Political, economic, and social institutions characteristic of the governmental form

In Sharer’s view, during the Classic Maya period (ca. A.D. 250-900) state-level political organization developed, particularly in the southern and central lowlands. During the Late Classic (ca. 600-800) new state polities emerged and population peaked. During the Terminal Classic (ca.800-900 the southern and central lowlands declined and the northern lowlands rose (Sharer 1994:138). An economic system of contributing labor and food to the state and acquiring tribute from neighboring polities developed. Political alliances could be strengthened through marriage of the ruler. The Classic Maya form of political organization, with no standing armies, appears to have emphasized the qualities of the individual leader, and was closer to the "big man" system of Papua New Guinea, rather than the Zapotec political organization which emphasized the office rather than the individual. The coercion that a Mayan leader like 18 rabbit could impose on a city state apparently had limits since he was perhaps forcibly "given up" during a neighboring polity’s conquest and sacrificed. The Zapotec considered the generic political office to be more important than the individual’s personal characteristics, and in Oaxaca powerful families ruled in a kind of confederacy with hereditary palaces and a disembedded capitol, which was both an administrative and ceremonial center supported through tribute and conquest. Similar to the Aztecs, each valley in this confederacy was semi-independent.

Principal political offices in the society

According to Sharer: "During the Classic period, the highest Maya political authority in a particular polity was given the title ahau, which can be translated as ‘lord’ or ‘noble’" (Id. at 139-40). The term k’ul ahau (supreme or sacred ruler) designated the heads of state during the Classic period (id. at 491). Individual women could be power brokers or become king, and other officials had special functions - usually relatives of the king. Relatives also might become warriors or priests. In theory, primogeniture was the most recognized principle of succession (Id. at 142). Maya leaders tended to need "charisma" to hold office however. Their personal qualities mattered - unlike the Aztec system where office and rank, rather than the individual's "charisma", seemed to matter the most. Although there were not standing armies, warfare and tribute were important to a ruler. Wars were initially fought to obtain tribute and captives for sacrifice. According to Sharer: "Although . . . some Maya polities did occasionally engage in limited conquests, or established new polities by breaking away from one another, the prevailing mode of warfare was a ritualized conflict or raiding without intent to gain territory, a practice common in Mesoamerican societies" (Id. at 143). As the environment deteriorated, the aim of war and militarism expanded to include territorial and resource acquisition, prestige, and increased power. During the Late Classic and Postclassic warfare became endemic and probably contributed to the "collapse" of the Maya system. Most people were "commoner" maize farmers, but other principle offices included the lesser lords or "batab," war captains, town councillors, deputies, town constables, high-priests, executioner-priests, speakers, prophets, shamen, and slaves.

Size of the territory controlled

The smallest Maya centers covered less than a square kilometer. Tikal, the largest, covered 123 square kilometers (Id. at 493). According to Marcus and Sharer, the size of polities dynamically grew and declined (Id. at 142). There are different viewpoints ranging from the idea that there were several dozen small polities in the Maya lowlands to the view that there were larger regional states that controlled hierarchies of smaller cities (Id.). There may also have been periods when the Maya lowlands were "Balkanized" and at other times were consolidated into larger units (Id.). The general size of city states was about the distance a person could walk in a day.

Kinds of data archaeologists have used to reconstruct the government

Archaeologists have used historical, epigraphic, iconographic, archaeological and ethnographic analogy to reconstruct the government system of the Maya. Road systems and causeways, the emblem glyphs, archaeological studies of settlement and population size, codices, and glyphs carved on stelae, carved and painted on buildings and walls and funerary artifacts have been used to reconstruct the government. Ethnographic analogy to Papua New Guinea suggests that "big men" became rulers. Mayan ethnohistory at the time of conquest suggests social division into nobles, priests, commoners, and slaves, and governmental systems of loose confederacies of allied cities who had related lineages, rule by a council or "multepal," and most commonly, rule by a single hereditary individual. In Sharer’s view: "A center’s size, together with the elaborateness of its buildings, the quantity of its monuments and hieroglyphic inscriptions, and its other characteristics, undoubtedly reflected its relative political and economic power" (Id. at 493). Theissen polygons have also been tried in an attempt to approximate territorial boundaries between centers.

Change over time of the governmental forms

According to one model, Maya society in the Early Preclassic was egalitarian and elders probably exercised the most power. During the Middle Preclassic, the society stratified and the centers were controlled by elites who were supported by the outlying peasant agriculturalists. A ruling class developed and a state form of government. Late in the Classic period, political power was probably less vested in a single ruler and became more vested in the multepal or council house system of shared power (Id. at 491). According to the "galactic model" of segmentary states, ideology and ritual rather than political mechanisms create an unstable political landscape of competing kingdoms (Id. at 511). The personal "charismatic" performance of the individual rulers in war, alliance making, and ritual, rather than control of land or the economic system would have been paramount in such a system (Id. at 512).

http://www.angelfire.com/ca/humanorigins/government.html