CLASSIC MAYA WARFARE AND WEAPONS

In 1937, Thomas Gann and J. Eric Thompson stated, “The Maya, judging by the scenes depicted upon the stelae, were one of the least warlike nations who ever existed” (Gann and Thompson 1937:63). Large-scale archaeological investigations, epigraphic decipherments, and iconographic studies in the 1960s and 1970s shattered the traditional perception of the Classic Maya as a peaceful people (Marcus 1974; Proskouriaoff 1961; Puleston and Callender 1967; Rice and Rice 1981; Webster 1976). The nature, variability, and role of warfare in the rise, development, and decline of Classic Maya civilization, nevertheless, has been dated intensively for the past several decades. One group of scholars emphasizes warfare more than social and ecological conditions, while another group stresses that warfare was a result of demographic and ecological pressures (Chase and Chase 1989; Cowgill 1979; Demarst 2006; Freidel 1992; Martin and Grube 2008; Schele and Miler 1986; Webster 1977). Some of these discussions have centered on the “collapse” of the Classic Maya civilization. The large-scale multidisciplinary investigations of the Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project have demonstrated that intensive warfare was the direct cause of the fall of the Petexbatun kingdoms in the late eight and early ninth century (Demarest 2006), although this process is not necessarily applicable to other parts of the Maya Lowlands.

Despite its ubiquity among the Classic Maya, war is difficult to demonstrate archaeologically. Potentially useful evidence includes inscriptions, art and iconography, weapons, fortifications, paleopathology, incidents of violent destruction, desecratory termination rituals, and the sudden disruption of cultural patterns (Sheets 2003:290-294; Webster 1993:422-423). Unfortunately, the texts referring to war are not at all explicit about the motives for or nature of warfare (Stuart 1993:333). Many Classic Maya sites lack inscriptions or art relating to warfare. Most Classic centers are located in easily accessible terrains without fortifications and generally show no clear evidence of destruction resulting from battles.

We still lack systematic studies of Maya weaponry. Detailed analysis of chipped stone weapon use, particularly among high-power microscopy developed by Keely (1980), remains to be conducted in Maya archaeology. The present book aims to fill that gap. It should be noted that ethnohistorical and ethnographic data suggests that the bow and arrow was used as a weapon of war as well as for hunting (Landa 1938:127-128; Nations 1989:453). The presence of items that could be used in war, however (Sheets 2003:291). Whether chipped pointed tools were used for human conflict, hunting, or other purposes should be based on detailed microwear analysis and their recovery contexts. If there were a large number of broken or used weapons, particularly in a public structure or elite residence (e.g., Sabloff 1992), and if these were documented along with other lines of evidence such as the violent destruction of structures, then an archaeologist could make a stronger argument for warfare. But because most Classic Maya cities were abandoned gradually and the inhabitants usually carried away a large portion of their belongings, including weapons, to their next residences, identifiable Classic Maya weaponry is seldom recovered form primary contexts.

Several lines of evidence for warfare, such as the violent destruction of residential structures, inscriptions, art and iconography, and defensive stone walls, strongly indicate that Aguateca was abandoned rapidly because of an enemy attack. Again, with its rich in site assemblages of objects left in burned structures. Aguateca provides an exceptional synchronic data set that allows closer access to the type, number, and function of chipped stone weapons of Classic Maya elites in higher resolution than the smaller number of remaining artifacts at gradually abandoned sites.