Content deleted Content added
m clean up, replaced: architectural form → architectural form (2) |
Not clear what phrase 'elite ideology' actually means. Expand for clarity. |
||
Line 168:
Unlike the [[Aztec]]s and the [[Inca Empire|Inca]], the Maya political system never integrated the entire Maya cultural area into a single state or empire. Rather, throughout its history, the Maya area contained a varying mix of political complexity that included both [[State (polity)|states]] and [[chiefdom]]s. These polities fluctuated greatly in their relationships with each other and were engaged in a complex web of rivalries, periods of dominance or submission, vassalage, and alliances. At times, different polities achieved regional dominance, such as Calakmul, [[Caracol]], Mayapan, and Tikal. The first reliably evidenced polities formed in the Maya lowlands in the 9th century BC.<ref>Cioffi-Revilla and Landman 1999, p. 563.</ref>
During the Late Preclassic, the Maya political system coalesced into a [[theocracy|theopolitical]] form, where elite ideology{{Clarify}} justified the ruler's authority, and was reinforced by public display, ritual, and religion.<ref>Oakley and Rubin 2012, p. 81.</ref> The divine king was the centre of political power, exercising ultimate control over administrative, economic, judicial, and military functions. The divine authority invested within the ruler was such that the king was able to mobilize both the aristocracy and commoners in executing huge infrastructure projects, apparently with no police force or standing army.<ref>Oakley and Rubin 2012, p. 82.</ref> Some polities engaged in a strategy of increasing administration, and filling administrative posts with loyal supporters rather than blood relatives.<ref>Foias 2014, p. 162.</ref> Within a polity, mid-ranking population centres would have played a key role in managing resources and internal conflict.<ref>Foias 2014, p. 60.</ref>
The Maya political landscape was highly complex and Maya elites engaged in political intrigue to gain economic and social advantage over neighbours.<ref>Chase and Chase 2012, p. 265.</ref> In the Late Classic, some cities established a long period of dominance over other large cities, such as the dominance of Caracol over [[Naranjo]] for half a century. In other cases, loose alliance networks were formed around a dominant city.<ref>Chase and Chase 2012, p. 264.</ref> Border settlements, usually located about halfway between neighbouring capitals, often switched allegiance over the course of their history, and at times acted independently.<ref>Foias 2014, p. 64.</ref> Dominant capitals exacted tribute in the form of luxury items from subjugated population centres.<ref name="Foias14p161"/> Political power was reinforced by military power, and the capture and humiliation of enemy warriors played an important part in elite culture. An overriding sense of pride and honour among the warrior aristocracy could lead to extended feuds and vendettas, which caused political instability and the fragmentation of polities.<ref>Foias 2014, p. 167.</ref>
| |||