Given the possible Preclassic dates for Xkipche’s initial founding, and the evidence for strong Early Classic-period occupation at Oxkintok, Chac II, and a few other sites, it appears that what was to become the Terminal Classic Puuc Florescence—the high times in the hill country—has strong local roots in the region. We envision a scattered Preclassic occupation that became gradually more substantial in the Classic period, and more populous still, perhaps dangerously so, by the Terminal Classic. Late Classic population growth may have included elite immigrant groups coming from the southern lowlands (Scheie and Mathews 1998: 258-260; Nikolai Grube, personal communication 1999). As the florescence in the Terminal Classic clearly points toward a southern lowland Classic Maya cultural orientation, this southern elite arrival may have helped spur this development. With time—and technological innovations regarding dry season survival (chultuns)—the inhabitants were able to capitalize on the pockets of relatively rich Puuc soils, and expand into the full height of the Terminal Classic Puuc Florescence. This expansion appears to have taken numerous forms: 1) population growth, 2) population dispersal into new areas both within and beyond the Puuc region, 3) architectural and sculptural elaboration, 4) increase in social inequality and political centralization, 5) contact and perhaps initial alliance-building with other politically centralizing groups, specifically Chichen Itza (Kowalski et al. 1993; Kowalski and Dunning 1999), and 6) perhaps some kind of increased scale of economic specialization and trade (Smyth et al. 1995; see also Rivera 1994).
The internal organization and centralization of the Puuc polities, however, probably never quite reached the degree attained in the southern Maya centers, or certainly in highland Mexico. During their short Terminal Classic (a. d. 770 to 925) apogee, Puuc rulers may simply never have had the time to establish firm, religiously legitimized, politically stable dynasties that were able to rule their subjects relatively unquestioned. However, if we extend Puuc society back into the Classic and even the Preclassic periods—as can be suggested from recent research—the existence of long and vital potential “proto-dynasties” could be argued. Nevertheless, even given this greater time depth, many of the Puuc centers appear to have remained hovering around the edges of that fragile cusp of politically centralized statehood. Uxmal, at least under the reign of Lord Chaak, appears to have temporarily reached this status, as elaborated below. We envision a series of independent, small-scale, regal-ritual, dynastically focused kingdoms in the eastern Puuc—relatively newly centralized with the beginning of the Terminal Classic—jockeying for power and status among themselves, while seeking to maintain their centralized status within their own communities in the face of the centrifugal forces of the still-strong lineage heads (see Carmean 1998; Carmean and Sabloff 1996; Dunning 1992; Kurjack 1994). That some centers were unable to maintain this delicate balance is certain, and the slightly earlier (before the very end of the Terminal Classic) abandonment of Sayil may be one such example.
However, in the western Puuc even less centralization is evident. In the Middle and Late Classic a small regional state may have been centered at Oxkintok, but its power was significantly dissipated by the onset of the Terminal Classic (Rivera Dorado 1996). Data from the Xculoc region suggest myriad independent, very small-scale polities (Becquelin 1994). It is noteworthy that with the exception of Oxkintok, western Puuc sites are virtually devoid of the dynastic stelae found at many major eastern Puuc sites (Dunning 1992). Evidence from Xkalumkin and nearby sites suggests that the Maya there may have begun experimenting with a form of conciliar government (Grube 1994b; Michelet 1998). It is also possible that some variant of this shared governance model survived into the Postclassic Ah Canul province (Williams-Beck and Okoshi Harada 1998). Clearly there seems to have been a variety of community leadership forms, perhaps forming a continuum from relatively centralized kingdoms to communities in which governance was shared more equally among a number of prominent lineages.
Perhaps one of the most important questions that is just beginning to be asked is the role of Uxmal in the late Terminal Classic Puuc. What was the extent and depth of Uxmal’s control of the region? To what extent was the apparently unfettered reign of Lord Chaak an anomaly in the Puuc? We hypothesize that Uxmal may have added a degree of internal instability to the region by mounting an attempt to establish political and military sovereignty over her nearby Puuc neighbors. Evidence for this attempt comes in the form of an apparent decline in the construction of new (post-A. o. 850) monumental architecture chiefly in those sites closest to Uxmal (e. g., Xkipche and Xkoch), while construction continued at sites clearly tied to Uxmal’s ascendancy (e. g., Nohpat and Kabah). As such, the nearer to Uxmal (and Nohpat and Kabah) one comes, the less post-A. o. 850 monumental construction one sees, as if construction labor were being siphoned off and put to work at Uxmal itself. This phenomenon of labor monopolization has parallels in other early societies where rulers and polities were competing for control of a finite labor pool (e. g., Kaufman 1988; Renfrew 1983; Renfrew and Level 1979). As noted above in the discussion of Kabah, while there is an apparent abundance of settlement features along the sacbe connecting Kabah and Nohpat, such features appear to be absent along much of the Nohpat-Uxmal sacbe. We think it is possible that Uxmal seized control of an already existing Nohpat/Kabah polity late in the ninth century, subsequently making itself a late addition to the sacbe system (Dunning 1992; Kowalski and Dunning 1999). However, the exact relationship between these three major centers remains unknown.
Kurjack has (1994) suggested that the palaces—residences of elite extended families—also served as “garrisons” for the leaders of military expeditions, placing even secondary centers in a position to defend themselves. Whether Uxmal expanded its political and economic grasp through military means has yet to be firmly established. The militarism evident in the late monumental art of Uxmal, Kabah, and Oxkintok, and the possible commemoration of an Uxmal military victory at Mulchic all point toward increased militarism around a. d. 900 and after. As in other parts of the Maya lowlands, the introduction of conquest warfare may well have jeopardized the stability of food production (see, for example, Demarest 1996). The late fortification of the Uxmal site center also points to increasingly dramatic militarism in the tenth century (Barrera Rubio 1990; Kurjack, Garza, and Lucas 1979). On the northern plains, several other sites appear to have been fortified around this time (Webster 1978). The site of Chacchob is of particular interest, resembling a fortified outpost on the frontier between Uxmal and Chichen Itza.
Additional lines of evidence indicate that Uxmal rose to regional dominance during the Terminal Classic. The construction of monumental architecture during the reign of Lord Chaak around a. d. 900 was on a scale unprecedented in the history of both the site and region, signaling the builders’ intention to create a suitable capital for the emerging state (Dunning and Kowalski 1994; Kowalski 1987). The Nunnery Quadrangle in particular was clearly a monument erected to proclaim the paramount importance of Lord Chaak in the local Maya world (Kowalski 1994; Kowalski and Dunning 1999; Scheie and Mathews 1998). The references to Chichen Itza within Uxmal’s inscriptions and iconography indicate a relationship with that emerging Terminal Classic center not enjoyed by other Puuc communities. Finally, the persistence of Uxmal as an important place in the minds of the Yucatec Maya long after its abandonment (as recorded in various post-conquest ethnohistoric sources) suggests that this city had played an unusually important role in the history of the northern lowlands (Kowalski 1987).
Conversely, there is other evidence suggesting that the Uxmal regional state was short-lived and may have controlled only a limited area of the Puuc. Thus far, all evidence for Uxmal as a regional capital is tied to a single ruler. Lord Chaak, suggesting that the site’s pre-eminence may have lasted only twenty to forty years. With the possible exception of Mulchic, there are no known references to Lord Chaak or other Uxmal rulers outside of Uxmal, suggesting that the regional state either controlled a fairly limited area or was only in power for a very short period. Limited archaeological data currently suggest that the territory controlled by the Uxmal state may have been no larger than about a thirty-kilometer radius around the site proper. Nevertheless, that area included a sizeable number of major sites and probably the entire Santa Elena Valley, the area within the Puuc most prized for its extensive zones of prime agricultural lands (Dunning 1992). Conversely, the interactions between Uxmal and Chichen Itza suggest that Uxmal may have expanded its political influence onto the northern plains. Clearly, the extent of Uxmal’s power remains an issue open for debate and in need of further investigation.
We propose the following hypothesis that we would like to see tested against future archaeological work: with or without her direct Puuc “allies” (e. g., Kabah and Nohpat), Uxmal may have made a bid for broader regional power by enlisting the aide of non-Puuc allies, that is, Chichen Itza. Along with—and indeed perhaps spurred on by—an increasingly precarious population-to-cultivable-land ratio, Uxmal’s precipitous political move may have thrown the entire region into a tail-spin from which it never recovered, and made it particularly vulnerable to Chichen Itza’s growing power. Numerous examples of unfinished monumental works (at Xkipche, Oxkintok, Labna, Uxmal, Yaxche Xlapak, and at Chunhuhub, among others [Reindel 1997: 247]) may indicate a sudden, unforeseen end to a culture in the midst of its glory. The intentional destruction and burial of ballcourt ring stones at Oxkintok, Uxmal, and Edzna in the Terminal Classic (see Rivera Dorado 1994) may relate to the symbolic as well as literal end of autonomy for these sites. Additionally, the murals in the Upper Temple of the Jaguars at Chichen Itza depict successful battles in a red, hilly region, perhaps providing pictorial representation of the fate of the Puuc centers (Andrews V and Sabloff 1986; Scheie and Mathews 1998).
As Uxmal’s power declined and that center was itself subdued by Chichen Itza, some centers in the eastern Puuc, such as Kabah, apparently were able to continue their existence for a short while, even within the new, undoubtedly chaotic, political situation. In the early Postclassic (post-A. o. 950), the clear but comparatively modest presence in some Puuc sites of Sotuta-using peoples suggests either remnants of Puuc peoples, or newcomers from Chichen Itza, or Chichen Itza-related peoples, or perhaps a combination of the above possibilities. Periodic religious worship appears to be one of the major activities of these later occupations. The nature and the dating of this post-abandonment reuse is of considerable importance for understanding the Terminal Classic to Postclassic transition. As suggested by Bey et al. (1997), we agree that the siting of the “C-shaped” structures suggests a relatively short-lived attempt to maintain the centralized political control, however truncated, of the earlier era. Differing with Bey et al., however, we envision the presence of non-Puuc peoples (probably related to the Sotuta-using Itza sphere) while agreeing that Cehpech ceramic continuity also points to the cultural and economic continuity of the local population. Specifically, we hypothesize a Pure Florescent elite and nobility, now fallen on hard times, allying themselves with more powerful Sotuta-using peoples expanding from Chichen Itza, who together try to reassert political control in the remaining Puuc communities. It is also possible that the apparent Itza presence in the Puuc marked a period in which the remaining population was made subject to the Chichen Itza state. Scheie and Freidel (1990: 374) have suggested that some of the rulers subjugated by the Itza may have resided at Chichen Itza and administered their territories through intermediaries, as did members of the later multepal government at Mayapan. Although the post-florescent populations in the Puuc may have attempted to regain/retain political authority in the region, the scale of local population as well as social and political disruption may have been too great, and the remnant/immigrant population was simply able to live for a while in the slowly crumbling cities, and to make offerings in the rubble of the most important buildings.
Intriguingly, at least a few western Puuc centers (e. g., Xuch) appear to have more successfully weathered the Terminal Classic to Postclassic transition (Williams-Beck and Okoshi Harada 1998). These sites are currently undergoing further investigation that we hope will shed more light on the nature of this transition. Whether the relative success of these centers had an environmental (e. g., more permanent water sources closer to the western coastal plain), sociopolitical (e. g., more adaptive shared governance structure), or economic (e. g., ties to emerging Postclassic economic networks) basis remains to be determined.
World History
