Early Monumental Constructions in the Maya
Lowlands and Their Implications for the Theory of
the State
INOMATA Takeshi1
ABSTRACT

Their discovery of a preceramic temple at the Peruvian site of Kotosh in 1960 led JapaneseAndeanists to suggest that repeated temple constructions played a driving role in the developmentof Andean civilization. More recent ﬁnds of ceremonial constructions dating to the preceramicand early ceramic periods in other parts of the world allow us to re-evaluate their proposal froma cross-cultural perspective and to re-examine the concept of the state critically. Whereas early
ceremonial constructions in some areas do not appear to have led directly to state formation,monumental constructions built between 1100 and 750 BC in the Maya lowlands triggered a social
trajectory toward the emergence of dynasties. Early organizers of ceremonies may have provided
a prototype of later Maya rulership, which was closely tied to public performance. Early buildings
probably facilitated collaboration among many people without pronounced inequality, but thisprocess likely produced a basis for later hierarchical organization by creating political subjects
who willingly accept communal obligations. Those observations encourage us to move beyond therestrictive approach to the state and to examine diﬀerent dimensions of broad social processes.
KEYWORDS: Maya, Olmec, Andes, early monumental architecture, social inequality, collective
action, state formation

1.

Introduction

In 1960 the Japanese Andean Expedition directed by Seiichi Izumi and colleagues
discovered the Temple of Crossed Arms built around 2000 BC during the preceramic
period at the site of Kotosh in the Peruvian highlands (Izumi & Sono 1963). Since then,even older ceremonial constructions have been found on the Peruvian coast, including
Sechín Bajo, Huaricanga, and Bandurria, dating to around 3500–3200 BC, and large
constructions at Caral, dating to 2600–1800 BC (Shady Solis et al. 2001). The discoveryof the Temple of Crossed Arms led the Japanese scholars to argue that the repeatedconstructions of temples played a driving role in the development of Andean civilization(Onuki 1995; Terada & Onuki 1988). Their insight, originally made in the 1960s, wasahead of their time. It touched on the theoretical issues, such as religion, ritual, andpractice, which would enter the mainstream archaeological literature in English decades
1 School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA (inomata@arizona.edu)

Category: Original Article Received: 16 January 2022; Accepted: 25 December 2023
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 11 (2024): 49–66

INOMATA Takeshi

later. The implications of ceremonial constructions during the preceramic and early
ceramic periods have only recently become an important subject of debate among scholars
beyond Andean archaeology, stimulated by the ﬁnds of such buildings in other parts of theworld (Burger & Rosenswig 2012; Graeber & Wengrow 2021; Sassaman 2004; Stanish2017).
Although the discovery of the Kotosh temples and subsequent achievements by theJapanese researchers are well respected by international scholars of Andean archaeology,
I do not think that they are receiving the credit that they deserve for their pioneering
theoretical contribution. For example, the recent book by Graeber and Wengrow (2021)
is an admirable eﬀort to compile data on early constructions and related events, but it
does not include the work by the Japanese team and only passingly mentions Andeansites earlier than Chavín de Huántar. I suspect that this neglect is the ironic result of theinnovativeness of their theoretical insight. Under the strong inﬂuence of materialismand environmental determinism during the 1960s and 1970s, many Anglophone scholars
disregarded the explanation emphasizing temples and religion. It may also be because
Japanese scholars did not publish their theoretical views in a way easily accessible toWestern scholars. Now that religion, ritual, and construction activity have become wellestablished themes of archaeological discussion and that there is a growing interest in early
ceremonial construction across the world, the theoretical contribution of those Japanesescholars should be re-evaluated.
I was originally trained in New World archaeology by Yoshio Onuki and Shozo Masudaand had the privilege of participating in the excavation of the early Peruvian temple site of
Kuntur Wasi in 1988. Since then, their argument about the centrality of temple construction
has fascinated me. In the Maya area, which I chose as my main ﬁeld, however, scholars
have long thought that comparable early constructions are absent. This perception
now needs to be revised. Recent investigations by my colleagues and I revealed earlymonumental constructions in the Maya lowlands, which add to the growing dataset onmonumental ceremonial buildings constructed by hunter-gatherers and incipient farmers
in various parts of the world. By highlighting preceramic temples, the researchers of theJapanese Andean Expedition originally emphasized the uniqueness of Andean civilization.
Nonetheless, recent ﬁnds from the Maya area and other parts of the world suggest thatsimilar processes may have happened outside the Andes.

2.

Search for Early Maya Buildings

Our understanding of political processes in the Maya lowlands has been changing
substantially. Until the 1970s, the common perception was that Maya society reached theheight of political development during the Classic period (AD 250–950) with numerous© Japanese Archaeological Association

50

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATE

dynasties prospering across the Maya lowlands. Elaborate temple pyramids and palaces
marked the center of each city, and a sophisticated writing system recorded the deeds ofrulers and dynastic histories.
There were some indications that important social formations happened during thepreceding Preclassic period, but it was not until the 1980s that substantial data on
Preclassic Maya society began to emerge. At the site of El Mirador in the northern partof Guatemala, pyramidal complexes far larger than those of the Classic period were built
during the Late Preclassic (350–75 BC) and Terminal Preclassic (75 BC–AD 250) periods(Hansen & Suyuc Ley 2016). Nonetheless, it was not clear whether political systems
comparable to those of the Classic era existed during these periods. Our knowledge ofearlier periods was limited until recently. Maya archaeologists knew that the Middle
Preclassic period (1000–350 BC) was the period when the occupants of the Maya
lowlands, who were probably speakers of Maya languages, began to use ceramics and tolive in permanent settlements (Hammond 1991; McAnany 2004; Willey 1990). These data
led many scholars to believe that the development of Maya society was gradual, startingwith small villages and slowly developing larger settlements (Adams 1977).
This perception framed the debate among Mesoamerican archaeologists about whether
political changes in lowland Maya society were caused or stimulated by inﬂuence fromthe Olmecs living on the southern Gulf Coast. The Olmec center of San Lorenzo reached
its apogee in the latter part of the Early Preclassic period (1900–1000 BC). This centerboasted a large plateau-like construction, dotted by colossal head sculptures, which likely
depicted rulers (Coe & Diehl 1980; Cyphers 2016). After the decline of San Lorenzo,
another Olmec center of La Venta developed between 800 and 400 BC.
New data emerged during the 2000s and 2010s. Investigations at San Bartolo revealed
elaborate murals depicting a scene of the coronation of a probable ruler dating toaround 100 BC and early Maya texts painted around 300 BC (Saturno et al. 2006). Our
research at Ceibal, Guatemala, and Aguada Fénix, Mexico, have uncovered enormous
constructions, which started around 1100–950 BC (Figure 1). These new ﬁndings
force us to rethink the process of social change in the Maya lowlands. Instead of theprevious perception of gradualism, we need to consider the possibility of profound socialtransformation occurring during the transition from the Early Preclassic to the Middle
Preclassic. Although recognizable dynasties did not emerge until centuries later, these earlymonumental constructions may signal that some elements of later political practices andinstitutions began to form during these early periods.

3.

Question of the StateThe growing data on early monumental constructions force us to re-examine the concept© Japanese Archaeological Association

51

INOMATA Takeshi

Figure 1.

Map of southern Mesoamerica showing the locations of the sites mentioned in the text.

of the state critically. Although state formation has long been an important theme inarchaeology, there is growing criticism of this approach. At issue is whether the concept ofstate is appropriate or useful and whether we are asking the right question by addressing
state formation. More broadly, this problem concerns the critique of the neo-evolutionary
stage model consisting of band, tribe, chiefdom, and state. Although a signiﬁcant numberof scholars have come to reject the concepts of tribe and chiefdom as precursors of thestate (McGuire 1983; Yoﬀee 2004), most archaeologists are probably not ready to abandon
the concept of the state. This is because we now live in a political system that we call thestate. As long as the primary purpose of archaeology is to understand how we got here, thequestion of the state continues to be important. Critics, however, argue that any concepts
or deﬁnitions of the state fail to capture its historical diversity or they impose restrictive
conceptual frames to something that may not exist as a bounded objective reality (Abrams
1988; Mitchell 1991; Smith 2003).
Like many of my colleagues, I think that the concept of the state still has some validity.
Nonetheless, trying to impose a tight deﬁnition or debating whether Preclassic Mayasociety was a state is counterproductive. The deﬁnition of the state remains elusive. Insteadof trying to identify the moment of state formation, we need to examine the dynamics© Japanese Archaeological Association

52

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATEof political systems in their historical contexts, including the early emergence of certain
modes of political practices that share common characteristics with what may be identiﬁed
generally as states. In this regard, Graeber & Wengrow (2021: 507) argue that diﬀerent
elements of the state, including sovereignty, bureaucracy, and a competitive political ﬁeld,
have separate origins. We also need to pay attention to the processes in which certain
political and organizational strategies of states may develop through interaction andcompetition with other states or non-state groups. Other groups that surround a state may
also develop diﬀerent social organization as they actively resist incorporation in the state.
These social forms, then, do not represent evolutionary stages preceding the state but
result from their interaction with the state (Clastres 1977; Scott 2017). In other words, theconcept of the state remains inherently loose and serves mainly for heuristic purposes. Our
goal is to understand broader social processes, including social trajectories over long timespans and relations among multiple groups with diﬀerent forms of political organization.
As a heuristic starting point, we can assume that at least some Classic Maya polities
were states in a broad sense. They had well-established dynasties with charismatic rulers,a sophisticated writing system, populations as large as 60,000, frequent wars involving
attacks on rival cities, and bodies of administrative specialists, although it is not clear
whether they had developed bureaucratic organization (Inomata & Houston 2001). In thispaper, I examine social processes in earlier periods to see which types of political practices
led to those of the Classic period and which ones were modiﬁed or abandoned. The
discoveries of early monumental architecture at Ceibal and Aguada Fénix have encouraged
me to explore two dimensions of such political processes. One is the development of social
inequality, accompanied by certain forms of domination and violence. The other is thecoordination and ordering of a large population (Blanton & Fargher 2008; Carballo et al.
2014). Those two dimensions are co-existing in every state, and we need to examine theirconﬁgurations in speciﬁc historical contexts.

4.

CeibalCeibal is located on top of an escarpment overlooking the Pasión River. Willey directed
the Harvard University Project at this site in the 1960s (Willey 1990). We revisited this site
in 2005 as the Ceibal-Petexbatun Archaeological Project and continued our ﬁeld research
until 2017. Our excavations revealed the earliest formal ceremonial complex called the
E Group known then in the Maya lowlands, dating to 950 BC. The E Group consists ofa western pyramid and an eastern long platform, and this format spread across the Maya
lowlands in later periods. With large platforms placed along the north-south axis of the E
Group, the overall site plan of early Ceibal followed the format that Clark (Clark & Hansen
2001) called the Middle Formative Chiapas (MFC) pattern. This spatial conﬁguration is© Japanese Archaeological Association

53

INOMATA Takeshi

Figure 2.

Lidar-based image of the artiﬁcial plateau at Ceibal.

found at La Venta and various Middle Preclassic centers located in central and southern
Chiapas. The presence of numerous caches containing greenstone axes indicates that the
E-Group complex was a focus of communal ceremonies (Inomata & Triadan 2016).
In 2015, we acquired airborne lidar data over an area of 470km2 around Ceibal. Harvard
researchers produced an excellent map of Ceibal, which showed the central part of the site
as a raised terrain in an amorphous shape. Lidar revealed that this area was an artiﬁcial
plateau in a roughly rectangular shape, measuring 600×340m horizontally and 6 to 15m inheight (Inomata et al. 2019) (Figure 2). The Preclassic component of this plateau was by
far the largest construction of all periods at this site. Despite this large-scale construction
activity, evidence of residential buildings dating to the early Middle Preclassic period
was scarce. In some areas, we found scatters of artifacts on exposed bedrock and small
postholes dug into these surfaces. We hypothesized that between 1000 and 600 BC a
substantial portion of the Ceibal population still maintained a certain level of residential
mobility, living in ephemeral structures and moving seasonally or every few years(Inomata et al. 2015).

© Japanese Archaeological Association

54

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATE

5. Aguada Fénix and the Southern Gulf Coast
After our work at Ceibal, we decided to investigate the Middle Usumacinta region in
the Mexican state of Tabasco. We began the Middle Usumacinta Archaeological Projectin 2017. A high-resolution lidar survey identiﬁed a previously unknown site, which we
named Aguada Fénix. It has an artiﬁcial plateau, measuring 1400×400m horizontallyand 10 to 15m in height and having an E Group in the central part (Inomata et al. 2020)(Figure 3). Ten causeways and corridors extend from the Main Plateau, with the longest
one reaching roughly 6km. The shape of the Main Plateau resembles that of the MFC
pattern, but its rectangular form distinguished it. We decided to call this conﬁguration, theMiddle Formative Usumancinta (MFU) pattern. This artiﬁcial plateau of Aguada Fénix
appears to have originally had 20 platforms along its edges. The number 20 is a base unitof Mesoamerican calendars, and the placement of 20 platforms possibly represents thecosmology held by the builders.
Our excavations showed that this construction began probably around 1100 BC andbuilding activity ceased around 750 BC. The construction volume of the Middle Preclassic
portion of this plateau reached roughly 3,600,000m3, which makes it the largest and oldest
monumental construction in the Maya lowlands, surpassing the pyramidal complexes at
El Mirador. Remarkably, this enormous site was not known before our research. Like the

Figure 3.

Lidar-based image of Aguada Fénix.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

55

INOMATA Takeshi

case of the artiﬁcial plateau of Ceibal, horizontally large buildings are diﬃcult to recognize
from the ground level in this environment. Their overall shapes became clear only throughlidar.
In addition to our high-resolution lidar of the Middle Usumacinta region, we analyzed
the low-resolution lidar obtained by the Mexican governmental agency, Instituto Nacionalde Estadístic y Geografía (INEGI), to examine the distribution of related sites. The INEGI
lidar provided continuous coverage over an area of 85,000km2, including the western Maya
lowlands and the entire Gulf Olmec region. This analysis identiﬁed 478 formal ceremonial
complexes of the late Early Preclassic and Middle Preclassic periods, including MFU and
MFC sites and closely related complexes.
We also analyzed the INEGI lidar data of San Lorenzo. This is an intensively studied
site, and detailed maps of the site have been made (Coe & Diehl 1980). These maps
showed slightly elevated areas in amorphous shapes along the eastern and westernedges of the plateau, which researchers called ridges. The lidar showed that they were
20 rectangular platforms divided by narrow allies (Figure 4). Their edges facing thecentral part of the plateau, in particular, formed well-deﬁned straight lines, deﬁning what

Figure 4. Comparison of the San Lorenzo and Aguada Fénix plateaus on the same scale
Numbers indicate 20 edge platforms. Arrows show the main access ways to the plateaus.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

56

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATE

appears to be an extensive plaza of a rectangular shape, measuring 1030×280m, with asmall eastern projection. The shapes of the San Lorenzo plateau and the Aguada Fénix
plateau are similar, though the former lacks an E Group. Although Cyphers (Cyphers &Murtha 2014) has argued that the central part of the San Lorenzo plateau was occupied
by elite residential complexes, this similarity to Aguada Fénix suggests to me that thisarea was more likely an open plaza. Elite architectural complexes conﬁrmed by Cyphers’s
excavations, including the Red Palace and Group E (not to be confused with the E Group),
are located on the western edge platforms (Cyphers 2016).
Similarities between San Lorenzo and Aguada Fénix are also found in their accesspatterns, consisting of two from the north, two from the south, and two from the west.
These access ways imply that processions were important components of rituals held at
those places. We hypothesize that the prototype of the MFU pattern with 20 edge platforms
representing calendrical symbolism was ﬁrst established at San Lorenzo around 1400–1100
BC. This format was further formalized after 1100 BC in MFU and MFC complexes withthe addition of the E Group. Aguada Fénix likely played an important role in this process.
As we noted for Ceibal, the builders of these complexes may have retained certain
degrees of residential mobility (Arnold 2009). Around many of the early ceremonial
complexes, the lidar data do not show residential mounds or other forms of landscapemodiﬁcations. It is probable that the builders lived in ephemeral structures and moved
their residences frequently. These patterns were shaped partly by the unique subsistence
conditions of Mesoamerica. Although maize was domesticated around 7000 BC, it
took a long time of genetic change for this plant to become a productive crop. Even theresidents of San Lorenzo appear to have relied heavily on wild resources (Cyphers &Zurita-Noguera 2012). The inhabitants of various parts of Mesoamerica began to rely moreon maize between 2000 and 1000 BC, but some groups possibly continued mobile lifeways
for some centuries after 1000 BC to use aquatic food and other wild resources along withmaize. The spread of standardized ceremonial complexes over broad areas happened
during this time of profound change in subsistence and lifestyle.

6.

Discussion

Comparable early monumental constructions have been reported from across the world.
In the American Southeast, the site of Poverty Point, built by hunter-gatherers between
1700 and 1100 BC, has long been known, but it has received renewed interest recently(Kidder 2011). In the same area, the even older site of Watson Brake is dated to around3400–3000 BC (Saunders et al. 1997). In Florida and other parts of the Southeastern Coast,shell mounds of monumental proportions, created mainly between 4500 and 3000 BC,
were probably not simple accumulations of food refuse but monumental constructions© Japanese Archaeological Association

57

INOMATA Takeshi

intentionally built by hunter-gatherers (Sassaman 2004). Comparable monumental shellmounds are also found in Brazil (Fish et al. 2013), and Clark & Hodgson (2021) argue
that large shell mounds on the Paciﬁc Coast of southern Mexico, dating as early as 5000
or 6000 BC, were comparable monumental buildings. Particularly striking examples are
the site of Göbekli Tepe and related Neolithic remains in Turkey with elaborately carved
stone monuments, dating to 9500–8000 BC (Schmidt 2010). Moreover, the large woodenbuildings at Sannai-Maruyama and other Jomon sites in Japan represent monumental
constructions by hunter-gatherers (Habu 2008), and Stonehenge and megalithic
constructions in Neolithic Europe were built by early farmers or mixed subsistence
practitioners (Pearson 2012).
Comparison of these examples from various parts of the world allows us to evaluate
the argument made by the researchers of the Japanese Andean Expedition from a crosscultural perspective by examining their commonalities and diﬀerences. Those examples
make it clear that large constructions could be built without a state or a hierarchical polity.
Many of those early monuments, particularly Göbekli Tepe, Watson Brake, Poverty Point,
and Stonehenge, were most likely places of gathering in certain periods of the year, forwhich some participants appear to have traveled long distances. This pattern probably
applies to Aguada Fénix, early Ceibal, and related sites in southern Mesoamerica. Althoughsettlements at Aguada Fénix are poorly understood, we do not have any indication thata large number of people required for its constructions lived there on a permanent basis.
Mobile hunter-gathers and horticulturalists commonly gather in larger groups at certain
times of the year, which often represent occasions for elaborate rituals. The constructionof Aguada Fénix may have developed from an earlier tradition of seasonal gathering andceremony. Those possible predecessors may have built ephemeral ceremonial buildings,
which did not leave archaeologically-recognizable traces. The builders of Aguada Fénix
may have decided to transform the earlier ephemeral form of ceremonial construction into
a permanent and prominent landmark.
Early monumental buildings do not always lead directly to the formation of states. In
the Near East, it took roughly ﬁve millennia from monument erections at Göbekli Tepeto the emergence of dynasties. In the American Southeast, the large polity of Cahokia did
not develop until more than two millennia after the constructions at Poverty Point, and it
is questionable whether Cahokia can be called a state even in the broadest deﬁnition. In
Japan, Sannai-Maruyama was abandoned around 2300 BC, long before the emergence of
the Yamato state. In those cases, it is diﬃcult to argue that early monumental constructions
contributed to later state formation in any meaningful ways. They may be better viewed
as examples of people experimenting with diverse forms of social organization in various
historical moments, as discussed by Graeber & Wengrow (2021).
Along with the examples from the Andes, Aguada Fénix, Ceibal, and related sites© Japanese Archaeological Association

58

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATE

in southern Mesoamerica may have led to the formation of states in a more direct way.
Those Maya sites are substantially later than examples from other parts of the world.
As discussed before, this is partly due to the genetic history of maize. In the Andes, theearlier development of productive maize in South America and extremely rich marine
resources may have allowed the earlier emergence of monumental constructions. Afterthe early constructions at Aguada Fénix and Ceibal, Maya society (although it is not clear
whether the builders of Aguada Fénix can be called the Maya) showed a fairly steady andstraightforward trajectory toward the formation of states, with the full establishment ofsedentism in a few centuries, the growth of large settlements that may be called cities in six
centuries or so, and the emergence of dynasties in roughly thousand years.
As to the two dimensions of social change tied to state formation, the constructions at
Aguada Fénix and Ceibal clearly represent a profound transformation in terms of collective
cooperation and coordination on a large scale. As to social inequality, however, they do notappear to show noticeable change from the preceding period. Like many other examplesof early monuments, Aguada Fénix and the initial stage of Ceibal were probably built
by groups without marked social inequality, which contrasts with the Olmec centers of
San Lorenzo and La Venta where the presence of rulers are indicated by stone sculptures.
The builders of Aguada Fénxi and Ceibal may even have activity resisted the hierarchicalorganization. Those of Aguada Fénix, in particular, possibly had direct contact with San
Lorenzo. While they adopted the spatial template of a plateau and its symbolism developed
at the Olmec center, they did not accept the Olmec sculptural style tied to elite ideology.
The only sculpture found at Aguada Fénix so far shows a naturalistic representation of a
peccary.
Similar processes probably happened at Ceibal, where the MFC pattern reﬂects thebuilders’ close contact with the inhabitants of central Chiapas. Although the western
pyramid of the E Group at Chiapa de Corzo contained tombs of rulers or high elites(Bachand & Lowe 2012), our tunnel excavation through the core of the western pyramid
at Ceibal did not reveal any interment. Nor did the intensive investigations by the Harvard
project and our team uncover any Olmec-style sculptures. The horizontally extensive
forms of the plateaus at Aguada Fénix and Ceibal also reﬂect organization without marked
inequality. In contrast to the emphasis on pyramids in later periods, which allowed
only a small number of privileged individuals to access their summits, the horizontal
monumentality of early buildings provided inclusive spaces, in which community members
could gather on the same level.
It is, however, a mistake to think that the builders of Aguada Fénix and Ceibal had
egalitarian organization. The presence of caches with portable objects, including personal
ornaments, suggests that there were some individuals with higher authority, who playeda central role in organizing construction and ceremony. In addition, Graeber & Wengrow© Japanese Archaeological Association

59

INOMATA Takeshi(2021) point out that some ethnographically-known groups, including the Crow in
the American Plains, had seasonally-shifting political organization, in which certain
individuals or groups were vested with stronger power during the periods of gatheringand ceremony. They go on to suggest that such seasonally-shifting power structures
may have existed among the builders of early monuments. Although such temporalpolitical structures would be diﬃcult to detect archaeologically, they present an intriguing
possibility for Aguada Fénix and Ceibal.
A comparable pattern may apply to San Lorenzo. In this case, we may need to consider
the possibility that the level of social inequality at San Lorenzo was lower than commonly
assumed. If our interpretation that the ﬂat area on the San Lorenzo plateau was an open
plaza is correct, it may represent an inclusive space where community members, including
lower-status individuals, could gather. This view contrast with that of Cyphers (2016: 96;
Cyphers & Murtha 2014), which suggests that the summit of the San Lorenzo plateau wasa more exclusive space for the elites. If so, the power of San Lorenzo rulers may haveﬂuctuated according to the ritual cycle of gathering and dispersal. During the time of ritualand construction, people followed the orders given by the rulers and their advisors, but
after they return to their villages, the authority of the rulers may have made little eﬀect on
their lives.
We may hypothesize that the organizers of public ceremonies and ritual specialists at
Aguada Fénix and early Ceibal provided a prototype for later Maya rulership. Ceremonial
events and public performance were closely tied to the nature of Maya elite power during
the Classic period (Demarest 1992; Inomata 2006a, 2021; Inomata & Coben 2006). Maya
rulers not only sponsored large public ceremonies but also acted as the main protagonists,
through oral performance, dance, and processions, which were recorded on stelae andlintels. The importance of public events suggests that the temporally-shifting nature ofroyal power persisted even in the Classic period to a certain degree. Such public eventswere the occasions on which numerous participants could witness and experience theirrelations with the rulers and other community members, thus constituting and renewing
royal power. Once non-elites returned to their daily routine, the perceived tie to thesovereign and thus the eﬀects of royal power on people’s lives may have diminished(Inomata 2006a). I should also note that, while public ceremonies were the primaryoccasions for the expression of royal power, they presented dangerous moments for theelites. In those events, aberrant behavior and discourse were possibly permitted or evenencouraged as suggested by the representations of ritual humor in ﬁgurines and paintings(Inomata 2006b; Taube 1989). It appears that the strong connection of royal power withpublic events represented a precarious balance between the gloriﬁcation of rulers and thepresentation of elite ideology on the one hand and the subversion of the ordinary order on
the other.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

60

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATE

We should now return to the other dimension of social change, that is, collective
collaboration and coordination. We need to explore how those large constructions became
possible without a state or even pronounced social inequality. If our hypothesis that
there was a pre-existing tradition of seasonal gatherings and ceremonies is correct, thecollective action required for the construction of artiﬁcial plateaus may have developed
from these earlier practices. Still, these constructions probably involved substantiallylarger numbers of people for more prolonged periods. These large building projects meant
unprecedented experiments for those who were involved. This level of collaboration may
have become possible through a growing sense of communal obligations, which may havebeen stimulated by an increased reliance on maize cultivation. We should also consider the
potential eﬀect that construction projects have on people’s dispositions. It is diﬃcult forsocial agents to conceptualize abstract ideas about new social organization, and it is evenmore diﬃcult to persuade others to work toward a new social form. Buildings, in contrast,
can give a concrete image that many people can share and work on even before they werebuilt. The construction plan of a public building that would represent a cosmological view
and oﬀer a communal space for gathering and ritual possibly presented a common goal
toward which many people could work together. In this sense, change in social relations
was probably not a pre-condition for a large construction project but an unintended
consequence of working together toward this goal. Likewise, large public ceremonies heldin those locations provided attractions for many people by presenting religious persuasion,
the excitement of festivity and feasting, opportunities to meet potential mates, and settingsfor economic exchange. Such attractions were strong enough to bring people from distantplaces and to encourage them to endure hard physical work for the construction of
ceremonial spaces.
An important eﬀect of this process was probably the creation of political subjects who
are willing to accept such communal obligations at the expense of personal liberty, whichbrings us back to the issue of social inequality. As practice and performance theories
explain (Bell 1992; Bourdieu 1977), the speciﬁc work that people perform and the way
it is performed in relation to other individuals create the reality of social relations, andthe understanding of their positions in this web of social relations become internalized intheir minds. It follows that, as much as society makes a building, a building makes society.
Although the large constructions at Aguada Fénix and Ceibal may have started without
pronounced social inequality, they created a basis on which more hierarchical organization
could be accepted or tolerated by the mass in later periods.

7.

Conclusion

The growing dataset of early monumental constructions in the Maya area and other© Japanese Archaeological Association

61

INOMATA Takeshi

parts of the world underscore the importance of the pioneering contribution made by
the researchers of the Japanese Andean Expedition. Although the Japanese Andeanists
originally emphasized the uniqueness of Andean civilization, recent ﬁnds suggest that
their thesis may be applicable to other areas of the world and encourage us to explore
diversity in social processes tied to early monumental constructions. In some areas, earlymonumental constructions made by hunter-gatherers or incipient farmers do not appear
to have led directly to the formation of states, which contrasts with the prevalence of
preceramic temples and the persistent centrality of temple construction in the Andes
through its history. In the Maya area, monumental constructions appeared later thanmany other areas of the world, but those at Aguada Fénix and Ceibal were built probably
by groups with certain levels of residential mobility and without pronounced social
inequality. These constructions likely triggered a social process toward the development of
hierarchical polities in the Maya area.
These ﬁnds of early ceremonial constructions also compel us to move beyond therestrictive approach to the state and to examine broader social processes, including thoseof social inequality and collective action. In the Maya lowlands, the organizers of earlymonumental constructions and ceremonies may have provided a prototype for later Maya
rulers, whose power was closely tied to ceremonial events and public performance. In
this regard, those early predecessors may have conditioned the nature of later Mayaroyal power, including its temporal ﬂuctuation and the conﬂicting dimensions of politicalnegotiation through public events, that is, the expression of elite ideology on the one hand
and the subversion of the ordinary order on the other.
Early monumental buildings probably provided concrete images that many people
could share and a common goal toward which they could work together. While thebuilders of Aguada Fénix and Ceibal adopted the building templates developed by thoseof San Lorenzo and other hierarchical groups, they appear to have originally resisted thehierarchical organization of the Olmec center. The acts of working together, however,probably created political subjects who are willing to accept communal obligations andtheir positions in the broader structure of social relations. In this regard, those early
construction projects possibly produced a social basis on which more hierarchical relations
were accepted or tolerated in later periods.

Acknowledgements
An early version of this paper was presented online at the 87th Annual Meeting of
the Japanese Archaeological Association in 2021. I thank Professor SASAKI Ken’ichi for the kind invitation. My research in the Ceibal and Middle Usumacinta regions
was carried out under permits granted by the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de© Japanese Archaeological Association

62

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATE

Guatemala and the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia with support from theAlphawood Foundation, the National Science Foundation of the USA (BCS-0750808,
BCS-1826909, and BCS-1950988), the National Endowment for the Humanities of the
USA (RZ-51209-10), and the National Geographic Society.

References
Abrams, P. 1988. Notes on the diﬃculty of studying the state (1977). Journal of historicalsociology 1(1): 58–89.
Adams, R.E.W. 1977. The origins of Maya civilization. Albuquerque: University of New
Mexico Press.
Arnold, P.J., III. 2009. Settlement and subsistence among the Early Formative Gulf Olmec.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28: 397–411.
Bachand, B.R. & L.S. Lowe. 2012. Chiapa de Corzo’s Mound 11 tomb and the Middle
Formative Olmec, in L.S. Lowe & M.E. Pye (ed.) Arqueología reciente de Chiapas:
contribuciones del encuentro celebrado en el 600 aniversario de la Fundación
Arqueológica Nuevo Mundo: 45–68. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University.
Bell, C.M. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blanton, R.E. & L. Fargher. 2008. Collective action in the formation of pre-modern states.
New York: Springer.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Burger, R.L. & R.M. Rosenswig (ed.) 2012. Early New World monumentality. Gainsville:
University Press of Florida.
Carballo, D.M., P. Roscoe & G.M. Feinman. 2014. Cooperation and collective action in
the cultural evolution of complex societies. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 21(1): 98–133.
Clark, J.E., & R.D. Hansen. 2001. Architecture of early kingship: Comparative
perspectives on the origins of the Maya royal court, in T. Inomata & S.D. Houston(ed.) Royal courts of the ancient Maya, Volume 2: data and case studies: 1–45.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Clark, J.E. & J.G. Hodgson 2021. Wetland villages in Soconusco, 6000–2000 BCE: A newinterpretation of Archaic shell mounds, in J.C. Lohse, A. Borejsza & A.A. Joyce (ed.)
Preceramic Mesoamerica: 420–447. New York: Routledge.
Clastres, P. 1977. Society against the state. Oxford: Blackwell.
Coe, M.D. & R.A. Diehl. 1980. In the land of the Olmec. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Cyphers, A. 2016. The Early Preclassic Olmec: An overview, in L.P. Traxler & R.J. Sharer(ed.) The origins of Maya states: 83–122. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.
Cyphers, A. & T. Murtha. 2014. Early Olmec open spaces at San Lorenzo, Veracruz, in
K. Tsukamoto & T. Inomata (ed.) Mesoamerican plazas: Arenas of community and© Japanese Archaeological Association

63

INOMATA Takeshi

power: 71–89. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Cyphers, A. & J. Zurita-Noguera. 2012. Early Olmec wetland mounds: Investing energy
to produce energy, in R.L. Burger & R.M. Rosenswig (ed.) Early New World
Monumentality: 138–173. Gainsville: University Press of Florida.
Demarest, A.A. 1992. Ideology in acient Maya cultural evolution: The dynamics ofgalactic polities, in A.A. Demarest & G.W. Conrad (ed.) Ideology and Pre-Colombian
civilizations: 135–158. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press.
Fish, P.R., S.K. Fish, P. DeBlasis & M.D. Gaspar. 2013. Monumental shell mounds as
persistent places in southern coastal Brazil, in V.D. Thompson & J.C. Waggoner, Jr.
(ed.) The archaeology and historical ecology of small scale economies: 120–140.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Graeber, D. & D. Wengrow. 2021. The dawn of everything: a new history of humanity.
New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Habu, J. 2008. Growth and decline in complex hunter-gatherer societies: A case study fromthe Jomon period Sannai Maruyama site, Japan. Antiquity 82(317): 571–584.
Hammond, N. 1991. Cuello: An early Maya community in Belize. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hansen, R.D. & E. Suyuc Ley. 2016. Mirador. Guatemala City: FARES Guatemala.
INOMATA Takeshi 2006a. Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of theClassic Maya. Current anthropology 47: 805–842.
INOMATA Takeshi 2006b. Politics and theatricality in Maya society, in T. Inomata & L.S.
Coben (ed.) Archaeology of performance: theaters of power, community, and politics:
187–222. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
INOMATA Takeshi 2021. Public Architecture in Ancient Mesoamerica, in M. Aldenderfer(ed.) Oxford research encyclopedia of anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
INOMATA Takeshi & L.S. Coben. 2006. Archaeology of performance: Theaters of power,
community, and politics. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
INOMATA Takeshi & S. Houston. 2001. Royal courts of the ancient Maya, Volume 1:
Theory, comparison, and synthesis. Boulder: Westview.
INOMATA Takeshi, J. MacLellan, D. Triadan, J. Munson, M. Burham, K. Aoyama, H.
Nasu, F. Pinzon & H. Yonenobu. 2015. Development of sedentary communities
in the Maya lowlands: Coexisting mobile groups and public ceremonies at Ceibal,
Guatemala. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 112(14): 4268–4273.
INOMATA Takeshi & D. Triadan. 2016. Middle Preclassic Caches from Ceibal,
Guatemala. Maya Archaeology 3: 56–91.
INOMATA Takeshi, D. Triadan, F. Pinzón & K. Aoyama. 2019. Large plateau construction
during the Preclassic period at the Maya site of Ceibal, Guatemala. PLoS ONE 14(8):e0221943.
INOMATA Takeshi, D. Triadan, V.A. Vázquez López, J.C. Fernandez-Diaz, T. Omori,© Japanese Archaeological Association

64

EARLY MONUMENTAL CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE MAYA LOWLANDS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THEORY OF THE STATE

M.B. Méndez Bauer, M. García Hernández, T. Beach, C. Cagnato, K. Aoyama &H. Nasu. 2020. Monumental architecture at Aguada Fénix and the rise of Maya
civilization. Nature 582: 530–533.
IZUMI Seiichi & SONO Toshihiko. 1963. Andes 2: excavations at Kotosh, Peru. Tokyo:
Kadokawa.
Kidder, T.R. 2011. Transforming hunter-gatherer history at Poverty Point, in K.E.
Sassaman & D.H. Holly (ed.) Hunter-gatherer archaeology as historical process:
95–119. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
McAnany, P.A. 2004. K’axob: Ritual, work and family in an ancient Maya village. Los
Angeles: University of California Los Angeles, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
McGuire, R.H. 1983. Breaking down cultural complexity: inequality and heterogeneity.
Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 91–141.
Mitchell, T. 1991. The limits of the state: beyond statist approaches and their critics.
American Political Science Review 85(1): 77–96.
ONUKI Yoshio 1995. Kuntur Wasi y Cerro Blanco. Tokyo: Hokusen-sha.
Parker Pearson, M. 2012. Stonehenge: exploring the greatest Stone Age mystery. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Sassaman, K.E. 2004. Complex hunter-gatherers in evolution and history: A North
American perspective. Journal of Archaeological Research 12: 227–280.
Saturno, W.A., D. Stuart & B. Beltrán. 2006. Early Maya writing at San Bartolo,
Guatemala. Science: 1281–1283.
Saunders, J.W., R.D. Mandel, R.T. Saucier, E.T. Allen, C.T. Hallmark, J.K. Johnson, E.H.
Jackson, C.M. Allen, G.L. Stringer, D.S. Frink, J.K. Feathers, S. Williams, K.J.
Gremillion, M.F. Vidrine & R. Jones. 1997. A mound complex in Louisiana at
5400–5000 years before the present. Science 277(5333): 1796–1799.
Schmidt, K. 2010. Göbekli Tepe--the Stone Age sanctuaries: New results of ongoing
excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica
37: 239–255.
Scott, J.C. 2017. Against the grain: a deep history of the earliest states. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Shady Solis, R., J. Haas & W. Creamer. 2001. Dating Caral, a preceramic site in the Supe
Valley on the Central Coast of Peru. Science 292(5517): 723–726.
Smith, A.T. 2003. The political landscape: Constellations of authority in early complex
polities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stanish, C. 2017. The evolution of human co-operation: ritual and social complexity instateless societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taube, K. 1989. Ritual Humor in Classic Maya Religion, in W.F. Hanks & D.S. Rice(ed.) Word and image in Maya culture: explorations in language, writing, andrepresentation: 351–382. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
TERADA Kazuo & ONUKI Yoshio. 1988. Las excavaciones en Cerro Blanco y
Huacaloma, Cajamarca, Perú, 1985. Tokyo: Universidad de Tokio.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

65INOMATA Takeshi

Willey, G.R. 1990. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Generalsummary and conclusions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Yoﬀee, N. 2004. Myths of the archaic state: Evolution of the earliest cities, states andcivilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

66