Pusilhá Archaeological Project

Research Objectives for the 2002 Season (February–August 2002) and Beyond

Previous work at Pusilhá and our own research at the site have enabled us to develop a program of settlement survey, test excavation, and epigraphic analysis designed to test several hypotheses. First, Prager will continue analyses of both newly discovered and previously known texts in order to flesh out the political history of Pusilhá, and to determine whether or not Marcus’ dynamic model does indeed accurately describe the political trajectory of the site. An alternative hypothesis that Prager currently sees as more likely is that Pusilhá began as an independent center and maintained its authority until the collapse of dynastic rule in the late 8^th century. Results of epigraphic analyses–whether or not they continue to support Marcus’ model–will provide the historical background against which we will test centralist and decentralist models of the integration of Maya society. If Maya society was weakly integrated, politically and economically, we expect that: (1) lack of integration would be more evident at a secondary center located in a periphery (e.g., Pusilhá) than in a political and economic core (e.g., Copán); (2) changes in both political structure and economic organization would strongly affect members of the upper echelons of society, but would have relatively little impact on lower social strata; (3) there will be little evidence for specialization, particularly among households of lower status; and (4) the settlement pattern of common households in the agricultural zones surrounding Pusilhá will exhibit considerable chronological stability despite fluctuating political conditions. This last proposition is derived from the assumption that weak integration would buffer the kinds of "pull" (centripetal) and "push" (centrifugal) forces leading to substantial population movements.

In contrast, if Maya society was more strongly integrated, we expect that: (1) political and economic articulation would be evident both in the core and at secondary centers located in political peripheries; (2) changes in both political structure and economic organization would affect members of all levels of society, and would not be highly correlated with status; (3) there will be evidence for specialization, particularly at intermediate social levels; and (4) the settlement pattern of common households will evince instability correlated with fluctuations in the political trajectory of the center.

A third and final null hypothesis is that the political dynamics currently thought to describe the history of Pusilhá would have no archaeologically perceivable impact on the economic status of any social stratum. This may be considered an extreme decentralist model.

It very well may be that each broad model is consistent with the archaeological data for a certain facet in the history of Pusilhá. In fact, the dynamic model supposes that shifts in political organization imply changes in the level of economic integration. During an initial stage of growth and independence, for example, different social segments within a province may evince little economic integration. In contrast, during the stage of incorporation within an expanding archaic state, a centralist model may more-accurately describe a higher level of integration. During and after a period of fragmentation, provincial systems may revert to a less-integrated state, or may continue to demonstrate hierarchical or heterarchical cohesion.

In order to test these propositions, we need to: (1) divide the history of Pusilhá into successive periods of political flux; (2) develop a ceramic sequence that can be correlated with these periods, in order to understand the chronology of groups and structures that are not associated with dated monuments; (3) develop a settlement hierarchy that allows us to distinguish among the households of commoners and the residences of elites; (4) obtain material remains from contexts reflecting both the full chronological and social range exhibited at Pusilhá; and (5) compare these remains–particularly ceramic and lithic artifacts–to measure over time the degree of interaction and integration of different levels of society. To achieve these ends, we propose to continue systematic mapping of both the site center and the agricultural supporting area surrounding Pusilhá, and to conduct excavations designed to recover ceramics and other material remains adequate both for chronology building and for testing our opposing models. Because our questions focus on the expression of economic process, our research is designed to study households of different status.

Our research plan for the ensuing six seasons consists of three major phases. These are: (1) full-coverage archaeological survey of the 6 km² area that comprises the core, residential, and agricultural zones of Pusilhá; (2) salvage operations in looters’ pits, surface collecting, and test-pitting operations conducted in off-mound contexts in groups thought to represent the full social and chronological range exhibited at Pusilhá; and (3) extensive excavation of selected residential and special-function groups in order to generate more detailed and chronologically sensitive information concerning economic integration. As part of Phase 3 work, we also will consolidate specific structures that the Department of Archaeology chooses. We believe that these should at least include the Maya Bridge and several structures on Gateway Hill and in the Stela Plaza.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page