofthe earliest stela in the region (Stela 29, dated A.D.292) (Culbert 1991b), a feature of Maya rulershipthat soon spread throughout the lowlands.

The majority of Classic Maya lived infarmsteads in a dispersed manner mirroring the patch-like distribution of fertile agricultural soils (Mollisols)including both center environs and hinterlands(Fedick and Ford 1990; Lowe 1985:158; Lucero1994; Rice 1993; Sanders 1977; Tourtellot 1993; cf.Drennan 1988). Mollisols are "...considered byagronomists to be among the world's most important,naturally productive soils, with yields unsurpassedby other unirrigated areas" (Fedick 1988:106). Onlyone percent of the world's tropical soils are Mollisols,yet they are the dominant soils of Maya lowlands.Offsetting the centrifugal, and presumably

38 Lisa J. Lucero

independent or self-sufficient, tendencies of adispersed populace would have been a challenge foraspiring leaders. Furthermore, in the Maya area, thereis a lack of evidence for elite control of agriculturalsystems such as canals, raised fields, or terraces(Demarest 1992;Tourtellot 1993). For example, thereis currently little evidence to suggest that large-scalesubsistence intensification technologies (e.g.,terraces) were used near Tikal (Harrison 1993; Pohlet al. 1996; Turner 1974; cf. Harrison 1977, 1978).In contrast, Caracol, a large Classic Maya center incentral Belize, is surrounded by numerousagricultural terraces (Chase and Chase 1996). Thevariable subsistence technologies found at Tikal andCaracol relate to local ecological variation rather thanto issues of elite control (Dunning 1995; Dunning etal. 1998; e.g., Fedick 1996).

Faced with the scattered and diverse economiclandscape, how did emerging leaders acquire power?Clearly, managing or controlling subsistencetechnology in many cases did not appear to have beenan option; elites had to use other types of control.There can be little doubt that centers acted as magnetsand drew in large numbers of people. One reasonmay have had to do with water.

Reservoirs

In areas like the Peten with seasonal drought(especially January through April/May), waterstorage became critical (Ford 1996; Scarborough1996). At many large centers, artificial reservoirsare located near monumental architecture. Thesecapital-intensive public works required engineeringknow-how, both in terms of construction andmaintenance. This is of particular significance tonot only their upkeep, but to the disposal of humanwaste and the challenges of keeping standing waterclean for daily drinking needs.

Scarborough and Gallopin (1991) define threetypes of Tikal reservoirs based on their location andamount of water contained: central precinct,residential, and foz/o-margin. There are six majorreservoirs at Tikal, which range in area from nine to62 hectares. Scarborough and Gallopin estimate thatthe five central precinct reservoirs had a capacity of900,000 cubic meters throughout the year, whichtogether with other Tikal reservoirs may have beenable to hold up to 40 million gallons of water (Carr

and Hazard 1961; see Scarborough 1996). Inaddition, some of the famous causeways (sacbeob)found in many Maya centers may also have servedas dams (Harrison 1993; Scarborough and Gallopin1991). Clearly, the centralized water managementsystem met the demands for water during drought.

Evidence suggests that at least the PalaceReservoir, one of the central precinct reservoirs, wasconstructed during the Early Classic period (ca. 250B.C.-A.D. 250) when Tikal was growing inpopulation and socio-political complexity (Harrison1993). There are also indications that nucleationaround centers during the Early Classic occurred,perhaps in reaction to competition and/or otherstresses (e.g., as evident in the hinterlands betweenTikal and Yaxha) (Ford 1986:92, 1991). It was alsoduring this period that Maya elites, especiallyburgeoning rulers (e.g., Curl Nose at Tikal),incorporated foreign elements from the centralMexican polity of Teotihuacan into their iconography,especially those elements relating to important deitieshaving to do with rain and warfare (Coggins 1979;Freidel et al. 1993:296; Willey 1974).

To summarize, it appears that the majority ofancient Maya farmers largely lived in a dispersedmanner. It also appears that water was scarce duringmost of the dry season in areas without permanentwater, and that large enough reservoirs to supplydrinking water during this period were located nearmonumental architecture. How are two seeminglydisparate factors—dispersed people and concentratedwater facilities—reconciled? A discussion ofseasonal and residential mobility may help to answerthis question.

Residential and Seasonal Mobility

The demands of a labor-intensive agriculturalsystem can result in two forms of mobility: seasonaland residential (Ford 1991, n.d.; Tourtellot 1993).Maya farmers may have used temporary houses tolive near their fields during labor intensive parts ofthe agricultural season, particularly during the rainyseason. Evidence from extensively excavatedhinterland mounds in the Belize River ArchaeologicalSettlement Survey (BRASS) research area in westcentral Belize (see Figure 3.1) indicates the presenceof isolated field houses located in areas with goodagricultural land (Lucero 1994:197-245). The

Water Control and Maya Politics 39

agricultural season requires different activities atdifferent times of the year (Ford 1991; Killion 1990).Using a single crop per year as an example, in theLake Peten Itza region (Reina 1967), fields are firstcleared (by March) and then burned about a monthlater at the end of the dry season. Planting occurs atthe beginning of the rainy season (late April/earlyMay) followed by a period of intense maintenance(e.g., weeding) during the rainy season when cropsare growing. An additional burden, but an addedinducement to stay near the fields at this busy time,is the difficulty of traveling during the rainy season.Finally, harvesting begins at the middle-to-end of therainy season and beginning of the dry season(October/November) (e.g., McGee 1990:2; Redfieldand Villa Rojas 1934:42-44; Vogt 1970).

If this was the case prehistorically, all structuresmay not have been inhabited year-around,despitedense occupation at centers. Undoubtedly, some ofthe population lived year-round in or near centers.The rest were probably mobile due to the demandsof practicing a variety of agricultural techniques,especially in view of the lack of evidence forintensive-subsistence technology around manycenters combined with a continued increase inpopulation during the Late Preclassic (ca. 400 B.C. -A.D. 250) and Classic (ca. A.D. 550-850) periods.In addition, in certain areas some farmers also mayhave had to move to find more fertile soils, or to findnew land in the face of natural population growth.Furthermore, settlement maps show Classic periodfarmsteads dispersed throughout the hinterlands(except in bajos areas) in areas for the most part bereftof aguadas (see survey transects in Fedick 1988; Ford1986; Puleston 1983). When aguadas are locatedoutside of centers, they are typically associated withmonumental architecture. For example, Felipe Lanza(pers. comm. 1989), head of the Parque NacionalTikal Vigilancia, has noted that the park has 103aguadas, and that larger aguadas are associated withmonumental architecture. Even if water did notevaporate at hinterland or non-center aguadas (andmany likely did evaporate), they still could not havesupported large populations through the entire dryseason (Scarborough 1996). Test excavations inresidential middens within the Tikal-Yaxha surveytransect only yielded 12 pieces of groundstone outof approximately 14,000 artifacts (Ford1986:Appendix III). This may indicate that the

grinding of maize occurred elsewhere, perhaps nearthe chultunes or dry storage facilities that cluster atelite residential compounds particularly at centers fordry season consumption.

Seasonal Nucleation

To answer the question posed earlier about howit is possible to reconcile the seemingly disparatecharacteristics of dispersed populations andconcentrated water facilities, I propose that thecombined factors of seasonal drought and agriculturaldemands resulted in seasonal nucleation around watersources during the dry season and seasonal dispersalof many farmers during the agricultural season, apattern particularly noticeable beginning in the EarlyClassic period (ca. A.D. 250-550) (see also Ford1996). These factors are key to understanding thenature of the socio-political system, both in thedevelopment and maintenance of an elite hierarchyand the expansion of the political economy.

The very character of monumental architecturemay provide indirect evidence for dry seasonnucleation. Maya monumental architecture is famousfor its "onion-skin" construction phases representinglong-term multi-seasonal projects rather than majorshort-term ones (Culbert 1991a; e.g., Tikal's MundoPerdido Complex; Laporte and Fialko 1990).Scarborough (1993) aptly notes that quarrying thereservoirs would have also provided constructionmaterials for monumental architecture. Episodicconstruction events likely indicate seasonal laborprojects carried out during non-agricultural periods(Abrams 1994:43, 108; Reina 1967). Furthermore,chultunes (Puleston 1971; Reina and Hill 1980)cluster at centers and elite residential compounds(Ford 1991; see Carr and Hazard 1961; Puleston1983), which may signify dry season food stores andsurplus.

Another line of evidence supporting seasonalconcentration around centers is hieroglyphicinscriptions. Warfare, sacrifice of captives, ballgames, bloodletting rituals, accession of rulers,festivals with music and dancing, katun period-ending rites and temple dedications are all hallmarksof Classic Maya center life, many of which took placeduring the dry season (Aveni and Hotaling 1994; e.g.,Bassie-Sweet 1991; Marcus 1992:431; Schele 1991;Schele and Freidel 1990). The public events would

40 Lisa J. Lucero

have taken place at or around additional trademarksof Maya centers—imposing temples, open plazas,stelae and altars, causeways, and ballcourts.

These features define Classic Maya society.They suggest how elites not only justified andlegitimized the status quo, but how they ceremoniallyintegrated the masses for purposes of social cohesionand to allay conflict, especially at a time whendifferences in wealth and power were most obvious—when people were together in the dry season.

IDEOLOGICAL POWER:WATER SYMBOLISM

The idea of politicized or centralized watermanagement in the Maya area is not new (e.g., Folanetal. 1995; Fordn.d., 1991,1996; Scarborough 1991,1993, 1996; Scarborough and Gallopin 1991; cf.Haberland 1983; Harrison 1977; Puleston 1977).What is new is the realization that purely economicreasons are inadequate in and of themselves to explainthe emergence of Classic Maya political complexity.This development must be evaluated in light of thecritical question of why households and/orcommunities just did not build water facilitiesthemselves. If indeed households withincommunities could presumably expand aguadas orbuild their own water catchment systems, the controlover critical resources alone cannot account for elitepower. But why didn't the dispersed and mobilepopulace build their own reservoirs? As mentionedearlier, maps of Classic period settlement show thatrelatively few aguadas are located outside centersand their environs. I argue that elite control of aneconomic resource and associated symbolism andideology together played a key role in thedevelopment and maintenance of their power duringthe Early Classic. Specifically, I suggest that the eliteconstructed a new ideological relationship betweenwater and their power.

Cross-culturally, rulers are often involved in andassociated with fertility and purification rites wherematerial concerns are brought into the supernatural,religious, and social realm. Rulers often haveexclusive rights over technical knowledge and skills(Helms 1979:178, 1993:78-79; e.g., Geertz 1980;Lansing 1991). Because of this status, rulers are oftenconsidered semi-divine, or at least closer to the godsthan the common person (Friedman and Rowlands

1978:222). This probably was the case for ancientMaya rulers, as amply attested in the iconographywhere they are often depicted in a variety ofassociations with deities, as well as in hieroglyphicinscriptions that describe their relationship to theother world (e.g., Bassie-Sweet 1991; Demarest1992; Freidel et al. 1993; Schele and Freidel 1990).

In a recent article devoted to Maya watermanagement and ritual, Scarborough (1998) focuseson the prevalence and importance of water in ancientMaya religion and presents a detailed discussion oficonography and other evidence associated withwater and ritual: caves, springs, reservoirs locatednext to monumental architecture, Cauac or WitzMonster, Waterlily Monster and so on. Water wasnot only important for the survival of people, but alsofor the survival of the political system:".. .elites usedhigh-performance water ritual [in addition to watermanagement] as manifest in the iconography tofurther centralize control" (Scarborough 1998:135).They accomplished this through the appropriation oftraditional water rituals. Rulers also likely conductedthese ceremonies at the water sources themselves—reservoirs located next to temples, places of ceremonyand worship. Inscriptions reveal that fully-costumedand masked rulers for a time became specific deitiesthrough impersonation (Houston and Stuart 1996).Not surprisingly, the Maize god was one often rituallyimpersonated, as was the Sun god. "Another deityimpersonated by Maya lords...seems to be aquaticrepresented as a serpent with a water-lily bound toits head" ("water serpent;" Houston and Stuart1996:299, Fig. 9). Their success in impersonatingdeities may indicate their success as rulers and theirability to rule. This is not to claim that Maya farmersdid not know about the properties of water. Rather,as Scarborough argues (1998), Maya rulersappropriated traditional water rituals to suit apoliticalagenda.

Standing Water

Is the connection between elite control of waterand associated symbolism sufficient to explain whyhinterland communities did not appear to build theirown water facilities? Not completely. I proposethat the appropriation of water symbolism and ritualsprovided a key tool in the emergence of Mayarulership because of the importance of water and the

Water Control and Maya Politics

nature of standing water itself. Problems that might The waterlily (Genus Nymphaea, likely amplahave arisen for the Maya during the four-month species) requires still-bodied clear, slightly alkalinedrought period concern standing water, especially as water (Lundell 1937:18, 26; Swindels 1983:16).drinking water (versus water for fish ponds and Cloudy water, or water with too much algae, preventsagricultural fields) (see Miksic, this volume, for a waterlily growth (Home, pers. comm. 1996). Thediscussion of water-borne diseases in Southeast Asia), waterlily also does not tolerate acidic conditions, norIntestinal parasites would have been a concern, water with too much calcium, such as limestoneStanding water would have served as insect-breeding (Conrad 1905:116). As a consequence, murkygrounds for mosquitoes and other flying insects, aguadas or lakes will exhibit sparse waterlily growth.Depictions on ancient Maya pottery vessels indicate Furthermore, if the bottom sediment (where waterlilythat mosquitoes were a known pest (Harrison 1977). roots attach) contains too much organic matter (e.g.,To kill off intestinal parasites today, the Maya boil decomposing plants), the gases released includingbark of the copal tree (Protium copal) or leaves of methane, ethylene and phenols, can be toxic tothe Jackass Bitter tree (Neurolaena lobata), as well waterlilies. Waterlilies also require large amountsas use the juice of the fresh fruit of the Mexican of nitrogenous food which is absorbed directlyWormseed (Chenopodium ambrosioides) (Arvigo through the roots. In addition, the bluish undersides1994:187-188). of lily pads restrict the passage of light "through the

Another problem likely faced by the Maya was normal green chlorophyll into the water underneath"the build-up of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other (Swindels 1983:17; see also Pearcc 1987), thusmetals and chemical organics in standing water preventing the build-up of too much algae.(Home n.d.). For the most part, natural wetland Waterlilies also provide food and cover for the naturalprocesses would impede the build-up of these predators of small flying pests such as the dragonflyelements and compounds enough to prevent them (not to mention food for fish). Since macrophyticfrom being harmful or fatal to humans. One plants such as Nymphaea attach their roots to theexception where nitrates can be harmful is in infants bottom of aguadas, they typically are found whereup to the age of three months. Infants lack the there is year-round water. Some of the largestnecessary enzymes in the digestive tract that prevent reservoirs, on which archaeologists today rely to"the formation of a derivative of nitrate and the red supply water needs during the dry season (e.g., Tikalblood pigment" (Home n.d.:2). As a result, and Caracol), are located in direct association withhemoglobin is prevented from carrying oxygen monumental architecture,leading to suffocation and eventual death, commonlyreferred to as "blue baby disease" (Slawomir W. Waterlily SymbolismHermanowicz, Civil and Environmental Engineering,UC-Berkeley, pers. comm. 1996). It should not come as a surprise that waterlilies

The natural wetland biosphere itself acts to and water are symbolically associated with rulers inpurify water, which includes hydrophytic and Classic Maya society, not because they are part ofmacrophytic plants and other organisms (Hammer the purification process per se (Ford 1996), butand Kadlec 1980; Home n.d.; Tchobanoglous n.d.). because they signify when water is pure/clean. OtherPondweeds, smaller plants, and their associated aquatic elements permeate Maya iconography suchbacteria and algae all work together to purify water, as fish, turtles, snails, water snakes and crocodiles;For example, some bacteria act as "living filters" and however, they are primarily associated with standingfeed on the spores of parasites and also denitrify water water itself (Harrison 1977; Puleston 1977; Willey(Burton et al. 1979; Dinges 1976; Home n.d.). In 1978). The waterlily is also associated with purity,addition, all plants absorb nitrogen and phosphorus specifically as a symbol of abundance, a symbol with(especially nitrates [Nelson et al. 1980]). However, which rulers often linked themselves (Schele andthe most obvious and visible plant in the wetland Miller 1986:46; cf. Dahlin 1983; Willey 1978). Forbiosphere is the waterlily—as a matter of fact, it can example, ancient Egyptian and Chinese rulersonly flourish in pure or clean water, and thus is often associated waterlilies with purity, immortality andseen as a symbol of water purification itself. truth, and Egyptian pharaohs like Ramses II were

42 Lisa J. Lucero

buried with waterlily wreaths (Swindels 1983:12-13).

The widespread spatial and temporal presenceof the waterlily in Maya iconography attests to itsrole in ritual and its ties to rulership. The waterlilyis the earliest known occurrence of plant forms inMaya iconography (Rands 1953:115) and isrepresented throughout the Maya area, from ChichenItza to Copan. Nymphaea pollen has been recoveredfrom a possible elite household at the Late Preclassicsite of Cerros in northern Belize, and Crane (1996)suggests that elites may have worn the flowers tosymbolize their status. Maya iconography andhieroglyphic inscriptions also demonstrate the linkbetween waterlilies and rulership. For example, Ford(1996:303) notes that Nab Winik Makna, or WaterLily Lords, refer to Classic Maya rulers. Waterliliesand/or associated elements are found on a number ofdifferent media linked with rulers such as stelae (e.g.,the earliest depiction of water plants on Stela 1 atTikal) (Rands 1953:115). Associated elementsinclude, for example, the Waterlily Monster (e.g.,Hellmuth 1987:Fig. 78a-c) and waterlily pads(ibid. .Figs. 78-80, 82c-d, 89, 90c-d, 97, 98d, 100a,136d, 168, 185, 189; see Hellmuth [1987:141-142]for a description of the variety of waterlilies andassociated elements). It is also significant thatwaterlilies are depicted as part of headdresses wornby rulers (Cortez n.d.; Rands 1953:120; e.g., Freidelet al. 1993:Fig. 5.3). They are also incorporated intothe decor of monumental architecture, such as Lintel2, Temple I, Tikal (Schele and Freidel 1990:Figs.5.25b, 6.11). The Bonampak murals depict numerousdancers wearing masks incorporating the waterlilymotif, a theme also found at Yaxchilan (Freidel et al.1993:Fig. 5.4). Such depictions represent publicperformances incorporating elements of ritual, powerdisplay and entertainment

Waterlilies are also represented on mobileobjects such as the Leyden Plaque and numerouspolychrome ceramics, especially vases (e.g., Reents-Budet 1994:Figs. 1.14, 1.20, 2.21, 6.8, 6.10, 6.14,6.25, 6.27, 6.44, 6.47, 6.49). Hieroglyphicinscriptions also indicate the tie between waterliliesand the elite. For example, Ah Nab was a term usedto refer to Maya nobility during the Classic period,and translates as "Waterlily People" (Schele andFreidel 1990:94). It is also interesting to note thatthe prefix, which is part of all Emblem Glyphs

translates as "water group" (Marcus 1976:7-10).Rulers with names like Waterlily Lord (Tikal),Waterlily-Jaguar (Copan) and Lord Water (Caracol)further attest to the link of water and rulers. Inaddition, many centers that relied on reservoirs havea water element as part of their place name (e.g.,Calakmul and Dos Pilas [Stuart and Houston1994:19,28]).

Finally, waterlilies have narcotic properties thatmay have been employed as a hallucinogen duringrituals (Dobkin de Rios 1974; Emboden 1981). "Thealkaloids apormorphine, nuciferine andnornuciferines, isolated from the rhizome of Nampla, may be responsible for...psychotropicactivity" (Schultes and Hoffman 1992:67). Themention of waterlilies in Aztec poems asquetzalaxochiacatl ("the precious white flower") inthe context of aquatic plants that inebriate has ledDiaz (1977) to suggest that this association may alsoextend back to prehistory. The use of TV. ampla as asacred psychotropic is supported, according to Diaz(1977), by depictions in the Bonampak murals, byits current use in the Maya highlands for recreationalpurposes (producing powerful hallucinatory effects),and by the presence of aporphine (analogous toapormorphine) alkaloids. For example, in urban areasof Chiapas, Mexico, raw fresh rhizomes of thewaterlily are eaten to produce an altered state(Emboden 1981). Historically, Nymphaea has beenconsidered a substitute for opium (Emboden 1979:12)because high enough doses provoke mind-alteringepisodes.

Religious specialists are known to induce atrance state to communicate with the spirit world andwith deities (e.g., Durkheim 1995[1912]:228). Forexample, Egyptians used another species ofNymphaea, caerulea, to facilitate trances (Emboden1989). These trances were important to heal patientsand for elevating the individuals to "become like agod." Examination of Maya pottery, codices, stonereliefs and murals led Emboden (1982) to suggest aritual use of waterlilies similar to that depicted in theancient Egyptian images found on tomb sculpture,ceramics, frescos, and papyri. Here, too, thedepictions of waterlilies attest to their significanceand sacredness.

As these examples demonstrate, no matter themedia, there is a clear association of water andwaterlilies with rulers, and hence, political power.

Water Control and Maya Politics 43

DISCUSSION

In this section, I present a model of how Mayarulers acquired the ability to control the labor, goodsand services of others in the southern Maya lowlands,especially in areas that did not have natural permanentwater sources. Ancient Maya farmers moved inlandto upland areas with good soils and natural rain-fedaguadas and bajos during the Middle Preclassic (ca.900-400 B.C.). Increasing numbers of farmersimmigrating to inland areas resulted in greaterdemands on drinking water during seasonal drought.The earliest settlers in the Middle Preclassic builttheir new lives on fertile land near aguadas, and intime became established and prestigious lineages("first founders") (cf. McAnany 1995), Theincreasing concentration of people around watersources allowed those who had establishedthemselves near a critical resource to start to build agroup of supporters by requiring payment in returnfor access to aguadas during seasonal drought. Theprestigious lineages in time became elite lineageswho jockeyed amongst themselves for greaterposition and power. Early temples and ballcourtsprovided the perfect forum for competitive feasts anddisplays.

It would still seem, however, to have beenrelatively easy for people to choose to use other watersources controlled by burgeoning elites elsewhere,or to build their own. Fear of the loss of payment ortribute would have been a strong inducement for elitesto persuade seasonal inhabitants to congregate aroundtheir particular water source. Attracting dispersedfarmers was facilitated by elites associatingthemselves with the vital resource of water and itspurity. Early Maya leaders appropriated traditionalwater rituals and performed them in large publicarenas. The ceremonies served to unite the peoplephysically and emotionally around a commonconcern, clean water. These events also benefitedthe sponsors in that the continuance of potable waterbecame associated with nascent rulers. In exchangefor their continued funding of vital water rituals,rulers received tribute in the form of staples, prestigegoods and labor which was used to build publicmonumental architecture, maintain reservoirs, andeventually, to build private monumental palaces andshrines.

The tenuous hold of the elite actually had

required more ornate and obvious means oflegitimation. Hallmarks of legitimation includedmonumental architecture such as temples for ritualenactments, the stela and altar complex used forpolitical propaganda, ballcourts to entertain as wellas to settle inter-center disputes, and causewaysserving both as dams and walkways leading fromone monumental architectural complex to the next.Long-distance exchange of prestige goods also wasvital in defining and legitimating Maya eliteness.Expertly flaked obsidian knives were essential inperforming human sacrifice, just as stingray spineswere for bloodletting rituals. Jade ear spools andpendants and carved sea-shell ornaments were usedto physically distinguish the upper echelons fromcommoners. Elite interaction also occurred throughroyal visits to and from allied and secondary centers,inter-center marriage alliances, and warfare. Warfareitself was conducted during the Classic period forthe most part by elites who captured high-statusvictims to sacrifice, which increased their prestigein the eyes of their tribute-payers.

The tenuous hold of the elite over peopleexplains the political fluidity that existed during theClassic period (ca. A.D. 250-850). There is littledoubt that Maya rulers acquired tribute; however, thecosts of maintaining the flow of tribute were highand demanded the continual persuasion of themajority not to leave their fold for another powerfulcenter with water sources, to maintain their ownaguadas, or to build their own reservoirs. Thus, Mayarulers had to continually convince followers toprovide tribute, and they did so through watermanagement and associated symbolism and rituals.

Tikal's fluctuating political history can beassessed in view of the model presented above. Atthe beginning of the Early Classic (ca. A.D. 250),Tikal and Uaxactun emerged as the two largestpolitical centers (Pohl and Pohl 1994). Tikal laterdefeated Uaxactun in A.D. 378 and incorporated itand its populace under its rule. Tikal became primusinter pares. Teotihuacan's influence at Tikal andelsewhere became noticeable as indicated by theappearance of distinctive talud-tablero architecture,slab-footed ceramics, and non-Maya religious andideological elements (especially their rain god,Tlaloc, and military themes) (Coggins 1979; Freideletal. 1993:296; Willey 1974).

Throughout the Late Classic period (ca. A.D.

44 Lisa J. Lucero

550-850), competition between centers increased forcontrol over labor (e.g., between Calakmul andTikal). Increasing conflict is illustrated in thehieroglyphic and archaeological record at Caracol,whose rulers allied with Calakmul's and defeatedTikal twice in the latter half of the 6th century, in A.D.556 and 562 (Chase and Chase 1989). One of thesignificant aftermaths of Caracol's defeat of Tikalwas that Caracol's leaders may have been able toattract or persuade Tikal's supporters to nucleatearound Caracol and its reservoirs. This populationor labor shift resulted in Caracol's rulers having hadaccess to a dramatically larger labor pool which theyused to defeat other centers (e.g.,Naranjo). Evidencefor population shifts includes (Chase and Chase 1989,1996): 1) a dramatic increase in settlement densityin and near Caracol; 2) large numbers of terracesand reservoirs that date to soon after Caracolexpanded; 3) an increase in the number of houses;and 4) an increase in monumental construction.Chase and Chase (1989) estimate that populationincreased 325 percent over the next 130 years. ThatCaracol rulers had the ideological and economicpower to entice a seasonal labor pool is furtherindicated by a decline in population at Tikal relativeto what it had been previous to its defeat (Haviland1970). Finally, certain areas around Caracol wereuninhabited before the war with Tikal. Tikal and itshinterlands were not completely abandoned after theirlosses; evidence indicates that population in and nearTikal continued to grow in same time period asCaracol, but at a much slower rate (27.5 percent forcentral Tikal and 15 percent for its hinterlands).

Thus, the famous Classic period "hiatus" (A.D.534-593, and as late as A.D. 692 at Tikal)—definedby the drop-off in stela erection and monumentalconstruction at many large centers in the southernMaya lowlands—actually may have represented notonly population shifts but labor shifts as well. Inother words, rulers unable to organize large-scaleconstruction projects during the hiatus did not havethe means to attract the necessary labor. Caracol andother centers increased in scale during the hiatus dueto their success in drawing in farmers. In short, Tikallost its designation as primus inter pares, adesignation that was unstable at best and that becameeven more so throughout the Classic period.Calakmul and Caracol, however, were not the onlycompeting centers. Throughout the land-locked and

rainfall-dependent areas, center rulers attempted toentice large labor pools in order to show who hadthe most power. Growing competition is recordedin the hieroglyphic inscriptions with the increasingmention of battles, inter-center ballgames, and thesacrifice of captives.

In conclusion, I have attempted to show thesignificance of the role of economy and ideology assources of power for the development andmaintenance of Classic Maya rulership in thesouthern Maya lowlands. Even though the elitecontrolled critical water resources, their power wastenuous because farmers had alternative options evenduring the dry season (e.g., support other rulers,maintain their own aguadas or build their ownreservoirs). Consequently, economic explanationsalone are insufficient to account for Classic Mayapolitical power. It was their ideological associationwith water purification, in addition to the control ofreservoirs, that provided Maya rulers the foundationon which to build and maintain their power.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to Alexander Home and SlawomirW. Hermanowicz of the Department of Civil andEnvironmental Engineering, UC-Berkeley andGeorge Tchobanoglous of the Department of Civiland Environmental Engineering, UC-Davis for theirinterest, suggestions, and for with providing meaccess to unpublished works on the wetland biosphereand natural methods of cleaning polluted water. Ialso want to thank William H. Walker and ElisabethBacus for their constructive comments, and MariLangford for her research on waterlilies. Finally, Ithank the panel review members of the ArcheologyPapers of the American Anthropological Association,Jay K. Johnson, Michelle Hegmon, Deborah Nicholsand Lynne Sullivan for their helpful suggestions.

REFERENCES CITED

Abrams, E. M.1994 How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics

and Ancient Architecture. Austin: Universityof Texas Press.

Water Control and Maya Politics 45

Argivo, R.1994 Sastun: My Apprenticeship with a Maya

Healer. San Francisco: Harper.Aveni, A. R, and L. D. Hotaling

1994 Monumental inscriptions and the observationalbasis of Maya planetary astronomy. Journal ofHistorical Astronomy 25(19):21 -54.

Bassie-Sweet, K.1991 From the Mouth of the Dark Cave:

Commemorative Sculpture of the Late ClassicMaya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowalewski, andP. N. Peregrine

1996 A dual-processual theory for the evolution ofMesoamerican civilization. CurrentAnthropology 37:1-14.

Bourdieu, P.1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by

R. Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

1990 The Logic of Practice. Translated by R. Nice.Stanford: University of Stanford Press.

Bronson, B.1978 Angkor, Anuradhapura, Prambanan, Tikal:

Maya subsistence in an Asian perspective. InPre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture. B. L. TurnerII and P. D. Harrison, eds. Pp. 255-300.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Burton, T. M., D. L. King, R. C. Ball, and T. G. Baker1979 Utilization of Natural Ecosystems for Waste

Water Renovation. United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, Region V.Chicago: Great Lakes National ProgramsOffice.

Carr, R. F., and J. E. Hazard1961 Tikal Report No. 11: Map of the Ruins of Tikal,

El Peten, Guatemala. University MuseumMonograph, No. 21. Philadelphia: TheUniversity Museum, University ofPennsylvania.

Chase, A. F., and D. Z. Chase1987 Investigations at the Classic Maya City of

Caracol, Belize: 1985-1987. Monograph 3.San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art ResearchInstitute.

1989 The investigation of Classic Period Mayawarfare at Caracol, Belize. Mayab 5(1):5-18.

1996 A mighty Maya nation: how Caracol built anempire by cultivating its middle class.Archaeology 49(5):66-72.

Coggins, C.1979 A new order and the role of the calendar: some

characteristics of the Middle Preclassic Periodat Tikal. In Maya Archaeology and

Ethnohistory. N. Hammond and G. R. Willey,eds. Pp. 38-50. Austin: University of TexasPress.

Cohen, A.1974 Two-Dimensional Man: An Essay on the

Anthropology of Power and Symbolism inComplex Society. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Conrad, H. S.1905 The Waterlilies: A Monograph of the Genus

Nymphaea. Publication No. 4. WashingtonD.C.: The Carnegie Institute of Washington

Cortez, C.n.d. Mayan art and a model for a hydraulic society.

Manuscript in possession of author.Crane, C. J.

1996 Archaeobotanical and palynological researchat a Late Preclassic community, Cerros, Belize.In The Managed Mosaic: Ancient MayaAgriculture and Resource Use. S. L. Fedick,ed. Pp. 262-277. Salt Lake City: University ofUtah Press.

Culbert, T P.1991a Maya political history and elite interaction: a

summery view. In Classic Maya PoliticalHistory: Hieroglyphic and ArchaeologicalEvidence. T. P. Culbert, ed. Pp. 311-346.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1991b Polities in the northeastern Peten, Guatemala.In Classic Maya Political History:Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence. T.P. Culbert. ed. Pp. 128-146. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Dahlin, B. H.1983 Climate and prehistory on the Yucatan

Peninsula. Climatic Change 5:245-263.Demarest, A. A.

1992 Ideology in ancient Maya cultural evolution:the dynamics of galactic polities. In Ideologyand Pre-Columbian Civilizations. A. A.Demarest and G. W Conrad, eds. Pp. 135-157.Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

1996 Closing comment: the Maya state: centralizedor segmentary? Current Anthropology 37:821-824

Diaz, J. L.1977 Ethnopharmacology of sacred psychoactive

plants used by the Indians of Mexico. AnnualReview of Pharmacology and Toxicology17:647-675.

Dinges, R.1976 Water Hyacinth Culture for Wastewater

Treatment Texas Department of Health

46 Lisa J. Lucero

Resources. Austin: Division of WastewaterTechnology and Surveillance.

Dobkin de Rios, M.1974 The influence of psychotropic flora and fauna

on Maya religion. Current Anthropology15:147-164.

Drennan, R. D.1988 Household location and compact versus

dispersed settlement in PrehispanicMesoamerica. In Household and Communityin the Mesoamerican Past. R. R. Wilk and W.A. Ashmore, eds. Pp. 273-293. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico Press.

Dunning, N. P.1995 Coming together at the temple mountain:

environment, subsistence and the emergenceof lowland Maya segmentary states. In TheEmergence of Classic Maya Civilization. N.Grube, ed. Pp. 61-69. Acta Mesoamericana 8.Mockmuhl, Germany: Verlag von Flemming.

Dunning, N. P., T. Beach, P. Farrell, and S. Luzzadder-Beach

1998 Prehispanic agrosystems and adaptive regionsin the Maya Lowlands. Culture and Agriculture20:87-101.

Durkheim, E.1995 [ 1912] The Elementary Forms of Religious

Life. New York: Free Press.Earle, T.

1997 How Chiefs Come to Power: The PoliticalEconomy in Prehistory. Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.

Emboden, W. A.1979 Narcotic Plants. New York: MacMillan

Publishing.1981 Transcultural use of narcotic water lilies in

ancient Egyptian and Maya drug ritual. Journalof Ethnopharmacology 3:35-83.

1982 The mushroom and the waterlily: literal andpictoral evidence for Nymphaea as a ritualpsychotogen in Mesoamerica. Journal ofEthnopharmacology 5:139-148.

1989 The sacred journey in Dynastic Egypt:shamanistic trance in the context of the narcoticwaterlily and the mandrake. Journal ofPsychoactive Drugs 21:61 -75.

Fedick, S. L.1988 Prehistoric Maya Settlement and Land Use

Patterns in the Upper Belize River Area, Belize,Central America. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Arizona StateUniversity.

1996 An interpretive kaleidoscope: alternativeperspectives on ancient agricultural landscapes

of the Maya lowlands. In The ManagedMosaic: Ancient Maya Agriculture andResource Use. S. L. Fedick, ed. Pp. 107-131.Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Fedick, S. L., and A. Ford1990 The prehistoric agricultural landscape of the

cntral Maya lowlands: an examination of localvariability in a regional context. WorldArchaeology 22:18-33.

Folan, W. J., J. Marcus, S. Pincemin, M. del RosarioDominguez C, L. Fletcher, and A. Morales L.

1995 Calakmul: new data from an ancient Mayacapital in Campeche, Mexico. Latin AmericanAntiquity 6:310-334.

Ford, A.1986 Population Growth and Social Complexity: An

Examination of Settlement and Environment inthe Central Maya Lowlands. AnthropologicalResearch Papers, No. 35. Tempe: ArizonaState University.

1991 Problems with evaluation of population fromsettlement data: examination of ancient Mayaresidential patterns in the Tikal-Yaxha intersitearea. Estudios de Cultura Maya 18:157-186.

1996 Critical resource control and the rise of theClassic Period Maya. In The Managed Mosaic:Ancient Maya Agriculture and Resource Use.S. L. Fedick, ed. Pp. 297-303. Salt Lake City:University of Utah Press.

n.d. Settlement patterns and residential dynamics:a revaluation of population estimates for thecentral Maya lowlands. Manuscript inpossession of author.

Freidel, D., L. Schele, and J. Parker1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the

Shaman !s Path. New York: William Morrow.Friedman, J., and M. J. Rowlands

1978 Notes toward an epigenetic model of theevolution of 'civilisation'. In The Evolution ofSocial Systems. J. Friedman and M. J.Rowlands, eds. Pp. 201-267. London:Duckworth.

Fry, R. E.1990 Disjunctive growth in the Maya lowlands. In

Precolumbian Population History in the MayaLowlands. T. P. Culbert and D. S. Rice, eds.Pp. 285-300. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press.

Geertz, C.1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-

Century Bali. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Water Control and Maya Politics 47

Giddens, A.1979 Central Problems in Social Theory: Action,

Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis.Berkeley: University of California Press.

1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theoryof Structuration. Berkeley. University ofCalifornia Press.

Gilman, A.1981 The development of social stratification in

Bronze Age Europe. Current Anthropology22:1-23.

Haberland, W.1983 To quench the thirst: water and settlement in

Central America. In Prehistoric SettlementPatterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey.E. Z. Vogt and R. M. Leventhal, eds. Pp. 79-88. Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

Hammer, D. E., and R. H. Kadlec1980 Wetland Utilization for Management of

Community Water: Concepts and Operation inMichigan. Industrial Development Division,Institute of Science and Technology. AnnArbor: University of Michigan.

Hammond, N.1991 Inside the black box: defining Maya polity. In

Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphicand Archaeological Evidence. T. P. Culbert,ed. Pp. 253-284. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Harrison, P. D.1977 The rise of bajos and the fall of the Maya. In

Social Process in Maya Prehistory: Studies inHonor of Sir Eric Thompson. N. Hammond,ed. Pp. 469-508. New York: Academic Press.

1978 Bajos revisited: visual evidence for one systemof agriculture. In Pre-Hispanic MayaAgriculture. B. L. Turner II and P. D. Harrison,eds. Pp. 247-253. Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press,.

1993 Aspects of water management in the southernMaya lowlands. Research in EconomicAnthropology 7:71-119.

Haviland, W. A.1970 Tikal, Guatemala, and Mesoamerican

urbanism. World Archaeology 2:186-197.Healy, P. F., J. D. H. Lambert, J. T. Arnason, and R. J.Hebda

1983 Caracol, Belize: evidence of ancient Mayaagricultural terraces. Journal of FieldArchaeology 10:397-410.

Hellmuth, N. M.1987 The Surface of the Underwaterworld:

Iconography of the Gods of Early Classic Maya

Art in Peten, Guatemala. 2 Volumes. CulverCity: Foundation for Latin AmericanAnthropological Research.

Helms, M. W.1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power.

Austin: University of Texas Press.1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal: Art, Trade, and

Power. Austin: University of Texas Press.Hirth, K.

1992 Interregional exchange as elite behavior: anevolutionary perspective. In MesoamericanElites: An Archaeological Perspective. D.Chase and A. Chase, eds. Pp. 18-29. Norman:University of Oklahoma Press.

Home, A.n.d. Toxic clean-up, au natural. Manuscript in

possession of author.Houston, S., and D. Stuart

1996 Of gods, glyphs and kings: divinity andrulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity70:289-312.

Johnson, A. W., and T. Earle1987 The Evolution of Human Societies: From

Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Killion, T. W.1990 Cultivation intensity and residential site

structure: an ethnoarchaeological examinationof peasant agriculture in the Sierra de losTuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Latin AmericanAntiquity 1:191-145.

Lansing, J. S.1991 Priests and Programmers: Technologies of

Power in the Engineered Landscape of Bali.Princeton: University of Princeton.

Laporte, J. P., and V. Fialko C.1990 New perspectives on old problems: dynastic

references for the Early Classic at Tikal. InVision and Revision in Maya Studies. F. S.Clancy and P. D. Harrison, eds. Pp. 33-66.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Lowe, J. W. G.1985 The Dynamics of Apocalypse: A Systems

Simulation of the Classic Maya Collapse.Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Lucero, L. J.1994 Household and Community Integration among

Hinterland Elites and Commoners: MayaResidential Ceramic Assemblages of the BelizeRiver Area. Ph.D. dissertation, ArchaeologyProgram, UCLA. Ann Arbor: UniversityMicrofilms.

n.d. Classic lowland Maya political organization:a review. Journal oj'WorldPrehistory\ In press.

48 Lisa J. Lucero

Lundell, C.1937 The Vegetation ofPeten. Publication No. 478.

Washington D.C.: The Carnegie Institute ofWashington.

Marcus, J.1976 Emblem and State in the Classic Maya

Lowlands: An Epigraphic Approach toTerritorial Organization. Washington D.C.:Dumbarton Oaks.

1992 Mesoamerican Writing Systems: Propaganda,Myth, and History in Four AncientCivilizations. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

1993 Ancient Maya political organization. InLowland Maya Civilization in the EighthCentury A.D. J. A. Sabloff and J. S. Henderson,eds. Pp. 111-183. Washington D.C.:Dumbarton Oaks.

Matheny, R. T.1987 An early Maya metropolis uncovered: El

Mirador. National Geographic 172(3):317-339.Mathews, P.

1985 Maya Early Classic monuments andinscriptions. \nA Consideration of the EarlyClassic Period in the Maya Lowlands. G. R.Willey and P. Mathews, eds. Pp. 5-54. Institutefor Mesoamerican Studies, No. 10. Albany:State University of New York at Albany.

McAnany, P. A.1995 Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and

Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. Austin:University of Texas Press.

McGee, R. J.1990 Life, Ritual, and Religion among the Lacandon

Maya. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Nelson, S. G., B. D. Smith, and B. R. Best

1980 Nitrogen Uptake by Tropical FreshwaterMacrophytes. Water Resources ResearchCenter. Technical Report, No. 10. Agana:University of Guam.

Pearce, J.1987 A Preliminary Investigation of the Effects of

Water Hyacinth on Algal Growth and WaterQuality. Report to the Water ResearchCommission. WRC Report No. 142/1/87.

Pohl, M. E. D., and J. M. D. Pohl1994 Cycles of conflict: political factionalism in the

Maya lowlands. In Factional Competition andPolitical Development in the New World. E.M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, eds. Pp. 138-157.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pohl, M. D., K. O. Pope, J. G. Jones, J. S. Jacob, D. R.Pipemo, S. D. deFrance, D. L. Lentz, J. A. Gifford, M.E. Danforth, and J. K. Josserand

1996 Early agriculture in the Maya lowlands. LatinAmerican Antiquity 7:355-372.

Puleston, D. E.1971 An experimental approach to the function of

Maya chultuns. American Antiquity 36:322-335.

1977 The art and archaeology of hydraulicagriculture in the Maya Lowlands. In SocialProcess in Maya Prehistory: Studies in Honorof Sir Eric Thompson. N. Hammond, ed. Pp.449-467. New York: Academic Press.

1983 Tikal Report No. 13: The Settlement Survey ofTikal. University Museum Monograph, No. 48.Philadelphia: The University Museum,University of Pennsylvania.

Pyburn, A. K.1998 Smallholders in the Maya lowlands: homage

to a garden variety ethnographer. HumanEcology 26:267-286.

Rands, R. L.1953 The Water Lily in Maya Art: A Complex of

Alleged Asiatic Origin. Pp. 75-153. Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology Bulletin 151,Anthropological Papers, No. 34. WashingtonD.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Redfield, R., and A. Villa Rojas1934 Chan Kom: A Maya Village. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.Reents-Budet, D.

1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramicsof the Classic Period. Durham: DukeUniversity Press.

Reina, R. E.1967 Milpas and milperos: implications for

prehistoric times. American Anthropologist69:1-20.

Reina, R., and R. Hill, II1980 Lowland Maya subsistence: notes from

ethnohistory and ethnography. AmericanAntiquity 45:74-79.

Rice, D. S.1993 Eighth-century physical geography,

environment, and natural resources in the MayaLowlands. In Lowland Maya Civilization inthe Eighth Century A.D. J. A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson, eds. Pp. 11-63. WashingtonD.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Water Control and Maya Politics 49

Roscoe, P. B.1993 Practice and political centralisation: a new

approach to political evolution. CurrentAnthropology 34:111-140.

Sanders, W. T.1977 Environmental heterogeneity and the evolution

of lowland Maya civilization. In The Originsof Maya Civilization. R. E. W. Adams, ed. Pp.287-297. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico Press.

Scarborough, V. L.1991 Water management adaptations in non-

industrial complex societies: an archaeologicalperspective. In Archaeological Method andTheory. Volume 3. M. B. Schiffer, ed. Pp. 101-154. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

1993 Water management in the southern Mayalowlands: an accretive model for the engineeredlandscape. Research in EconomicAnthropology 7:17-69.

1996 Reservoirs and watersheds in the central Mayalowlands. In The Managed Mosaic: AncientMaya Agriculture and Resource Use. S. L.Fedick, ed. Pp. 304-314. Salt Lake City:University of Utah Press.

1998 Ecology and ritual: water management and theMaya. Latin American Antiquity 9:135-159.

Scarborough, V. L., M. E. Becher, J. L. Baker, G. Harris,and F. Valdez, Jr.

1995 Water and land at the ancient Maya communityof La Milpa. Latin American Antiquity 6:98-119.

Scarborough, V. L., R. P. Connolly, and S. P. Ross1994 The pre-Hispanic Maya reservoir system at

Kinal, Peten, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica5:97-106.

Scarborough, V. L., and G. C. Gallopin1991 A water storage adaptation in the Maya

lowlands. Science 251:658-662.Schele, L.

1991 An epigraphic history of the western Mayaregion. In Classic Maya Political History:Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence. T.P. Culbert, ed. Pp. 72-101. Cambridge-Cambridge University Press.

Schele, L., and D. Freidel1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the

Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow.Schele, L., and M. E. Miller

1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual inMaya Art. New York: George Braziller.

Schultes, R. E., and A. Hoffman1992 [1979] Plants of the Gods: Their Sacred,

Healing and Hallucinogenic Powers.Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press.

Sharer, R. J.1991 Diversity and continuity in Maya civilization:

Quirigua as a case study. In Classic MayaPolitical History: Hieroglyphic andArchaeological Evidence. T. P. Culbert, ed. Pp.180-198. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Stuart, D., and S. Houston1994 Classic Maya Place Names. Studies in Pre-

Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 33.Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Swindels, P.1983 Waterlilies. Oregon: Timber Press.

Tchobanoglous, G.n.d. Wetlands and aquatic treatment systems.

Manuscript in possession of author.Tourtellot, G.

1993 A view of ancient Maya settlements in theeighth century. In Lowland Maya Civilizationin the Eighth Century A.D. J. A. Sabloff and J.S. Henderson, eds. Pp. 219-241. WashingtonD.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Turner, B. L., II1974 Prehistoric intensive agriculture in the Mayan

lowlands. Science 185:118-124.Vogt, E. Z.

1970 The Zinacantecos of Mexico: A Modem MayaWay of Life. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.

Webster, D.1998 Warfare and status rivalry: lowland Maya and

Polynesian comparisons. In Archaic States. G.M. Feinman and J. Marcus, eds. Pp. 311-351.Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.

Willey, G. R.1974 The Classic Maya hiatus: a rehearsal for the

collapse? In Mesoamerican Archaeology: NewApproaches. N. Hammond, ed. Pp. 417-430.London: Gerald Ductworth.

1978 Pre-Hispanic Maya agriculture: a contemporarysummation. In Pre-Hispanic Maya Agriculture.B. L. Turner II and P. D. Harrison, eds. Pp. 325-335. Albuquerque: University of New MexicoPress.

Yoffee, N.1991 Maya elite interaction: through a glass,

sideways. In Classic Maya Political History:Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence. T.P. Culbert, ed. Pp. 285-310. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.