HISTORY OF PLAZA PLANS

The meaning of settlement pattern, whether the configuration of individual groups, the distribution of groups throughout a site (cf. Fletcher and Gann 1995), or the distribution of sites across the landscape (Morley 1937), represents the final goal of these studies. Efforts to understand the Classic Maya through architecture continue to place emphasis on “elite” structures rather than through an overview of Maya society (Houston 1998; Inomata and Houston 2001; Webster 1998). Recognition that most groups of structures at lowland Maya sites represented extended family “households” (Haviland 1988; Wilk 1988), similar in their physical as well as cognitive composition to those known from recent ethnographic studies continues to be confirmed by extensive mapping projects. The Plaza Plan approach to understanding site structure views Maya society from a “functionalist” perspective (Becker 2001; Johnston and Gonlin 1998:142).

More important for the recognition of these Maya houses is the role that they played in understanding how Maya society could function effectively within a tropical rain forest. Note that in the Maya area, Frederick Wiseman's concept of the “artificial rain forest” (Adams and Hammond 1982:502) would be best suited to a series of residential clusters between which trees can grow and over which branches could spread. This system of controlling the rain forest, with each family creating a “managed rainforest” through complex intercropping, also has been called a “managed mosaic” (Fedick 1996). Evidence suggests that early farmers entered the lowlands as egalitarian slash-and-burn horticulturalists and that they developed a socially differentiated society by the Late Preclassic (Hammond 1978, 1992; Voorhies 1996). Increasing population densities then forced farming methods to intensify, with a shift to heavy intercropping, in a standard process of agricultural intensification. The thesis that the Classic Maya relied exclusively on swidden (milpa) agriculture has been uniformly rejected (Fedick 1996:3–13).

MAYA COGNITIVE MODELS: THE DISCOVERY OF PLAZA PLANS

Most of the approximately 2,500 individual and separate structures mapped at Tikal can be placed into 690 relatively discrete architectural groups (Becker 1982; Carr and Hazard 1961). The interpretation of social relationships among the residents of the extended families occupying household groups (Haviland 1988) has reemerged as an important subject (Manzanilla and Barba 1990; McAnany 1993). Julia Hendon's (1991) contextual analysis, examining the function of individual structures within complex architectural groupings, emphasizes the relationships among individual buildings as part of a group rather than examining them as if they were isolated entities (see also Haviland 1992; Hirth 1994).

The study of clusters of structures within Maya sites often, but not always, reveals a variety of identifiable group plans that can be recognized though detailed mapping alone. Each type of identifiable group can be characterized by one or more specific features that can be seen on a site map, without or prior to excavation. At Tikal, the diagnostic feature or features characterizing a specific type of group have been used to define each as a distinct Plaza Plan (Becker 1971, 1999). In effect, each of these group plans conforms to a set of cultural rules involving building form and location that result from an emic typology, or what I call an architectural grammar. Each specific Plaza Plan (PP) can be delineated through two levels of proof. First, regularities of architectural patterning, or the grammatical elements of building shapes and group arrangements, can be seen through map inspection alone. The second level of identification involves excavation to verify the architectural details as well as features specific to each type of PP. Thus, PP2 at Tikal involves a relatively small, relatively square, and relatively tall building platform centered on the eastern side of the group's plaza (Becker 1999). The identification of architectural regularities that began as a heuristic model during small structure studies at Tikal in 1962 was confirmed after a few weeks of further excavations (Becker 1971). The initial recognition that groups of buildings at a site could be categorized by highly predictive, conservatively estimated at greater than 90%, architectural grammars provided considerable potential for developing research strategies based on map studies alone (as with Carr and Hazard 1961). This information facilitates the planning of excavations and provides a means for ordering data within and between Maya sites (Becker 1979b, 1982; Fletcher et al. 1987).

The archaeological testing of identified examples of each architectural grammar, or PP, permits us to make accurate predictions of the presence of unseen mortuary and artifact assemblages as well as other aspects of material culture or even architectural features not evident from the surface. Specific artifacts associated with a specific group also may reveal aspects of the function of the group or occupation of its residents (Becker 1973) in a mode parallel to artifact studies made by anthropologists in what some now call “cultural biography” (Hendrickson 1995).

Archaeological intervention, the second level of confirming as specific PP, can focus on the recovery of “predicted” elements demonstrated to have regularities that can be statistically validated (cf. Doran and Hodson 1975). Test excavations of PP2 groups provided the architectural details characteristic of each east-located shrine. Precise measurements, when subjected to statistical analysis, demonstrate that structures on the east of PP2 groups are significantly distinct in plan from all other structures in the same group (Becker 1999). This nomothetic approach to the evaluation of architectural groups, whether of domestic clusters, ritual complexes, or something in between, serves as an extremely valuable tool for planning excavation strategies. I agree, however, with Norman Hammond (personal communication 2003) that a polythetic model more closely represents these grammars (see later). For the formulation of basic questions regarding a site and its component parts, this very simple system can be highly efficient.

The discovery that the form of an architectural group at Tikal can be more significant than might be expected from its physical size (Becker 1971, 1999:197–205) is one of the most important findings of the settlement research program at Tikal (Becker 2003a). The analysis of group form helps to clarify the meaning of data gathered at this enormous site during four decades of excavations. Excavation data also reveal that similarities in form among household groups within Tikal, as well as between sites, are particularly useful in formulating hypotheses regarding culture change in time and space.

Each PP recognized at Tikal conforms to an architectural grammar (an emic or cognitive model, or mental map) employed by the Maya builders and users of these building clusters. PPs reflect those aspects of the architectural grammars that relate to the structures within a group, rather than those that reveal individual room function (Harrison 2003; Hendon 1991). At many sites the fundamental rules of each of these grammars can be identified from surface observation alone (Becker 1999). As noted, the evaluation of PP from surface observation alone provides only the first set of data needed to decode the function of each specific grouping of structures.

A second set of data, derived from excavations, is essential to confirm observations made from map or surface observation. Excavations also may reveal elements of the architectural grammar that are not evident from the surface, such as unique burial or cache placements or specific goods associated with these “earth offerings” (Becker 1992, 1993). For example, a specific and always associated mortuary complex is associated with Tikal PP2. Of note is the need for excavation data to verify whether some structures were vaulted or had stone walls but thatched roofs. However, in no PP is presence or absence of vaulting a factor in the grammar, a note to which we will return later.

Statistical analysis using the precise measurements recovered through the excavation of a building provides a third aspect of the analysis. These three levels of observation provide high predictability that leads us to consider a fourth level—why changes in these group arrangements occur through time (Martin 1971:3–4). For example, we would like to understand why some PP2 groups were transformed into PP3 types while some PP3s were converted into PP2 (Haviland 2004). The appearance, proliferation, or disappearance of various PPs through time serves to indicate culture change within the complex societies that generated these ancient Maya cities. A concise summary of the ten PPs delineated at Tikal is now available (Becker 2003a).

PLAZA PLAN 2

Extensive work at Tikal has permitted us to refine our ability to distinguish between two very similar architectural patterns, now identified as PP2 and PP3, and to infer residential functions for both (cf. Laporte and Iglesias 1999).

Household groups at Tikal that include a relatively square and tall structure on the east and relatively low, rectangular structures in other positions describe a distinct arrangement now designated as PP2 (Becker 1999). Excavations revealed other traits that distinguish the structures on the east from those in other positions. These traits and architectural details of the east building suggest a function as a ritual shrine or temple (oratorio) for the resident family members. Non-square, non-east buildings in the group are assumed to have served other domestic purposes, such as “bedroom,” dormitory, men's house, kitchen, or storage. Inferences regarding specific structure functions (cf. Becker 2001) remain difficult to confirm through excavation.

Morley's (1935:135–146) map of the Temple Plaza Group at Quirigua thus provided sufficient evidence to enable correct prediction of structure function and burial location within Structure 6, a very small structure first cleared some 100 years ago (Becker 1972). Several years after this prediction appeared in print, an axial trench through Quirigua Structure 6 confirmed my hypothesis that the architectural grammars defined at Tikal could be successfully applied at other sites. The same theory regarding PP2 also was used to predict that Structure 16 at Copan, on the eastern side of its plaza (Becker 1980:20–21), held the tombs of the “kings” of Copan. Excavations have long since demonstrated the accuracy of this prediction at Copan.

Other excavators have successfully employed these data in their research strategy. In 1999, these PP2 observations were used by Arlen Chase and Diane Chase as a guide to a tunneling program into the base of Caracol Structure A3 in search of royal tombs. More important is their estimate that as many as 70% of the architectural groups at Caracol conform to PP2, a sharp contrast to the low percentage at Tikal. Mayanists have long recognized the presence of PP2 groups at other sites (e.g., Leventhal 1983), but pursuit of research based on these findings remains limited (Becker 2004b).

Details of the relationships among buildings in several groups at Tikal as well as extensive PP2 data from other sites now are being gathered (Becker 2004a). Jon Hageman and Jon Lohse (2003) describe what they call “first-tier groups” at Dos Hombres in northwestern Belize, each of which is central to a series of households (architectural groups). Only these “first-tier” groups at Dos Hombres conform to PP2. They commonly dominate a recognizable clustering of residences, leading Hageman and Lohse to suggest that they reflect the existence of “corporate groups.” They also point out that each of these PP2 groups “is far from being a royal pyramid or located in the monumental center of Dos Hombres” (2003:115) At Tikal, the Carr and Hazard (1961) map demonstrates that PP2 residential groups come in every possible size (Figure 1), and only a few examples of the largest of the diagnostic eastern buildings at Tikal appear to have been vaulted (Figure 1a–d, possibly 1e; Becker 1999). Smaller examples supported only thatched structures. Thus, neither size nor vaulting is a trait of importance in defining PP2 or any of the other PPs identified.

A sample of six unexcavated PP2 groups at Tikal of varying size, all presented at the same scale (derived from Carr and Hazard 1961). Excavated examples of PP2 are the subject of Tikal Report 21 (Becker 1999), in which examples intermediate in size between E and F are documented. (A) Group 6C-IV (Structures 6C-41/43). Typical small example; (B) Group 6E-XIX (Structures 6E-81/84); (C) Group 6E-XXXII (Structures 6E-139/142). A mid-size group situated adjacent and to the southeast of Group 6E-XIX. At Tikal, PP2 groups are rarely located together, except in two parts of the city (Becker 2003b); (D) Group 7B-X (Structures 7B-25/28); (E) Group 2C-XVIII (Structures 2C-73/78); (F) Group 6B-II (structures 2B-16/40). The Barringer Group, a “site”-size residential complex within central Tikal.

Excavation data from the diagnostic structure on the east of Tikal PP2 groups provide additional grammatical elements essential to delineation of a specific cultural pattern. A specific mortuary pattern, plus ceremonial activity in the form of on-floor burnings, help to indicate the function of these buildings, now identified as shrines. The Tikal PP2 mortuary complex includes an extremely important grammatical rule involving an “intrusive interment and covering” dyad. No PP2 can exist without first intruding a burial chamber into the bedrock and then covering it with a ritual building that is tall and square in plan. Each subsequent rebuilding was preceded by the intrusion of another high status burial (Becker 1971, 1999).

In general, the burial chamber is placed in a roughly centered axial position, but this location relative to the completed cover building is not a rigid rule. The same “interment-covering” rule applies, with one specific modification needed if a building already exists at the locus of the planned ritual structure on the east. In this case, the intrusion for the initial or first PP2 interment in that location must penetrate the existing building, whether it is a ritual or secular structure, and then extend down into the bedrock. The ritual PP2 building then covering this grave may also cover much if not all of the original construction at that locus.¹

Of the 690 architectural groups at Tikal, a total of 96 (14%) were predicted to conform to PP2 solely on the basis of their mapped configurations (Becker 1982). Dennis Puleston's (1983) study of the South Brecha at Tikal, extending 12 km out from the site center, identified a total of 128 architectural groups, of which 19 (15%) conform to PP2. The remarkable similarity in these percentages and their apparently random appearance throughout the test area suggests that PP2 has a consistent distribution throughout the greater Tikal region. This percentage is similar to that found at Tayasal (Chase 1983; Chase and Chase 1994:53).

Note should be made that PP3, the most common residential group plan at Tikal, lacks any shrine. PP3 is represented by about 400 of the 690 architectural groups at Tikal, or about 60% (Becker 1982; Carr and Hazard 1961). Data derived from excavations in non-eastern structures within PP2 groups at Tikal, as well as in various buildings from groups conforming to PPs 3, 4, and 5 (Becker 2003a), all seem to reflect the use of these groups as household units (residences for an extended family). Differences in various details of arrangement among these groups may reflect social class differences, but an alternative possibility may be suggested: heterarchy (see later).

While rarely found adjacent to one another, nine of the PP2 groups located in central Tikal are clustered on a peninsula jutting into the Bajo Sante Fe (Carr and Hazard 1961). In 1962, six of these groups were excavated, and the other three were resurveyed. These nine groups provided the type plan for PP2. Subsequently, six of the other 87 groups at Tikal that had been predicted to conform to PP2 (Becker 1982) were randomly selected for testing to validate the hypothesis that PP2 configurations could be recognized by surface survey and evaluation of architectural pattern. The 1963 Tikal excavations focused on the east-lying structure in PP2 and PP3 groups and demonstrated the predictive power of this architectural grammar.

This third level of PP “identification” may be considered as the ultimate target of this line of research—the goal of providing an analysis of the information derived through excavation to identify function. For PP2 and PP3, extensive work at Tikal has permitted us to refine our ability to distinguish between two very similar architectural patterns and to infer residential functions for both PPs (Laporte and Iglesias 1999).

DIRECTIONALITY, ORIGINS, AND DISTRIBUTION OF TIKAL PP2

Three factors relating to any PP merit extended treatment and should be basic research goals in PP studies. These aspects of PP research are important to the study of cultural dynamics and change among the lowland Maya (Becker 2004b). Ashmore (1991:200, 1998) addresses questions of directionality in Classic Maya site planning, providing valuable insights and interesting interpretations of the cultural processes underlying the organization of space among the ancient Maya. The direction “east” is uniformly important to the Maya. The location of the diagnostic structure or shrine on the east of PP2 groups calls to mind Coggins's (1980:729) suggestion that among the Maya “east” is invariably the position of honor, and that Maya maps dating from the Colonial era place east at the top.

The origins of PP2 at Tikal can be dated to the first part of the Early Classic period. I suggest an evolution from the earlier E-group (PP10) pattern in which the structure centered on the east also was significant. The transition from PP10 to PP2 may be part of, or associated with, the processes of social and cultural transformation that lead into the Classic period throughout the Maya area.

Some hints about the distribution of PP2 within the Maya realm derive from the early descriptions of tombs found at Maya sites where the structure orientation was not known or not published. Many of these tombs now can be inferred to have come from temples that were on the east of PP2 groups (Galindo 1920:596; Gordon 1896:4, 11–12). References to groups at several sites that conform to PP2 also can be found in works by Thomas Gann (1927:51–52), who identified “conical” mounds that had axial burials, and in the writings of J. Eric Thompson (1931:235, 336) and Linton Satterthwaite (1937:174). The work of Willam R. Bullard touched on the significance of architectural groups, and by 1960 he had noted large residential groups called “sitios,” found in northeastern Peten, often included a “small pyramidal structure which was probably a shrine” (Bullard 1960:359). A. Ledyard Smith (1962:220–221, Figure 11) describes similar groups at Mayapan, referring to each structure on the east as an “oratory” in recognition of the ritual functions that he inferred. Modern site maps often reveal numerous examples of this plan (e.g., E12 at Coba; Manzanilla and Barba 1990:43, 45, Figures 2, 3; see also Folan 1977), or their apparent complete absence!²

PP2 groups are common throughout the Maya Lowlands, but with considerable variation in the percentages of them found at any one site. Chase and Chase estimate that 60% or more of all groups at the site of Caracol are “eastern shrine groups,” or what I identify as PP2 (Chase and Chase 1994:53–54; also Chase and Chase 1996:215). Variants of PP2 at other sites may include different positioning and orientation of the shrine, but such variations in “form” requires another line of research that is site specific.

GRAMMATICAL VARIATIONS OF PLAZA PLAN 2

Notes regarding the distribution in time and space of PP2 groups moves our level of understanding of this pattern toward the examination of additional considerations. The ideal “Temple-on-the-East” residential and civic pattern described at Tikal as PP2 provides a focus for only one aspect of settlement studies. Further observations at Tikal have refined our understanding of grammatical variations among the several previously defined PPs (Becker 1999).

Early in PP research at Tikal an interesting variation of the PP2 pattern was recognized. The variant form was found to have two temples along the eastern side of the group, either as a matched pair constructed at the same time or as a pair of unequal size created by the off-axis construction of a second, smaller temple adjacent to the first (Becker 1979b:11–12, 1982).

I propose that a letter be appended to the basic PP2 designation to identify variations in patterns as they are recognized, which in this case would be PP2A. While we remain ignorant of the emic meaning of these variations, it behooves us to document and describe the known examples. All Tikal examples of PP2A date from the Late Classic. Examples from Tikal, such as Group 7F-1, begin as normal PP2 groups and at some time during the Late Classic period shift into the PP2A form through the construction of a second shrine, generally to the south of the first. PP2A groups seem to become increasingly common during the Terminal Classic and Post-Classic periods.

As other examples of PP2 are recognized at lowland sites, such as Dos Pilas (Palka 1997:Figure 1) and Caracol (Structure B20-1st-B; Chase and Chase 1998:307), other letters may be appended to PP2 to reflect variations on the basic theme. The introduction of PP2 or some variation on this plan to any site may reflect the founding of a new lineage or other co-residential factors in the household.

Toward the end of the Classic period, we see the simultaneous construction of a pair of temples of the same size on the east. This may be a Terminal Classic phenomenon representing a cognitive change as yet unknown, possibly related to the much later double- and equal-size temples on the east, built on a single substructure, known from later Aztec architecture (Fox 1981, 1987:202–203, 233–235).

Also noted at Tikal is the regular pattern of locating a platform to the north of the “shrine” on the east. At other sites, tall, square shrines may be situated in a consistent location, such as on the west (PP2C) or on the south (PP2D). The numbers of sites from which dual temples on the east, or some other variations, are known appears to be quite large. Many of the 71 groups mapped at Ixtonton, in eastern Peten, conform to PP2, and a number of these can be determined to be PP2A.

ARCHITECTURAL GRAMMARS VERSUS GRADATIONS BY SIZE

Among archaeologists interested in settlement studies a focus on structure size has detracted from research relating to architectural grammars. The importance of recognizing the presence of very small structures, often unseen by even the most diligent surveyors, is critical to understanding the total settlement pattern at any site. Evidence for these often “invisible house mounds” was sought at Tikal in a special project directed by Bennett Bronson, and later at Seibal (Tourtellot 1988:345–350) and at Nohmul (Pyburn 1989). Research that targets very small structures continues to produce exciting results in the Maya area (King and Potter 1994:65; Webster and Gonlin 1981). Recent scholarly interest also is concerned with decoding the specific functions of the groups that include such features. Considerable success has been achieved recently in identifying very small structures in the northern lowlands where less dense ground cover makes surface visibility good. All of these studies of small structures provide vital clues to the organization and social structure of Maya sites. These studies are particularly important because some of these very small groups of structures incorporate PPs that are also found in very large residential as well as ritual groups. Thus, very small and very large “households” that have the same architectural grammar must have some elements of culture in common. These shared elements point out an interesting problem in Maya studies. While the attention directed toward large architectural groups may have merit, the belief that relative group size is the only variable that matters in the study of Maya settlement patterns has hindered progress in decoding the structure of Maya society.

REGIONAL ARCHITECTURAL GRAMMARS

Two decades ago, Don Rice and Dennis Puleston (1981:138–139) noted that the study of “structure aggregates” as suggested by Haviland (1963:466) would be the preferred way to examine Maya sites. Renewed interest in site planning (Houk 1996; Scarborough, Connolly, and Ross 1994; Scarborough, Becher, Baker, Harris, and Valdez 1995) has generated important new perspectives on Classic Maya sites, but mostly geared to size ranking. These approaches to settlement studies in Maya archaeology tend to focus on group size rather than form (Willey 1982). Recognition of architectural patterning enables us to apply these grammatical findings at other sites.

FORM, NOT SIZE

Many enormous residential groups within Tikal are located far from the elite residences on the central acropolis. We may be seeing the earliest “suburbs” in the New World. The traditional “center city” people at Tikal lived near the Great Plaza, and their “commuting cousins” lived in impressive residences some distance from the center, such as Group 7F-I or Group 6B-II (the “Barringer Group”; Figure 1f), both of which conform to PP2. Thus, the range of variations in the absolute size of each of the groups conforming to PP2 is striking. At Tikal, PP2 groups range in size from extremely small to extraordinarily large, with the largest within greater Tikal such as the Barringer Group being the size of many small Maya sites (Pyburn 1989). This indicates that something else in involved in the configuration of these groups—something embedded within the culture that transcends status or wealth.

We have demonstrated that the form of PP2, as well as of other types of groups, is remarkably consistent (predictable) throughout Tikal, regardless of group size (Becker 1999). This suggests that some of the residential PPs had been occupied by more wealthy families but without revealing the ways in which the people in these larger groups are otherwise different. Quite probably, occupational differences existed among residents of groups sharing the same PP (Becker 1973). Different PPs might reflect the residences of different moieties or even the presence of different ethnic groups within a site.

Wealth, as reflected by group size, is not correlated with any particular PP. Gair Tourtellot (1988:362) specifically noted a lack of correlation between dwelling size and wealth, or status. In Maya archaeology, as with studies of modern American society, the distinction between “elite” and rich is rarely addressed and remains unclear to most scholars (Moholy-Nagy 2003). Since any specific PP (e.g., PP2) at Tikal was built in all sizes (Becker 1982, 1986, 1999), use of these architectural grammars may provide an important research strategy for understanding what the presence of these groups means at Tikal and at other Maya sites. Inasmuch as the form of a specific PP is more predictive than the size of its architectural cluster, this suggests that a non-ranked view (heterarchy) of these groups might be useful.

HETERARCHY INFERRED: TIKAL PP2

While the most elaborate house groups might represent high status or elite residences, Tourtellot's observation, noted earlier, should be kept in mind. Ranking “houses” or “courtyard groups” by size in areas where a series of discrete architectural groups can be found is an extension of the regional rank–size analysis of Maya sites pioneered by Richard Adams and Richard C. Jones (1981; Adams 1982). More recently, Daniel Potter and Eleanor King (1995:21) examined regional rank–size analyses as applied to Maya sites. Rank–size analyses yield useful predictions of site size and settlement patterning through space, but attempts to apply such theories to groups of structures within individual sites have been notorious failures. Related to rank–size analysis within a site is the erroneous belief that “concentric zonation” can be seen at Tikal (Arnold and Ford 1980). The idea that internal zones exist at Tikal reflects a series of errors already reviewed in the literature (Folan et al. 1982; Haviland 1982).

Heterarchy, as an alternative to hierarchy (Ehrenreich et al. 1995), among the Maya examines Maya settlement patterns using a “multiscalar, dialectical” approach (King 2000).

Carole L. Crumley addressed the problem of trying to order data using contemporary notions of social stratification and class. She suggests that hierarchichal arrangements based on size of structures, for example, may not reflect the cognitive systems of the people who created the evidence recovered archaeologically. This approach provides a means by which we can understand some of the issues regarding size variations in residential groups that share the same PP. King (2000) also provided inferences regarding heterogenous, or non-hierarchichal, social forms based on findings of regional rank–size analysis.

Crumley (1987, 2003) noted that emphasizing the hierarchichal nature of Maya settlements through size ranking, with implied complexity, obscures our ability to elicit patterns from the archaeological evidence (see also King and Potter 1994:67). Social classes may be blurred in the archaeological record by the conversion of wealth into architecturally elaborate groups. While Classic Maya society may have had a hierarchichal sociopolitical structure (Feinman 1995; Marcus 1995:13–16, 19–20, 27–29), the considerable variation in the size of PP2 and other residential groups at Tikal (PP3, PP4, PP5; Becker 2003a) demonstrates the need to consider how the concept of heterarchy might be usefully applied to this problem. The many size-ranking models proposed for the Maya have generated no predictive means by which we can understand variability within Maya society except for differences in wealth (Marcus 1995:25–27). Shifting the emphasis in Maya settlement studies toward the form of clusters of buildings (PPs), representing households or other units, and the corollary realization that the individual parts need to be evaluated independently provides momentum to this line of research.

The term non-hierarchichal applied to PPs suggests that there is no way to rank these groups by size or by other means. Crumley (1995:4) also notes the important detail that “governmental heterarchies (e.g., peer polities; Renfrew and Cherry 1986) can move over time to become hierarchies and vice versa” (Crumley 1987:164–65). These changes may occur without the need to invoke what I call the “rhetoric of collapse.” Potter and King (1995:21) note that there is no evidence of elite or hierarchichal regulation of many aspects of the Classic Maya economy, such as corvée labor; nor is there evidence for an elite controlling local economies. This theory may derive from the fiction of elite control over a peasantry, a story promulgated by Thompson in his popularized tales regarding the Maya, fictions entirely absent from his scholarly works (Becker 1979a).

King (2000) suggests that variations in wealth within Maya society during the Classic period reflect a degree of complexity achieved without a hierarchichal social structure (King and Potter 1994; Palka 1997; Potter and King 1995). A hierarchichal economic structure is evident from the wide variations in the sizes of various groups sharing a PP. Differential access to wealth, however, does not necessarily correlate with sociopolitical power. Therefore, shifting control of resources (wealth) may have been a factor in the changing power structure at Maya sites and may reflect the “dynastic” changes apparently documented in the ancient texts. Juxtaposing what we know about PPs and settlement patterning and the wide range of cultural forms indicated within the Maya realm provides a demonstration of variability rather than uniformity of any specific sociocultural model.

In many ways, what we see in the Classic period resembles the rise of European kings during the Medieval period, when mercantile enterprise was creating vast wealth. Even if sumptuary laws controlling costume were in effect among the Classic Maya, social classes would be blurred in the archaeological record by the conversion of wealth into architecturally elaborate groups, regardless of social class. Since any specific residential PP (e.g., PP2) at Tikal was built in all sizes (Becker 1982, 1986), use of architectural grammars may provide an important research strategy for understanding social structure at Tikal as well as other Maya sites (Ashmore 1987).

PLAZA PLANS, DIVERSITY, AND CULTURE CHANGE THROUGHOUT THE MAYA AREA

Excavators continue to examine groups of buildings for information on “status” or wealth, often employing models of hierarchy based on inferred economic resources. King (1990) pointed out that observers tend to see sites as being organized into patio groups without paying attention to how the individual groups (PPs) are organized. The physical arrangements of these architectural groups are rarely a matter of concern (Becker 1986). The 10 distinct PPs at Tikal, each distinguished from all others based on a unique, non-overlapping set of architectural traits, regardless of size, provides a typology that can be used to subsume most groups in any well-mapped Maya city under a relatively smaller number of headings (Becker 1999, 2003a). Recognition of architectural patterning in residential as well as non-residential groups enables us to organize building clusters and understand intra-site patterning. Information about how a specific site is organized enables us to compare sites. For example, King (2000) suggested that the markedly idiosyncratic settlement patterns seen at Colha, Belize, must indicate something about the possible range of architectural grammars or variations that coexisted within the Maya realm.

Mapping projects and continuing studies have revealed many apparent variations in Classic Maya sociopolitical organization, both within and between sites (Hendon 1992). Yet some elements are shared among these ancient city-states. On a macro level, PPs are important for comparative studies among Maya sites. PPs are a tool for study that may be far more important than simply evaluating the gross size of architectural groups. The study of PPs and their “proxemics of ritual” (Moore 1996) is important to the development of scientific rigor in Maya archaeology. The study of PPs also leads to concern with house lots and the dynamics of daily life among these ancient people (Becker 2004a). Examination of open space “enclosed” by various structures and the study of areas surrounding these architectural groups enables us to formulate models beyond the speculative evaluations of relative access to specific areas of a site (Becker 2003b). A range of aspects of settlement studies (Stark and Arnold 1997) can also be addressed on regional levels. PP studies that began at Tikal enable us to seek meaningful recognition of architectural groupings within any site and to extrapolate in ways that assist us in understanding cultural dynamics throughout the Maya world. PP2 as defined at Tikal appears to be a group arrangement commonly distributed throughout the southern Maya Lowlands (Becker 1971:16–18). Don Rice and colleagues (1998:246) suggest that the incidence of PP2 declines proportionally to the distance from Zacpeten, and that PP2 groups exist only east of Lake Peten Itza. This suggestion, and others like it, can be tested, but PP2 groups have long been identified at sites far removed from this region and well to the west of Lake Peten Itza. Their numbers to the west may be few, indicating that Rice was making an important observation based of the incidence of this PP.

CULTURE CHANGE: SURVIVING CITY-STATES IN THE POSTCLASSIC PERIOD

In the historical development of kingship that is represented by the formation of Maya city-states, a transition from villages to larger political units is but one of the archaeologically demonstrable aspects of the process. Changes in architectural form during the Classic period, such as PP10 (E-Groups) becoming PP2 (Becker 2004b), appear to be precursors to the changes noted in the transition to the Postclassic period. I suggest that the use of PP10 groups as a ritual focus of Preclassic villages, at the Classic transition evolved into PP2 groups and became a decentralized PP associated with specific extended families (Becker 2004b). We also can plot the demise of kingship at the end of the Classic period through shifts in the organization of specific architectural groups (Becker 1973, 1988).

Studies of culture change as seen through architectural change held the attention of several researchers working in the Maya lowlands (Fletcher 1978, 1983; Freidel 1981a:311–314, 1981b), offering a means by which the transition to the Postclassic period may be understood. Maya “cities” of the Postclassic period have been attracting increased attention in recent years, with the dynamics of change revealed in a multitude of ways. The Classic-period “decline” in the Maya Lowlands is commonly traced through documentation of a gradual decline in the numbers and quality of carved and dated stone monuments and their ultimate end as a cultural tradition. Yet people in large portions of the Maya realm never erected monuments, and major cities in Yucatan and elsewhere were thriving long after the last monuments were erected in the southern lowlands.

Architecture during the Terminal Classic becomes less and less substantial at most lowland Maya sites after a.d. 775, and by 850 few new structures of great size were being erected in the lowlands. The changes in quality of the constructions of the ninth century have long been well documented. Now it may be more productive to examine changes in the architectural grammars of specific groups as a means of tracing cultural change during this period. While residential groups in some Maya cities appear to retain plans that were well known during the Classic period, other civic plans seem to reflect amalgamations of ancient patterns.

RESUMEN

El reconocimiento de patrones arquitectónicos entre grupos de estructuras en sitios mayas de las tierras bajas fechando al período clásico suministran perspectivas para entender mejor las maneras en que las residencias y los complejos rituales fueron organizados. Cada arreglo de grupo estructurado, o “Plano de plaza” (PP), revela una gramática arquitectónica, proveyendo una base de datos para ayudarnos a predecir los patrones de asentamiento tanto urbanos como rurales. Existen variaciones grandes en los tamaños entre los ejemplos conocidos de PPs residenciales que sugieren que la heterarquía era un aspecto importante de la sociedad maya del período clásico. La heterarquía, como concepto alternativo a la jerarquía, se define como la relación de elementos entre si cuando no muestran un rango jerarquico, o cuando poseen el potencial de ser ordenados de distintas maneras no jerárquicas. Una observación importante de este tipo de análisis es que el arreglo interno o la gramática arquitectónica de un grupo de estructuras puede haber sido más importante que su tamaño. Investigaciones anteriores en Tikal y otros sitios han resultado en el reconocimiento de varios tipos de PPs, cada uno con su arreglo característico. Se presenta un examen de los ejemplos del tipo PP2 conocidos en Tikal que indica que existía un patrón de organización heterárquica. La heterarquía observada en los estudios arquitectónicos pudo haber sido relacionada a la fragilidad de la monarquía de los mayas clásicos y esto posiblemente ayuda a explicar la caida gradual de los estados mayas durante los períodos clásico terminal y postclásico, reemplazados por cazicazgos reemergentes.