Resplendent in jaguar pelts, quetzal plumes, lined in the form of fancy helmets fashioned from fantastic beasts, Maya warriors set out for battle on a day set by the position of Venus , often ordained by the in the predawn sky. Led by rulers dressed as gods, they sought to capture and sacrifice their enemies in a reenactment of sacred myths. According to many scholars, such religious beliefs motivated all Maya warfare. Our epigraphic research suggests that far too little attention has been paid to more pragmatic goals, that wars were also fought to conquer and control rival kingdoms.

The first clue to understanding Classic period political organization came in 1958 when an archaeologist first identified what are now recognized as Mayan emblem glyphs. Found in inscriptions throughout the southern Maya Lowlands, these glyphs consist of a main sign, usually placed to the lower right, attached to two smaller elements. The smaller elements remained relatively constant, the main sign changed from site to site. Imblem glyphs from Tikal in the Peten region of northcn1 Guatemala had a main sign representing a knot of hair, while those from Palenque in Chiapas, Mexico, were based on a highly stylized bone. It was initially proposed that the main signs identified individual cities, their ruling dynasties, or the territories they controlled. Among Berlin's more interesting discoveries were four emblem glyphs–those of Copan, Tikal, Palenque, and an unknown city represented by a snake's head–grouped together in an inscription on Stela A at Copan in western Honduras. Later, archaeoloigsts proposed that these cities were the capitals of four large and powerful states, each aligned with one of the cardinal directions. In search of archaeological data bearing on this interpretation, Richard E.W. Adams of the University of Texas, San Antonio, examined the relative size of cities throughout the Maya region. Although many of the smaller cities had their own emblem glyphs, it was concluded that they were not independent politically powerful cities but constituent provinces of larger regional states.

More recent archaeological research has turned up compelling evidence to support this view. Moreover, breakthroughs in the decipherment of hieroglyphs during the past decade have greatly expanded our understanding of the Maya political world, suggesting quite a different interpretation. We now know that emblem glyphs are titles of Maya kings describing each as the k'ul ahaw or "divine lord" of a kingdom whose name appears as the main sign of the glyph. By charting the distribution of emblem glyphs, Peter Mathews of the University of Calgary has created a map of the Lowlands during the Classic period, revealing some 40 separate kingdoms.

Taken by themselves, emblem glyphs demonstrate that all Maya rulers laid claim to an identical political rank, regardless of the size or population of their cities. This decentralized picture has led many scholars to believe that Maya kingdoms, even major ones such as Tikal and Palenque, were fundamentally unstable entities.

I ~l~,lt;llll I jl~t I,~,litu~llty lt't'l ji~. I flis ~

I is colnf';ltiljlc-wi~ll Ill' inl'rpl'~a~i`,ll •,1

M;lyit W~UI.II't' ;LS ;1 =1I;lil-SC ;Llt', I jil'Cll~lili

lI.lilily rilU;II ;ICti\'ily. .8llI'ttiVilig illSt lip

tiOIIS apljc;ll to suljl,`,ll thi.s n`,tioll Sillf'd'

they rarely il l'V('I' I`~,rcl l(lllulusls in

wilic:ll cjl'`. st;lt`. ill js`,ll js ;lil~,lil'l- lill~l~

cUicicnec, it wolilcl Sl'C'111, th;Lt ~I;ly;l king

dfjms were to~, WC,lk 1l, ('11g.lgU in [CI'I'ill~l'

i.tl CXllanSi~jl].

Ycl such rccol-lstl llc tiO'ls h.tvc alw.lys

f:ailcd to explain •vhy sonic c itics ;lI-t'

vastly larger lhan otlltls. Wcrc such cli~-

paratc units really tqll;lls' 'I'hc idea ~h.lt

central authority witllin larger kingclolns

was ineffectual is undelmincd hy thc st';tlC'

of their public works-- massive pyramicls,

defensive earthworks miles in length, ancl

great networks of internal roadways

which would have required centralixtcl

planning and the control of substantial

manpower. But perhaps the most Co111

pelling evidence for a higher level of polit

ical organization comes from new

information we have uncovered within a

body of glyphic data that has often been

overlooked.

Political relationships between subordi

nates and their superiors within individual

kingdoms were expressed by the use of

possessive terms. Thus sahal, a rank or

office held by key lieutenants of a l;hlg,

could be transformed illtO the possessi

c

form u-sahal, "the sahal of." The glyphs

also tell us that the same dominant-subor

dinant relationship existed between khlgs

known Classic of different states, where the highest ram;

''s victory over of ahaw, "lord or mler,'' comes into play.

By adding the prefix y, ahaw becomes ,

ahaw, "the lord of." in ef'fect "his vacs~l ~

Further evidence for hierarchy between states is found in passages recording the accession of kings. Some of these statements contah1 a secondary phrase giving the name and emblem glyph of a foreign ruler. This phrase is introduced by a verb clause that epigraphers have long glossed as "under the auspices of'" though we now believe that it should be translated as uk~hiy, literally "it was done by him."

If we combine the appearance of the y-ahaw and ukaby phrases with Classic period texts documenting other forms of diplomatic exchange such as royal visits gift-giving, joint ritual activity, and marriage, we fhlc that hierarchical contacts are part of relationships spanning several generations. Some kingdoms are consistently more dominant than others and seem to be manipulating the affairs of weaker ones. This analysis is supported by inscriptions describing conflicts. War art was only rarely recorded between states that usually share political ties, and politically allied kingdoms tend to share the same adversaries. Together such patterns suggest that there were groupings of states during the Late Classic period (ca. A.D. 600-900). As the y-ahaw and ukaby phrases indicate, kingdoms within such groups did not share power equally, tending rather to fall under the influence of a few especially powerful states. Who were these superstates?

Because of their size and the richness of their architecture, cities such as Palenque, Copan, and the High land site of Tonilia have long been seen as dominant forces in their regious. Along the banks of the Usumacinta River, which separates Mexico and Cuatemala, the political situation appears to have been more complicated. There, the iconographic and hieroglyphic record suggests that Piedras Negras held a number of other states in somewhat unruly submission, including for a time its upstream neighbor, Yaxchilan. Inscriptions throughout the area, however, contain references to larger cities in the locals where the most populous and influential kingdoms were located.

Tikal emerged as a great city during the Early Classic period. Inscriptions from this time, however, C'ollt Clltl.ltC C>ll c chronological and genealogical int'OrilliltiOIl, allC1 tcil US littic about political affairs. ]':nhalt' rciatiolisilips witl1 Bciucal and later Motul de San Jose indicate that nearby kingdoms were closely tied to Tikal, while persistent relations with Uaxactun suggest that this kingdom was also associated with Tikal. Evidence that Tikal's Early Classic influence extended well beyond the Peten comes from inscriptions on Stela 6 and Altar 21 at Caracol h1 Belize, which record the accession of the Caracol king in 553 under the patronage of a Tikal ruler. Within a few years, however, the relationship between these two kingdoms had disintegrated. Altar 21 records conflict between the two, possibly an attack on Caracol in 556, and a defeat of Tikal at the hands of another kingdom, whose name is now illegible, in 562.

No dated monuments were erected at Tikal during the next 130 years, but inscriptions from other sites in the region tell us that Tikal was diplomatically isolated and at war with every one of its major neighbors without exception, all either allies or vassals of the kingdom of Calakmul.

Discovered in 1931 deep in southern Campeche, Mexico, Calakmul has been one of the most remote and least visited of all Mayan sites. Excavations by William J. Folan, oi tile Univcrsiciad Autonoma de Campeche, and mole recently by Ramon Carrasco, have revealed a great metropolis. With more than 6,000 structures it is the largest Classic Maya city yet recorded. Impressive in Preclassic times, its core is dominated by the largest concentration of palace-type buildings in the Mayan area, and is surrounded by a substantial system of artificial reservoirs. 'Although its monuments are badlv eroded, it has 110 stelae, more than any other Mayan site. Because of the poor preservation of so many motilililelits it has been extremely difficult to identify Calakmul's emblem glyph. Inscriptions uncovered in the past two years, however, seem to confirm its association with the snake-head glyph.

Calakmul first comes to prominence in the glyphic record in the Early Classic period, when in A.D. 54G a rival at' Naranjo acceded to the throne "by the doing ot" a Calakmul king. This relationiship, however, had clearlv fallen apart when Caracol joined Calakmul to defeat Naranjo. Calakmul also attacked Palcilrtilc twice, once in 599 and again in 611. Much of Calakmul's political ambitions seem to have been directed against Tikal, which it attacked in 627. Its influence ovc r tile l.owlililrls is tilitilt r attested by its involvemcut il, thc aticssiolt of' two rillcis t'rom the distant kin~e;dolil ol (:alilil`;ll il' (ir(i al~d (j77 and t~vo kings at El l'eru ~dates l'~lil~o~vl'!. I:roll1 )~-ahaw CXptCSSiOllS, we know tilat ('al~ll;lilill lultl-s Wt'lC ovel-lords to Malah Ka'nn ~awil, P~lilTl I ot Dos l'ilas, al-olilid 64~3, and to his grandso'~ S~not~iltg .tict~lil-rcl, I;iltg ot NatatljO, bt'gill

ning in 69:~. Tlley had ties \\ith (hilacol and Dos Pilas and formed marital allialices \\ith 1.1 Peru, Yaxchilall. and Naachtt'ul. Tlley wele also involved in rituals associated with tile designatioll ot- 1leirs at Dos Pilas -ICtdtives of the Tikal royat family and plol,.tbl! Yaxcilila~. There are SigilS that even the regio~al power l'iccil as Negras was not bcvolid Catal;liml's i~lilut',tc, ancl OllC especially difficult pilrasc dated 514 ma! describe al1 )ahaw relationsilip beh~een thest statcs.

By the latter part of' the scventl1 Cl'litUI~. Calilk was the most powcifill l;ingdolil in tile NI,Iya l,owlalids and the 1lul> of an c:<tensivl nt~t\\orl; ot ililiIiiItCd ilild vassaf states. Dcs~>ite its plCClililtC~`'t' it N\aS lilUIt)IC to subdue its glCilt rivill 'I'il~al, wilosl ll'\` I;ing, //a`-a,a Ka Pan K'awil, was SOOI1 to stl-il;l a c~l'`i.ll 1~1~,W. ;\ccortling to an instli~'tiol1 olml lintel i~l 1'it~al I c ''~ptt 1, I'il;al

defeated tlal`tlililill `,tl \ll,`'lisl :~. (it):', .t~Ic~ l'l-~ll'.lilty t-ll>

tured alid kitild its kilig, tllt. ,git..lt l~lyll~ll i~;lw. •I'ikill

went on to ``agc sutcrsstill W,IIS .IgHinSt two ot (.al.ll<

mul's closest .ISSOtilltCS, l.'l l~crLl ill / t ~ allLt Nalililio ltic followi[lg yl;ll ~\s it il, <`'lL-I'l.Iti`~l ril tt~t~s`~ tlililill~lls, 'T~ikal ernl>ilIl;``l `>ll .l LtIltIll\-l`~1g bLliltlill`~- pIC'glillll,

producing ~uost of tl~c ~U.IjOl .llttlitt'(UllC set~n ilt It1C sitc todily.

Despitc 'I'ik.lt's Icjil\cn.lti`lll. Itic cia\!s ot SUpCIstil~cs

and laIgC pOIitilai ,glOlil>ingS WCIt nililil>ciccl. [)iplo

matic exchaligl bctwttn rilc lalylst fClIt`'l'S alt l~llt ctis

rippears trr\m thc \jitit n rf:COrd by the mid-eighth centllry. .Significantly, thf dcctine of these networks marked thc first sign of a wiclcr political breakdown, as previotlslv silent cities bc~t,.ll1 to claim their own royal dynastics and ~varfare inttltsiticd. Within a century or so political disintc,I<ltion ancl mounting environmental stress-–overpopulatiorl. climinishing resources, and possibly drought–hacl toggered the collapse of Classic Maya civilization in the soutllerll Lowlands.

The picture that is emerging is neither one of a centralized administration of regional states nor one of a political vacuum populated by weak ones. Instead it would appear that a tew powerful kingdoms held lesser ones in their sway. a system not unlike others seen throughout ancient Slesoamelica. Maya kingdoms never achieved the degret ot centralization of the fifteenthcentuly Aztec Emph-c, but their structure and political strategies offer some intel-esting parallels. The Aztec Empire was a loose confederation of subjugated kingdoms and smaller empires. Its conquests were not consolidated by military occupation or administered from the capital Tenoclltittall; defeated local lords were usually restored to their olblces and allowed to rule their states withotlt ful-tller hilldl-allce. Their successors were often sanctioned bv the Aztec emperor in ceremonies that hlvite compalisol1 witl1 the u-kah~y events of the Classic Maya. Thc IllajOI consequences of Aztec conquest were economic. ill the form of tribute payments, and political, h1 the tr.lllsformation of local leaders into vassals of the empt rol. Once their military prowess had been proved, the .\ztccs wel-e often able to intimidate othel- states hlto acquicscellce without further use ot force. We suspect tllat the Classic Maya conformed to a shllilal patterll---.l colllplcx environment of overlords and vassals, kingship ties and obligations, where the StrOIl,g CalilC to dolllill.ltc thc weak. ~