[Aztlan] "re-evaluating the Postclassic" through empires

[Michael Smith]

Brad (and listeros) -

I'm not sure exactly who is supposed to be dissing the Postclassic Maya. There are quite a few archaeologists and ethnohistorians working on the Postclassic Maya, and from my outsider position it seems that, they, like you, take the Postclassic period quite seriously without any old-fashioned appeals to decadence or cultural decay. If it is non-specialists who have outdated views of the Postclassic period, then perhaps we need articles in Archaeology magazine, or Scientific American more than we need scientific studies.

While I am all for the extension of comparative models (whether empires, city-states, world-systems, globalization, trade diasporas, world religions, whatever) to new contexts, I would caution against putting too much emphasis on the concept of "empire." Many scholars have applied this notion uncritically to Tula and the Toltecs, and one reason for this (in my opinion) is an unstated view that if a polity isn't am empire (and/or, if a city is not capital of an empire), then it is somehow inferior or of lesser value. I think this accounts for some of the hostility I have encountered over the years to my arguments that Tula did not rule an empire. One of my main points (see Smith and Montiel 2001, or Smith 2007) has been that a city does not have to be an imperial capital for it to have been important within broad, even Mesoamerican-wide, contexts. There are other ways to be influential and interesting than ruling an empire. Yet empires remain popular, both among the public and scholars. Perhaps we follow the Roman orator Cicero, who said "What a fine thing it is to rule over foreign peoples!"

The implication of this line of thought is that I would hesitate to use an "imperial" criterion as a way of demonstrating complexity and importance for Postclassic Maya polities or cities. My reading of the evidence is that Mayapan probably ruled a small empire, whereas Utatlan did not. But that is not the main point here. Publishing more on the Postclassic Maya is a great idea, and applying new models is always a useful exercise. But what if you cannot demonstrate imperial organization? Will that mean that the people with the ideas about "Postclassic decadence" are right? I would suggest you take a broader perspective on the matter. Perhaps there were Postclassic Maya empires, but perhaps there were dynamic, complex, and influential states and cities without imperialism. Perhaps we can build models of such phenomena that show alternatives to the empires and migrations that dominate models of Old World ancient states - that might be more interesting than merely finding another empire or two in Mesoamerica.

That said, I think it would be great if you can build a credible model of one or more imperial models for the Postclassic Maya. In addition to the standard literature that I know you command, be sure to include:

Matthews, Roger (2003) Archaeologies of Empire. In Archaeology of Mesopotamia: Theories and Approaches, edited by Roger Matthews, pp. 127-154. Routledge, New York.

Also, Maëlle Serghereaert will soon defend a dissertation at the University of Paris on the material manifestations of Aztec imperialism in the provinces, a study that is bound to be important for research on Mesoamerican imperialism beyond the Aztecs. In the meantime, I recommend a very useful earlier study of hers:

Serghereaert, Maëlle
2005	Les conséquences de l'expansion militaire aztèque : synthèse sur les intérêts d'une approche archéologique. In De l'Altiplano mexicain à la Patagonie: Travaux et recherches à l'Université de Paris 1, edited by Cyril Giorgi, pp. 107-115. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, vol. S1389. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Mike

Smith, Michael E.
2007	Tula and Chichén Itzá: Are We Asking the Right Questions? In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Jeff Karl Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-Graham, pp. 579-617. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Smith, Michael E. and Lisa Montiel
2001	The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Prehispanic Central Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:245-284.


Michael E. Smith, Professor
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9
http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com
http://calixtlahuaca.blogspot.com
-----Original Message-----
From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org [mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org] On Behalf Of aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 12:00 PM
To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
Subject: Aztlan Digest, Vol 44, Issue 11

Send Aztlan mailing list submissions to
	aztlan at lists.famsi.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	aztlan-request at lists.famsi.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	aztlan-owner at lists.famsi.org

When replying, please change the Subject line of your email to match
the exact topic being discussed, and delete all but the most important
text from previous messages.