It has been argued that “gradations within archaeological remains suggest that the distinction between the elites and the non-elite is more of a continuum than a well-defined division” (Sharer 1994: 490). Remnants of “monumental earthen constructions, elaborate human burials, diverse arrays of luxury goods, and other remains. . . [exist] as evidence. . . [of the] sociopolitical complexity [among the ancient Maya]” (Sharer 1989: 166). Identifying the context and distribution of specific artefactual types is a useful way of understanding how certain buildings were used by the ancient Maya. For example, analyses of artefact residues from Tikal identified disparities in the types of raw materials available to different status groups at the site, as well as differences in the wealth of persons who once occupied palace-type buildings and those who inhabited the more common domestic architecture (see Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992: 54-56). Haviland and Moholy-Nagy (1992) note that discerning differences between upper and lower class refuse remains difficult because of cross-contamination. More
Specifically, material discarded from common domestic groups in Maya centres was often reused as architectural fill when constructing palaces and other elite architecture. Furthermore, materials that one would expect to be associated with elite residences may appear in more common dwellings because of craft specialisation in which luxury items were manufactured purely for aristocratic consumption. Given the likelihood that servants would have coexisted with the upper echelon in Maya society, one may even see a mix of common and elite refuse associated with elite residential architecture. Given these problems, it is clear that one must rely on both qualitative and quantitative measures to discern elite from common residues.
Haviland and Moholy-Nagy (1992: 55) sorted household material remains from Tikal into three categories and interpreted their distribution. These categories were defined as (1) basic domestic items (i. e., manos, metites, cores, ovate and elongate bifaces, irregular retouched, used and unused flakes, prismatic blades, pointed retouched flakes, and figurines); (2) items commonly but not invariably present (i. e., censers, centrally perforated sherds, bifacial blades, pointed retouched flakes, hammer-stones, and rubbing stones); and (3) items rarely present (all other classifiable artefacts). Comparative analysis of the distribution of these artefact categories revealed that workshop debris, such as deb-itage, and common items, such as figurines and prismatic blades, were found to be more abundant around small structures. Rare artefacts are present in greater number and diversity inside palace structures. Items that fall under the more common artefact categories found associated with smaller structures were largely made from local materials, such as chert, whereas common artefact types found around palaces were made from more exotic materials, such as obsidian and imported chert. In addition, unaltered animal remains were found in a higher proportion in refuse associated with the Central Acropolis, suggesting that aristocrats ate more meat than the underclasses did. A higher proportion of polychrome pottery was also found in areas associated with Palace Groups, as were carved cache bowl lids and fine blackware sherds found in architectural fill (Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992: 55-56).
Things to consider when attempting to discern the relative importance of burials found at Tikal are the size of the grave, the quality of its construction, the number and quality of objects buried with the individual, and the quality and size of the structure assembled above it. The graves of the most important individuals in Maya society were designed to hold more than the body of the deceased; additional space was provided for an abundance of grave goods, which generally included large quantities of pottery, treasured heirlooms, and pieces made especially for the burial. In contrast, lower status burials typically left room only for a few select pieces. Elite tombs were also designed to provide space so that the body of the deceased may be visited (e. g., the Temple of Inscriptions at Palenque). As the head of lower class households were, on occasion, placed in funerary shrines at Tikal, the status of the buried is more accurately discerned in relative terms by assessing the number and quality of burial goods as well as the size and quality of any associated mortuary architecture. Items found in the elite burial sites associated with the North Acropolis at Tikal included, among other things, jade beads, spondylus shell, stingray spines, red pigment, small anthropomorphic sculptures, greenstone face masks, pearl pendants, worked marine shells, stone and shell earplugs, pyrite mosaic mirrors, vases, painted wooden sculptures, bracelets, anklets, fan handles, inscribed bone, jaguar pelts, obsidian debitage, and human sacrifices (Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992: 53-54; see also Chase 1992a: 37 and Foster 2002: 208-211).
World History
