JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Wiley, American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Anthropologist
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SUSAN D. GILLESPIE
Department of Anthropology
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Urbana, IL 61801
Long-standing disagreements concerning prehispanic Maya kinship and social organization have focused on the nature
their corporate groups, generally presumed to have been lineages. Specific debates center on whether the lineages w
patrilineal or incorporated some kind of double-descent reckoning, how descent was combined with locality to defin
group, and the status of lineage-outsiders within a group. It is argued here that Maya social organization is better
proached within the contemporary critique of kinship, replacing "lineage" with Levi-Strauss's model of the "house
corporate group maintaining an estate perpetuated by the recruitment of members whose relationships are expressed "in
the language" of kinship and affinity and affirmed by purposeful actions. In this perspective, the operation of corporat
groups is the primary concern, and relationships construed in terms of consanguinity and affinity are seen as strategies p
sued to enhance and perpetuate the group. [ancestor veneration, house society, kinship, Maya, social organization]
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
468 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 469
membership-"a problem that has plagued anthropology The prehispanic residential groups were not equal in
from its very beginnings" (Scheffler 1973:774). Unilineal status. Only the well-made masonry structures preserve the
descent is privileged as the basis for group definition even long histories of these units, and the many perishable
though all co-residents will not be related to one another by houses of the lower societal stratum leave fewer traces.
that means (Scheffler 1973:774). Maya groups more often Sanders (1989:102), who favors the segmentary, kin-based
corresponded to this third type (Freidel 1983:382), reflect-
model of political organization, envisioned Maya society
ing the reality that kinship and locality are joint principles as divided into a ranked series of lineages using an East Af-
for group organization here, as elsewhere in Mesoamerica rican analogy (Sanders 1981). The minimal lineages were
(Hunt 1976:103; Nutini 1996:84) and the world (Kupercomposed of individual house compounds and were organ-
1982:72; Leach 1968; Ievi-Strauss 1987:181). ized into maximal lineages whose heads formed a noble
class under the authority of the king, the head of the royal
Localized Lineages lineage. In addition, there was considerable intra-group
differentiation, as measured by access to valued space, ob-
One difficulty in interpreting Maya social organization
jects, and burial treatment (Hendon 1991:911). Sanders
has precisely been to understand how descent was inte-
(1989:102-103) suggested that the aristocratic households
grated with residence to form corporate groups. The com-
included close and distant kin as well as unrelated clients,
mon residential unit today and in the Colonial period as
estimating that the noble lineage head of the residential
well (Farriss 1984:132; Wilk 1988:137-141) is the patrilo-
complex labeled Group 9N-8 at Late Classic Copan held
cal extended family, often residing in multi-dwelling com-
sway over a core population of at least 200 and likely addi-
pounds on or near their jointly held farmland, especially in
tional groups up to 1,000 people.
the Maya highlands. Family unity will span only a few
Given that these were lineages, evidence for low-status
generations before inevitably fissioning and dividing the
common property (e.g., La Farge 1947:114-115; Vogt residents has been interpreted to indicate the presence of
1969:129-134; Wisdom 1940:249). However, some per- outsiders, possibly "servants, laborers, or in-laws" (McAnany
manent residential clusters of related extended families 1995:107; see Haviland 1968:113; Leventhal 1983: 75;
have been referred to as localized lineages, for example, in
McAnany 1993:80). Early Colonial census data from Yu-
Tzotzil Maya Zinacatan, where they are literally called the catan also show that larger residential groupings often in-
"houses" (sna) of a specific family surname (Vogt 1969: cluded many apparently nonrelated persons (Roys et al.
140). They represent a type of localized, customary socie- 1940:15). However, Hendon (1991: 912) suggested that
tal subdivision, often referred to as barrio or calpulli, that even low-status members were kin, even if they were, in
occupies an intermediate position between family and com- effect, servants or retainers. She observed that lineage
munity and that still exists among some highland Maya structure is often a means for ranking individuals, for ex-
peoples especially (Mulhare 1996:98). ample, based on genealogical closeness to group founders,
For the prehispanic Maya there is also archaeological along the lines of the "status lineage" described by Gold-
evidence for larger or more permanent groupings than the man (1970:420) for Polynesia (see also Haviland
extended family, especially within the upper stratum of so- 1973:139). Hence, kinship "structured social relations at
ciety. Well-built houses, arranged around one or more all levels, including those between the ruler and the elite
common patios, were continuously occupied, enlarged, and the elite and the commoners" (Hendon 1991:913).
and renovated and often had shrines presumably devoted to Ethnohistoric evidence for the Pokomam Maya of high-
the residential unit's common ancestors, some of whom land Guatemala may support this position, but it reveals the
were buried within the compound (e.g., Ashmore 1981; potential for ambiguity in kinship status. There the house-
Bullard 1960; Haviland 1968, 1981, 1988; Leventhal hold head used the same term for his son and heir as he
1983; McAnany 1995:66, 104; Tourtellot 1988). These used for a male house servant (acun) and additionally
relatively self-sufficient economic units composed the added the normal term for "son" (kahol) to refer to ser-
most visible corporate groups in Maya society (Hendon vants. Since a different term was used for slaves and wage
1991:911). Because the extended family cannot persist laborers, Miles (1957:758) suggested this could mean that
over such a long period, many scholars have interpreted servants were relatives. Alternatively, however, a single
these prehispanic data to indicate the existence of lineages, kin term may have been extended to them because they
sometimes specified as localized lineages (e.g., Haviland were household residents.
1968:100, 109, 1971:102; Hendon 1991:912). However, Societies of highland Guatemala have also been inter-
some archaeologists are less willing to apply a descent- preted as organized into localized lineages in the Post-
group type in the absence of further evidence and conserva- classic (after A.D. 1000). The information comes from
tively refer to "generationally extended family residential early Colonial native histories and other documents,
groups" (Sharer 1993:97) based on an "accretionary fam- matched against the settlement plans of late preconquest
ily-growth model" (Tourtellot 1988:97). archaeological sites (e.g., Fox 1989; Guillemin 1977).
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
470 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
Even with documentary information, the organization of In sum, for the lowland and highland Maya there is evi-
dence for corporate residential groups of various sizes,
these groups as based primarily on descent or residence re-
mains unclear. The Quiche Maya are believed by some
some of whose members were related by descent and pos-
scholars (Carmack 1981:156-163; Fox 1987; Fox and
sibly affinal ties, but others were not related. Nevertheless,
Cook 1996: 811) to have been organized into a ranked descent
se- is generally considered the primary criterion in
group affiliation. Nonrelated residents may have been re-
ries of localized lineages, forming a segmentary system
like that described for the African Nuer. However, the ref-
ferred to by kin terms or may have assumed the common
erents for these lineages vary from usage elsewhere. name
The of the group as if they were related. However, they,
like in-marrying wives, could not have been members of
"minimal lineage" was an extended family of brothers and
the lineage per se (Carmack 1981:63), and the segmentary
their children; the "principal lineage" included grandpar-
ents and grandchildren (five generations), forming model
an in particular cannot explain their integration within
the
amak (actually a hamlet); and a "major lineage," composedgroup.
of several principal lineages, could span more than five
generations (Carmack 1981:59, 161; Fox and Cook 1996:Descent Rules
811-812).
Lineage is the most common descent group type applied
The chinamit is a group mentioned in the native histo-
to the ancient Maya, but how their lineages were organized
ries and often translated as "lineage" (e.g., Edmonson
is another major topic of debate, and the evidence and ar-
1971:250 ff.; Tedlock 1985:210 ff.). However, in the seg-
guments over its interpretation have become well known
mentary model it is described as composed of two or more
among Mayanists. Lineage is seldom defined by Maya
minimal or principal lineages "plus perhaps several fami-
scholars who use the term, the notable exception being
lies of recent arrival who shared lands and a temple or
Haviland (1968:100), who cited Murdock's (1949:46)
shrine complex; thus the term chinamit is used when refer-
definition. Murdock's kinship types became popular in ar-
ring to territory," like the amak (Fox and Cook 1996:812).
chaeology in the 1960s (Allen and Richardson 1971), and
Carmack (1981:164) explained that territorial organization
the Maya literature reveals adherence to his definition,
"was challenging lineage in importance as an integrational
namely, of persons tracing descent exclusively through
mode." The chinamit ("fenced-in place") was therefore not
either the male or female line. The consensus today (e.g.,
really a lineage but "a territorial unit of people related by
Carmack 1981:63; Haviland 1992; Hopkins 1988; McAnany
virtue of being subject to the same chief" who took the 1995:22 ff.; Schele and Freidel 1990:84-85; Sharer 1993)
lineage name of their overlord, now drawing on the model
is that the totality of information indicates a specifically
of clients attached to a European feudal lord (Carmack patrilineage organization with patrilineal rules of descent,
1981:164). (In fact, a similar emphasis on residential over inheritance, and succession.
descent criteria applied as well to the "so-called patrilineal The presumption that the Maya were organized into patri-
lineages of the Nuer" [Goodenough 1970:66].) Finally, lineages by the beginning of the Classic period, perhaps a
the lineages of the lords, which engaged in closed bride-development out of cognatic groups (Haviland 1968:111),
exchange, were called nimha ("big house"), a name Car- has been construed to mean, among other things, that an
mack (1981:159-160, 192, 288) suggested derived from androcentric ethic prevailed and that males and their ge-
the fact that lineage business was conducted in large struc-
nealogical links to one another were valued over females.
tures, some of which have been identified at the ruins ofArchaeological
the findings that contradict these expectations
Quiche capital, Utatlan. are treated as aberrations or problems to be explained.
As a segmentary structure, this model of organization
These aberrations have also been used to support the exist-
presumes that the smaller lineage segments were organized ence of other descent constructs and descent groups and
via patrilineal ties into larger units headed by the lords,are
al- not simply considered to fall within acceptable parame-
though the native histories themselves do not contain this ters of lineages as described by ethnographers, who have
information and only name the leaders of successive gen- demonstrated the lack of fit between idealized rules and
erations of major lords or title-holders. Other scholars have
real life that makes even "classic descent groups [appear]
considered that the case for a segmentary structure using problematic" (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995:15).
purely patrilineal connections to bind the Quiche popula-
One domain of Maya society that has been considered
tion into ever larger units for state organization purposesnot
is to match the patrilineal model is burial treatment. Some
not supported (Chase and Chase 1992:307-308; Hill and high-ranking women received elaborate mortuary ritual on
Monaghan 1987:74). It has been argued that the chinamit par with that of men (e.g., Burial 162 at Tikal [Haviland
and other units are better treated as territorial rather than
1981:107]); indeed, the most elaborate burial at Altar de
descent groups, whose members represented their group Sacrificios, Burial 128, was that of a female (Haviland
1971:103). Classic royal tombs housing females as the
identity through the adoption of a common surname (Hill
and Monaghan 1987:34). principal interments have recently been discovered at
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 471
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
472 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
group was indeed a sociological group beyond the extended females. Roys (1940:37) cited an oft-repeated example
family, it was apparently most operational as localized to from
a the Cr6nica de Calkini of a man named Na May
specific community. Canche and his wife named Ix Chan Pan whose son was
Significantly, Landa and other colonial Spanish sourcesnamed Na Chan Canche (na and ix are prefixes used by
indicate that names were also inherited from one's mother.males and females, respectively). If the son had taken his
Landa (1982:58) stated that upon marriage, men and women mother's pat-ronym (her second name), he would have
assumed both their parents' names. Moreover, he said, been named Na Pan Canche (Jones 1998:79). From this
They place much emphasis on knowing the origin of their Roys (1940) concluded that it was the mother's mother's
lineages [linajes], especially if they come from some house of name and not her father's name that was passed on to her
Mayapdn; and they seek to find that out from the priests, children, "which she could have inherited only from a fe-
[since] it is one of their sciences; and they boast much about male line of maternal ancestors" (pp. 37-38).7 Further-
the men who have been famous in their lineages. The names more, he observed that only prominent men prefixed their
of the fathers always endure in the sons; in the daughters no. father's names with the na + mother's name, suggesting
They always call their sons and daughters by the name of the
that this linguistic reference to the mother's family was
father and of the mother--that of the father as proper
used only among the aristocracy (p. 37). Restall (1997:41)
[propio], and that of the mother as appellative [apelativo], so
accepted Roys's interpre-tation, noting that there is "not one
that they call the son of Chel and Chan, Nachanchel, which
means sons [sic] of so-and-so people. This is why the Indians instance in the colonial record of a Maya using his or her
say that those of one name are relatives and are treated as maternal patronym." Jones (1998:80-81) considered this
such. [pp. 41-42, translated in Jones 1998:79]6 practice as evidence for an entire matrilineage into which at
least the ruling patri-line always married, for every king
A similar system of name transfer is documented for thewas known as Can Ek, with Can as the mother's name and
Peten Itza of the southern lowlands. Fr. L6pez Cogolludo Ek as the father's.8
(1867-68, II, bk. 9, ch. 14:227-228) mentioned a 1618-19
Additional documentary evidence has been added to
account that recorded the Itza practice of prefacing the fa-
name inheritance practices to support a matriline construct,
ther's name with the mother's name, explaining that the
if not a matrilineage as a corporate group. Roys (1940:38)
ruler, Canek, was called Can from his mother's side and Ek
suggested that the name pattern explains why there were
from his father's. On a 1696 trip among the Itza, Fr. Aven-
two terms in colonial Yucatec for lineage: ch'ibal, "linaje;
dafio y Loyola (1987:54) observed that commoners had
their own surnames, "each one from the father and descendiente en linaje, generaci6n por via recta de varrn"
(Barrera Vaisquez et al. 1980:134), and ts'akab, "gener-
mother," but that many called themselves Caneks, like
aci6n por via recta de parte de la madre, descendiente en
their ruler, although they were not his relatives, because
linaje" (Barrera Vasquez et al. 1980:387), the first referring
they "take their names from those who rule the said dis-
to progeny in a straight line from a male and the second to
tricts." The adoption of a surname based on residence or
political loyalty occurred as well among some highland progeny in a straight line from a mother. Haviland
Maya (see above). (1973:139) and Hopkins (1988:94) inferred that the term
Name transfer represented patriline continuity in that a indicated a linkage to mother's kin in her patriline. How-
man's name (e.g., Chel) was carried by his son, his son's ever, Jones's (1998:446) analysis of the dictionary exam-
son, and so on through the male line, while his daughter's ples for each word led him to see the ts'akab as a matriline
children took their own father's name. Roys (1940:35) be- through which noble titles, ritual identifications, and even
lieved that people of the same patronym saw themselves as personal qualities were transmitted, in contrast to the
descended from a common ancestor, and he noted that ch'ibal, a discrete group to which one belonged. Thus,
some Inquisition proceedings recorded the names of dei- members of a patrilineal ch'ibal also inherited intangible
ties (possibly ancestors) venerated by specific lineages. property through maternal ties to a ts'akab.
Colonial records support Landa's statement that persons of A final bit of linguistic evidence is the Yucatec word for
the same patronym tended not to marry (Restall 1997:48). a noble person, almehen, which joins al-the word for
Furthermore, Landa and L6pez Cogolludo seem to have child used by a mother-and mehen-the word for child
considered the mother's name to be her own patronym used by a father. Some highland Maya used a word with
(Jones 1998:79), an opinion more recently propounded by the same meaning-alk 'ahol in Quiche-to refer to "lords
Haviland (1972:65, 1992:940) in support of patrilineality. born outside the noble patrilines," in a position of subservi-
Other scholars, however, have considered the mother's ence translated as "vassal" (Carmack 1981:148). The Yu-
name a matronym, and this has been used as an argument catec Motul dictionary defined almehen as a child with re-
against the exclusivity of patrilineal descent. It would spect to father and mother (Barrera V~isquez et al. 1980:
mean that the names of mothers endured through their fe- 14). Roys (1940:38) interpreted this to signify someone
male progeny, such that there were two parallel lines of who claimed descent through maternal and paternal lines.
names, one transmitted through males and one through (However, the parent, not the child, is ego for these kin
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 473
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
474 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 475
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
476 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 477
houses (McKinnon 1991). Houses as entities may there- The noble house is an apt interpretation of the archaeologi-
fore be most visible in their alliance interactions with other
cal and epigraphic evidence. Masonry dwellings, which
houses (Barraud 1990). were rebuilt and elaborated to parallel changes in the life
House identity is maintained based on continuity with histories of their occupants (some of whom were literally
both agnatic and uterine ancestors, from one's own house incorporated into the structures), are the most salient physi-
and those of spouse-giver houses. Ancestors represent cal theevidence of the longevity of a house as a social group.
Furthermore, royal houses are named as such (na [house]
origin of the house, and the heirlooms they acquired objec-
and otot [a possessed house]) in acts of dedication recorded
tify house history and prestige. Continuity is also repre-
sented in narratives detailing how the ancestors acquiredin monumental inscriptions that often refer to the house an-
those valuables, and it can be reduced to a recital of titles
cestors (e.g., Palenque's Cross Group [Schele 1990:149]).
acquired by the house as immaterial property (Barraud monuments incorporate pictures and texts describing
The
1979, 1990; Fox 1980; McKinnon 1991; Traube 1986; house heirlooms, sometimes as the original property of
Weiner 1992). Ancestors are therefore a focus of group gods (e.g., the central panel in Palenque's Temple of the
Inscriptions [Schele 1983:98-99]), or refer to supernatural
identity without necessitating recourse to a genealogy that
encompasses the entire membership, although a pedigree patrons, as at Copan (Fash 1991).
for high-ranking members may be preserved (Goody As stated above, there is textual evidence for a few mar-
1983:231). riage alliances among high-ranking houses and the inheri-
The house is an extremely flexible entity, open to multi- tance of significant property rights, even political power,
ple forms of expression (L6vi-Strauss 1987:160) even from females (Marcus 1976:157, 1983:466, 470; Pros-
within a single culture area, such as Indonesia (Fox 1980) kouriakoff 1993; Schele and Mathews 1991:243-245).
or the Maya area. It has been recognized in many types of The use of marriage as a means to ally different Maya poli-
societies (Waterson 1990:140 ff.) and at different levels of ties is also characteristic of house societies because
society, from large (like a clan) to small (like an extended " 'house' can relate to 'house,' even across presumed boun-
family) (Fox 1980:330). Houses provide a framework for daries of society, nation, or other construction" (Boon
internal as well as external ranking, as house members may 1990:n.439). Maya marriage exchanges also conformed to
occupy ranked positions or strata (Boon 1990:215; Lvi- a pattern noted among Indonesian house societies in which
Strauss 1982:169). Houses are often most manifest in the wife-giver and wife-taker houses must offer certain types
upper levels of society, while commoners may lack the of items to one another (Gillespie and Joyce 1997).
wherewithal to maintain an estate and to attract sufficient The prehispanic Maya nobility, and especially the ruling
new members to perpetuate it (Boon 1990; L6vi-Strauss house, expended tremendous efforts toward the veneration
1982; McKinnon 1991; Sellato 1987b; Waterson 1995a). of their own ancestors, as described above. This suggests
that the demonstration and renewal of ancestral ties to the
Commoners may be attached to specific noble houses
without recourse to genealogical ties as with a cadet line- past was part of the construction of political authority, but
age, becoming thereby part of the estate of noble houses only as that political authority was itself tied to the posi-
tioning or ranking of the individual noble houses with each
(McKinnon 1991:97-101). Noble houses display their
other and within the larger society. Historical studies of
status in various ways, including their management of land
and resources; the embellishment, size, and renovation of some house societies (Geertz and Geertz 1975; L6vi-
their structures; heirloomed valuables and titles that repre-
Strauss 1982) reveal that in the continual competition
among noble houses for rank and for the labor of attached
sent house history and status; elaborate wedding and fu-
commoners, and in the maneuvering of lower-ranked
neral rituals that manifest exchange relations with spouse-
houses to elevate themselves, houses will rise and fall in
taker and spouse-giver houses; and shrines to ancestors-
all of which reiterate the active and material existence of status over time (Boon 1990:217). This situation appears to
the house. be the case for the Postclassic Quiche Maya, whose dynas-
tic histories were "subject to conflict and change with the
These characteristics can readily be applied to the pre-
rise and fall of various 'houses' [nimha]" (Edmonson
hispanic Maya, substituting "house" where one normally
1971:157). Thus, this scenario may help to explain the
reads "lineage"; this would also better match Maya termi-
waxing and waning of political influence at some Classic
nology. In highland Guatemala, where territory and osten-
Maya centers (Demarest 1992; Marcus 1993, 1995a) as
sible descent group membership somehow overlapped,
correlated with the ability of a ruling house to maintain or
Carmack saw the parallel with feudal Europe for the attach-
raise its position.
ment of non-kin to the noble house-the nimha (big
house)-and to the chinamit (fenced-in place). The
Conclusion
Yucatec data analyzed by Roys-in which maternal ties,
along with patrilineal descent, were maintained especially by The common assumption that the Maya were organize
elites-are fully in keeping with house societies elsewhere. into localized corporate groups on the basis of uniline
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
478 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
"houses" are becoming much better known ethnographi- Estates are major subdivisions of society, based largely on
cally (and this brief article cannot fully review that litera-occupation, ruling (political) attributes, and/or lineage and
ture), but as of yet there have been few applications to ar-heredity. Estates are unequal before the law or customarily
chaeology (e.g., Gillespie 1999; Gillespie and Joyce 1997; entail differential access to whatever economic, political,
and social rewards the society offers; they are largely en-
Joyce 1999; Kirch 2000; Tringham 2000), despite its great
dogamous, without approaching the structure of castes; and
potential for this purpose, in that houses are long-lived cor-
they are characterized, particularly superordinate estates, by
porate groups with significant material signifiers that tend
a high degree of consciousness of membership and status.
to exist in middle-range, nonclass societies. Understanding
the operation of Maya noble houses will allow for a closer 2. See reviews by Fash (1994), Fox et al. (1996), Hammond
(1991), Houston (1993), Marcus (1995a), McAnany (1995),
integration of social organization with political, economic,
and religious configurations within the Maya civilization. Potter and King (1995), Sharer (1991), and Yoffee (1991).
In fact, the world areas from which models of political or- 3. This opinion is expressed by Chase and Chase (1992:
307), Marcus (1993:116), Sharer (1991:185, 196), and Vogt
ganization have been borrowed to apply to the Maya-
(1983:104-105). Other scholars have extolled the benefits and
Southeast Asia, feudal Europe and Japan, and Africa-are
necessity of cross-cultural comparison and ethnographic anal-
precisely those where social organization is now being ogy at the level of systemic societal configurations (Adams
characterized in terms of houses.
and Smith 1981:336; Demarest 1996:823; Fash 1994:192;
Because of the interconnected structural principles thatHouston 1993:143-144; Sabloff 1983:418-419; Sanders
underlie the conceptualization of the house, this model can
1981; Yoffee 1991:288-289).
provide many new avenues of research into intricate social 4. Cognatic groups as descent groups should not be com-
and political processes, as well as the variability of their
bined with bilateral groups of related kinsmen or personal kin-
expressions as historically situated strategic actions. dreds
It (Firth 1963:23; Goodenough 1955:72, 1970:42 ff.;
Scheffler 1964:131), as is found in, e.g., Murdock (1960).
should also give additional insights into similarities be-
tween the Maya and other peoples of Mesoamerica and5. Haviland (1997) determined that "androcentrism" in bur-
ial treatment and representation in monumental imagery was
move scholarship further away from the old attitude that
strongly pronounced at Classic period Tikal, one of the largest
the Maya were "unique" (Marcus 1995a:4). Indeed, central
Maya centers. See Haviland (1997) and McAnany (1998) on
Mexican (Aztec) society was similarly organized: the no-
changes in Maya burial patterns through time correlated with
bility as members of a teccalli (lord-house), which exer-
the development of political structures.
cised control over commoner labor (Chance 1996, 2000
6. Jones (1998:446) interpreted Landa's calling the father's
[this issue]), and commoners as members of a calpulli (big
name the "proper" name as indicative of a person's principal
house), a corporate group with territorial implications.
name, while the mother's name was an "appellative" in the
Even some contemporary Mesoamerican societies mani- sense of adding a name to the principal name.
fest "embryonic houses" (Sandstrom 2000), offering the7. Roys (1940:37) further suggested that the mother's name
opportunity to investigate why certain societies do notwas called the naal name (na' is mother, al is mother's child).
have houses, which is as important a question as why oth-This term for the matronym has since come into common us-
ers do. Such pursuits should also reiterate the value of age, although it is known to appear in only one document, the
Crdnica de Calkini.
cross-cultural comparison in anthropology and the productive
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 479
Bullard,
8. A simpler explanation would be that Canek was a title in- William R., Jr.
herited by the ruling paramount, possibly a reference to 1960
a Maya Settlement Patterns in Northeastern Peten, Guate-
founding ancestral couple. mala. American Antiquity 25:355-372.
Bunzel, Ruth
References Cited 1952 Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village. American
Ethnological Society Publication 22. Locust Valley, NY: J. J.
Adams, Richard E. W. Augustin.
1977 Rio Bec Archaeology and the Rise of Maya Civilization.
Calhoun, C. J.
In The Origins of Maya Civilization. Richard E. W. Adams, 1980 The Authority of Ancestors: A Sociological Reconsid-
ed. Pp. 77-99. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico eration of Fortes's Tallensi in Response to Fortes's Critics.
Press.
Man 15:304-319.
Adams, Richard E. W., and Woodruff D. Smith
Carlsen, Robert S.
1981 Feudal Models for Classic Maya Civilization. In Low-
1997 The War for the Heart and Soul of a Highland Maya
land Maya Settlement Patterns. Wendy Ashmore, ed. Pp.
Town. Austin: University of Texas Press.
335-349. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Carlsen, Robert S., and Martin Prechtel
Allen, William L., and James B. Richardson III
1991 The Flowering of the Dead: An Interpretation of High-
1971 The Reconstruction of Kinship from Archaeological
land Maya Culture. Man 26:23-42.
Data: The Concepts, the Methods, and the Feasibility. Ameri-
Carmack, Robert M.
can Antiquity 36:41-53.
1981 The Quiche Mayas of Utatlin: The Evolution of a High-
Arqueologia Mexicana
land Guatemala Kingdom. Norman: University of Oklahoma
1994 Noble exhumado en Palenque. Arqueologia Mexicana
Press.
2(9):66-68.
Ashmore, Wendy Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones
1981 Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland Maya 1995 Introduction: About the House--Levi-Strauss and Be-
Settlement Archaeology. In Lowland Maya Settlement Pat- yond. In About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. Janet
terns. Wendy Ashmore, ed. Pp. 37-69. Albuquerque: Univer- Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds. Pp. 1-46. Cambridge:
sity of New Mexico Press. Cambridge University Press.
Avendafio y Loyola, Fray Andres de Chance, John K.
1987 Relation of Two Trips to Peten Made for the Conversion 1996 The Barrios of Colonial Tecali: Patronage, Kinship, and
of the Heathen Ytzaex and Cehaches. Frank E. Comparato, Territorial Relations in a Central Mexican Community. Eth-
ed. C. P. Bowditch and G. Rivera, trans. Culver City, CA: nology 35:107-139.
Labyrinthos. 2000 The Noble House in Colonial Puebla, Mexico: Descent,
Barnes, J. A. Inheritance, and the Nahua Tradition. American Anthropolo-
1962 African Models in the New Guinea Highlands. Man gist 102(3): 37-54.
62:5-9. Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase
Barraud, Cecile 1992 An Archaeological Assessment of Mesoamerican Elites.
1979 Tanebar-Evav: Une Societ6 de Maisons Tourn6e vers le In Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment. Di-
Large. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
ane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase, eds. Pp. 303-317. Norman:
1990 Wife-Givers as Ancestors and Ultimate Values in the
University of Oklahoma Press.
Kei Islands. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde
1996 More than Kin and King: Centralized Political Organi-
146:193-225.
zation among the Late Classic Maya. Current Anthropology
Barrera Vaisquez, Alfredo (director), Juan Ram6n Bastarrachea
37:803-810.
Manzano and William Brito Sansores (redactores), Refugio
Chase, Diane Z., Arlen F. Chase, and William A. Haviland
Vermont Salas, David Dzul G6ngora, and Domingo Dzul
1990 The Classic Maya City: Reconsidering the "Mesoameri-
Poot (colaboradores)
1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex: Maya-Espafiol, Espafiol- can Urban Tradition." American Anthropologist 92
499-506.
Maya. Merida, Mexico: Ediciones Cordemex.
Beals, Ralph L. Coe, Michael D.
1932 Unilateral Organizations in Mexico. American Anthro- 1965 A Model of Ancient Community Structure in the Maya
pologist 34(3):467-475. Lowlands. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 21:
Boon, James A. 97-114.
1990 Balinese Twins Times Two: Gender, Birth Order, and 1966 The Maya.New York: Praeger.
"Household" in Indonesia/Indo-Europe. In Power and Differ-Coggins, Clemency C.
ence: Gender in Island Southeast Asia. Jane Monnig Atkinson 1975 Painting and Drawing Styles at Tikal: An Historical and
and Shelly Errington, eds. Pp. 209-233. Stanford, CA: Stan- Iconographic Reconstruction. Ph.D. dissertation, Department
ford University Press. of Fine Arts, Harvard University.
Bourdieu, Pierre Davenport, William H.
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. R. Nice, trans. Cam- 1959 Nonunilinear Descent and Descent Groups. American
bridge: Cambridge University Press. Anthropologist 61(4):557-572.
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
480 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
Demarest, Arthur A. 1989 On the Rise and Fall of Tuldns and Maya Segmentary
1992 Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural Evolution: The Dy- States. American Anthropologist 91(3):656-681.
Fox, John W., and Garrett W. Cook
namics of Galactic Polities. In Ideology and Cultural Evolu-
tion in the New World. Arthur A. Demarest and Geoffrey W.1996 Constructing Maya Communities: Ethnography for Ar-
Conrad, eds. Pp. 135-157. SantaFe, NM: School of American chaeology. Current Anthropology 37:811-821.
Research. Fox, John W., Garrett W. Cook, A. F. Chase, and D. Z. Chase
1996 Closing Comment. In The Maya State: Centralized or 1996 Questions of Political and Economic Integration: Seg-
Segmentary. Theme issue. Current Anthropology 37:821-824. mentary versus Centralized States among the Ancient Maya.
Edmonson, Munro S. Current Anthropology 37:795-801.
1971 The Book of Counsel: The Popol Vuh of the Quiche Fox, Robin
Maya of Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute1967 Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective.
Publication 35. Tulane University, New Orleans. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books.
1979 Some Postclassic Questions about the Classic Maya. Freedman,
In Maurice
Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, 4. Merle Greene Robert- 1958 Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. London:
Athlone Press.
son and Donnan Call Jeffers, eds. Pp. 9-18. Monterey, CA:
Herald Printers. Freidel, David A.
Farriss, Nancy M. 1983 Political Systems in Lowland Yucatan: Dynamics and
1984 Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The Collective En- Structure in Maya Settlement. In Prehistoric Settlement Pat-
terprise of Survival. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University terns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. Evon Z. Vogt and
Press. Richard M. Leventhal, eds. Pp. 375-386. Albuquerque: Uni-
Fash, William L., Jr. versity of New Mexico Press.
1992 The Trees of Life: Ahau as Idea and Artifact in Classic
1991 Lineage Patrons and Ancestor Worship among the Clas-
Lowland Maya Civilization. In Ideology and Cultural Evolu-
sic Maya Nobility: The Case of Copin Structure 9N-82. In
tion in the New World. Arthur A. Demarest and Geoffrey W.
Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986. Merle Greene Robertson
Conrad, eds. Pp. 115-133. Santa Fe, NM: School of American
and Virginia M. Fields, eds. Pp. 68-80. Norman: University
Research Press.
of Oklahoma Press.
Geertz, Hildred, and Clifford Geertz
1994 Changing Perspectives on Maya Civilization. Annual
1975 Kinship in Bali. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Review of Anthropology 23:181-208.
Gillespie, Susan D.
Firth, Raymond W. 1999 Olmec Thrones as Ancestral Altars: The Two Sides of
1963 Bilateral Descent Groups: An Operational Viewpoint. In
Power. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehis-
Studies in Kinship and Marriage. Royal Anthropological In-
tory. John E. Robb, ed. Pp. 224-253. Center for Archaeologi-
stitute Occasional Paper 16. Isaac Schapera, ed. Pp. 22-37.
London.
cal Investigations Occasional Paper, 26. Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale.
Fortes, Meyer
2000 Beyond Kinship: An Introduction. In Beyond Kinship:
1965 Some Reflections on Ancestor Worship in Africa. In Af-
Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Rose-
rican Systems of Thought. Meyer Fortes and Germaine
mary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, eds. Pp. 1-21. Phila-
Dieterlen, eds. Pp. 122-144. London: Oxford University
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Press.
In press Body and Soul among the Maya: Keeping the Spirits
1976 An Introductory Commentary. In Ancestors. William H.
in Place. In The Space and Place of Death. Helaine Silverman
Newell, ed. Pp. 1-16. World Anthropology Series, 64. The and David Small, eds. Archeological Papers of the American
Hague: Mouton. Anthropological Association, 11. Arlington, VA.
Fox, James A., and John S. Justeson
Gillespie, Susan D., and Rosemary A. Joyce
1986 Classic Maya Dynastic Alliance and Succession. In Eth- 1997 Gendered Goods: The Symbolism of Maya Hierarchical
nohistory. Ronald Spores, ed. Pp. 7-34. Supplement to the Exchange Relations. In Women in Prehistory: North America
Handbook of Middle American Indians, 4. Victoria Reifler and Mesoamerica. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce,
Bricker, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. eds. Pp. 189-207. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Fox, James J. Press.
1980 Models and Metaphors: Comparative Research in East- Goldman, Irving
ern Indonesia. In The Flow of Life: Essays on Eastern Indone- 1970 Ancient Polynesian Society. Chicago: University of
sia. James J. Fox, ed. Pp. 327-333. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Chicago Press.
University Press. Goodenough, Ward H.
1993 Comparative Perspectives on Austronesian Houses: An 1955 A Problem in Malayo-Polynesian Social Organization.
Introductory Essay. In Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspec- American Anthropologist57(1):71-83.
tives on Domestic Designs for Living. James J. Fox, ed. Pp. 1970 Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthropology.
1-28. Canberra: The Australian National University. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, John W. Goody, Jack
1987 Maya Postclassic State Formation: Segmentary Lineage 1962 Death, Property and the Ancestors: A Study of the Mor-
Migration in Advancing Frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge tuary Customs of the LoDagaa of West Africa. Stanford, CA:
University Press. Stanford University Press.
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 481
structing Household Composition. In Household and Com- 2000 Heirlooms and Houses: Materiality and Social Memory.
munity in the Mesoamerican Past. Richard R. Wilk and In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in
Wendy Ashmore, eds. Pp. 121--134. Albuquerque: Univer- House Societies. Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie,
sity of New Mexico Press. eds. Pp. 189-212. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
1992 Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: The View Press.
from Tikal. American Anthropologist 94(4):937-940. Keesing, Roger M.
1997 The Rise and Fall of Sexual Inequality: Death and Gen- 1970 Shrines, Ancestors, and Cognatic Descent: The Kwaio
der at Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:1-12.
and Tallensi. American Anthropologist 72(4):755-775.
Henderson, John S., and Jeremy A. Sabloff Kirch, Patrick V.
1993 Reconceptualizing the Maya Cultural Tradition: Pro-
2000 Temples as "Holy Houses": The Transformation of Rit-
grammatic Comments. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the
ual Architecture in Traditional Polynesian Societies. In Be-
Eighth Century A.D. Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Hender-
yond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House
son, eds. Pp. 445-475. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.
Hendon, Julia A. Societies. Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, eds.
1991 Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: An Archae- Pp.103-114. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
ological Study. American Anthropologist 93(4):894-918. Kuper, Adam
Hill, Robert M., and John Monaghan 1982 Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospect. Annual Review
1987 Continuities in Highland Maya Social Organization: of Anthropology 11:71-95.
Ethnohistory in Sacapulas, Guatemala. Philadelphia: Univer-La Farge, Oliver
sity of Pennsylvania Press. 1947 Santa Eulalia: The Religion of a Cuchumatin Indian
Hopkins, Nicholas A. Town. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1988 Classic Mayan Kinship Systems: Epigraphic and Ethno- Landa, Fray Diego de
graphic Evidence for Patrilineality. Estudios de Cultura Maya 1982 Relaci6n de las cosas de Yucatin. 12th edition. Mexico
17:87-121. City: Editorial Porria.
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
482 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GILLESPIE / MAYA SOCIAL ORGANIZATION 483
2000 Toponymic Groups and House Organization: The Na- Tedlock, Dennis, trans.
huas of Northern Veracruz, Mexico. In Beyond Kinship: So- 1985 Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
cial and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Rosemary
Thompson, J. Eric S.
A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, eds. Pp. 53-72. Philadelphia:
1930 Ethnology of the Mayas of Southern and Central British
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Scheffler, Harold W. Honduras. Anthropological Series, vol. 17, no. 2. Field
Museum of Natural History, Chicago.
1964 Descent Concepts and Descent Groups: The Maori
Thompson, Philip C.
Case. Journal of the Polynesian Society 73:126-133.
1982 Dynastic Marriage and Succession at Tikal. Estudios de
1973 Kinship, Descent, and Alliance. In Handbook of Social
Cultura Maya 14:261-287.
and Cultural Anthropology. John J. Honigman, ed. Pp. Tourtellot, Gair
747-793. Chicago: Rand McNally.
1988 Developmental Cycles of Households and Houses at
Schele, Linda
Seibal. In Household and Community in the Mesoamerican
1983 Notebook for the Maya Hieroglyphic Writing Work-
Past. Richard R. Wilk and Wendy Ashmore, eds. Pp. 97-120.
shop at Texas. Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies,
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
University of Texas. Traube, Elizabeth
1990 House Names and Dedication Rituals at Palenque. In Vi-
1986 Cosmology and Social Life: Ritual Exchange among the
sion and Revision in Maya Studies. Flora S. Clancy and Peter
Mambai of Timor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
D. Harrison, eds. Pp. 143-156. Albuquerque: University of
Tringham, Ruth
New Mexico Press. 2000 The Continuous House: A View from the Deep Past. In
Schele, Linda, and David Freidel Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House
1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Societies. Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan D. Gillespie, eds. Pp.
Maya. New York: Morrow. 115-134. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
484 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000
This content downloaded from 85.120.205.152 on Thu, 13 Oct 2016 11:23:43 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms