6

Highland

Vaya
Polities

Geoffrey E. Braswell

lierv is that the lineage modcl, its predecessors and its :n-rlogs, have no value for anthropological analvsis. Two -.esons above all support this conclusion. First, the model representfolkmodelswhiclT actors anywhere ol their own societies. Secondll therc do not appear , I'c any societies in whicit vital political or cconomic ,.iiyities are organized by a repetitivc series ofdescent -',rups. (Kuper r98z:92)
.r,'es not
:.r r e

\lr

(r98 r ) proposes that K'iche'an society was arranged in a nested hierarchy of strictly exogamous patrilineages, with larger groups (called, in ascending order, "n.rajor lineages," "moieties",' and "groups") forned out of "principal lineages" and "minimal lincagcs." According to this sclreme, the K'iche' Ajpop lkng) came from the Ajpop principal lineage, the AjStop K'amja (king receivinghouse) from thc Ajpop K'amja principal lineage, and lesser titlcd lords from inferior principal lineages. The rank and prioritv of different titles rvere reflected in thc rank of compcting lineages. Moreover, each principal lineage had its own titled positions, which often replicated titles used in the greater political structure. According to Carmack (r98r:r57), segmentation and the proliferation of lineages occurred as a natural result of political expansion and the competition for new titled offices. Principal lincages rvele closely identified with the structurcs in rvlrich thcy conducted their affairs, called ninia \btg
houses).

''

-irl.1nd Guatem:ria, an arca rich in resources, rvas the :rg of a numbel of dynamic and competitive polities : :lg Late Postclassic times. These polities have been .rcrized by a r a riery of schola"r a\ empirr\. \cBnren-

. .r.ltes (Fox r987, r994), or segnentary chiefdoms - ,u n, in Fox et al. r99 z). These disparate views are :.d in the coltradictory assumptions that K'iche'an r: rcs were sin-rilar to-but not quite as complex as::.rlized states, and that social organization was based - 1.'mentary principles descriLred by traditional kinship ,. To re.olre rhe.e 'eemingll opprr.ing fccon\truc:.. .rnd at the same time move toward a more accurate ' ' o,rliLlcal \tru(lurc. it i. nccc'..rry to reeramine ':-rmre of I('iche'an social structure.

. '

: TDITIONALVIEWS OF K'ICHE'AN SOCIETY: ..5I IP VERSUS TERRITORY

- predominant view is that the fundamental unit of - rrr'lrn society was the patrilincal descent group. In :. ihe lineage conccpt has becot,l-re so central to Maya -:rcs rhat many archaeologists, ethnohistorians, ancl -:.rphers do not even consider alternative social :':s. " To a great degree, this perspccrive is derived 'r rhe pioneering work of Miles (r9 5 7), Carrasco .-Lr. Carmack (r977, r98r), Fox (r987), and other :, 'historians of the Guatcmalan highlands. Carmack

Although Carmack considers the patrilineal descent group the basis for K'iche'an social structure, he also argues for the existence of "castes" and "classes" (r98 r: r48-r56). L.ords (ajawab), commoners \alk'aiol), ar'd slaves lmunib) formed endogamous strata in society, but classcs such as warriors (pigeonholed within thc ajawab stratun) containcd both lords and social climbing vassats (Carmack r98r:r5z-r53). Thus, K'iche'an society also is depicted as stratified, bur conraining the potential for mobility among classes. Finailr', a lord could have a rvalled in country estate, called a c/rrzazlt, that housed both commoners and slaves (Carn-rack ry77:rz-r3). A vcry different perspective is offered by Hill ancl Monaghan. They consider kinship to be unimportant to K'iche'an social structure (Hill r984, r996; Hill and Monaghan r9 87). According to Hill (r9 84), the basic unit of K'iche'an society was the c,4inamit, whrchhe
45

46

GEoFT,REY Fl. iJRAswELL

interprets as a closecl corporatc grou;r denned by territorial concerns. Hill and Monaghan (r 9 87) elaborate on this idea, and discuss rhe similarities between thc chinamit and Aztec cal1rol/l. ln this model, chinamita'were largell' endogatrous communities that shared a group identity defined by localized settlemenr and the commor.r ou'lrership of land and othcr resources (Hill r9 84:3 r4-3 r 6). Members of thc chinamit shared responsibilities such as the cost of marriage feasrs, the upkeep of temples and shrines, and the maintenance of law and order. Certain individuals within the chinamit hcld titled oflices, sorne of which became fixed rvithin certain far.niIies (Braswell zoora). Economic specialization coulcl fo cus on natural resoLrrces, such as salt (Hilland Monaghan r987), located wirhin the chinamir's territory. Finallr', group membership could be expressed through the use of a common surname, borrowed from the leading officehoider, but not deternined by kinship or marriage ties (Hill r 9 84).
and Monaghan r987) further argues that Jarger social units, such as the aza4', were forgcd through alliances between chinamita'. Such alliances could be formed through cxogamy practiced by chinamit leaders, but also through common economic or rnilitary concelns, often rclated to territorial contiguity. Capitals such as I(aqchikcl Iximche'and Chajoma' Saqikajol Nimakaqajpek may have been established to furthcr cement even larger confederacics comprised of distinct amaq'i'. Thus, in this model, K'iche'an polities were fr.agile alliances betrveen factions and superfactions formcd of

Hill (r996; Hill

highland Maya society include the rrolab, chinamit, amaq', and nimja. Molab, the Poqomam equivalent of the chinamit (Hill r 9 84), is derived from the common highland root <n.rol>, rvhich means "together." It does not imply anything more than a group or comnrunity of people, though it may suggesr common residencc within a single territory. The rcmaining three terms, howcvcr, all share one thing in common: they refer to physical structures, buildings, or households. Ch inam it, botow ed from Nahuatl, sccms to l.nean a "fenced-in place," lead, ing Carmack (r977:rz-r3) to interprct it as a feudal estate. But it also may refer to the com-stalk enclosures built around many highlard Maya houselots. In Kaqchitel, aza4', rnost often translated as "tribe," has numerous meanings that corlbine ethnic connotations rvith a sense of othemess. Coto (r983:LXXXV) gives "place" as one definition, suggesting rhat it is a kind of territorial unit. The morphenc can be cornbined to form a vcrb meaning "to settle as a ncighbor," which has the sense of both place and otherness. It is often used to describe something lasting or permanent. Most inrerestingly, ir Colonial times arza4'could be combincd to fotm anaq'ib'iiL, meaning "old or former houschold. " Fitally, nimja has only one literal translation: " big house." I suggest, therefore, that the preclominant metaphor used by the Postclassic Maya for social order was the housc (i.e., a physical structurc) and the house hold. Membership in a household is determined not only by kinship, but also b1' n.rarriage and alliancc, so it is

corporate groups.

A NEW MODEL OF K'ICHE'AN SOCIAL STRUCTURE

These apparently contradictory perspectives have less

likely that affiliation was as impoltanr as kinship in determining mcmbelship in K'iche'an social groups. In addrtiorL, molab and a,nrr4'suggest ncighborly residence, supporting the notion that social structure was der.ived at least in part from a sense of community that was not rooted in kinship (Hill 1984; Hill and Monaghan r987).
Despite Hill's (r99 6) cogent ar.guments, I remain uncon vinced that the anTaq' alrvays differed in scale and kind irom the chjnamit. To me, the hicrarchical and qualitative distinctions between amaq' and chinarait/molab/ ninja are not palticularly clear (Brasrvell zooob). Analysis of kinship terms cmpkryed by the Kaqchikcl and K'icl,e' does indeed supporr the assetiorr rhar the building blocks of social strLrcturc "sourd like lineages" (Tcdlock r 9 89:49 8). K'iche'an kinship is rveakly patrilineal, but it is difficult to sec horv a strucrure as fragilc and prone to conflict as thc patrilil-Ieal descent g(rup could have grown to be as large as some K'iche'an nimja or chinamita', rvhich containcd thousands of membcrs. fhus, it is more likely that kinship provided the langudge tsed by large-scale social groups to interprer their integration. but did not serve as the sole principle de6ning group membership. In othcr words, kinship nav havc been more "practical" than "official" (Bourdicu r97737). The use of kinship as a meraphor rathcr than as a sociill

to do with K'iche'an society than wirh traditional taxonomic approaches to kinship and social structure. Many
contemporarl. scholars (e.g., Bourdieu r977; I(uper r982; Leach r 96r; Schneider r984) have argued tl.rat the unilincal descent group is an icleal analytical type that does not, in fact, exist. Similarll others view the divisiorl ol society into nurually exclusive economic units based on residence or localized settlement ("corporate communities")as an artificial construct of Angkr-American anthfopoiogy (L6vi Strauss r987:r53-r54). Thus, the dichotomies of kinship vcrsus residence, and lineage versus territory may bc n-rore inportant to some anthropologists and ethnohistorians than they were to K'ichc'an peoples. Moleover, both theoretical positions tend to give priority to determinisric rules and normative
behavior at the expense of agency and practice. An afternarive approach to K'iche'an society is to con sider indigenous terms for basic social units and ro try to understand thcir characteristics. Important structures of

Hryhlan,l Mata
-:

l'oltns

1-

rrciple irlso resolves Carmack's ( r9

r ) seen-rilgly

con

rJictolv assertion that I('iche'an

:J kinship-bascd.

societ,v rvas both class

'

:ocial units sr-ich as the chinamir did control property. ,h property included terlitorl,, rcsources! shrines ancl
rples, ancl the phvsical buildings {nimja) wherc leaders :he chinamit conductecl their affairs. The chinamit aiscr ,ffolled irltangible possesslons, including tirles. Such r. clcscrihed roles not onh'\arirhin the chinirmit itself, -.rlso in the greater political systerr. Hence, the,r.\\,cre .ubjects of conpetition both rvirhin and arnong chi
lltll . h ichc'an social units rrere both endogamous (Hill \+ irnd exoglrn-rous ((larr-nack r98 r). I argue that en-rnrous marliage r.as a srategy designccl to mirintilin .r r.rlrh of the chinamir rvithin the group, and rhilr cx .:roLls nrarriage \\'as practiced in order to incrcase the :rr:rl of the social unit. In other r,r'ords, rnarri:rge .-:r.cs were praglnatic ratheI than nor.ll)ittivc, and ' p1e.r rather than clenentan'. Finrllr., the basic unit \ r.hc'itn sociill structure per.sisted over tinte, a fact . -rcd in the tcrm azaq'. It existecl :rs an organic be. .rnd engagecl r,r'ith

similar.units in agency-based

..qies designed to increase group propcrt,v and to ,:rg group survival. j{cther, these characteristics satisfv L6r'i Stlauss's . - definition of rhe /rr7l,(olz (housc), an organiza.:. rnstitution rhat he intended as a classificatory rype rireristic of certain societies. According to his for 'iron. a social house is: "a mor:ll person holding an '- nrade rrp of both rrateri:rl and immater.ial q,ealth, -:r nerpetu.ltes itself through the transmission of its . rts goods, and its titlcs dorvr.r a rcal or inaginarl -. ar line, considered legitimate :rs long as this conti-.rn cxpress itself in the language of desce[r or of :.c or, mosr ofren, of both" (t-6vi-Strauss r 987:r74). :;s,i rnaisons, or "house socicties," mav be com.1 ot jLlst onc sucl'r socirl house, bur their firll e <pres, . rrlnilest onlv rvhen more than one house interI his is because the reiationships maintained - (r1 groups are mole inportalt than the criteria :,, csrablish groLrp membership. ln fact, the house is :rnic fornarion that czlnr'rot be deilnetl in irsclf, :lr in rclation to others of the same kind, situated in rsrorical contett" (Ldvi-Strauss r987:r78).: In this . i house societv with numeLous social houses nay ,.rsrent rvith the concept of cin' state cultur.e cle- -l rn chapter 4.
.,.,1,RD

America, to the highly strarified socieries of nedieval Europe ancl feudalJapan lL6vi-Strauss r 9 8;). tr{ost impor tant! the,\'' span the analr-tical gap bcrl'een the pr.eliteratc "prinitive" societies usualh'stuclicd by an thr opologists, and the literate cjyiliz:rtions that are the focus ofhistori ans. fhus, the recognition that Postclassic highland Guatcmzrla \,vas organize<l in a large nunber of great houscs rvill not enable us to resolve the question of rl,hether or not K'iche'an political organization had crossecl thc cssentialist nLbicon betrveen the "chiefdorn" :tncl the "state." On the other hand, the house socictt' model cloes allorr' us to Lutdcrstand certirit aspecrs of the strLrcture and dl.nan.rics of I('iche'an politics, because rhe great houses were rhe building blocks thar forrred these p' ,lirre. a nd il-e Jg.'nr. of pnrir i.. rl .r. iun. Filst, I('iche'an great houses are best viervcd as localizecl groups that conpeted for propertv:rncl prcstige. Since land and nirtural resources were controllccl bv great houses, colnpetition oftcn rvas manifest it1 tcrritorial warfale. Bounclarv maintenence was a cornmon concel.n of all great houses, and the maps and geogr:aphical description5lhxl flgquenth'make up indigenous tlh os attest to the continLration of long stancling conlpetition r'r'cll into the Colonial period. Sccond, the desire to generate more wealth and pres rige within great houses led to the formarion of alli:rnces. Thi\ ( OoperJl i\ r \f rareg\, re.lrell gr(. rer \ oncenr-itf ron\ of force irncl hence led to the emcrgence of factions. Mar riage alliances commonll rverc used to cement ties within firctions such as the Kaqchikel Tuquche', Sotz'ii, or Xajil, and also helpecl hold together even largcr alliances benveen factiols. Still, the principle that provided the basis fol alliance rvas mutual interest r.ather thar.i kinship. Polr'er-sharing strategies between great houses :rnd larger lactions dcveloped in ordeL to cnsure thl.tt no particular group rvould emerge as the single dorninlnt pol,cr. Thus,
L

K'iche'an polities are correctly clcpicred as segmentecl, but the units of segmentation were thc great house :]ncl
faction (an alliancc of gleat houses) rarher than the lineage.

A NEW MODEL OF K'iCHE'AN POLITIES

.i

iocietics do not correlate rvell rvith standard polit-

,Jcls. Thci'range from rhe egalitarjan socieries of : L.r. to thc ranked societies of northrvest North

Thilcl, although dre greatesr concentrarion of coercive force rvas controlled by the lcading aliiances ofgrcat houses, the mandare to use force was nor restrictcci to these factions. Nunrerous polvcr fu1 groups, such as the l(aqchihel Xpantzav and the I('ichc'Tarrub'and Ilokab,, lived outside of the political capitals and engaged in aggressive conpctition designed to incrcase rheir wealth and plestigc. Coercir,e force, thcn, seems to har.e becn the right of r'r'hoever couid control it, r.ather than a nonopoll held bv a state. Indeecl, since each great housc rvithin a given frctiou rvas responsibLc for enforcing coclcs of concluct, it rvas imperative th:rt each exert at least enough coercrve torce to control its members and clefend its
propertY.

48

GrorrnEv

E, Bnesv'err

Fourth, the notion that highland Maya groups such as the Kaqchikel of Iximche' or the K'iche' of Q'umarkaj controlled "kingdoms" with meaningful territorial boundaries is erroneous, These regions also were home to other factions-including the Xpantzay, Tamub', and llokab'-that sometimes supporte d and sometimes struggled against the great houses centered at regional capitals, Again, thc meaning{ul territorial unit was not the polity, but the land controlled by each great house or alliance of houses (see chapter 4 for a discussion of the lack of territory-based principles in Postclassic Mesoamerican polities). Fifth, K'iche'an capitals are best interpreted as sites where allied great houses maintained important residential and administrative buildings. They were little more
than palace complexes, whose locations were determined more by administrative and military necessity than by central-place economic concerns. Capitals also served as defensive military strongholds (Borhegyi r9651and offensive bastions from which punitive raids could be launched (Braswell ry9 63 z9-i 3o\. Their locations changed as alliances betweeu great houses or among factions coalesced and disintegrated, and as interests in controlling particular resources shifted. Sixth, given the desire of different great houses to increase their wealth and the concomitant intensitv of berween- and wirhin group competition. it is not surprising that inheritance was based as much on capability as on kinship. K'iche'and Kaqchikel titles sometimes were passed from father to son (especially if a father was a strong leader), but often went to more-able kinsmen, in-laws, or even rivals within the great house. Although kinship principles dld play a role in detcrmining who inherited particular titles, affiliation and ability also were important factors. Rigid models focused on lineage and descent fail to account for the pragmatic manner in which power and position were negotiated in K'iche'an
socrety, Seventh, factionalism often was manifested through

ical control. The desire to tap distant sources of wealth played a kcy role in the formation and maintenance of .rl Iiance groups. In m(')t cases. di\tant Lerritories were nr,r directly integrated into K'iche'an polities, and access ro lesources was maintained through the thrcat of force. Thus, beyond the immediate territory of the chinamit, K'iche'an great houses jointly comrnanded access to thc "means of destruction" (Goody r 97r) and did not di rectly control the means of production. Wealth acquired by this piratical strategy could be received in the form of gifts or tribute. Joint rulership and the complex systcm ol aristocratic authority allowed equitable distribution of rhese resources to individual factions and great houses.
CONCLUSIONS: THE SMALL POLITIES OF THE

K'ICHE'AN HIGHLANDS K'iche'an society was based as much on affiliation or alliance as on kinship. As such, it cannot be described using elementary terms of social structure. Moreover, the notion that social units were closed corporate communities seems somewhat in error. Instead, the best model ior K'iche'an social structure is L6vi-Strauss's house societr. The fact that terms for K'iche'an social units refer to houses or households is strong evidence for this identi6cation. K'iche'an polities were formed of alliances ofgreat
houses, where the pragmatic concerns of the maintenance and increase of great-house prestige and wealth were the overriding factors determining membership. The factions formed even larger alliances out of whicir coalesced the various "kingdoms" of the K'iche', Kaqchikel, Tz'utujil, and Chajoma'. !(ithin the polin', balance was maintained through elaborare strategies ot power sharing that, along with marriagc ties, served to diffuse rivalries betwen individualgreat houses and among factions comprised of great houses.

warfare, Rebellions were not uncommon, and factions sometimes were expelled from alliances. The Kaqchikel Tuquche' faction, for example, was ousted from Iximche' and was "annihilated" in battle (Arana X. and Diaz X. r 5 7 3-r 60 5 | 49- 5 o). Constant factional struggle caused K'iche'an society to become militarized to a surprising degree. Occasionally, powerful rulers ernerged, such as Kikab' of the K'iche'. Such rulers are accurately depicted as nilitary despots. But during most of l('iche'an history, power within the major polities was much more fragmented, !(/e may characterize such times as periods of factional balkanism. In Marcust (r993, r998) dynamic model, these are the "valleys" rather than the "peaks." Eighth, the local resources that supported the power bases of the K'iche'an great houses were augmented by goods extracted from territories beyond their direct polit-

K'iche'an polities should not be considered as contrt,lling large territories of the sort that are easily represent,.J on maps, because the basic territorial unit rvas the chin.r'

mit or great house. Capitals were built at strategic,

de

fensible locations and served as "power centers" out oi which punitive raids could be made on recalcitrant neigir. bors. K'iche'an polities, therefore, were poorly integrarrJ territories held together by the threat of military destru.'

tion.
The Late Postclassic K'iche'an polities-including those of the K'iche', Kaqchikel, Chajoma', and Tz'utu-

jil-fit

well with the definirion of small polities adopted in this volume (chapter 4), though none are rightly call..: city-states. lnstead, they were networks of great houses linked by alliance. At their largest, they were hierarchically organized, and demanded services and extracted surpluses from conquered (or at least intimidated) tern tories. At their smallest, K'iche'an polities consisted ot

Ilighland Maya Polities 49

'rr. rcrntories, resources, and titles controlled by one or

'-

\! sre:1t houses. As the Postclassic period progressed, rffe was a rendency for these small polities to proliferate :. rival factions coalesccd in the central and western :rqhlands. \(hat is not clear is when this process of 'rlkanization began. l,ittle is known about the Earlv
',,stclassic period, largely because the methodological ,ols needed to distinguish Early Postclassic occupations ,rnr l.ate Classic and Late Postclassic components have :,rr bcen developed (Braswell r993, r996).In fact, settle:rent hierarchy studics suggest thar the highlands west

of the Valley of Guatemala rnay havc been divided into small polities since thc beginning of thc !,arlv Classic pcriod, whcn I('iche'an peoples first spread into the departments of Solo16, Chimaltenango, and Sacatep6quez.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Susan Gillespie and Rosemary Joyce for sharing critical unpublishcd manuscr.ipts rvith me in r999, when this chapter was written.