Archaeologists have been interested in political power for many generations (see Trigger 1974). In this chapter, I present archaeological studies from outside the Maya world that focus on ancient politics. The discussion is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the literature, which is extensive, but rather is a review of major trends in archaeological studies of political power, highlighted by case studies. My concern in this chapter is with political power in complex societies that we call “states.” These will serve as comparisons with Classic Maya polities, such as the one centered at Motul de San Jose, where I have worked for the last decade. My goal is to understand how archaeologists approach the issues and problems involved in reconstructing power in archaeological societies for which few or no written historical records have survived.
The archaeology of political power has been heavily influenced by the paradigms of political anthropology. Until the 1980s, the paradigms of neoevolutionism and political economy were dominant. Archaeologists were most concerned with macro-scale political processes and institutions, and more often than not, they viewed political power as state power through the lens of economics. Beginning in the 1990s, the focus shifted and archaeologists began to inquire about political processes rather than about origins and causes of political complexity. Instead of viewing political power as resting exclusively within the hands of state governments, archaeologists began to consider the middle and micro scales of ongoing political processes, focusing on individuals, households, and communities and the actions that create, change, or reproduce norms, customs, and structures of the larger society. Archaeologists have now begun to incorporate the roles of ideology, religion, and rituals in their assessments of political processes, institutions, and power instead of viewing political power as an economically driven machine.
World History
