Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World

Transcription

1 Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World

2 Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia Series Editors Joanne Pillsbury Mary E. Pye Editorial Board Elizabeth Hill Boone Tom Cummins David Webster

3 Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury Editors Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C.

4 2013 Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Merchants, markets, and exchange in the Pre-Columbian world / Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, editors. p. cm. (Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian symposia and colloquia) Includes index. ISBn (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Indians of Mexico Commerce. 2. Indians of Mexico Economic conditions. 3. Indians of Mexico Antiquities. 4. Indians of Central America Commerce. 5. Indians of Central America Economic conditions. 6. Indians of Central America Antiquities. 7. Indians of South America Andes Region Commerce. 8. Indians of South America Andes Region Economic conditions. 9. Indians of South America Andes Region Antiquities. I. Hirth, Ken. II. Pillsbury, Joanne. f c6m dc General editors: Joanne Pillsbury and Mary E. Pye Art director: Kathleen Sparkes Design and composition: Melissa Tandysh Managing editor: Sara Taylor Volume based on papers presented at the Pre-Columbian Studies symposium Merchants, Trade, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, held at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C., on October 8 9, Jacket illustration: Disguised merchants on the road to Tzinacantlan. Reproduced from Bernardino de Sahagún, Historia de las cosas de Nueva España (Madrid: Hauser y Menet, ).

5 co n t e n t s Preface and Acknowledgments vii Joanne Pillsbury 1 Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World 1 Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury 2 Cooperation and the Moral Economy of the Marketplace 23 Richard E. Blanton 3 Merchants and Merchandise: The Archaeology of Aztec Commerce at Otumba, Mexico 49 Deborah L. Nichols 4 The Merchant s World: Commercial Diversity and the Economics of Interregional Exchange in Highland Mesoamerica 85 Kenneth G. Hirth 5 The Social Organization of Craft Production and Interregional Exchange at Teotihuacan 113 David M. Carballo 6 Negotiating Aztec Tributary Demands in the Tribute Record of Tlapa 141 Gerardo Gutiérrez 7 People of the Road: Traders and Travelers in Ancient Maya Words and Images 169 Alexandre Tokovinine and Dmitri Beliaev 8 Wide Open Spaces: A Long View of the Importance of Maya Market Exchange 201 Marilyn A. Masson and David A. Freidel 9 Artisans, Ikatz, and Statecraft: Provisioning Classic Maya Royal Courts 229 Patricia A. McAnany 10 Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands: A Jade Case Study 255 Brigitte Kovacevich 11 Economic Mobility, Exchange, and Order in the Andes 283 Tom D. Dillehay v

6 12 In the Realm of the Incas 309 Enrique Mayer 13 In the Realm of the Incas: An Archaeological Reconsideration of Household Exchange, Long-Distance Trade, and Marketplaces in the Pre-Hispanic Central Andes 319 Richard L. Burger 14 Exchange on the Equatorial Frontier: A Comparison of Ecuador and Northern Peru 335 John R. Topic 15 Embedded Andean Economic Systems and the Expansive Tiwanaku State: A Case for a State without Market Exchange 361 Paul S. Goldstein 16 Circulating Objects and the Constitution of South Andean Society (500 bc ad 1550) 389 Axel E. Nielsen 17 Barter Markets in the Pre-Hispanic Andes 419 Charles Stanish and Lawrence S. Coben 18 Discussion 435 Barry L. Isaac Contributors 449 Index 455 vi contents

7 p r e fa c e and a c k n o w l e d g m e n t s The papers in this volume were originally presented at a symposium entitled Merchants, Trade, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, organized with Ken Hirth at Dumbarton Oaks on October 8th and 9th, My first acknowledgment must be to Ken, who made the entire process from planning to publishing an absolute delight. His great insight into the topic of trade and exchange, as well as his endless intellectual curiosity about and enthusiasm for the subject across the Americas, made the event and the resulting volume especially stimulating. I would also like to thank the authors of this volume for their willingness to share their data and ideas, and for working together to complete this book in a timely fashion. I am grateful to many individuals who helped organize the symposium and who supported the present volume. In particular, I would like to thank the director of Dumbarton Oaks, Jan Ziolkowski; William L. Fash; and the members of the board of senior fellows, including Barbara Arroyo, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Tom Cummins, Virginia Fields, Charles Stanish, Gary Urton, and David Webster. Emily Gulick Jacobs was pivotal in all stages of the symposium and this publication, and I am eternally in her debt for her contributions, both large and small. Two interns, Ari Caramanica and Michelle Young, were essential to the overall success of the symposium itself, and a third intern, Alexandra Méndez, worked tirelessly to prepare this volume during the summer of I am grateful to Ben Benus, Kinya Inokuchi, Yuichi Matsumoto, Yoshio Onuki, and Yutaka Yoshii for their help in obtaining images for several chapters. I offer my sincere thanks to the three anonymous reviewers for their detailed and thoughtful advice on an early draft of this volume. This publication would not have been possible without the assistance of Reiko Ishihara-Brito, whose significant contributions to the final editorial stages were above and beyond the call of duty. I am grateful to Amanda Sparrow for her graceful copyediting and to Melissa Tandysh for her elegant design. Finally, Kathleen Sparkes, director of publications at Dumbarton Oaks, and Sara Taylor, art and archaeology editor, shepherded the book into print with grace, insight, and endless good humor. Joanne Pillsbury vii

8 10 P Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands A Jade Case Study b r i g i t t e k o va c e v i c h An understanding of the organization of production and exchange of goods such as jade, shell, obsidian, chert, and textiles has proven to be quite challenging for Maya scholars. The answers to questions of who produced these items (i.e., elites or commoners, men or women), how they were transported and exchanged across the landscape, what routes were taken, and who consumed these objects still elude us to a great degree. Part of the problem may be due to the highly variable nature of classic Maya polities, as well as changes in economic systems through time, but another contributing factor to these debates has been the traditional focus on elite contexts to the exclusion of commoner households (i.e., robin 2003). This situation is beginning to be remedied, and new research is revealing an even more complicated picture than what was expected in many cases. The production and exchange of jade artifacts highlight intertwined relationships between the status of the crafters, the location of the centers near valuable resources and trade routes, political ties and alliances, and also the power of elites and nonelites over their political and economic destinies. once argued to be the sole province of the classic Maya elite, jade has been shown to have been crafted by commoners as well. its exchange patterns are equally as confounding, possibly not restricted to spheres of elite exchange and maybe even traded in markets. commoners not only created jade artifacts, but also they may have consumed them in some forms. The entangled nature of the production and exchange of jade reflects the intricacies of the classic Maya economic system as a whole and can provide a window into these economic patterns. For this reason, i will focus here on how jade was produced and consumed during the classic period, with an emphasis on evidence from the site of cancuen, guatemala (Figure 10.1). timothy earle (1981) characterized the nature of the organization of production in preindustrial societies as including independent and attached forms of specialization. independent craft specialization refers to the creation of goods for an 255

9 figure 10.1 Map of Guatemala showing the location of Cancuen. (Map created by Brigitte Kovacevich.) unspecified demand crowd by persons working outside of elite control; attached specialization involves production for a specific elite demand crowd who control part or all of production and derive power and prestige from the control of production and/ or products (Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Earle 1981). According to these definitions, independent specialists generally make subsistence or utilitarian goods, usually distributed widely, for an unspecified demand crowd. This type of production usually arises in response to unevenly distributed resources and/or economic and demographic stress. Attached 256 Kovacevich

10 specialists typically (but not always) manufacture prestige goods, wealth items, or weapons for a specific demand crowd; these items are usually distributed in a restricted manner among elites. This type of production could have been stimulated by increasing political complexity and the emergence of elites (Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Costin 1991). For many archaeologists, these categories were seen to form a polarized dichotomy, although this may not have been the original intent, and they were seen by the original proponents to form more along a continuum (see especially Costin 1991). These two categories have made it easy for many Maya scholars to dichotomize several issues in relation to craft production and exchange (see also Masson 2002:2 3). For example, as attached specialization is to independent, full-time specialization is to part-time, production and distribution of prestige and wealth items is to utilitarian items, and elite involvement is to nonelite involvement, facilitating a dual economy model. Recent studies in the Maya region have revealed the recondite nature of these relationships and suggested that simple dichotomized categories cannot explain the organization of Maya economic systems. As Patricia McAnany (2010:14), Christian Wells, and Karla Davis-Salazar (Wells 2007; Wells and Davis- Salazar 2007) have pointed out, the Maya economy is entangled in ritual process. Ritual may have been the original stimulus for craft production in many cases, and economic functions cannot be examined independently of ritual and ideological concerns. Following this path, the distinction between prestige and utilitarian items can also be problematic (Hirth 2009:4; Hruby 2003; Masson 2002:12), as many goods that circulated outside of elite or prestige spheres were ritually charged and could cross the boundary into items of wealth. Traditionally viewed luxury items, such as jade, may have been much more widely distributed among different social groups (e.g., Garber 1993; Guderjan 2007:81 88; Moholy-Nagy 1994:88, 1997:301; Palka 1995:20; Rochette 2009; Rochette and Pellecer Alecio 2008). Scholars are also questioning the argument that economic power lies purely in the hands of the elite (Masson 2002; McAnany 2010; Wells 2007). As Rochette (2009) has demonstrated, commoners were involved in the creation of wealth items, such as jade in the Middle Motagua Valley in Guatemala, and as Potter and King (1995) have pointed out for chert production at Colha, Belize, nonelite producers were not always impoverished individuals attached to elites and dependent on them for their livelihoods. Research by Inomata (2001), Webster (1989, 1992), and Widmer (2009) have found that often elites were involved in the crafting of prestige goods, but at the same time they may have been engaged in attached and independent forms of specialization (Inomata 2001). Nearly all of these contexts for specialized production took place within the household (e.g., Ball 1993; Freidel 1981; McAnany 1993, 1995), whether it was by elites or nonelites, and was often on a part-time basis, as evidence of multicrafting or intermittent crafting attest (Hirth 2009). Examples of workshop -type production as defined in the Old World (e.g., Peacock 1982; Van der Leeuw 1976) have not been discovered for the Maya (although, see Murata 2011). Nevertheless, many scholars have argued that this does not relegate the Maya to a lower level of political and economic complexity, and, in reality, the economic structure can be just as nuanced as Old World examples, yet not in the traditional sense (e.g., Costin 2000; Freidel 1981). The domestic and institutional sectors of the economy, as discussed by Hirth and Pillsbury (this volume), may have been linked and not disembedded from one another (e.g., Kovacevich 2007; Sheets 2000). In terms of distribution, the situation may have been equally as complicated, as market systems (Chase 1998; Fry 1979, 1980; West 2002), gifting and redistribution (Rice 1987; Sabloff and Rathje 1975; Tourtellot and Sabloff 1972), and tribute (McAnany et al. 2002) may have all existed simultaneously (Fry 1980; Masson 2002:8; Masson and Freidel, this volume; McAnany 2010; Sheets 2000). As Hirth and Pillsbury (this volume) point out, economic systems are accumulative and conservative, often retaining and articulating previous forms of production and distribution as changes occur. Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands 257

11 As the data in this chapter will demonstrate, the production and exchange of jade objects in the Maya region during the Classic period (ad ) support arguments for an economic system entangled in ritual and ideology with multiple interacting spheres. Although it was a wealth good, jade was also a raw material used to make ritual paraphernalia for the elite (Taube 2005); at the same time, jade was sometimes produced and used by nonelites (Kovacevich 2006, 2007, 2011; Rochette 2009). Its distribution may have followed two paths, not just along elite, vertical exchange networks (i.e., Marcus 1983), but also in less restricted spheres (i.e., Lesure 1999) and possibly even in the market, in some forms (Freidel 1993; Freidel et al. 2002). As unworked jade was apparently very difficult to restrict and has not been recovered solely in elite contexts (Hirth 2009:4; Rochette 2009) elites may have been able to regulate a part of this production and distribution possibly through sumptuary laws and ideological control (Kovacevich 2006). Certain finished jade artifacts were much more widely consumed than others. For example, jade beads at the site of Cancuen were much more widely distributed than were carved plaques or pendants. These distribution patterns also suggest that jade was created in attached and independent forms of craft production (see also Inomata 2001). Jadeite and Its Properties Jade is a general term for the minerals jadeite and nephrite. While it has been argued that both jadeite and nephrite occur in Mesoamerica, nephrite does not appear to have been exploited by ancient populations (Taube and Ishihara-Brito 2012). Jadeite is a pyroxene mineral composed of sodium, aluminum, and silicates (NaAlSi 2 O 6 ). Depending on its chemical composition, jadeite in Mesoamerica can be green, blue, lavender, white, pink, or black in color. Green jade, highly prized by ancient Mesoamericans, derives its hue mainly from the presence of chromium and nickel (Kovacevich et al. 2005). To the ancient Maya, jade and the color green or green-blue symbolized maize, fertility, centrality, axis mundi, nobility, and life s breath or essence (Coe 1988; Miller and Taube 1993; Schele and Freidel 1990; Taube 1996, 1998, 2000, 2005; Taube and Ishihara-Brito 2012). The production and possession of jade objects would certainly allude to the control of these forces and elevate the status of the possessor, but, as mentioned previously, jade was not necessarily restricted to elite contexts. Jadeite is a very hard mineral, scoring 6.5 to 7.0 on Mohs scale of hardness, with talc as the softest at 1 and diamond being the hardest at 10. Other related minerals (i.e., albite, diopside, chloromelanite, etc.) are softer than jadeite (see also Kovacevich 2011). While jadeite was much more time-consuming and difficult to work (Lange and Bishop 1988), it yielded a better and longer-lasting polish and luster. Jadeite is also very rare: Guatemala has one of only six known sources of the mineral worldwide (Foshag and Leslie 1955), and the Motagua fault zone of Guatemala is, as of yet, the only source of jadeite outcrops in Mesoamerica (Kovacevich 2012). The scarcity and durability of jade certainly contribute to its value, in the past as well as today. Hammond and colleagues (1977:61) have de - scribed the application of the term jade to nonjadeite greenstones as social jade. They argue that patterns of jadeite inclusion in burials at Cuello demonstrate that the Maya could differentiate between jadeite and other greenstones: men were buried with jadeite artifacts, whereas women and children were laid to rest with social jade (Hammond 1999:58). As Hammond and colleagues (1977:61) note, other greenstones are often confused with jadeite by modern scholars, but these minerals have very different properties of workability and luster, making them inferior for use as adornments. The inclusion of these nonjadeite greenstones as well as ceramic beads painted blue (i.e., at Piedras Negras; Kovacevich and Hruby 2005) in royal tombs suggests that the color and the idea of jade were so highly prized that known fakes could be substituted and still convey elevated status and ritual importance. In fact, some scholars have suggested that highly valued artifacts often have similar counterparts or counterfeits that circulated more widely and contributed to the value 258 Kovacevich

12 of the original (Lesure 1999; Freidel et al. 2002). These gradations of value, as well as the existence of social jade, imply that jadeite and greenstones possibly circulated in multiple spheres of the economy. In addition, the evidence from Cuello and the following Postclassic Aztec example suggest that ancient Mesoamerican populations could distinguish between different qualities of jadeite and other greenstones, something that can prove to be more challenging for modern scholars. Jade in this work is used to refer to artifacts that are assumed to have jadeite as a major component, although some are certainly lesser-quality greenstones. In Postclassic-period Aztec and Classic-period Maya society, there were different values attached to different greenstones, and they may be found in varying contexts, suggesting that jade and greenstones may have been exchanged in multiple economic spheres. Ethnohistoric sources often refer to greenstones as chalchihuites (more properly, xalxihuitli), meaning herb-colored jewel in Nahuatl (Foshag 1957:7). Sahagún ( :11: ) notes that the Aztecs used many terms to refer to the color and quality of greenstones. Quetzalitztli ( Quetzal obsidian ) referred to bright, emeraldgreen stones that resembled Chinese imperial jade. Quetzachalchihuitl ( Quetzal greenstone ) described high-quality, transparent stones without imperfections. Chalchihuites were green and of good quality, but opaque. Finally, xihuitl and teoxihuitl probably referred to common and fine turquoise. These identifications convey that certain jades were attributed to specific statuses during the Postclassic period, and such relegation also may have been the case for Classic-period Maya society based on distributions of jade at numerous sites, including Cuello. At many Classic-period Maya sites, jade is found in elite contexts, but it appears in certain forms in nonelite contexts as well. It seems that it was not necessarily the raw material that was restricted to the elite, but rather the form and quality of the finished product. For example, at sites like Dos Pilas, jade was abundant in royal contexts, such as the tomb of Ruler 2 (Demarest et al. 1991) and the Lady of Cancuen (Wolley and Wright 1990), but jade was also recovered in lesser quantities and in less elaborate styles in middle-range and commoner households (Palka 1995, 1997). Guderjan (2007) also relates that at Blue Creek, Belize, jade is found in elite and nonelite contexts, especially in the case of an individual who appears to have been a nonelite community leader. His burial included several jade beads and bone earflares with jade inlays. At Copan, there is ample evidence of the use of jade in royal tombs (see Fash 1991 for examples), as well as elite lapidary work (Widmer 2009), including jade nodules that were in the process of being sawed (Willey et al. 1994). At the same time, Nancy Gonlin (2007:97) also found some evidence of jade in the ritual deposits of the households of the humblest Maya outside the Copan pocket, though the jade is not in an elaborate or incised form. As McAnany (this volume) notes, jade was part of the tactics of figure 10.2 Jade headdress ornaments recovered from tomb in Structure K7-3. (Drawing by Fernando Alvarez Andaverde.) Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands 259

13 figure 10.3 Jade headdress ornament recovered from cache beneath royal throne room. (Drawing by Fernando Alvarez Andaverde.) elites to create a weapon of exclusion, used to distinguish themselves from others, but it may have only been particular forms of jade that helped to authenticate this difference. While jade is often recovered in commoner contexts, it is not found in some specific forms which appear to have been exclusively restricted to the elite for example, the tripartite jester god headdress, which represents a ripe maize plant (e.g., Fields 1991; Schele and Miller 1986:53). Such headdresses symbolized royal status and the power of the wearer to control fertility and abundance (see Figures ). These examples suggest that jade objects circulated in institutional and domestic spheres simultaneously. Jade Production figure 10.4 Jade headdress ornament recovered from cache beneath royal throne room. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) The two spheres of the economy, institutional and domestic, may have been economically linked by household production. As Masson and Freidel (this volume) note, the presence of craft production in the household can signal connectedness and interdependence of trade relationships. The part-time crafting of goods within Maya households may have occurred in attached and independent forms 260 Kovacevich

14 for vertical and horizontal trade in the institutional and domestic economies. In many Classic Maya polities, specialized production of prestige goods, or items that are assumed to have circulated in the institutional economy (i.e., jade, textiles, marine shell, or pyrite), seems to have taken the form of small-scale elite production within the household, sometimes in the royal palace itself (i.e., Inomata 2001; McAnany, this volume). In other words, although these are artifacts that circulate in the institutional economy, they are still produced domestically, and not in institutional workshops or nondomestic settings. At Copan, there is evidence of specialization in shell carving from a royal court (Aoyama 1995), elite-controlled production of obsidian (Aoyama 1994), as well as scribal specialization (Fash 1991; Webster 1989). Convincing evidence of elite domestic multicrafting comes from excavations by Randolf Widmer (2009) of Structure N9-8, where de facto refuse from lapidary, textile, and feather work was left on elite residence floors. In addition, skeletal remains of a probable elite lapidary specialist (Widmer 2009:188) show exaggerated muscle attachments, further supporting the assertion that elites themselves were involved in crafting, even tackling the more strenuous tasks. It was just this kind of arduous level of production that lent value to the object being made (i.e., Appadurai 1986; Helms 1993; see Widmer 2009:182 for an archaeological example of non-rational/economizing elite crafting). It is possible, however, that elites were involved only in the finishing stages of a long operational chain of tasks (Costin 2007; Kovacevich 2006, 2007). Evidence for nonelite participation in the creation of prestige goods in the Maya region has been largely absent until recently, but some scholars have suggested it (Ball 1993: ; Marcus 2004: ; Potter and King 1995:26). Notable recent findings include those of Rochette (2009) for jade production at Motagua Valley as well as at Cancuen (Kovacevich 2006, 2007). Due to the lack of this evidence, scholars previously had argued that the domestic/agrarian and prestige economies operated separately (Ball 1993:248, 264; McAnany 1993:70 71; Potter and King 1995:28; see also Masson 2002:2), but the integration of these economies seems to be a possible organization of production for Mesoamerica (Kovacevich 2006, 2007; Sheets 2000; see also Wattenmaker 1994, 1998 for an Old World example). Elites and commoners appear to have been involved in the production and circulation of jade artifacts in different contexts. Jade as an item of wealth circulated not only in the institutional economy, but in the domestic economy as well. Residential structures associated with largescale production of jade at Cancuen, a Late Classic period (ad ) Maya center (Figure 10.1), generally appear to have invested a modest amount of labor in construction (Kovacevich 2003a). Low (i.e., a meter or less) earthen mounds supported perishable superstructures and exterior laja (or flagstone) patio floors. De facto refuse was often left on these floors during the abandonment of the site, sometimes including termination ritual deposits. There are also high-density sheet middens directly adjacent to the floors, containing lithic production refuse mixed with domestic refuse. These communal activity areas provide excellent data for studies of craft production at Cancuen, as the refuse derived from production is either directly on or adjacent to the crafting area, a feature not common at other lowland Maya sites (Moholy-Nagy 1990, 1997). Nonelite households were initially identified by the amount of labor invested in construction and by the presence of certain architectural types (Kovacevich 2006:38 41). Typically, a sample of each patio group was excavated. Structure types, considered as a sample from a larger group, were then correlated with the presence or absence of specific portable items of material culture. As expected, the material culture of some households differed significantly from that of others. Excavated structures in Groups N9-1, N11-1, K7-1 had masonry architecture, stucco sculpture, tombs, hieroglyphic writing in associated monumental art, some evidence of jade working (usually its late stages), and finished jade artifacts. This last group included finely carved jade diadems and faces of the sort that, at many other sites, correlate with elite status and even kingship (see Eberl and Inomata 2001; Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands 261

15 Friedel 1993: ; Friedel et al. 2002:45, 70; Schele and Friedel 1990: , 121, 135, figs. 3.14, 3.19, 4.4). Excavation of units in a nonelite structure group (M10-4 and M10-7) produced a total of 3,258 pieces of greenstone debitage (Figure 10.5) (Kovacevich 2003b, 2006, 2007; Kovacevich et al. 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; Kovacevich and Pereira 2002). Thirty-two of these pieces, most of them with evidence of string-sawing, including a twentypound boulder, were left on the patio floor of Structure M10-4. Also recovered embedded in the patio floor of this same structure were large quantities of jade and quartzite microdebitage, which, as primary refuse, is an important indicator of lithic workshop production (Moholy-Nagy 1990). I believe that the pulverized quartzite was used in this case as an abrasive with the string-saw or drill as the actual cutting agent (Chenault 1986). Tools directly associated with jade working on the floors and middens include slate- and greenstone-polishing tools (West 1963), chert, greenstone, and quartzite hammerstones (Figure 10.6); chert and chalcedony drills (Figure 10.7); and string-saw anchors (Figure 10.8). figure 10.6 Jade hammerstones and a pecking stone from middens in Structure M10-4. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) figure 10.5 Sample of jade debitage from the midden associated with Structure M10-4. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) figure 10.7 Chert blade recovered from midden of Structure M10-4 associated with jade production. (Drawing by Brigitte Kovacevich.) 262 Kovacevich

16 a b figure 10.8 Artifacts found together on patio floor of Structure M10-6: a) string-sawn piece of jade (note convex septum break indicative of stringsawing); and b) string-saw anchor used to protect workers hands. (Drawing by Laurie Greene.) figure 10.9 Large jade earflare and bead recovered from the cache beneath the royal throne room. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) Also recovered were five spindle whorls, which I previously interpreted to have been used possibly as flywheels for pump drills for drilling jade (Digby 1972); however, they were most probably used in the production of textiles because of their small size. This evidence suggests multicrafting as described by Hirth and colleagues (Hirth, ed. 2009). Although excavations uncovered a high percentage of debitage that had been worked by percussion and string-sawing, there was little evidence of the final stages of production (including incising), of jade artifacts, or of the finished products themselves. Eight beads, including one large jade bead that was in the process of being drilled (or was possibly an earflare blank), were recovered from middens or embedded within floors, a find that suggests that at least some manufacture of beads or early stages of artifact production did occur in this area. But the only jade artifacts recovered from the ten burials associated with the group were four possible jade inlaid teeth with Burial 25, although three of the inlays were lost antemortem, and it cannot be said for sure if the inlays were jade. Other burials at Cancuen did contain finished jade artifacts; however, these burials are associated with elite architecture that required much more labor investment for construction than the simple earthen mounds of the M10 group. For example, a cyst burial excavated by Erin Sears (2002) in Structure K7-1 contained two large jade beads (one of imperial green color), two light green jade earflares with jade counterweights, and two intricately incised headdress ornaments carved out of light green jade Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands 263

17 figure Jade face pendant from cache beneath the royal throne room. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) figure Jade beads from cache beneath the royal throne room. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) figure String-sawn jade nodule from cache beneath the royal throne room. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) figure Limestone earflare polisher recovered from fill in the royal palace at Cancuen. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) 264 Kovacevich

18 with a vein of imperial green that were 1.89 millimeters thick (see Figure 10.2). Michael Callaghan (2005) recovered beneath the royal throne room an elaborate cache with a royal headdress ornament (see Figures ), a large jade earflare (Figure 10.9), a small jade face pendant (Figure 10.10), two large jade beads (Figure 10.11), and a string-sawn jade nodule (Figure 10.12). An earflare polisher was also found in the fill of Structure L7-9 within the royal palace (Figure 10.13), as well as in another vaulted elite structure (M9-1). While this evidence does not conclusively demonstrate elite engagement in this particular activity, documented elite craft participation at Aguateca and Copan supports elite involvement, and polishers such as these have been found in palatial contexts at other Maya sites, such as Kaminaljuyu (Kidder et al. 1946). Such findings suggest not only that elite residents of Cancuen were consuming finished jade products, but also that the final stages of jade production may have been carried out by elite artisans in elite residences. For the institutional economy, the evidence points to segmented production of prestige goods in which nonelites or lesser elites completed the early stages. Commoner specialists may have been involved with only the initial phases of jade production, such as percussion, sawing, and drilling. The more intricate final steps, such as incising, may have been carried out by elites with the ritual and esoteric knowledge necessary to incorporate these artifacts into the political economy (Barber 1994; Childs 1998; Costin 1998, 2007; Inomata 2001; Reents-Budet 1998). This type of segmented production of jade artifacts has been inferred by Walters (1982) in the Motagua Valley workshop sites located directly adjacent to the Motagua jade source (although cf. Rochette 2009) and has been recognized at other sites in Mesoamerica and beyond (e.g., Berdan et al. 2009; Costin and Hagstrum 1995; Cross 1993; Urban and Schortman 1999). Elites owned and/or used these finished items, and someone was involved in their production; the evidence suggests domestic production by elites, possibly multiple family members within the household context (Kovacevich n.d.). At Cancuen, early-stage jade producers had a few of the trappings of elite Classic Maya culture: jade beads, dental modification, and exotic ceramics. At the same time, these indivduals lacked many more of the defining characteristics of elite material culture, including stone masonry structures, corbel-vaulted architecture, tombs, sculpture, hieroglyphic inscriptions, and high-quality carved jade plaques. The absence of these cultural correlates of elite status leads me to argue that the earlystage jade workers at Cancuen were commoners of elevated status (Kovacevich 2011). They negotiated and achieved their status and identity through the segmented production of jade. In contrast, the earthen mounds of Structures M10-4, M10-6, M6-12, and K7-24 had simple burials and domestic refuse mixed with evidence of jade working, but only the early stages of it: no finished jade objects were found aside from small, scattered beads. There were other disparities in material culture, including higher amounts of Chablekal Fine Gray ceramics (Figure 10.14) associated with early-stage jade production, implying a somewhat elevated status and different identity for these producers (Callaghan et al. 2004; Kovacevich 2006: ; Kovacevich and Callaghan 2005). Such ceramics are a class of fine gray serving vessels. Extensive chemical analyses using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA, see below) by Bishop and Rands (1982) suggest that this type of pottery was produced around the greater Palenque region of Mexico and appears in the archaeological record of Pasión/Usumacinta sites exclusively between ad 760 and 800 (Bishop and Rands 1982; Callaghan et al. 2004; Foias and Bishop 1997). The presence of this type of long-distance trade good in burials of individuals associated with houses containing evidence of the early stages of jade production suggests that it allowed these crafters an opportunity to negotiate their status within social networks at the site and in long-distance exchange relationships. It also strengthens the possibility of long-standing trade connections between Cancuen and the Palenque region. To reiterate, jade, as a raw material, was not necessarily restricted to the elite of Maya society (Garber 1993; Guderjan 2007:81 88; Moholy-Nagy 1994:88, 1997:301; Palka 1995:20; Rochette 2009; Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands 265

19 figure Chablekal Fine Gray ceramics from Cancuen, showing portability. (Photograph by Michael Callaghan.) Rochette and Pellecer Alecio 2008). But jade of high quality, and especially status symbols like headdress ornaments and earflares, may have been restricted to the elite (Chase 1992:34 37; Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:52 54). At Cancuen, commoners did have access to jade, but it was sometimes of low quality, and it appeared in a limited number of forms. Although jade beads were present in nonelite structures, the jades were often of poor quality or of a related, likewise inferior green mineral (i.e., a mineral or rock softer than jadeite, with physical imperfections and/or a brownish or muddy green color). Many of these beads were found embedded in floors or in middens. We recovered very little jade from simple burials, and it was never found in the form of elaborately incised plaques or face pendants, symbols of kingship and nobility. Jade beads found in elite residences are significantly larger than those recovered from nonelite contexts (Kovacevich 2006: , 2007), and the difference in quality is readily apparent. Raw or sawn jade was cached by figure Jade boulder showing marks of string-sawing recovered from termination cache in floor of Structure K7-24, a nonmasonry structure. (Photograph by Brigitte Kovacevich.) 266 Kovacevich

20 people of lesser status but only those who were jade crafters in construction fill and termination rituals (Figure 10.15). This caching relates to the processes of identity formation and maintenance. At Cancuen, some commoners with achieved status identified themselves with the early stages of jade production and, by extension, with the divine act of creation (Kovacevich 2012). Caching also may have reflected a belief that all phases of jade working were sacred, as were the by-products of that activity (Hruby 2007:76; Sheets 1991:177; see Mills 2008 for a North American example). A cache beneath the royal throne room at Cancuen contained both sawn nodules and finished artifacts, as well as other exotic objects and ritual paraphernalia. Status and identity, therefore, can be seen in the distribution of production technologies, finished products, and ritual treatments of jade at the site of Cancuen. Jade Sourcing and Exchange Chemical compositional analyses can provide important information about the movement of commodities across the landscape. While the chemical compositional studies of jade are still in their infancy to some degree, they are essential to understanding changes in exchange patterns through time and across space. The following is a brief review of sourcing analysis for jade artifacts and some of the preliminary identifications of exchange patterns. In 1978, the Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts launched the Maya Jade and Ceramic Research Project. This endeavor allowed Ronald Bishop and his colleagues to characterize source samples from Guatemala and Costa Rica, as well as artifacts from Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and Costa Rica with the use of X-ray diffraction and INAA (Bishop et al. 1993; Bishop et al. 1984; Lange and Bishop 1988; Lange et al. 1981). The sampling in Guatemala focused primarily on the known source of jadeite in the Motagua Valley but was extended to include artifact samples from northwestern Costa Rica. A conclusive source for jadeite in Costa Rica was not found, reinforcing the possibility that there were unidentified sources of jadeite in Guatemala and possibly Costa Rica (Lange and Bishop 1988; Lange et al. 1981). The primary findings of these studies demonstrated that there were almost certainly multiple jade sources utilized by Pre-Columbian peoples. Others (e.g., Harlow 1993) point out that variation within the Motagua source can account for all of the variation in Classic Maya artifacts, and inadequate sampling is to blame for the lack of match between some Classic Maya jade artifacts and the one known source. Harlow argues that only the Motagua Valley has the geologic preconditions necessary for jadeite formation in Mesoamerica. He also argues that jadeite samples cannot be looked at as homogenous material, such as obsidian, when there are numerous distinct mineralogical compositions for each sample. Bishop and Lange (1993) address these arguments and point out that chemical compositional analysis used in conjunction with archaeological data strongly implies multiple sources. This debate has of yet not been completely resolved, and Taube and Ishihara-Brito (2012) suggest that the two arguments are not mutually exclusive. Lange and Bishop (1988) assume that longdistance exchange functioned in the elite realm of ancient Mesoamerican society, and they apply Renfrew s (1975) model of prestige-chain-trade to better understand how jade moved from Guatemala to Costa Rica. This type of trade would occur over much longer distances and with much more gradual falloff curves than down-the-line or middle man trade. They note that while the paucity of jade in Costa Rica suggests that prestige-chaintrade did not exist, the analysis of other foreign materials may suggest otherwise. These conclusions demonstrate the difficulty in interpreting exchange patterns from the archaeological record, as many similar patterns may represent various modes of exchange. This study also highlights the importance of chemical sourcing as the directionality trade may be determined, the source can be identified through chemical compositional analysis, then production and consumption contexts can be determined archaeologically and matched with the compositional data. The prestige-chain-trade Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands 267

21 model suggests there was one sphere of vertical, elite exchange for jade objects moving from Guatemala to Costa Rica. This explanation is certainly feasible for long-distance exchange of elaborately carved jades found in elite contexts probably gifts or tribute between elites at far distances but it does not explain how some jades end up in nonelite settings. Turning now to chemical sourcing analysis performed on jades from Cancuen (see also Kova cevich et al. 2005), these studies have added to previously mentioned research and show how chemical sourcing can shed light on the organization of jade production and exchange. Some of these analyses have posed more questions than answers, but they are beginning to promote an understanding of the movement of jade across the landscape. In 2001, twenty-seven pieces of greenstone debitage recovered from production contexts at Cancuen were subjected to Laser Ablation Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). LA-ICP-MS is a nondestructive technique in chemical characterization analysis (see Speakman and Neff 2005). This analysis was initiated in order to identify the mineralogical composition of the Cancuen greenstones, to identify a source for the procurement of the raw materials, and to look for compositional matches with finished products from other centers. These tests could aid in the interpretation of jade procurement patterns as well as distribution patterns. The primary research questions were: Did the residents of Cancuen procure jade from the known Motagua Valley source? Did any of the Cancuen jades match previously sampled artifacts from the highlands or the lowlands? (For a technical explanation of the methods used and a more complete discussion of the data in these tests, see Kovacevich et al ) Data for the Cancuen samples were observed to form dark and light groups, as was previously found for the INAA analyses of the Motagua samples. The only previously sampled non-cancuen artifacts linked with the Cancuen samples are three specimens from a single site in the Salama Valley, Alta Verapaz, that are included in the dark green group. At face value, this connection indicates that at least some of the jade from the Salama Valley was derived from the source favored by Classic-period Cancuen crafters. Besides the Cancuen-related composition, there are at least two other compositional profiles from Alta Verapaz (see also Sharer and Sedat 1987:appendix 3). Overall, this research parallels the earlier INAA study quite closely in a number of respects. More generally, like the earlier Maya Jade and Ceramic Research Project, this analysis did not yield secure, specific source attributions for most of the artifacts. This last observation indicates that source sampling is as yet incomplete. Recent studies by Andrieu and colleagues (2011) have attributed the source of the Cancuen jades to the Salama Valley, making a further connection between the valley and the Cancuen jade industry. This sampling suggests that the jade of the Upper Motagua Valley is distinct from the Middle Motagua Valley samples collected by the Maya Jade and Ceramic Research Project. In any event, more research is needed in the identification of jade sources in Guatemala to reveal the full variation of chemical composition of the Motagua fault zone. What the research does suggest is the possibility of separate trade routes for different sources or at least different regions within the Motagua Valley. Subsequent studies also found that the Cancuen jades compositionally match three tesserae of the funerary mask of K inich Janahb Pakal I of Palenque (Figure 10.16), the ruler of the powerful lowland center during the Classic period (Neff et al. 2010). As the southernmost Classic Maya site on the Pasión River, Cancuen occupied a strategic location for trade between the Guatemala Highlands and the lowland areas controlled by Classic Maya dynasties. Given the importance of craft production at Cancuen, especially jade working, it is perhaps not surprising that a powerful Maya king like Pakal would have been buried with a jade mosaic mask composed of pieces that may have passed through Cancuen and/or been gifted to the ruler. The chemical compositional results also reinforce the idea of a long-standing trade relationship between Cancuen and Palenque, a conclusion also 268 Kovacevich

22 figure Jade death mask of Pakal the Great of Palenque. (Photograph by Emilio Labrador.) supported by the presence of Chablekal Fine Gray ceramics (discussed above). The compositions of most of the jade samples from Pakal s mask (apart from the three that match the Cancuen jades) match the previously identified Middle Motagua Valley source in Guatemala. Intriguingly, some, if not all, of the tesserae in the mask seem to be reused artifacts, such as beads (see the nostril of Figure 10.3) and pendants (some flat tesserae in the mask also have suspension holes). Such reincorporated pieces were possibly gifted, inherited, or even collected as tribute. Integrating jades from multiple kingdoms, sources, and ancestors could add to the power of the mask as a symbol of fertility, rebirth, and regeneration, which relates to Taube s (2005) argument for the symbolism of jade as life s breath or essence. For example, jade plaques, specifically one from Nakum, often express the comingling of the essence of the ancestor owner with the breath/essence of the inheritor, providing power for that individual (Finamore and Houston 2010:133, pl. 46). A jade mask with incorporated pieces could symbolize the same ideology the comingling of life s vital essence with those that previously owned and/or wore the artifacts. While beads may have been employed as currency or served other utilitarian functions in some Mesoamerican contexts (e.g., Tozzer 1941 [ca. 1566]:19, 95 96, 130), other settings (such as those reincorporated into a mask) may have imbued the objects with even more value, instilling them with the vital essence of ancestors and/or powerful allies. As of yet, these are the only trade connections that have been made using chemical characterization analysis, although future research will certainly find more. Clearly, more source and artifact sampling are needed. The artifact samples utilized in the Maya Jade and Ceramic Research Project were biased toward Belize. An important analytical method in establishing Cancuen as a trade center for jade and explaining how sites along the Pasión/Usumacinta were involved in that trade lies in chemical sourcing of jade artifacts. New samples from the Pasión/Usumacinta and central Peten sites could provide valuable data on these trade relationships, although testing of jades from Seibal by Andrieu and colleagues (2011) did not reveal a match in that case. Since LA-ICP-MS has performed at least as well as INAA in the chemical characterization of jade, we can continue to extrapolate information with the use of both datasets. Discussion and Conclusions As mentioned previously, Cancuen is located between the Maya Highlands and Lowlands, at a strategic point along the Pasión/Usumacinta River system (see Figure 10.1). Models for trade routes have been put forth, suggesting that rivers including the Pasión/Usumacinta River system inland and the Motagua River for sea access were primary trade arteries (see Figure 10.1). Unfortunately, the situation appears to be much Craft Production and Distribution in the Maya Lowlands 269

23 more complex, as some major centers along these trade routes were not the recipients of large quantities of jade or obsidian flowing from the highlands. This condition casts doubt on the down-theline trade models that imply each center along a trade route would have equal opportunity to the goods being exchanged; however, central-place models do seem to work in the case of obsidian at certain centers (i.e., Tikal [Moholy-Nagy 1997] and Copan [Aoyama 1994]). Yet other major centers, such as Calakmul, had a paucity of obsidian (Braswell 2010) but greater access to jade. Sites like Tikal in central Peten (reached by overland trade routes stemming from major rivers) and Palenque (along the Pasión/Usumacinta trade route) also had access to large quantities of jade. Specifically, Hattula Moholy-Nagy (1997) recorded 13,334 total jade artifacts at Tikal of them, 7,611 were finished artifacts and 5,732 were jade debitage. Other centers along the Pasión/Usumacinta trade route, such as Piedras Negras, had very little jade, even in royal burials (Kovacevich and Hruby 2005). It appears that the Middle Usumacinta region was cut out of the major jade trade and that these items bypassed this part of the river. This exclusion may suggest that trade partnerships, and gifting in particular, occurred only between certain sites, calling into question the possibility of down-the-line trade as a probable mechanism in the distribution of jade. Jade distribution may not have followed simple economic and economizing models, and jade may have functioned largely as a product of political, social, and ideological ties. Exchange of goods during the Classic period has been argued to have operated in two largely separate spheres: that of elite prestige goods and that of utilitarian goods (e.g., Potter and King 1995:26; Rice 1987:77; Tourtellot and Sabloff 1972). Many scholars contend that elite exchange took the form of gifting, often over long distances and vast interregional spheres, while utilitarian goods were traded locally and regionally, on the basis of kinship exchange systems. Still, other studies have questioned these two separate spheres of distribution, especially exchange of prestige and utilitarian ceramics (e.g., Fry 1979:510; Rands and Bishop 1980:43). Trade of prestige goods such as jade ornaments, pyrite mirrors, and fine pottery most probably occurred as horizontal, long-distance exchange between elites of lowland polities (Marcus 1983). This type of trade probably took the form of emissary trade, as elite emissaries or the nobles themselves would have been sent with goods as gifts and/or tribute (McAnany 2010; Renfrew 1975; see also Tokovinine and Beliaev, this volume). These exchanges most likely did not take the form of economic exchanges as commodities or equivalencies (Appadurai 1986; Dalton 1965; Halperin 1993; Marx 1990 [1876]; Polanyi 1957; Weiner 1992:10). Exchanges of prestige goods probably took the form of gifting and served to create social ties, reinforcing the ideological power of the elite. Gifts of prestige goods would not always have immediate returns, but gift giving is calculated (Mauss 1990 [1925]), especially with regard to the symbolic and cultural value of the item (Bourdieu 1977: ). Many of these goods were probably inalienable possessions, made of exotic raw materials and transported over long distances. The may have passed through and/ or may have been owned by many important individuals, inscribed with esoteric and ritual symbols, not able to be directly translated into an equivalent form (Kovacevich and Callaghan n.d.; McAnany 2010). Inalienable possessions can be either kept out of circulation completely or given to others in a form of exchange in which the rights of ownership are never actually transferred. The possession is still linked to the social and political identity of the original owner, not merely relating the temporary owner to the original one but creating an emotional lien upon the receiver. Inalienable possessions link their owners to the past and serve as vehicles to legitimate identities and authority in the present (Weiner 1992). Other utilitarian objects used in everyday life may have been distributed in market or barter-type relationships. Evidence for marketplaces in the Maya world is sparse, but their presence has been suggested or inferred (Chase 1998; Coe 1967:73; Dahlin and Ardren 2002; Dahlin et al. 2010; Freidel 1981; Fry 1979; West 2002). Freidel (1981) has argued that market exchange corresponded to ritual and 270 Kovacevich