Variations on a Theme: Dual-Processual Theory and the ... · Mycenaean architecture at Pylos and...

American Journal of Archaeology 115 (2011) 355–82355

Variations on a Theme: Dual-Processual Theory and the Foreign Impact on

Mycenaean and Classic Maya ArchitectureJoshua D. EnglEharDt anD Donna M. naglE

AbstractThis article examines evidence for external influences

on developing Mycenaean architecture, specifically at Py-los, during the Middle to Late Bronze Age. Previous inves-tigation suggests that emerging mainland elites eclectically appropriated foreign material cultural forms, styles, and techniques into established local traditions, most likely for use in localized prestige competition. Although a wealth of previous scholarship has convincingly demonstrated an extensive Minoan impact on the Greek mainland, less work has been done to provide a context for the mecha-nisms whereby such influence occurred. Considering ar-chitecture as a reflection of social structure and employing a dual-processual theoretical framework, we explore the possibility that architectural similarities and differences between Crete and Messenia are material manifestations of varying exclusionary and corporate strategies of sociopo-litical power. We subject the Minoan influence at Pylos to a cross-cultural comparison with the Teotihuacano impact on the development of lowland Maya architectural styles and cultural projects in the Mesoamerican Early Classic period. We also discuss what these two case studies teach us about the relationship between interaction, architecture, and social organization in emergent complex societies, in both the Old World and the New World.*

introduction

In this article, we explore external influences on the development of Mycenaean architecture at Pylos. In doing so, we seek to answer the question of how variation in architecture may correlate with variable forms of sociopolitical organization. We suggest that similarities in architectural forms, styles, functions, construction techniques, and schemes of spatial orga-

nization between the regions of north-central Crete and Messenia indicate Minoan influence on develop-ing Mycenaean elite architecture in the Middle Hel-ladic (MH) III to Late Helladic (LH) IIIA periods (ca. 1750–1300 B.C.E.) of the southwestern Peloponnese. As a whole, the evidence from Pylos indicates an eclec-tic appropriation of Minoan architectural elements and techniques, which were selectively incorporated into local traditions by emerging elites for use in pres-tige competition.1

Although most researchers agree that there ex-isted a connection between Crete and Messenia in the Early Mycenaean period, diversity in the archaeo-logical assemblages both within and between the re-gions supports multiple interpretations of the nature of that relationship.2 While some posit the presence of a Cretan aristocracy, traveling Minoan artisans on the mainland, or a Minoanizing predecessor of the LH IIIB palace at Pylos, others are skeptical of such claims, cautioning that the existence of Minoan ob-jects is not evidence of an actual Minoan presence.3 Significant changes in material culture—particularly in architectural plans and construction techniques—between the LH IIIA and LH IIIB periods cannot be explained simply as the result of diffused or changing Minoan stimuli, Mycenaean emulation of the relatively advanced Cretans, or overt Minoan presence on the mainland. The data suggest that the relationship be-tween Crete and the mainland was far more complex than current explanations consider. While a variety of scholars have convincingly demonstrated an extensive

* This article has greatly benefited from suggestions and comments offered by Michael Carrasco, Mike Galaty, Joyce Marcus, Dimitri Nakassis, Jesper Nielsen, Bill Parkinson, and Daniel Pullen. We would also like to thank Editor-in-Chief Naomi J. Norman and the two anonymous reviewers for the AJA, who provided feedback and suggestions that greatly im-proved the final draft. All errors of fact or omission are the sole responsibility of the authors.

1 Hägg 1982, 1983; Nelson 2001; Rutter 2005; cf. Wright 2006a, 2006b.

2 Hägg 1982, 27; Rutter 2005, 33. Variation is also evident between Messenia and other parts of the mainland (Dickin-son 1982, 125).

3 Matthäus (1980) and Wright (2006a, 17) suggest the pos-sibility of traveling Minoan craftsmen. Kilian (1987) famous-ly made claims to a Minoan-influenced predecessor of the Mycenaean palace at Pylos, more recently echoed by Nelson (2001, 2007); cf. Dickinson 1977, 1996; Hägg 1982; Korres 1983; Bouzek 1996.

JOSHuA D. ENGLEHARDT AND DONNA M. NAGLE356 [AJA 115

Minoan impact on the Greek mainland,4 less work has been done on the context for the mechanisms that fa-cilitated such influence. In other words, rather than concentrating on how Minoan elements were adopted into the Mycenaean corpus (the focus of most earlier scholarship on the subject), we instead address the contextual question of why such elements were intro-duced in the first place.

To provide such a context, we adopt a dual-processual anthropological framework.5 Dual-processual theory offers an alternative explanatory approach to discus-sion regarding Cretan influence on the mainland, one that can simultaneously account for the parallels and discrepancies observable in Minoan and Mycenaean architectural programs at Pylos in both synchronic and diachronic terms. We first outline the main tenets of dual-processual theory and its use. By linking mate-rial diversity with processes of social transformation, a dual-processual perspective permits us to move beyond static, somewhat simplistic explanations of variability and allows for cross-cultural comparison—a valuable interpretative device often overlooked in classical archaeology. We next turn to a brief description of Mycenaean architecture at Pylos and its relation to Minoan architectural traditions. We draw on dual- processual theory to suggest that similarity and dis-parity between Mycenaean and Minoan architecture reflect distinct forms of sociopolitical organization present in these societies.

The architectural evidence at Pylos lends itself well to an application of dual-processual theory. It is our hope that our demonstration of the value of this per-spective in the context of Pylian architectural change will inspire others to consider dual-processual theory in explanations of social transformation at other Myce-naean polities, with the aim of more fully understand-ing the variable development of greater Mycenaean society throughout the mainland. Comparing Mino-an influence on Messenia with Teotihuacano impact on the development of lowland Maya architectural styles in the Mesoamerican Early Classic period (ca. 250–600 C.E.) adds nuance to the argument. The Mesoamerican case presents many striking parallels to the situation in the Bronze Age Aegean and may assist in elucidating the processual dynamics at play in Minoan-mainland interaction and the emergence of Mycenaean society. Cross-cultural comparison en-

riches the debate surrounding models of developing sociopolitical complexity and state formation. More-over, such comparative approaches may serve to bridge the “great divide” between classical and anthropologi-cal archaeology.6

We conclude that the data reflect variations on a theme. Synchronic similarities in architectural forms between sites within the Aegean and Mesoamerican worlds suggest interaction with and influence from other areas in each case. At the same time, diachronic inter- and intraregional discrepancies hint at variable sociopolitical configurations, which subsequently were reflected architecturally. In the Aegean, Messenia and Crete exhibited significantly different forms of politi-cal and economic organization as they moved toward statehood. We close with a discussion of the parallels between the Mesoamerican and Aegean data and thoughts on what these cases tell us about the rela-tionship between interaction, architecture, and social organization in emerging complex societies.

It appears that emerging Mycenaean and Maya states, with their exclusionary networks and lineage-based focus on the individual, stand in contrast to the Minoan and Teotihuacano polities, which were organized along more corporate lines.7 While pro-cesses of interaction, emulation, and influence are evident in both cases, it seems that the architecture of the corporate societies is characterized generally by greater uniformity and standardization in architec-tural plans; emphasis on the collective, commercial, and inclusive ritual-religious aspects of architecture; and far fewer restrictions on access to structures. The more exclusionary network-based societies in turn exhibit greater variability in site-planning principles, increased focus on the administrative aspects of archi-tecture, and increased control over access to sites and buildings. ultimately, the evolving needs of distinct sociopolitical configurations found dynamic archi-tectural expressions as these societies developed and changed over time.

theoretical framework: the social production of architecture

Architecture is an excellent medium for exploring the connection between variation in material culture and distinct political economies, insofar as buildings are social objects, and their production potentially

4 Supra nn. 2, 3.5 Blanton et al. 1996; see also Blanton and Fargher 2008.6 Galaty and Parkinson 2007, 1–3.7 We do not suggest that these categorizations are static, ty-

pological entities but rather points along a continuum with

which these societies can be more closely identified (see Blan-ton et al. 1996, 2). As Feinman (2000, 221) notes, “corporate/network is neither a typology nor a dichotomy,” given the presence of a large definable middle ground (cf. Small 2009, 206); see also infra nn. 13, 17.

MyCENAEAN AND CLASSIC MAyA ARCHITECTuRE2011] 357

reifies sociocultural circumstances or institutions.8 The built environment is a form of social communi-cation, which expresses, reaffirms, and/or redefines the particular social relations between individuals within a specific cultural milieu.9 Since the produc-tion of architectural space is a sociocultural process, it is temporally and spatially variable.10 The meaning of the built environment is subject to change through dynamic sociopolitical formations often brought about through interaction.11 As Mycenaean society changed over time, its architecture was likewise altered. In this light, palaces may be seen as evolving material expres-sions of Mycenaean social behavior.

In attempts to elucidate variability within and among societies of similar complexity and scale, dual- processual theory is a productive framework.12 Dual-processual theory focuses on variation in ancient politi-cal economies and distinguishes between exclusionary, individual-centered political economies and those that are more corporate, or group oriented. Rather than reify a dichotomy between corporate and exclusionary network economies, we consider it more profitable to think of these concepts as points along a continuum.13 The corporate–network continuum at the heart of dual- processual theory is thus a valuable descriptive device for discussing diverse organizational configurations and their temporal variability. As a conceptual struc-ture, dual-processual theory aids in understanding key dimensions of divergence in ancient political econo-mies. For example, a recent examination of the ancient Greek polis of Priene illustrates the presence of differ-ing degrees of exclusionary and corporate ideologies at different points in the history of that community.14 The

analysis of Priene demonstrates that dual- processual theory may reveal a greater degree of complexity in the political economies of ancient societies.

Dynamic processual cycling between exclusionary and corporate organization in developing societies mirrors variation in material culture.15 Diachronic vari-ability in the material culture of a particular society stems from the representation of distinct patterns of political and economic organization. However, mate-rial culture is used actively within historically particular social contexts.16 Social actors may alternately repro-duce society, reject it, or modify it as a way of achiev-ing desired outcomes. Differing social, political, or economic needs will thus find shifting expression over time. The larger the number of individuals invested in the persistence of a specific system of sociopolitical organization, the more the decision-making “voice” is widely distributed among members of a given society. Such collective action provides the mechanisms that can lead to more corporate (vs. exclusionary) social patterns.17 Since architecture is an expression of so-ciopolitical configuration, architectural changes over time may reflect different political strategies in discrete spatial, temporal, or sociocultural circumstances.

We propose that architectural similarity and vari-ability between Pylos and Minoan Crete reflect dif-fering forms of sociopolitical organization on Crete and in Messenia, one an exclusionary and individual-centered network (hereafter, “exclusionary”) and the other more collective and group oriented (“cor-porate”). We evaluate this proposition by examining the relationship of Pylian architecture to Minoan tra-ditions.18 Dual-processual theory adds a new cultural

8 Rapoport 1988; Mathews and Garber 2004; Maran 2006a; Wright 2006a, 11; 2006b, 49. Cf. Martin (2001, 168): “architec-ture is not simply a shell or stage filled by cultural activity; it is an embodiment of it.”

9 Maran 2006a; 2006b, 75; Thaler 2006; cf. Marcus 1983; Martin 2001. Of course, architecture may also question, deny, or intentionally misrepresent an established social order.

10 Cf. Wright 2006a, 7.11 Such interaction may be both internal and external to

the society itself, i.e., within and between social actors and au-diences, or societies.

12 See Blanton et al. (1996) for an overview; see also Galaty and Parkinson 2007; Parkinson and Galaty 2007; Blanton and Fargher 2008; Small 2009; cf. Pauketat 2007.

13 See also de Montmollin’s (1989) concept of “bundled continua of variation.”

14 Small 2009.15 Blanton et al. 1996, 5–6; cf. Parkinson and Galaty 2007.

See Marcus (1998) for a discussion of dynamic cycling.16 Small 2009, 206. Although some material culture may

be associated with exclusionary strategies, the same materials may also be associated with a corporate ideology, given differ-ent uses within or between contexts; cf. Blanton et al. 1996, 2.

17 See Parkinson and Galaty 2007; Blanton and Fargher 2008. This is not to suggest that strategizing elites become all-powerful agents who act without regard for and uncon-strained by the rest of society; cf. Pauketat 2007.

18 It may be justifiably argued that Pylos is an atypical My-cenaean site and as such is ill-suited for application to larg-er arguments concerning the relationship between Minoan and Mycenaean society. There are strong differences between Pylos and other Mycenaean palaces, particularly those in the Argolid (cf. Dickinson 1982; Voutsaki 1999; Fitzsimons 2006, 2007), and Pylos appears to have enjoyed an early, close rela-tionship with Crete (Hägg 1982; Kilian 1987; Rutter 2005). However, developments at Pylos clearly impacted the emer-gence of a Mycenaean style in a broader sense (supra n. 3). Al-though we agree that much can be gained through the study of the nature and degree of Minoanization of other regions of the Mycenaean mainland through time, the focus of this article is less about understanding evolutionary change in the whole of Mycenaean society, per se (infra n. 19). Rather, we are more interested in demonstrating through this specific, admittedly unique, example how dual-processual theory and cross-cultural comparison may be effectively applied in classi-cal archaeology (see Small 2009).


axis of analysis to this examination by providing an alternate framework within which to approach varia-tion in architectural styles. Our goals are to locate the material correlates of variable exclusionary and corpo-rate political ideologies and to identify how diachronic changes in these political strategies found expression in architecture.19

case study: the mycenaean palace at pylos

The Bronze Age site of Pylos in southwestern Mes-senia (fig. 1; tables 1, 2), by far the best-preserved palatial site on the Greek mainland, is well known ar-chaeologically.20 Although most construction at the site dates to LH IIIB, a great deal of material is earlier, and remains of early structures were found below the palace. There is evidence of a long occupational history on and near the Englianos hilltop, stretching back into the late Early Helladic period.21 We focus on the Late Helladic architecture and briefly outline the sequence and characteristics of Pylian construction and building techniques during the Early Mycenaean period.

In the LH I–II periods, there was a trend toward the monumentalization of architecture on the Englianos hilltop. Pseudo-ashlar walls of poros limestone are found in the southwest quadrant and northwest area, near the Wine Magazine, and along the western facade of Building X. L-shaped wall sections were constructed to flank the northeast gateway, which itself aligned with the dromos of Tholos IV. Also dating to LH I–II are the pseudo-ashlar circuit wall in the southwest quadrant, the rubble walls founded on bedrock in the Belvedere area, and northwest quadrant rubble walls AB, H, L, and O. Additionally, the earliest walls in the lower town appeared at this time.22

During the later LH II period and into LH IIIA, or-thostate walls and cut-stone column bases appeared at Pylos along the western facade of the Southwest Build-ing, as well as on Building X, along the west of the southwest quadrant, in the northwest area, southeast

of Room 65, and south of the Wine Magazine.23 The emergence of orthostate construction was concurrent with advancement in wall-construction techniques: Nelson notes that blocks generally increased in size; anathyrosis assured smooth, flush joints at the exterior faces of the walls; and mortises and dowels secured wooden members to stone.24 Later in LH IIIA, true ashlar masonry (fig. 2) appeared on the western facade of the Southwest Building, in the southwest quadrant, and along what would later become the eastern facade of the main building (the megaron) (fig. 3). In LH IIIA, when the ashlar style was prevalent, there were at least two and possibly three building phases, which are evident in the northeast facade of the main build-ing; the last phase included the introduction and use of ashlar shell walls.25

At the end of LH IIIA, the constructions on the Englianos hilltop were destroyed by fire. The site was rebuilt in LH IIIB; more walls and structures survive from this period. After the LH IIIA destruction, a new construction technique and formal plan appeared at Pylos, one not previously attested at the site (fig. 4). The previous circuit wall fell into disuse, and it is pos-sible that a retaining wall was constructed along the west of the Englianos hilltop.26 LH IIIB also marked the discontinuation of ashlar construction. Although older ashlar walls and facades were reused and incorporated into the new plan, there was no new cut-stone masonry quarried or used at Pylos after the end of LH IIIA. LH IIIB construction employed “pier-wall” construction (fig. 5).27 This new style of masonry characterizes the central tripartite megaron unit that forms the core of the LH IIIB palace. Architecturally, LH IIIB may be subdivided into two construction phases, during the latter of which, as Rutter summarizes, “circulation pat-terns within the now recognizably Mycenaean palace are substantially altered as industrial activity and an enhanced concern for storage become progressively more evident.”28

19 In contrast to Small (2009, 207), we are less interested in understanding evolutionary change between social forma-tions themselves. Hence, we focus on the “why” rather than the “how” in our consideration of Mycenaean adoption of Minoan material culture. We also hope to illustrate how ar-chitectural elaboration can help identify corporate and ex-clusionary political strategies, in response to Small’s (2009, 217) caveat.

20 Blegen and Rawson 1966; McDonald and Rapp 1972; Da-vis et al. 1997; Davis 1998 (but see supra n. 18).

21 E.g., fragments of walls on the southwest and northwest edges of the plateau, Wall B, the wall below Room 104, a wall beneath Corridor 26, and Drain C in the northwest area (see Hägg 1982; Wright 1984; Davis et al. 1997, 403; Davis 1998; Nelson 2001; Bennet 2007).

22 Blegen and Rawson 1966; Nelson 2001, 324, fig. 79; Rut-ter 2005, 22.

23 Nelson 2001, 325, fig. 80; Rutter 2005, 23, fig. 3. A painted plaster floor may also have been present to the south of the northwest area.

24 Nelson 2001, 182.25 As in Room 32 and the northeast facade of the Southwest

Building (Nelson 2001, 184, 326, fig. 81; Rutter 2005, 24, fig. 4).

26 See Bennet 2007.27 Nelson 2001, 154–69, 185, 207–12, tables 17–27, figs. 10,

11, 84, 94–8, 108; see also Rutter 2005, fig. 6.28 Nelson 2001, 212–16; Rutter 2005, 26–7. Wright (1984)

suggests that the Southwest Building was the first structure completed after the LH IIIB leveling of the hilltop, followed


Thus, five distinct styles of cut-stone masonry were used at Pylos during four successive chronological phases (table 3). Cut-stone masonry first appeared prior to LH I, and its use was discontinued at the end of LH IIIA. At some point between these two periods, orthostate construction went in and out of fashion. Exactly when the changes took place cannot be de-termined definitively because of the lack of reliable stratigraphic sequences.29

Continuity and Disjunction: Commonalities and Differences Between Minoan Architecture and the Early Palace at Pylos

Before discussing the ways in which dual-processual theory may contribute to our understanding of ar-chitectural variability within Pylian architecture and between Messenia and Crete, it is first necessary to outline briefly the similarities and differences between Pylian and Minoan construction practices as well as

their temporal contexts. The evidence at Pylos indi-cates the adoption of Minoan wall-construction tech-niques, masonry practices, architectural layout, and orientation contemporary with the use of the same features on Crete. At Pylos, as on Crete, wall construc-tion employed rough stones and clay bricks connected by mortar in the interior walls, while the corners of palatial structures were fashioned by sharply defined rectangular ashlar blocks. Foundation walls, piers, lin-tels, and thresholds were built of ashlar blocks; upper walls and stories were constructed with timber frame-works enclosing rubblestone masonry faced by stucco and decorated by wall paintings. In terms of ashlar wall construction, there is little difference between Minoan examples and the large quantity of dressed poros blocks found at Pylos.30

The numerous early orthostate and ashlar walls cited by Kilian as evidence of a “Cretan” structure that

by the construction of the Wine Magazine and Northeast Workshop, echoing Blegen’s conclusion from his initial exca-vation reports (Blegen and Rawson 1966); cf. Palyvou 1987.

29 Nelson 2001, 180, 185.30 Shaw 1973; 2009, 62–4; Hiller 1996, 76; Nelson 2001,

187–88.

Fig. 1. The southern Aegean region, detailing sites discussed in the text.


Table 1. Bronze Age Aegean Chronology.a

Period Dates (B.C.E.)

Early Bronze Age

Mainland

EH I 3100/3000–2650

EH II 2650–2200/2150

EH III 2200/2150–2050/2000

Crete

EM I 3100/3000–2700/2650

EM II 2700/2650–2200/2150

EM III 2200/2150–2050/2000

Middle Bronze Age

Mainland

MH I 2050/2000–1950/1900

MH II 1950/1900–1750/1720

MH III 1750/1720–1680

Crete

MM IA 2050/2000–1925/1900

MM IB 1925/1900–1900/1875

MM II 1900/1875–1750/1720

MM III 1750/1720–1675/1650

Late Bronze Age

Mainland

LH I 1680–1600/1580

LH IIA 1600/1580–1520/1480

LH IIB 1520/1480–1425/1390

LH IIIA 1425/1390–1310/1300

LH IIIB 1310/1300–1190/1180

LH IIIC 1190/1180–1065/1050

Crete

LM IA 1675/1650–1600/1550

LM IB 1600/1550–1490/1470

LM II b 1490/1470–1435/1405

LM IIIA 1435/1405–1365/1325

LM IIIB 1365/1325–1200/1190

LM IIIC 1200/1190–1075/1050

a Abbreviations are explained in text, with the exception of EH (Early Helladic), EM (Early Minoan), and MM (Middle Minoan).b LM II applies just to the Mycenaean occupation of Knossos, at which time it was the only functioning palace on Crete.


mirrored the Minoan palatial design31 (see fig. 3) are executed in the orthostate fashion, a style otherwise unknown on the mainland.32 Coursed ashlar is par-ticularly characteristic of the Minoan architecture of the palaces, and the examples found at Pylos exhibit similar construction practices.33 Only a few details of the construction of the masonry systems vary slightly between Minoan Crete and Pylos. Minoan builders ap-pear to have preferred larger overall blocks and finely cut and squared stone socles.34 Pylian ashlar lacks mud mortar between its stone courses, employing instead timber courses mortised into place with wooden dow-els. (In one orthostate wall, there is a mortised anta.) The ashlar at Pylos is very close to its Minoan coun-terparts in all other respects.35

The Early Mycenaean construction phases at Pylos appear to be contemporary with those on Crete. Mi-noan orthostate wall construction continued into the Late Minoan (LM) I period, which corresponds ap-proximately to the suggested date of orthostate con-struction at Pylos (LH II). One of the last examples of Minoan ashlar construction, Building ABCD at Hagia Triada in southern Crete, dates to LM IIIA and roughly corresponds to the introduction of the coursed-ashlar

style at Pylos during LH IIIA, epitomized in the north-eastern section of the later palace.36 Structurally, it appears that a major Minoan element, the vertical

31 Kilian 1987, 209, 213–17, figs. 5, 12; see also Hiller 1996, 76–7; Nelson 2001, 330, fig. 85; Rutter 2005, 20–1, fig. 1; Shaw 2009, 74. This suggestion has been criticized for relying on dubious dating (see Nelson 2001 for discussion).

32 Kilian 1987. Nelson (2007, 151, 155–7, 159) dates the walls to LH II–early LH IIIA.

33 E.g., the monumental west facade of the palace at Knos-sos (Nelson 2001, 187, 189; cf. Shaw 1973).

34 This fact is perhaps a function of the availability of suit-ably sized stones.

35 Nelson 2001, 187; Rutter 2005, 24–5; Shaw 2009, 74–5; cf. Shaw 1973. Pylian-style ashlar is found in only a few other places on the mainland, including Mycenae, Tiryns, and the Menelaion (Nelson 2007, 144). While Minoan ashlar usually sits on socles of cut stone and lacks the timber inserts charac-teristic of Pylian ashlar, a few examples of timber members do

exist in Minoan architecture, such as the fourth course in the Western Light Well of the Hall of Double Axes in the palace at Knossos and the beam inserted between the second and third courses in the west wall of the Little Palace at Knossos (Nelson 2001, 188; cf. Shaw 1973).

36 Other evidence at Pylos of shared building practices in-cludes so-called mason’s marks found on ashlar orthostate blocks often cited as characteristically Minoan and Minoan-style painted plastered floors of an exceptionally early date (LH I–IIA). The shape of the typical Mycenaean column ap-pears to have been based on a Minoan model, diminishing in diameter from top to bottom; fluted columns of this kind are evident at both Pylos and Knossos; see Hood 1987; Hiller 1996, 76–7; Nelson 2001, 198–99, fig. 22; 2007, 155; Rutter 2005, 24, 29–30; Shaw 2009, 78.

Table 2. Alternate Minoan Chronology.a

Period Time Span

Prepalatial EM I–MM IA

Protopalatial (Old or First Palace period) MM IB–MM II

Neopalatial (New or Second Palace period) MM III–LM IB

Mycenaean (Final or Third Palace period)b LM II–IIIA

Postpalatial LM IIIA–C

a Abbreviations are explained in text, with the exception of EH (Early Helladic), EM (Early Minoan), and MM (Middle Minoan).b This period applies just to the Mycenaean occupation of Knossos, at which time it was the only functioning palace on Crete.

Fig. 2. Ashlar masonry at Pylos (after Hult 1983, fig. 68).


wooden and stone support system, was transferred from Crete to the mainland, where it appeared in the LH IIIB period.

Minoan and Pylian ashlar construction is above all characteristic of exterior facades; such walls therefore mark the exteriors of built structures. Nelson identifies exterior ashlar walls from three buildings of the LH IIIA period, which he labels A, B, and C (see fig. 3). Although the evidence is limited, the distribution of these ashlar walls at Pylos in the LH IIIA period sug-gests the existence of three separate structures clus-tered around a large open space.37 The positioning of these buildings appears to recreate the layout of a Minoan palace. The supposed central court aligns with the peak of Mt. Lykodimos to the southeast, just as the central court of the palace at Knossos aligned toward Mt. Juktas.38 Thus, Nelson’s careful reexamination of LH IIIA Pylos suggests that Kilian may have been cor-

rect in postulating a Minoanizing predecessor to the LH IIIB palace at Pylos. As Rutter summarizes:

[T]he masonry styles in use from LH I through LH IIIA at Pylos [are] thoroughly Minoan in character, they succeed each other in the same relative chronological sequence as on Crete . . . and they appear to define a series of ashlar-outlined buildings clustered around a large . . . court. Moreover, there is nothing in the layout of this LH IIIA palatial structure at Pylos that recalls the plan of . . . a Mycenaean palace.39

In sum, the material and techniques used in the orthostate and ashlar phases at Pylos and the manner of construction were all Minoan. Pylian walls favor a Minoan legacy, as the masonry styles at Pylos were ap-proximately concurrent with the end of the very same styles in Minoan architecture, and the sequence of the palace’s masonry styles matches a similar transition in

37 Nelson 2001, 327, fig. 82; 2007, 156, fig. 7; Rutter 2005, 25.

38 Nelson 2007, 155, 157–58.39 Rutter 2005, 25–6; cf. Crowley 2008, 261–69.

Fig. 3. Possible Minoanizing predecessor to the LH IIIB palace at Pylos, showing LH IIIA ashlar walls (in black) enclosing pro-posed Buildings A, B, and C, which surround an open central court (after Nelson 2001, figs. 81, 85; courtesy M. Nelson).


Minoan architecture.40 While cut-stone masonry has a much longer history on Crete, Minoan and Pylian builders were using the same styles and bringing about the same changes in stone masonry at roughly the same time.41 Early Mycenaean architecture at Py-los employed Minoan building practices that had no precedent on the mainland. With the construction of the final LH IIIB palace at Pylos, Minoan architectural influence in wall building disappeared.

interpretations and discussion

Dual-processual theory provides a framework for more profitably approaching the institutional con-texts in which material cultural variation occurred, thus adding a new dimension to our understanding of the complexity of interaction between Messenia and Crete.42 Minoan influence on mainland architecture is clear. The architectural forms and techniques at Py-los prior to LH IIIB were distinct from contemporary

40 I.e., coursed ashlar after orthostate construction, orthos-tate construction after less systematic use of smaller ashlar blocks (Nelson 2001, 189–90; 2007, 159; Rutter 2005, 25).

41 Nelson 2001, 190; 2007, 158; Shaw 2009, 76. The inspira-

Fig. 4. LH IIIB palace at Pylos, showing new design with central tripartite megaron unit and the discontinuation of ashlar con-struction (after Nelson 2001, figs. 82, 83; courtesy M. Nelson).

tion for such lavish use of ashlar at Pylos must have come from Crete (Rutter 2005, 32).

42 Cf. Feinman 2000; Small 2009.

Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the pier-wall construction method (after Nelson 2001, fig. 84; courtesy M. Nelson).


structures in other parts of the mainland in terms of overall architectonic plan and construction technique and the frequent use of ashlar walls.43 Although the architecture at Pylos suggests that Messenia enjoyed a special connection to Crete during the Early Myce-naean period, an unlikely explanation for this phe-nomenon is a nebulous “diffused Minoan influence.”44 As Voutsaki cautions, asserting the importance of Mi-noan influence does not address the reasons behind the opening of the mainland to external influences: “the question is not only where the new forms came from, but rather why they were adopted and what kind of cultural significance or social function they had . . . while Minoan influence is given such a central role, it remains a vague and self-explanatory concept.”45 ulti-mately, the nature, extent, and importance of Cretan-Mycenaean contacts in the Early Mycenaean period elude adequate explanation.

In addressing this dilemma, we must remember that the presence of foreign objects is not the same as the

presence of foreigners on the mainland.46 Moreover, complex cultural changes are neither purely social nor purely cultural.47 Cultural change cannot be under-stood as the result of strictly internal developments or solely externally induced phenomena. Dual- processual theory adds a new dimension to the analysis by allow-ing for the consideration of both internal and external factors as they relate to shifting strategies of sociopo-litical power, as well as the expression of these variable configurations in material culture.

Although the degree of Minoan influence through-out the mainland was variable, Minoan, Minoanized, and Minoan-inspired ceramic and artistic forms ap-peared during the Early Mycenaean period at the Ano Englianos Grave Circle, Pylos Tholos IV, and Peristeria Tholos 1 in Messenia.48 From only a few imports in LH I, the number of imported Minoan vases in Messenia increased substantially after the LH II period, and there was a clear, strong Minoan influence on locally produced LH IIIA pottery.49 Additionally, the anteced-

43 Nelson 2001, 2007; Rutter 2005, 32. Minoanizing orthos-tates were introduced at Pylos after other features of Minoan architectural practices had already been in use (e.g., the use of cut-ashlar blocks beginning as early as LH I). Although at Py-los, coursed-ashlar building superseded orthostate construc-tion, the more important issue is timing: when orthostates appeared at Pylos they appeared on Crete. These techniques were later replaced by pier-wall masonry, which continued an earlier wood-and-stone framing system ubiquitous in elite Mi-noan and Mycenaean architecture (Shaw 2009, 85–6).

44 See supra nn. 2, 3. Other unlikely explanations in the case of the mainland are large-scale migration or direct Mi-noan colonization (see Bouzek 1996; Dickinson 1996).

45 Voutsaki 1999, 103–4, 105.

46 Cf. Dickinson 1996. Although on Kythera, clay imitations of Minoan objects—along with the presence of utilitarian domestic items in overtly Minoan material assemblages—indicate the coexistence of distinct populations, the physical presence of Minoans on the island, and the wholesale adop-tion of Cretan material culture (see Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007).

47 Voutsaki 1999, 109, 116.48 See Hägg 1982, 30–1, figs. 5a, 5b, 6, 7; 1983, 120–21; Ko-

rres 1983; Dickinson 1984; 1996, 69–70; Hiller 1996; Rutter 2005, 19; Fitzsimons 2006; Taylour and Janko 2008.

49 Hägg 1982, 32; D’Agata 2005, 121; Rutter 2005; cf. Hiller 1996, 69–70. Although, as at Hagios Stephanos in Laconia, typical Cretan domestic shapes (e.g., the conical cup) are not

Table 3. Distinct Styles of Cut-Stone Masonry used at Pylos During the Late Helladic Period (after Nelson 2001, 180).a

Style Period Contexts

unknown system of cut-ashlar blocks

prior to/ during LH I

original remains and locations unknown

Pseudo-ashlar masonry (reusing blocks from first phase)

LH I–II southwest quadrant and northwest area; near Wine Magazine;

along western facade of Building X

Orthostate construction LH II–IIIA along western facade of Southwest Building; Building X; along west side of southwest quadrant;

Belvedere area; northwest area; southeast of Room 65; south of Wine Magazine (see fig. 3)

Ashlar masonry LH IIIA western facade of Southwest Building; southwest quadrant; along what would become

eastern facade of main building (the megaron) (see fig. 3)

Pier-wall construction LH IIIB throughout (see fig. 4)

a All construction on the Englianos hilltop was destroyed by fire at the end of the LH IIIA period, prior to the introduction of the new construction style and palace plan in LH IIIB.


ent forms of mainland figurative art are Minoan.50 The Mycenaeans, however, selectively incorporated those forms that they could most effectively adapt to meet their particular sociocultural needs.51 For example, the famous Lion Gate at the citadel of Mycenae inte-grates the image of a Minoan altar, albeit in a new and unfamiliar context. The selective adoption of Minoan architectural forms at Pylos during the Early Myce-naean period is contemporaneous with evidence for the spread of Minoan material culture in other parts of the Aegean.52

As in architecture, Mycenaean ceramic and artistic traditions may represent a blend of Helladic and Mi-noan elements, signifying the incorporation of Cretan influences into native aesthetic canons.53 Many of the vessel types found in the Shaft Graves at Mycenae and in Laconia are of Minoan origin, either as imports or local imitations.54 Likewise, Minoan cult symbols (e.g., the palm and double-axe motifs) were often used in Mycenaean burials soon after their transference from Crete.55 However, while most of the objects found in mortuary contexts on the mainland find close parallels in Crete, these symbols were redefined through appro-priation into mainland cultural norms.56 Mycenaean elites may have adopted Minoan objects or practices, but they were contextualized differently and thereby were likely stripped of their original symbolic meaning and force and used purely as prestige display items.57 It

appears that during the Early Mycenaean period and into LH IIIA, emerging elites at Pylos were appropriat-ing exotic Minoan goods and ideas, including architec-tural plans and construction techniques, into their own tradition to attain prestige and power within mainland social networks. Architectural styles and techniques were, however, being adopted piecemeal, not in full, just as the Minoan ritual and written repertoires were adopted selectively to serve certain Mycenaean needs and wants.58 Depending on the context of use, these symbols or objects could have been associated with ei-ther exclusionary or corporate political ideologies.59

We argue that the evidence may be best explained through a consideration of the contradictions and in-teractions of distinct exclusionary and corporate power strategies present in Minoan and Mycenaean society at different times. These two stratagems of sociopolitical organization resulted in divergent patterns of mate-rial production and consumption and, therefore, in the disparate archaeological assemblages that stem from these types of political strategies. By comparing how these political strategies were expressed architec-turally in the discrete contexts considered in this case study, we may be able to clarify the extent, nature, and degree of interaction or mutual influence within or between two societies of similar scale and complexity, such as Minoan Crete and Early Mycenaean society, as exhibited at Pylos.60

prevalent, suggesting a preference for elite or prestige goods (see Rutter and Rutter 1976, 65; Hood 1992; Cavanagh 1995; Taylour and Janko 2008).

50 Immerwahr (1990) and Hiller (1996, 78–81) detail con-nections between Knossian and Pylian wall painting. The Pylian palatial frescoes may reflect the intentional melding of Knosso-Messenian and Argive characteristics, a process that may parallel the combination of architectural styles observed in the LH IIIA palace at Pylos (Rutter 2005, 31–2).

51 Voutsaki 1999, 114; 2010; Burns 2010.52 E.g., at Akrotiri, the architecture largely mirrors elite Mi-

noan construction (Shaw 2009, 70–1). At Phylakopis, there is Late Cycladic I (LM I) evidence of ashlar bases cut with the technique used in the pier-and-door partition system on Crete, and at Hagia Irini on Kea, we find Minoan architectur-al elements incorporated into a well-developed local tradition (Shaw 2009, 72; cf. Hägg 1983). The presence of a Minoan-style peak sanctuary at Hagios Georgios near Kastri also at-tests to a strong Minoan presence just off the coast of Laconia (Sakellerakis 1996; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007).

53 Shear 1968, 58, 62–3; see also Vermeule 1975. 54 Matthäus (1980, 39–41), Dickinson (1982, 133–35; 1984),

Rutter and Zerner (1984), and Cavanagh (1995) all discuss the issue of Minoan origins (cf. Rutter and Rutter 1976; Hood 1992; Taylour and Janko 2008). See Davis (1977) for a discus-sion of differences between gold (locally produced Mycenae-an) and silver (imported Minoan) vessels.

55 Whittaker 2002.56 Such recontextualization is discussed by Darcque 1987;

Wright 1987, 2006a; Voutsaki 1999, 113.57 Hägg 1982; Voutsaki 1999, 114. Such prestige items per-

haps included the plan of the Minoan palace itself (Moody 1987). Of course, the process of Minoanization varied in dif-ferent locales within the southern Aegean (supra nn. 50–2). Mycenaean elites in the Argolid adopted different Minoan cultural forms at essentially the same time (LH I) that Pylian elites were adopting Minoan architectural practices (cf. Fitzsi-mons 2006, 2007; Voutsaki 2010). Pylos is distinct from other mainland centers in its unique imitation of Minoan architec-tural practices during LH I–II (supra n. 18).

58 Other areas of the Aegean (supra nn. 46, 52), in contrast, adopted Minoan material culture wholesale. In the Early My-cenaean period on the mainland, however, rival elites were laying claim to “external symbols that represented distant al-ternatives to local power” (Burns 2010, 191).

59 Small 2009 (supra n. 16).60 Cherry 1986. Pylos is, of course, a single Mycenaean pol-

ity, and Minoan Crete was larger in terms of population, area, and resources than was Pylos. Moreover, Crete was highly regionalized at various times during the periods under con-sideration here. We are admittedly being selective in our evi-dence—we do not suggest that early Pylos is representative of Mycenaean society as a whole—but this fact should not affect the potentiality of dual-processual theory or its application in other contexts. Treatments of Minoan impact on architecture at other Mycenaean sites, or of Minoan influence on aspects of mainland material culture other than architecture, may benefit from this approach (supra n. 18).


Neopalatial Minoan society was corporate in nature, characterized by power sharing across different groups and sectors of society in such a way as to inhibit exclu-sionary strategies centered on individual control. This sociopolitical configuration, manifested architectural-ly in the existence of large-scale public spaces suitable for communal ritual, is described by Blanton et al. as a “comparative egalitarianism in which individuals are ‘faceless and anonymous.’”61 Evidence for such con-figurations abounds on Crete, particularly at Knossos (fig. 6).62 In contrast, the exclusionary sociopolitical power characteristic of Mycenaean society involved the creation and manipulation of social relationships through interaction and exchange of exotic or pres-tige goods or ideas employed to exercise dominance in small-scale personal networks.63 The sudden and dramatic rise in evidence for Minoan sumptuary goods after LH II in Messenia suggests that local elites were actively seeking control over the prestige-goods system, recognizing the value of emulative strategies and exot-ic luxury items in attracting or maintaining followers.64 The development of political legitimation through monopolization of trade is characteristic of emerging exclusionary strategies of political power.65

Political strategies, however, are not static entities. Just as they differ between societies, they may vary dia-chronically within a single society. In terms of archi-tecture, variability in construction phases may reflect changing (or “cycling”) sociopolitical organization over time.66 For example, the introduction and use of poros ashlar construction in Messenia occurred when connections and cultural links between the mainland

and Crete were particularly strong67 and after Minoan builders of monumental architecture associated with power had, as Nelson suggests, “pioneered the use of poros block masonry.”68 At this point in time, however, a full-scale exclusionary power strategy had not yet taken root at Pylos or at any site on the mainland.69 Rather, emerging stratification through LH IIIA took the form of localized elites engaged in factional com-petition and conspicuous consumption dependent on wealth and prestige acquired through the manipula-tion of exchange networks.70

As discussed above, from a dual-processual frame-work, objects or practices acquired through such exchange networks could have functioned in either exclusionary or corporate institutional settings. Al-though evidence for imported prestige goods at Pylos is limited, it is clear that the elites occupying Ano Engli-anos adopted Minoan construction techniques and, potentially, an architectural plan at an exceptionally early date. Thus, in the absence of exclusionary power strategies on the mainland at this time, it would appear that at Pylos, Minoan material culture was incorporated into institutional contexts more closely affiliated with a corporate political economy on the dual-processual continuum. This resulted, and was reflected, in an un-usually high degree of similarity between Minoan and early Pylian construction. As Mycenaean political strat-egies changed, cycling more toward the exclusionary spectrum, material culture, including architecture, was likewise recontextualized and transformed.

The LH IIIB architectural changes in the palace at Ano Englianos brought with them a striking new

61 Blanton et al. 1996, 2, 6.62 See, e.g., Branigan 1995; Driessen and Schoep 1995;

Knappett and Schoep 2000; Haggis 2002; Hamilakis 2002; Schoep 2002, 2006; Warren 2002. Consider the limited access control in Minoan palatial plans (Palyvou 1987) or the ab-sence of ruler iconography (Immerwahr 1990). Interestingly, the greater degree of wealth equality in corporate society (see Blanton et al. 1996, 7) may be suggested by the presence of the Minoan villas. A so-called international style in art is also a trait of corporate societies and may be indicated by the sty-listic and thematic similarity between frescoes encountered at Akrotiri and on Crete.

63 Blanton et al. 1996, 2, 4; cf. Burns 2010; Voutsaki 2010.64 See, e.g., Wright 2008, 251; Burns 2010, 191; cf. Hamila-

kis 2002.65 Blanton et al. 1996, 4, 10; see also Brumfiel (2003) for

an overview of developing stratification in emerging network-oriented societies of the New World.

66 Wright 2006a; see also Branigan 1995; Haggis 2002; Par-kinson and Galaty 2007.

67 E.g., in the Early Mycenaean period, perhaps because of the interest of the elites at Knossos in the stone and metal resources of Laconia. This was coeval with the expansion of

Kastri and increased importance of Kythera as a node of ex-change between Crete and the Greek mainland (see Hägg 1982; Korres 1983; Rutter and Zerner 1984; Cavanagh 1995; Hiller 1996; Broodbank et al. 2005; Rutter 2005; Broodbank and Kiriatzi 2007; Taylour and Janko 2008). Also at this time, other parts of the mainland began to exhibit Minoanizing tendencies (see Fitzsimons 2006), and the southwestern Pelo-ponnese became as thoroughly Minoanized as the eastern Peloponnesian coast of Laconia was during the Middle Hel-ladic (see Dickinson 1996, 69–70; Hiller 1996; Rutter 2005, 19).

68 Nelson 2007, 159.69 To clarify, in the Shaft Grave era at Mycenae proper,

as Voutsaki (2010, 96) points out, “a social group . . . [had] managed to penetrate, or perhaps initiate networks of gift exchange and diplomatic alliances with elites outside the mainland” (cf. Burns 2010, 191). It is not until all wealth be-comes centralized in greater Mycenaean society that we truly observe the exclusionary political economy characteristic of LH IIIB.

70 Wright 2006a; cf. Blanton et al. 1996; Haggis 2002; Hami-lakis 2002; Brumfiel 2003; Fitzsimons 2007; Burns 2010 (su-pra n. 58).


building technique and palace plan.71 The LH IIIB architectural transformation of the palace at Pylos was the result of a reconfiguration of the power base of Mycenaean society, in which one group emerged from the LH IIIA local prestige competition, consolidated its power in a wider regional network, redefined the social dynamics of Mycenaean society, and established an exclusionary, lineage-based state focused on one individual—the wanax.72 These social transformations promoted the institutionalized standardization of the Mycenaean palatial form and led to the abandonment of burial tholoi.73 The LH IIIB architectural changes represent the culmination of developing complex-ity in Messenia as the Pylian state continued to grow

and expand. Thus, the architectural reconstruction of power at LH IIIB Pylos mirrors fundamental transfor-mations in Mycenaean social structure throughout the mainland, as sociopolitical complexity increased expo-nentially and a full-scale exclusionary power strategy took root.74 In other words, emerging elites at Pylos used Minoan goods and symbols to validate claims to power, but once power was established, these Mino-anizing cultural projects were recontextualized and reformulated into a Mycenaean style.75

This process was reflected in the diminishing spa-ciousness and elegance of the LH IIIB palace, the addition of storage facilities and workrooms, and increased restriction on access to and circulation

71 Nelson 2001, 2007; Rutter 2005, 26.72 Kilian 1988; Bennet 1995; Fitzsimons 2006, 2007; Wright

2006a; cf. Palaima 1987.73 Darcque 1987; Wright 1987, 2006a. Interestingly, if we

consider burial tholoi Minoan-derived phenomena, then their abandonment would suggest waning Minoan influence

at this time (see Bennet 1995). Of course, the disappearance of tholoi as a burial form at Pylos was not a universal event for the entire Greek mainland at the LH IIIA–IIIB transition.

74 Wright 1987, 2006a; Fitzsimons 2006, 2007; Thaler 2006; supra n. 69 (but see supra nn. 18, 60).

75 Voutsaki 1999, 2010; Burns 2010 (supra n. 58).

Fig. 6. Plan of the Minoan palace at Knossos, showing open architectural spaces suitable for communal ritual (e.g., central and west courts, theatral area). Note larger scale than the palace at Pylos (modified from Pendlebury 1954, plan 9).


within the palatial complex.76 When one considers the additional resources needed for the new LH IIIB architectural style and the discontinuation of the ash-lar style, it appears, as Nelson concludes, that Pylian rulers deliberately attempted to erase a building mate-rial and technique associated with an outside, foreign influence. With the discontinuation of ashlar at Pylos and the construction of the Mycenaean megaron, the palace at Knossos burned, and Minoan architecture became a building style of the past.77

Although the specific mechanism behind the dif-fusion of Minoan cultural forms on the mainland re-mains unclear, the motivational contexts that underlay their adoption are somewhat less obscure. On Crete, it appears that the basic aspects of the palatial plan that emerged in the Neopalatial period appropriated Near Eastern and/or Egyptian elements along with lo-cal architectural canons, a process that may parallel the spreading influence of Minoan architectural styles and techniques in the wider Aegean area.78 A more interesting question is what significance foreign ma-terial culture held for the emerging Pylian elite. We posit that Messenian elites at Pylos expressly sought the incorporation of exotic Minoan material culture to increase localized power through the acquisition of foreign luxuries. Seen in this light, the specific mecha-nism of adoption becomes less important.

From an anthropological perspective, it is more fruitful to connect diachronic changes in material culture to changes in systems of social organization. Since Early Mycenaean elites used foreign cultural projects to attain power within local networks through prestige competition, the relative complexity of the technologies acquired was crucial. Simply importing objects is considerably easier than establishing and executing a new style of masonry or producing local copies of ceramics that could be acquired abroad. As more power was gained, exercised, and established, not only did the scale, nature, and products of the competition expand exponentially, so too did the sociopolitical complexity of Mycenaean society itself. This process fed back into the ongoing prestige com-petition, which was at this point far more exclusion-ary; networks expanded on a regional scale in which social transformations were reflected in the dynamic reformulation of both appropriated and indigenous

material cultural traditions. Considering the increased effort and resources necessary to undertake the archi-tectural changes at LH IIIB Pylos, it seems clear that Mycenaean society at Ano Englianos had by that time reached a much higher level of sociopolitical devel-opment, one in which power and complexity were consequently mirrored in the architecture. In this sense, dual-processual theory provides both the most informative descriptions and the most plausible ex-planations, as it is simultaneously able to account for synchronic and diachronic similarities and differences within and between Crete and Messenia throughout the Early Mycenaean period.

a cross-cultural perspective: mesoamerican art and architecture at tikal and teotihuacán

Despite a shared body of method and theory, a dis-ciplinary rift still exists between classical and anthropo-logical archaeologists, although recent trends to bridge the divide are encouraging.79 Although Mesoameri-canists rarely consider the Aegean world, they often encounter the same sort of difficulties as their Aegean counterparts, especially when it comes to interpreting evidence concerning the nature, extent, and effects of interregional interaction. Even a cursory examination of the evidence at hand reveals that similar processes were at play in both the Aegean Bronze Age and the Mesoamerican Preclassic (2000 B.C.E.–250 C.E.) and Classic (250–900 C.E.) periods.80 Therefore, we believe that much may be gained from a comparative evalua-tion of Mesoamerican evidence as it relates to questions regarding cultural interaction, architectural innova-tion, and material variability in the Aegean world.

Moreover, a stated goal of dual-processualism is the promotion of cross-cultural comparison. Here, we of-fer one example from Mesoamerican contexts (fig. 7; table 4) that provides a useful parallel to the situation in Messenia at LH IIIA–B Pylos. We contend that the relationship between the architecture of Teotihuacán and that of Classic-period Maya sites, particularly Tikal, reflects a similar process of appropriation and refor-mulation coeval with social transformations in the Maya lowlands of Central America. This process par-allels Minoan-Mycenaean exchange and architectural development in the Bronze Age Aegean.

76 Wright 1984; Rutter 2005; Thaler 2006.77 Nelson 2007, 159.78 Warren 1987; Shaw 2009, 65. It is possible that the Myce-

naean secondary states were repeating a process of competi-tive emulation that Minoan society, as a secondary state, had experienced generations earlier in contact with the Near East and Africa (see Parkinson and Galaty 2007; cf. Cherry 1986).

79 E.g., Galaty and Parkinson (2007, 2–3) compare Myce-

naean and Maya regional settlement patterns, which com-plement the site-focused discussion presented here; see also Small 2001, 2009; Tartaron 2008.

80 E.g., regional political and economic interaction, in-creasing sociopolitical complexity, the development of state-level societies, and the emergence of advanced iconography, art, and writing systems, to name but a few obvious parallels.


The site of Teotihuacán emerged in the central highland Valley of Mexico by 300–100 B.C.E. and grew rapidly in the first and second centuries C.E. At its height in 600 C.E., it was the largest and most dense-ly populated city in Mesoamerica.81 Architecturally, Teotihuacán is noted for its monumental public works, including an enormous enclosed courtyard known as the Ciudadela (citadel), a plaza that could have held some 100,000 people.82 The city, divided into four parts by the East–West Avenue and the Avenue of the Dead, was organized in a grid pattern with rectilinear streets. Along the northern 2.5 km of the Avenue of the Dead was a district covering 150–250 ha; it contained large civic-ceremonial structures and complexes and likely served as the social, ritual, and commercial center of the city (fig. 8). A distinctive feature of the built envi-ronment at Teotihuacán is the near uniform adher-ence of its structures to an orientation 15.5° east of true north. These standardized directional orientations and the fact that distances between structures and archi-tectural features are simple multiples of one another suggest that Teotihuacán was likely laid out from its inception according to a master plan—perhaps using a standardized unit of measurement—to reflect cos-mological principles or a specific worldview.83

Beyond the monumental architecture, the remain-der of the site consists of approximately 2,000 walled residential compounds in which most of the population

81 Cowgill 2003, 37. The city covered some 20 km2 and would have held a population on the order of 150,000 people (Headrick 2007, 171 n. 6).

82 Sugiyama 1993; Blanton et al. 1996, 10.83 Sugiyama 1993; Cowgill 2003, 43, 45; cf. Marcus 1983;

Smith 2007. The encoding of cosmological principles in ar-

Fig. 7. Mesoamerica, detailing locations of the principal sites mentioned in the text. The shaded area is the Maya region.

Table 4. Summary of Mesoamerican Chronology.

Period Dates

Archaic 3500–2000 B.C.E.

Preclassic (Formative)

Early 2000–1000/950 B.C.E.

Middle 1000/950–450/400 B.C.E.

Late 450/400 B.C.E.–200/250 C.E.

Classic

Early 200/250–600 C.E.

Late 600–850/900 C.E.

Terminal 850/900–950/1000 C.E.

Postclassic

Early 950/1000–1200 C.E.

Late 1200–1519 C.E.

chitecture indicates what Rapoport (1988, 325) labels “high-level” meaning in the built environment. Soles (1995) has made a strong case for astronomical alignments at Knossos and a standard Minoan unit of measurement, suggesting a noteworthy similarity between Minoan and Teotihuacano building practices.


lived after the second century C.E. Although variation exists between compounds, most measure approxi-mately 60 m per side, have two or three entrances, and contain several rooms on low platforms fronted by porticoes and arranged around a square central pa-tio.84 Importantly, the various arrangements of space in the residential compounds, as well as the existence of multiple apartments in a single compound, suggest that the social units formed by compound residents must have been larger than individual households or nucle-ar families. Although the composition of such units is uncertain, they likely included extended kin groups of multiple lineages and individuals bound by looser kin ties or by patron-client or other relations.85

These groups, bound together by common resi-dence, likely played an important part in the city’s socio-

political organization and administration. Leaders of such groups may have formed an oligarchy in which political offices and headship of state circulated among elite families, or “houses.”86 The presence of an easily identifiable “palace,” or seat of an individual ruler, is conspicuously lacking,87 as is ruler iconography. Moreover, the distinct lack of portrayal or reference to named rulers at Teotihuacán is decidedly idiosyncratic when compared with other Mesoamerican cultures. Teotihuacano art seems to have avoided emphasis on the individual and instead promoted integration and a collective ideology. Murals and painted ceramic vessels display ritual processions of personages belonging to so-called military orders or other corporate organiza-tions.88 As such, Teotihuacano society is often charac-terized as corporate.89 Between 600 and 750 C.E., the

84 Sugiyama 1993; Cowgill 2003, 42, fig. 2.2; Headrick 2007, 5–6, fig. 1.5.

85 Cowgill 2003, 41, 43; cf. Headrick 2007, 5–6. The “rela-tively inflexible” amount of living space in walled compounds does not seem to fit developmental cycles associated with indi-vidual households or extended families (Cowgill 2003, 42).

86 Cowgill 2003, 42–3; Headrick 2007, 10. Both authors note the likelihood that the city had a series of strong and capable individual rulers, especially during the period of rapid growth from ca. 100–250 C.E. when the principal civic-ceremonial buildings were constructed. The leaders, however, “may have been something of an anomaly in a society whose political in-stitutions were . . . more oligarchic, both before and after this

interval” (Cowgill 2003, 42–3). Moreover, evident architectur-al uniformity at Teotihuacán suggests a strong and effectively centralized authority.

87 Although the Ciudadela may have served this purpose at some point (Headrick 2007, 10).

88 Taube 1992; Sugiyama 1993; Blanton et al. 1996, 10; Headrick 2007, 10–16, figs. 1.14, 1.15. Corporate group mem-bers are identifiable in the iconography through their char-acteristic tassel headdresses, clothing, and ceremonial bags; representation of identifiable group membership surpasses any attempts at individual glorification.

89 Again, we do not wish to reify a sharp dichotomy between corporate and exclusionary political economies (supra n. 7).

Fig. 8. Map of the civic-ceremonial core of Teotihuacán.


main civic-ceremonial buildings at Teotihuacán were destroyed by fire, and the city declined and eventu-ally was abandoned.

In contrast to the collective, corporate ideology evident at Teotihuacán, the public glorification of named rulers, themselves considered divine kings, was fundamental to the Classic Maya political economy. Monumental stone architecture appeared in the Maya lowlands ca. 500 B.C.E.; over the next several centuries, Maya society grew in sociopolitical and cultural com-plexity, ultimately reaching state-level organization by at least the first century C.E. Large, ostensibly palatial structures as well as other monumental buildings as-sociated with specific individuals dominated the Clas-sic-period lowland Maya architectural program. Such structures reflected the political agendas of elites and high-status individuals who were themselves frequently depicted in monumental art, in iconography, and on architectural facades designed to command public at-tention and reinforce claims to power—the antithesis of the faceless polity of contemporary Teotihuacán (fig. 9).90 Maya architecture employed the symbolic power of space in the built environment as a structural and experiential support for the institution of king-ship and the veneration of individual rulers.91 Given these architectural configurations, the Classic-period lowland Maya are often described as an exclusionary network society. Classic Maya society was not a mono-lithic entity with a single central authority; architec-tural problems were therefore solved differently, and variability between sites and regions is evident in both synchronic and diachronic terms.92

Despite such variation, some generalized patterns are manifest in Maya architectural and site-planning principles. Although not organized in a grid pattern, the layout of several Maya sites suggests that Maya cit-ies were planned and constructed to reflect higher-level cosmological or archaeoastronomical meaning.93 Maya structures usually were built of plastered lime-

stone with highly elaborate exteriors of pliable stucco built over tenoned supports. The facades of the larg-est buildings often featured monumental godheads, which may have functioned as idols or effigies for ado-ration and ritual offerings. A common concern among the lowland Maya was ancestor veneration: royal tombs were enclosed within constructions and shrines placed atop temples as sites of worship.94 Finally, Maya sites were often fortified by walls and other defenses, and access to structures within sites was tightly controlled.95 The site of Tikal exhibits these characteristic Maya ar-chitectural configurations.

Tikal was a dynamic urban center located in the northern lowlands of the Petén region of Guatemala. The civic-ceremonial core of the city (fig. 10) consist-ed of several monumental architectural groups with a long and detailed construction history. At its apogee in the eighth century C.E., Tikal encompassed more than 3,000 structures, covered at least 16 km2, and held a population of between 60,000 and 90,000 inhabit-ants. The North Acropolis, the most complex archi-tectural group, is located at the geographic center of the site. Directly to the south lie the Great Plaza and the Central Acropolis, the central residential, admin-istrative, and ceremonial complex. To the southwest is the Mundo Perdido Complex, a primary site of elite activity during the Preclassic and Early Classic periods. A series of raised stone causeways connected periph-eral architecture with the city core.96

Tikal is among the most heavily investigated Maya cities, primarily because of its size, extensive mate-rial record, and complex architectural history.97 Most monumental architecture at Tikal was constructed in the classic Petén style, with apron-molded terraces surrounding a stucco-coated substructure topped by corbel-vaulted superstructures, following stylistic con-ventions established in the Middle Preclassic period.98 Nonetheless, the architects of Tikal also embraced in-novation and selectively integrated foreign elements

90 Blanton et al. 1996, 12; cf. Miller 1998; Taube 1998; Boro-wicz 2003; Loten 2003. E.g., Miller (1999, 27–8) notes that the roof comb of Temple I at Tikal took on the appearance of a giant enthroned ruler; see Schele (1998) for numerous examples.

91 Miller 1998; Cash 2005, 69 n. 31.92 E.g., between the northern Maya lowland of the Petén,

Guatemala, southern sites such as Copán and Quiriguá, and western centers such as Palenque; see also Houston 1998; Braswell 2003a, 34–5.

93 This meaning is evident in the alignment between archi-tectural features and celestial bodies (e.g., the presence of ar-chaeoastronomical observatories known as E-groups at Maya sites); see, e.g., Houston 1998; Miller 1998; 1999, 26–7; Ash-more and Sabloff 2002; Aveni 2003; Harrison 2003, 198–99; Mathews and Garber 2004; cf. Smith 2005.

94 E.g., the North Acropolis at Tikal (Martin 2001; Harrison 2003; Loten 2003; Harrison and Andrews 2004).

95 E.g., the Mundo Perdido Complex at Tikal (Marcus 1983; Stuardo 2003).

96 Harrison 2003; Loten 2003; Harrison and Andrews 2004; Cash 2005, 79–106.

97 As with our discussion of Pylos, however, we should point out that we do not hold Tikal to be indicative of the whole of Classic Maya society (supra nn. 18, 60). In many ways, howev-er, Tikal is less atypical than Pylos, and as such its architecture is a fair representation of Classic Maya canons.

98 Hansen 1998; Cash 2005, 168. E.g., the Preclassic archi-tecture of the North Acropolis was markedly similar to struc-tures from neighboring cities uaxactún and El Mirador in layout, style, decoration, and function.


and styles into conventional Maya architectural can-ons. Frequently, such formal innovations appear as superficial qualities located on the exterior facades of a variety of structures. The incorporation and ap-plication of foreign elements in structures at Tikal did not disrupt Preclassic architectural traditions in terms of overall structural type, form, layout, or func-tion; the result was a built environment that retained long-standing conventions of construction yet at times exhibited eclectic and visually complex exteriors.99

The Talud-Tablero Style and the Teotihuacano Impact on Maya Architecture at Tikal

The epigraphic and material records of Tikal con-tain a large number of formal, stylistic, and symbolic

references to Teotihuacán. The presence of central Mexican materials and art forms (such as green ob-sidian from the Pachuca source in central Mexico and cylinder tripod ceramics) at Tikal as early as 250 B.C.E. suggests the appropriation of Teotihuacano el-ements into lowland Maya conventions beginning in the Late Preclassic period.100 Moreover, evidence of Teotihuacán-style “foreign” iconographic conventions is rife at Tikal and throughout the Maya lowlands.101 The data suggest that interaction with central Mexico, particularly Teotihuacán, strongly impacted Maya elite culture and politics throughout the Classic period.102

Perhaps the most obvious architectural indication of such interaction is the use of a distinct style referred to as talud-tablero (fig. 11). A talud-tablero structure consists

99 Cash 2005, 168; cf. Schele 1998.100 Braswell 2003b, 113; Cash 2005, 79, 168. Some ceramics

were directly imported while others appear to be locally fabri-cated copies of foreign ceramic forms.

101 E.g., Tikal Burial 10, Tikal Stelae 4 and 32, and uaxactún Stele 5 (Stuart 2000; Harrison 2003; see also Fash 1998; Boro-wicz 2003; Nielsen 2003, 2006; Sharer 2003).

102 Fash 1998; Laporte 2003; Marcus 2003.

Fig. 9. Examples of Maya rulers in iconography and architectural facades: a, front face of Tikal Stele 31, showing ruler Siyaj Chan K’awiil in Maya-style garb (© Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., www.famsi.org); b, detail of yaxchilán Lintel 8, showing ruler Bird Jaguar with captive (© Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., www.famsi.org); c, reconstruction of stucco sculptures on tiers from the North Substructure facade of the Palace at Palenque, showing the face of ruler K’an Joy Chitam II flanked by a two-headed serpent (drawing by Linda Schele; © David Schele, cour-tesy Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., www.famsi.org); d, detail of reconstructed stucco sculpture from facade on North Substructure of the Palace at Palenque (drawing by Linda Schele; © David Schele, courtesy Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc., www.famsi.org).

b

c

da


of a flat, rectangular platform, or tablero, which sits atop an angled, sloping side called the talud. This architec-tural technique is ubiquitous at Teotihuacán and was the dominant style employed in construction at the site, appearing on virtually all structures in the civic-ceremonial core along the Avenue of the Dead and on the facades of apartment compounds. Although chronological evidence indicates that talud-tablero ar-chitecture predated the foundation of Teotihuacán, the style was ostensibly a central Mexican invention and characteristic of Teotihuacano construction.103 The technique was used widely throughout pre- Columbian Mesoamerica and occurred at a number

of sites in the Maya area, most clearly and frequently at Tikal.104 Talud-tablero appears in two primary contexts at Tikal: the Mundo Perdido Complex and the Group 6C-XVI residential and ceremonial complex located 350 m south of the Mundo Perdido Complex. By the second half of the third century C.E., the architectural record at Tikal included a relatively large number of talud-tablero elements.105

The talud-tablero style thus appeared in the Maya lowlands in the Late Preclassic and Early Classic peri-ods (ca. 250 B.C.E.–250 C.E.), a time span marked by Teotihuacano expansionism throughout Mesoamerica, the rise of Maya states, and frequent contact between

103 Headrick 2007, 4, 124–25. 104 Cheek 1977; Laporte 1987, 269; Harrison 2003; Sharer

2003, 159–60; cf. Fash 1998.

105 Laporte 1987, 269–95, figs. 6–9; 2003, 199–200; Cash 2005, 168–80.

Fig. 10. Map of Tikal site layout, detailing locations of monumental architecture in the civic-ceremonial core of the city. Group 6C-XVI (not shown) is located 350 m south of the Mundo Perdido Complex.


Tikal and Teotihuacán.106 The introduction of talud-tablero at Tikal was coeval with the flourishing of central Mexican ceramic forms and iconography in the Maya lowlands, the beginning of true masonry construction at the site, and increasing access control to ritual and elite residential structures.107 As such, the presence of talud-tablero and the specialized groups in which it is found has often been interpreted as evidence of direct Teotihuacano influence and/or intrusion in Tikal—previous scholarship has put forth the idea that Tikal and other lowland Maya sites were rebuilt in the im-age of an expansionist Teotihuacano empire. Indeed, at Kaminaljuyú in the southern Guatemala highlands, talud-tablero structures demonstrate remarkable simi-larities to those at Teotihuacán in terms of stylistic ele-ments, materials, and construction techniques.108

At Tikal, however, the data do not support the idea that the lowland Maya adopted Teotihuacano material culture wholesale. Rather, builders at Tikal experi-mented with new ideas, taking stylistic elements out of context and combining them with local techniques and styles. All structures at Tikal that display talud- tablero incorporate varying amounts and combina-tions of the style, and it always appears in conjunction with key elements of conventional Maya architectural forms, such as apron-molded terraces and stucco sculp-ture, suggesting a pattern of free borrowing and local innovation. Continual modification to the propor-tion, angle, and scale of these architectural features indicates that the talud-tablero stylistic complex was never accepted as a so-called pure Mexican standard-ized form that perfectly replicated the architecture of Teotihuacán from the inside out. Rather, elements were selectively appropriated into established Maya conventions of construction and design.109

At Teotihuacán, the preferred talud-tablero form con-sisted of pairs of taludes and framed tableros that com-pletely encircled a platform and balustrade staircases capped with finial blocks called remates. These features were consistently used as a complex of traits and almost never in isolation.110 At Tikal, however, different ver-sions of talud-tablero were established and incorporated into local architectural canons. Such modified adapta-tions diverged from stylistic norms evident in contem-porary examples at Teotihuacán. For example, the use of taludes in local architecture predated the increase in interaction between the Maya lowlands and central Mexico during the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods. The Late Preclassic–period Structure 5C-49 in the Mundo Perdido Complex had a vertical tablero that was devoid of a frame, and its stairways were flanked by balustrades that lacked remates (fig. 12). The second construction of this building displayed a variation of talud-tablero: the tableros were placed on the front of the structure and projected toward the sides, and only the

106 The most famous instance of Tikal-Teotihuacán contact is the entrada (arrival of strangers) of 15 January 378 C.E., as recorded on Tikal Stele 31 (and other monuments). In this event, a group of foreigners, ostensibly from central Mexico, arrived at Tikal. On the same day, the ruler of Tikal died, and shortly thereafter a new ruling dynasty was established at the site, one that frequently flaunted its association with Teoti-huacán in monumental art and iconography and may in fact have had direct ties to Teotihuacano elites (see Stuart 2000).

107 Laporte 1998, 29–33; 2003, 209; Harrison 2003, 186–88.108 See Cheek (1977, 447) and Braswell (2003b), although

these similarities may simply be the result of the availability of suitable materials and the specific engineering requirements of the talud-tablero style. This echoes the case of “Minoan” ar-chitecture at Pylos, in which similarity in ashlar construction could have been nothing more than a function of the avail-

ability of suitably sized stones (supra n. 34).109 Cheek 1977, 444–45; Miller 1999, 30. The appropriation

of talud-tablero elements seems to have been a product of local artistic choice and not an externally imposed style associated with the presence of a central Mexican population. Wright (2005) notes that the first king of the post-entrada dynasty at Tikal (supra n. 106) was not, in fact, from Teotihuacán. Importantly, the architectural style of the North Acropolis changed little over the duration of the Classic period (Loten 2003; Cash 2005, 169). This situation is reminiscent of the My-cenaean recontextualization of certain elements of Minoan material culture.

110 Cheek 1977, 447; Laporte 2003, 200. However, Laporte (2003) cautions that there is no “standard ratio” or “pure” central Mexican style at Teotihuacán itself.

Fig. 11. Talud-tablero architecture, showing its construction (after Headrick 2007, fig. 1.4a).


uppermost level had a tablero on all four sides. More-over, the preferred size proportion of talud-tablero at Tikal was 1:1, differing from the Teotihuacano “stan-dard” of 1:3.111 The architectural record of the Mundo Perdido Complex clearly indicates that talud-tablero ar-chitecture was selectively assimilated; it coexisted with local elements in various combinations and amounts since the Preclassic period. The structural core of ev-ery building was essentially Maya in its conception, construction, and composition, and all structures were finished with exterior features grounded firmly in Pre-classic Maya aesthetic traditions despite the inclusion of talud-tablero stylistic elements.112

At Tikal, talud-tablero occurred as a single element in a multifaceted visual program dominated by lowland Maya architectural and sculptural forms. The coexis-tence of the two styles suggests that they functioned together as part of an architectural program that provided meaning to the structures.113 In the Mundo Perdido and Group 6C-XVI Complexes, talud-tablero architecture was combined with ball game, warrior, and/or cosmic imagery. These contexts symbolically emphasized a ruler’s control over the forces of nature and death. Patterns in the location, function, and sym-bolism of talud-tablero structures imply that the style was adopted by the emerging Maya elite to illustrate

a metaphorical connection with the power and pres-tige of Teotihuacán as a source of sociopolitical and supernatural authority.114 This desired association did not replace existing Preclassic representational, archi-tectural, or symbolic conventions. Rather, the symbolic meaning of talud-tablero acted in conjunction with tra-ditional forms and symbols to project a new, more pow-erful image of the ruler that complemented aspects of his budding political authority. Thus, Maya rulers at Tikal actively appropriated, selectively integrated, and recontextualized talud-tablero architecture to evoke a visible, spatial, experiential, and metaphorical connec-tion with sacred distant landscapes, an association that served to validate and reinforce their claims to power within emerging localized networks.115 In the case of Tikal, exclusionary political strategies predated the introduction of talud-tablero, but just as in the Aegean, evolving institutional contexts dictated the use and ex-pression of shared elements over time. In both cases, dual-processual theory provides the context for the mechanisms whereby influence was expressed through diachronic variation in material culture.

The use of the talud-tablero style continued at Tikal through the Early Classic period until ca. 600 C.E., at which point Teotihuacán declined, its influence waned, and new architectural styles and techniques

111 Or in some cases, 1:5. Laporte 1987, 306; 2003, 201 (fig. 7.2), 205. See also Braswell (2003b, 106–7) and Cheek (1977, 447) for similar modified variation at Kaminaljuyú.

112 Laporte 1998; Cash 2005, 198.113 Cf. Miller 1998; Taube 1998; Cash 2005.114 See Clark and Blake 1994; Stuart 2000.

115 Miller 1998; Laporte 2003, 200, 205; Cash 2005, 71–2, 106, 179–80. See also Braswell (2003b, 110–14) for a discus-sion of a similar process at Kaminaljuyú. This process appears almost identical to the Mycenaean adoption and recontextu-alization of Minoan material culture (see, e.g., Burns 2010, 191 [supra nn. 56, 58]).

Fig. 12. Reconstructed view, Structure 5C-49-5, Mundo Perdido, Tikal (modified from Cash 2005, fig. 8).


came into vogue at Tikal and other sites in the Maya lowlands associated with Teotihuacán during the Late Classic period (600–900 C.E.).116 The final construc-tion phases in the Mundo Perdido and Group 6C-XVI Complexes (ca. 400–500 C.E.) covered all earlier struc-tures, completely removed their talud-tablero elements, and displayed a more traditional architectural style. At Tikal, the talud-tablero style fell into disuse during the Middle Classic hiatus and experienced a mild re-surgence during the Late Classic period in association with buildings that evoked and reinforced symbolic connection to past power.117

conclusions: parallels between the mesoamerican and aegean worlds

The similarities between the Mesoamerican and Aegean cases are striking. In both instances, two cul-tures of slightly different levels of complexity and vari-able sociopolitical configurations came into contact with each other, and the emerging exclusionary soci-ety borrowed elements of material culture from the more established corporate one. Mycenaeans at Pylos and Maya at Tikal selectively adopted, modified, and recontextualized, respectively, Minoan and Teotihua-cano architectural forms into preexisting local aes-thetic canons. In both cases, the borrowed elements were subsequently built over in later construction phases using new styles and techniques, and few ves-tiges of the older foreign architecture remained (fig. 13).118 In neither case was the process one of whole-sale importation, although in both areas the specific mechanism of cultural diffusion is ultimately unclear. At Pylos and Tikal, spatial and temporal variation in architectural style was not the result of either purely internal or strictly external processes.119 We contend that architectural style is itself more dynamic in struc-ture, diverse in application, and complex in meaning than this equation allows. Specific elements were in-corporated through interaction into local traditions. The material correlates of this interaction fluctuated over time and space within both regions, as did the nature and effects of that interaction. The examples we have offered demonstrate how dual-processual

theory elucidates further complexity in evaluations of interregional cultural exchange.

Dual-processual theory allows for nuanced descrip-tions and explanations of variability in archaeological remains. It encourages us to see that architectural variation is not always an either/or scenario but may be regarded as an evolving expression of cycling and changing strategies of sociopolitical organization. Just as early Mycenaeans at Pylos appropriated Minoan cultural projects in the Aegean, emerging Maya rul-ers in the Late Preclassic period incorporated foreign Teotihuacano architectural styles and techniques, as well as iconographic symbolism and material culture (prestige goods), to solidify and justify their own power base in small-scale localized networks.120 Talud-tablero architecture and Teotihuacano cultural influence are most noticeable during the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods in the Maya lowlands, a time when emerging elites were constructing localized power bases through manipulation of social connections and association with the prestige of distant Teotihuacán. This situation echoes that of early Pylian elites, who sought to expand their own power by acquiring Mi-noan luxury items for use in status competition.

As lowland Maya society at Tikal developed further, increasing in sociopolitical complexity, it drew more on its own established architectural and cultural tra-ditions. As with the LH IIB architectural changes at Pylos, the transformations in architecture at Tikal seen in the transition between the Early and Late Classic periods ca. 600 C.E. correspond to increasing com-plexity and new power dynamics within Maya society. These new sociopolitical configurations subsequently were reflected in novel architectural forms and func-tions, which themselves were incorporated into ear-lier traditions. Synchronic and diachronic similarities suggest the selective assimilation or appropriation of ostensibly foreign architectural forms, styles, and tech-niques. In both cases, these imported elements were used by emerging elites engaged in prestige compe-tition to secure sociopolitical power within expand-ing localized networks tending toward increasingly exclusionary political economies. In LH IIIA Mes-

116 E.g., the twin-pyramid Complexes N, O, P, Q, and R at Tikal, dedicated to ancestor worship, individual aggrandize-ment, and the justification of authority.

117 Cheek 1977, 448–49; Laporte 1987, 276, 279, 311; Fash 1998; Cash 2005, 170.

118 The borrowed elements were replaced in the LH IIIB reconstruction of the palace at Pylos and after the transition from the Early Classic to Late Classic period at Tikal. Some combinations of Teotihuacano and Maya elements remained in the Late Classic-period Maya lowlands, likely as attempts by

rulers to retain their power through association with old sym-bols of authority (cf. Cheek 1977, 448–49).

119 Braswell (2003a, 7, 34–5) asserts as much, echoing Vout-saki’s (1999, 103) observations in the Mycenaean case; see also Becker 2003.

120 It is noteworthy that differences in scale (i.e., size of sites and population) do not appear to affect the general processes of dynamic cycling between power strategies; compared with Teotihuacán and Tikal, Knossos and Pylos are significantly smaller.


senia, just as in the Early Classic Maya lowlands, the rise of a socioeconomic elite was not a direct result, per se, of outside influence; rather, the acquisition of exotic luxury goods facilitated the consolidation of power by localized groups, contributing to develop-ing social stratification and complexity and ultimately transforming the system of social organization. These social transformations became standardized and insti-tutionalized within Mycenaean and Maya society and were reflected in the architectural and material cul-tural changes evident in LH IIIB and the Early–Late Classic horizon, respectively.

Curiously, in both the Aegean and Mesoamerican worlds, societies with emerging exclusionary politi-cal economies (i.e., Mycenaean and Maya) emulated more corporate-oriented societies, specifically appro-priating architectural elements from those relatively more developed and prestigious cultures. Synchronic and diachronic differences in architecture between Crete and Pylos, as well as between Teotihuacán and Tikal, not only indicate the localized interpretations and reformulations of assimilated forms, styles, tech-niques, or functions but also reflect variation in strat-egies of sociopolitical organization in distinct spatial and temporal contexts (see fig. 13). There are, we ar-gue, observable archaeological patterns, specifically in the architecture, that point to exclusionary or corpo-rate political strategies, sociopolitical configurations, or forms of interaction. In other words, the architec-ture may help us understand the underlying sociopo-litical organization of the society. Our analysis of the effect of sociopolitical configuration on architecture

in the case of Early Mycenaean Pylos is not exhaustive but will, we hope, stimulate further debate and ap-plications of dual-processual theory in the data-rich environment of classical archaeology.121

In this article, we have sought to locate the mate-rial correlates of cycling corporate and exclusionary political ideologies and to identify how these strate-gies found variable material expression over time. We have demonstrated that architectural transformations in LH IIIA–B Messenia and Early Classic Maya society at Tikal can allow us to reconstruct changing systems of social organization, strategies of display, political shifts, and cultural interaction. While the precise nature and specific mechanisms of this interaction remain obscure, the complex transformations that it brought about were neither purely internal social de-velopments nor solely the result of external cultural stimuli. In more concrete terms, the data allow for the observation of the architectural consequences of distinct systems of social organization and divergent strategies of sociopolitical power, as informed by du-al-processual theory. In both the Mesoamerican and Aegean cases, the data reflect variations on recurring themes within the corporate–network continuum. While synchronic similarities in architectural forms between sites in both regions suggest interaction and influence, inter- and intraregional discrepancies hint at variable sociopolitical configurations, which them-selves were reflected architecturally. Although there is a wealth of evidence that Mycenaeans at Pylos ad-opted Minoan cultural forms in the Aegean—just as lowland Maya appropriated Teotihuacano cultural

121 See Small 2009. Our point in this article is to illustrate the potential value of dual-processual theory, not to generalize evolu-tionary history on the basis of admittedly limited, and in some cases atypical, evidence (supra nn. 18, 60, 97). There is much more to be learned regarding the effects of cycling political strategies on interaction and material culture. We believe that dual-processual theory and cross-cultural comparison greatly assist in this effort, in both classical and anthropological archaeology.

Fig. 13. Variation in architectural style through time at Tikal and Pylos, corresponding to trends toward exclusion-ary network strategies of sociopolitical organization.


projects—sites and areas within and between both re-gions had significantly different forms of political and economic organization as they moved toward increas-ing sociopolitical complexity. The evolving needs of distinct sociopolitical configurations found dynamic architectural expressions as these sites, cultures, and societies developed and changed over time.

joshua d. englehardtdepartment of anthropologythe florida state universitytallahassee, florida [email protected]

donna m. nagledepartment of classicsthe florida state universitytallahassee, florida [email protected]

Works Cited

Ashmore, W., and J.A. Sabloff. 2002. “Spatial Orders in Maya Civic Plans.” Latin American Antiquity 13(2):201–15

Aveni, A.F. 2003. “Archaeoastronomy in the Ancient Ameri-cas.” Journal of Archaeological Research 11:149–91

Becker, M.J. 2003. “Plaza Plans at Tikal: A Research Strat-egy for Inferring Social Organization and Processes of Cultural Change at Lowland Maya Sites.” In Tikal: Dy-nasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State. Advancing Maya Archaeology, edited by J.A. Sabloff, 253–80. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research.

Bennet, J. 1995. “Space Through Time: Diachronic Perspec-tives on the Spatial Organization of the Pylian State.” In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceed-ings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April, 1994. Vol. 2, edited by W.-D. Niemeier and R. Laffineur, 587–602. Aegaeum 12. Liège and Austin: université de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

———. 2007. “Pylos: The Expansion of a Mycenaean Pa-latial Center.” In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II. 2nd rev. ed., edited by M. Galaty and W. Parkinson, 29–39. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 60. Los An-geles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Blanton, R.E., and L. Fargher. 2008. Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-Modern States. New york: Springer.

Blanton, R.E., G.M. Feinman, S.A. Kowalewski, and P.N. Peregrine. 1996. “A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization.” CurrAnthr 37(1):1–14.

Blegen, C.W., and M. Rawson. 1966. The Palace of Nestor at Pylos in Western Messenia. Vol. 1, The Buildings and Their Contents. Princeton: Princeton university Press for the university of Cincinnati.

Borowicz, J. 2003. “Images of Power and the Power of Im-ages: Early Classic Iconographic Programs of the Carved Monuments of Tikal.” In The Maya and Teotihuacán: Rein-

terpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by G.E. Braswell, 217–34. Austin: university of Texas Press.

Bouzek, J. 1996. “Mycenaean Greece and Minoan Crete: The Problem of Migrations.” Cretan Studies 5:85–90.

Branigan, K. 1995. “Social Transformations and the Rise of the State in Crete.” In Politeia: Society and State in the Ae-gean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April, 1994. Vol. 1, edited by W.-D. Niemeier and R. Laffineur, 33–42. Aegaeum 12. Liège and Austin: uni-versité de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

Braswell, G.E. 2003a. “Reinterpreting Early Classic Interac-tion.” In The Maya and Teotihuacán: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by G.E. Braswell, 1–44. Austin: university of Texas Press.

———. 2003b. “understanding Early Classic Interaction Between Kaminaljuyú and Central Mexico.” In The Maya and Teotihuacán: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interac-tion, edited by G.E. Braswell, 105–42. Austin: university of Texas Press.

Broodbank, C., and E. Kiriatzi. 2007. “The First ‘Minoans’ of Kythera Revisited: Technology, Demography, and Land-scape in the Prepalatial Aegean.” AJA 111(2):241–74.

Broodbank, C., E. Kiriatzi, and J.B. Rutter. 2005. “From Pharaoh’s Feet to the Slave-Women of Pylos? The His-tory and Cultural Dynamics of Kythera in the Third Pal-ace Period.” In Autochthon: Papers Presented to O.T.P.K Dickinson on the Occasion of His Retirement, edited by A. Dakouri-Hild and S. Sherratt, 70–96. BAR-IS 1432. Ox-ford: Archaeopress.

Brumfiel, E.M. 2003. “Factional Competition and Politi-cal Development in the New World: An Introduction.” In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E.M. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox, 3–14. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Burns, B.E. 2010. Mycenaean Greece, Mediterranean Commerce, and the Formation of Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge uni-versity Press.

Cash, C.L. 2005. “Locating the Place and Meaning of the Talud-Tablero Architectural Style in the Early Classic Maya Built Environment.” Ph.D. diss., university of Texas at Austin.

Cavanagh, W.G. 1995. “Development of the Mycenaean State in Laconia: Evidence from the Laconia Survey.” In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Pro-ceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, Univer-sity of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April, 1994. Vol. 1, edited by W.-D. Niemeier and R. Laffineur, 81–7. Aegaeum 12. Liège and Austin: université de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

Cheek, C. 1977. “Teotihuacán Influence at Kaminaljuyú.” In Teotihuacán and Kaminaljuyú, edited by W. Sanders and J. Michels, 441–53. university Park: Pennsylvania State university Press.

Cherry, J.F. 1986. “Polities and Palaces.” In Peer Polity In-teraction and Socio-Political Change, edited by C. Renfrew and J.F. Cherry, 19–45. New Directions in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Clark, J.E., and M. Blake. 1994. “The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and Emergence of Rank Soci-eties in Lowland Mesoamerica.” In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by E.M. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox, 17–30. New Directions in Archae-ology. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.


Cowgill, G.L. 2003. “Teotihuacan: Cosmic Glories and Mundane Needs.” In The Social Construction of Ancient Cities, edited by M.L. Smith, 37–55. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Crowley, J.L. 2008. “Mycenaean Art and Architecture.” In The Cambridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C.W. Shelmerdine, 258–88. New york: Cambridge university Press.

D’Agata, A.L. 2005. “Central Southern Crete and Its Re-lations with the Greek Mainland in the Postpalatial Pe-riod.” In Ariadne’s Threads: Connections Between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Proceedings of the International Workshop Held at Ath-ens, Scuola Archeologica Italiana, 5–6 April 2003, edited by A.L. D’Agata and J.A Moody, 109–30. Tripodes 3. Ath-ens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.

Darcque, P. 1987. “Les tholoi et l’organisation socio- politique du monde mycenien.” In Thanatos: Les cou-tumes funéraires en Égée à l’âge du Bronze. Actes du colloque de Liège (21–23 avril 1986), edited by R. Laffineur, 185–205. Aegaeum 1. Liège and Austin: université de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

Davis, E. 1977. The Vapheio Cups and Aegean Gold and Silver Ware. Outstanding Dissertations in the Fine Arts. New york: Garland Publishing.

Davis, J.L., ed. 1998. Sandy Pylos: An Archaeological History from Nestor to Navarino. Austin: university of Texas Press.

Davis, J.L., S.E. Alcock, J. Bennet, y. Lolos, and C. Shelmer-dine. 1997. “The Pylos Regional Archaeological Project, Part I: Overview and the Archaeological Survey.” Hespe-ria 66(3):391–494.

de Montmollin, O. 1989. The Archaeology of Political Structure: Settlement Analysis in a Classic Maya Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge university Press.

Dickinson, O.T.P.K. 1977. The Origins of Mycenaean Civilisa-tion. SIMA 49. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Förlag.

———. 1982. “Parallels and Contrasts in the Bronze Age of the Peloponnese.” OJA 1:125–38.

———. 1984. “Cretan Contacts with the Mainland During the Period of the Shaft Graves.” In The Minoan Thalassoc-racy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 115–18. SkrAth 4°, 32. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

———. 1996. “Minoans in Mainland Greece, Mycenaeans in Crete?” Cretan Studies 5:63–71.

Driessen, J., and I. Schoep. 1995. “The Architect and the Scribe: Political Implications of Architectural and Ad-ministrative Changes on MM II–LM IIIA Crete.” In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceed-ings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April, 1994. Vol. 2, edited by W.- D. Niemeier and R. Laffineur, 649–64. Aegaeum 12. Liège and Austin: université de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

Fash, W.L. 1998. “Dynastic Architectural Programs: Inten-tion and Design in Classic Maya Buildings at Copan and Other Sites.” In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th October 1994, edited by S.D. Houston, 223–70. Washing-ton, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Feinman, G.M. 2000. “Dual-Processual Theory and Social Formations in the Southwest.” In Alternative Leadership Strategies in the Prehispanic Southwest, edited by B.J. Mills, 207–29. Tucson: university of Arizona Press.

Fitzsimons, R.D. 2006. “Monuments of Power and the Pow-er of Monuments: The Evolution of Elite Architectural Styles at Bronze Age Mycenae.” Ph.D. diss., university of Cincinnati.

———. 2007. “Architecture and Power in the Bronze Age Argolid.” In Power and Architecture: Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean, edited by J. Bretschneider, J. Driessen, and K. van Lerberghe, 93–115. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 156. Leuven: Peeters.

Galaty, M.L., and W.A. Parkinson, eds. 2007. Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II. 2nd rev. ed. Cotsen Institute of Ar-chaeology Monograph 60. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.

Hägg, R. 1982. “On the Nature of the Minoan Influence in Early Mycenaean Messenia.” OpAth 14:27–37.

———. 1983. “Degrees and Character of the Minoan Influ-ence on the Mainland.” In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982, ed-ited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 119–22. SkrAth 4°, 32. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Haggis, D. 2002. “Integration and Complexity in the Late Pre-palatial Period: A View from the Countryside in Eastern Crete.” In Labyrinth Revisited: Rethinking “Mi-noan” Archaeology, edited by y. Hamilakis, 120–42. Ox-ford: Oxbow.

Hamilakis, y. 2002. “Too Many Chiefs? Factional Compe-tition in Neopalatial Crete.” In Monuments of Minos: Re-thinking the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Universi-té Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001, edited by J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, 179–200. Aegaeum 23. Liege and Austin: université de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

Hansen, R.D. 1998. “Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic Antecedents of Classic Maya Architecture.” In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th October 1994, edited by S.D. Houston, 49–122. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Harrison, P.D. 2003. “The Central Acropolis of Tikal.” In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State, edited by J.A. Sabloff, 171–206. School of American Research Ad-vanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of Ameri-can Research.

Harrison, P.D., and E.W. Andrews. 2004. “Palaces of Tikal and Copán.” In Palaces of the Ancient New World: A Sympo-sium at Dumbarton Oaks, 10th and 11th October 1998, edited by S.T. Evans and J. Pillsbury, 113–48. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Headrick, A. 2007. The Teotihuacan Trinity: The Sociopoliti-cal Structure of an Ancient Mesoamerican City. Austin: uni-versity of Texas Press.

Hiller, S. 1996. “Knossos and Pylos: A Case of Special Re-lationship?” Cretan Studies 5:73–83.

Hood, S. 1987. “Mason’s Marks at the Palaces.” In The Func-tion of the Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the Fourth Interna-tional Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 205–12. SkrAth 4°, 35. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

———. 1992. “Cretans in Laconia?” In Philolakon: Lakonian Studies in Honour of Hector Catling, edited by J.M. Sanders, 135–39. London: British School at Athens.

Houston, S.D. 1998. “Finding Function and Meaning in


Classic Maya Architecture.” In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th October 1994, edited by S.D. Houston, 519–38. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Hult, G. 1983. Bronze Age Ashlar Masonry in the Eastern Mediter-ranean : Cyprus, Ugarit, and Neighboring Regions. Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology 66. Göteborg: P. Åströms.

Immerwahr, S.A. 1990. Aegean Painting in the Bronze Age. university Park: Pennsylvania State university Press.

Kilian, K. 1987. “L’architecture des résidences mycéni-ennes: Origins et extension d’une structure du pouvoir politique pendant l’âge du bronze récent.” In Le système palatial en Orient, en Grèce et à Rome: Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 19–22 juin 1985, edited by E. Lévy, 203–25. Travaux du Centre de recherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grèce antiques 9. Leiden: Brill.

———. 1988. “The Emergence of Wanax Ideology in the Mycenaean Palaces.” OJA 7:291–302.

Knappett, C., and I. Schoep. 2000. “Continuity and Change in Minoan Palatial Power.” Antiquity 74:365–71.

Korres, G.S. 1983. “The Relations Between Crete and Mes-senia in the Late Middle Helladic and Early Late Hel-ladic Period.” In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982, ed-ited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 141–52. SkrAth 4°, 32. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Laporte, J.P. 1987. “Talud Tablero en Tikal.” In Homenaje a Roman Piña Chan, edited by J.B. Dalhgren, 256–316. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas 79. Mexico: universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

———. 1998. “Exploración y restauración en el Templo del Talud-Tablero, Mundo Perdido, Tikal (Estructura 5C-49).” In XI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueologícas en Guatemala, 1997: Museo Naciónal de Arqueología y Etnología. Vol. 1, J.P. Laporte and H.L. Escobedo, 21–42. Guate-mala: Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología.

———. 2003. “Architectural Aspects of Interaction Be-tween Tikal and Teotihuacán During the Early Classic Period.” In The Maya and Teotihuacán: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by G.E. Braswell, 199–216. Aus-tin: university of Texas Press.

Loten, H.S. 2003. “The North Acropolis: Monumentality, Function, and Architectural Development.” In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners and Affairs of State. Advancing Maya Archaeology, edited by J.A. Sabloff, 227–52. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research.

Maran, J. 2006a. “Architecture, Power, and Social Practice: An Introduction.” In Constructing Power: Architecture, Ide-ology and Social Practice/Konstruktion der Macht: Architektur, Ideologie und soziales Handeln, edited by J. Maran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel, and u. Thaler, 9–14. Geschichte, Forsc-hung und Wissenschaft 19. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.

———. 2006b. “Mycenaean Citadels as Performative Space.” In Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Prac-tice/Konstruktion der Macht: Architektur, Ideologie und soziales Handeln, edited by J. Maran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel, and u. Thaler, 75–88. Geschichte, Forschung und Wissen-schaft 19. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.

Marcus, J. 1983. “On the Nature of the Mesoamerican City.” In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by E.Z. Vogt and R.M. Leventhal, 195–242. Albuquerque: university of New Mexico Press.

———. 1998. “The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model.” In Archaic States, ed-ited by G.M. Feinman and J. Marcus, 59–94. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research Press.

———. 2003. “The Maya and Teotihuacán.” In The Maya and Teotihuacán: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, edited by G.E. Braswell, 337–56. Austin: university of Texas Press.

Martin, S. 2001. “Court and Realm: Architectural Signa-tures in the Classic Maya Southern Lowlands.” In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya. Vol. 1, Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis, edited by T. Inomata and S.D. Houston, 168–94. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Mathews, J.P., and J.F. Garber. 2004. “Models of Cosmic Order: Physical Expression of Sacred Space Among the Ancient Maya.” Ancient Mesoamerica 15:49–54.

Matthäus, H. 1980. “Minoan Influence on the Greek Main-land During the Sixteenth Century B.C. and the Origins of Mycenaean Civilization.” In Minoan Foreign Relations at the Beginning of the Late Bronze Age, edited by P. Betancourt, 37–44. TUAS 5. Philadelphia: Temple university.

McDonald, W., and G. Rapp. 1972. The Minnesota Messenia Expedition: Reconstructing a Bronze Age Regional Environ-ment. Minneapolis: university of Minnesota Press.

Miller, M.E. 1998. “A Design for Meaning in Maya Archi-tecture.” In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architec-ture, edited by S.D. Houston, 187–222. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

———. 1999. Maya Art and Architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.

Moody, J. 1987. “The Minoan Palace as a Prestige Arti-fact.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 235–41. SkrAth 4°, 35. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Nelson, M.C. 2001. “The Architecture of Epano Englianos, Greece.” Ph.D. diss., university of Toronto.

———. 2007. “Pylos, Block Masonry and Monumental Architecture in the Late Bronze Age Peloponnese.” In Power and Architecture: Monumental Public Architecture in the Bronze Age Near East and Aegean, edited by J. Bretsch-neider, J. Driessen, and K. van Lerberghe, 143–59. Ori-entalia Lovaniensia Analecta 156. Leuven: Peeters.

Nielsen, J. 2003. “Art of the Empire: Teotihuacan Iconog-raphy and Style in Early Classic Maya Society (A.D. 380–500).” Ph.D. diss., university of Copenhagen.

———. 2006. “The Coming of the Torch: Observations on Teotihuacan Iconography in Early Classic Tikal.” In Maya Ethnicity: The Construction of Ethnic Identity from Preclassic to Modern Times. Proceedings of the 9th European Maya Conference, Bonn, December 10–12, 2004, edited by F. Sachse, 19–30. Acta Mesoamericana 19. Markt Schwa-ben, Germany: Anton Saurwein.

Palaima, T.G. 1987. “Preliminary Comparative Textual Evidence for Palatial Control of Economic Activity in Minoan and Mycenaean Crete.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the Fourth International Sym-posium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 301–6. SkrAth 4°, 35. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Palyvou, C. 1987. “Circulatory Patterns in Minoan Archi-tecture.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N.


Marinatos, 195–203. SkrAth 4°, 35. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Parkinson, W.A., and M. Galaty. 2007. “Secondary States in Perspective: An Integrated Approach to State Forma-tion in the Prehistoric Aegean.” American Anthropologist 109(1):113–29.

Pauketat, T.R. 2007. Chiefdoms and Other Archaeological De-lusions. Issues in Eastern Woodlands Archaeology. Lan-ham, Md.: AltaMira Press.

Pendlebury, J.D.S. 1954. Handbook to the Palace of Minos at Knossos with Its Dependencies. London: Max Parrish.

Rapoport, A. 1988. “Levels of Meaning in the Built Envi-ronment.” In Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Com-munication, edited by F. Poyatos, 317–36. Toronto: C.J. Hogrefe.

Rutter, J.B. 2005. “Southern Triangles Revisited: Lakonia, Messenia, and Crete in the 14th–12th Centuries BC.” In Ariadne’s Threads: Connections Between Crete and the Greek Mainland in Late Minoan III (LM IIIA2 to LM IIIC). Pro-ceedings of the International Workshop Held at Athens, Scuo-la Archeologica Italiana, 5–6 April 2003, edited by A.L. D’Agata and J.A. Moody, 17–50. Tripodes 3. Athens: Scuola Archeologica Italiana di Atene.

Rutter, J.B., and S.H. Rutter. 1976. The Transition to Myce-naean: A Stratified Middle Helladic II to Late Helladic IIA Pot-tery Sequence from Ayios Stephanos in Lakonia. Monumenta archaeologica 4. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, university of California.

Rutter, J.B., and C.W. Zerner. 1984. “Early Hellado-Minoan Contact.” In The Minoan Thalassocracy: Myth and Reality. Proceedings of the Third International Symposium at the Swed-ish Institute in Athens, 31 May–5 June, 1982, edited by R. Hägg and N. Marinatos, 75–83. SkrAth 4°, 32. Stockholm: Svenska Institutet i Athen.

Sakellerakis, y. 1996. “Minoan Religious Influence in the Aegean: The Case of Kythera.” BSA 91:81–99.

Schele, L. 1998. “The Iconography of Maya Architectural Façades During the Late Classic Period.” In Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th October 1994, edited by S.D. Houston, 479–518. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Schoep, I. 2002. “The State of the Minoan Palaces or the Minoan Palace-State?” In Monuments of Minos: Rethink-ing the Minoan Palaces. Proceedings of the International Work-shop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001, edited by J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, 15–33. Aegaeum 23. Liege and Austin: université de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

———. 2006. “Looking Beyond the First Palaces: Elites and the Agency of Power in EM III–MM II Crete.” AJA 110(1):37–64.

Sharer, R.J. 2003. “Founding Events and Teotihuacán Connections at Copán, Honduras.” In The Maya and Teotihuacán: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, ed-ited by G.E. Braswell, 143–66. Austin: university of Texas Press.

Shaw, J.W. 1973. Minoan Architecture: Materials and Tech-niques. ASAtene 49 (n.s. 33). Rome: Instituto Poligrafico dello Stato.

———. 2009. “The Character, Genesis, and Influence of Minoan Palatial Architecture.” In Bronze Age Architectur-al Traditions in the Eastern Mediterranean: Diffusion and Diversity. Proceedings of the Symposium, 07.–08.05.2008 in

Munich, 61–89. Weilheim: Verein zur Förderung der Aufarbeitung der Hellenischen Geschichte.

Shear, T.L., Jr. 1968. “Minoan Influence on the Mainland: Variations of Opinion Since 1900.” In A Land Called Crete: A Symposium in Memory of Harriet Boyd Hawes, 1871–1945, 47–78. Smith College Studies in History 45. Northamp-ton, Mass.: Smith College.

Small, D.B. 2001. “Mycenaean Polities: States or Estates?” In Rethinking Mycenaean Palaces II. 2nd rev. ed., edited by M. Galaty and W. Parkinson, 47–53. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 60. Los Angeles: Cotsen In-stitute of Archaeology.

———. 2009. “The Dual-Processual Model in Ancient Greece: Applying a Post-neoevolutionary Model to a Data-Rich Environment.” JAnthArch 28(2):205–21.

Smith, M.E. 2005. “Did the Maya Build Architectural Cos-mograms?” Latin American Antiquity 16(2):217–24.

———. 2007. “Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New Approach to Ancient urban Planning.” Journal of Planning History 6(1):3–47.

Soles, J.S. 1995. “The Functions of a Cosmological Center: Knossos in Palatial Crete.” In Politeia: Society and State in the Aegean Bronze Age. Proceedings of the 5th International Aegean Conference, University of Heidelberg, Archäologisches Institut, 10–13 April, 1994. Vol. 2, edited by W.-D. Nie-meier and R. Laffineur, 405–14. Aegaeum 12. Liège and Austin: université de Liège and university of Texas at Austin.

Stuardo, R.L. 2003. “Access Patterns in Maya Royal Pre-cincts.” In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisci-plinary Approach, edited by J.J. Christie, 184–203. Austin: university of Texas Press.

Stuart, D. 2000. “‘The Arrival of Strangers’: Teotihuacán and Tollan in Classic Maya History.” In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacán to the Aztecs, edited by D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, 465–513. Meso-american Worlds. Boulder, Colo.: university Press of Colorado.

Sugiyama, S. 1993. “Worldview Materialized in Teotihua-can, Mexico.” Latin American Antiquity 4(2):103–29.

Tartaron, T.F. 2008. “Aegean Prehistory as World Archae-ology: Recent Trends in the Archaeology of Bronze Age Greece.” Journal of Archaeological Research 16:83–161.

Taube, K.A. 1992. “The Temple of Queztalcoatl and the Cult of Sacred War at Teotihuacan.” Res: Journal of An-thropology and Aesthetics 21:53–87.

———. 1998. “The Jade Hearth: Centrality, Rulership, and the Classic Maya Temple.” In Function and Mean-ing in Classic Maya Architecture: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 7th and 8th October 1994, edited by S.D. Houston, 427–78. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

Taylour, W.D., and R. Janko. 2008. Ayios Stephanos: Excava-tions at a Bronze Age and Medieval Settlement in Southern Laco-nia. BSA Suppl. 44. London: British School at Athens.

Thaler, u. 2006. “Constructing and Reconstructing Power: The Palace of Pylos.” In Constructing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice/Konstruktion der Macht: Archi-tektur, Ideologie und soziales Handeln, edited by J. Maran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel, and u. Thaler, 93–111. Ge-schichte, Forschung und Wissenschaft 19. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.

Vermeule, E.T. 1975. The Art of the Shaft Graves of Mycenae. Lectures in Memory of Louise Taft Semple, ser. 3, vol. 1. Cincinnati: university of Cincinnati Press.

J.D. ENGLEHARDT AND D.M. NAGLE, MyCENAEAN AND CLASSIC MAyA ARCHITECTuRE382

Voutsaki, S. 1999. “Mortuary Display, Prestige, and Iden-tity in the Shaft Grave Era.” In Eliten in der Bronzezeit: Ergebnisse zweier Kolloquien in Mainz und Athen. Vol. 1, ed-ited by I. Kilian-Dirlmeier and M. Egg, 103–18. Mainz: Romisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums.

———. 2010. “From the Kinship Economy to the Palatial Economy: The Argolid in the Second Millennium BC.” In Political Economies of the Aegean Bronze Age: Papers from the Langford Conference, Florida State University, Tallahas-see, 22–24 February 2007, edited by D.J. Pullen, 86–111. Oxford: Oxbow.

Warren, P.M. 1987. “The Genesis of the Minoan Palace.” In The Function of the Minoan Palaces: Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium at the Swedish Institute in Athens, 10–16 June, 1984, edited by R. Hägg and N. Mar-inatos, 47–56. SkrAth 4°, 35. Stockholm: Svenska Insti-tutet i Athen.

———. 2002. “Political Structure in Neopalatial Crete.” In Monuments of Minos: Rethinking the Minoan Palaces. Pro-ceedings of the International Workshop “Crete of the Hundred Palaces?” Held at the Université Catholique de Louvain, Lou-vain-la-Neuve, 14–15 December 2001, edited by J. Driessen, I. Schoep, and R. Laffineur, 201–6. Aegaeum 23. Liege and Austin: université de Liège and university of Tex-as at Austin.

Whittaker, H. 2002. “Religion and Power: The Nature of Minoan Influence on Early Mycenaean Religion.” OpAth 27:151–57.

Wright, J.C. 1984. “Changes in Form and Function of the

Palace at Pylos.” In Pylos Comes Alive: Industry and Ad-ministration in a Mycenaean Palace, edited by C.W. Shel-merdine and T.G. Palaima, 19–29. New york: Fordham university.

———. 1987. “Death and Power at Mycenae: Changing Symbols in Mortuary Practice.” In Thanatos: Les Coutumes funéraires en Égée à l’âge du Bronze: Actes du colloque de Liège (21–23 avril 1986), edited by R. Laffineur, 171–84. Aegae-um 1. Liège: université de Liège.

———. 2006a. “The Formation of the Mycenaean Palace.” In Ancient Greece: From the Mycenaean Palaces to the Age of Homer, edited by S. Deger-Jalkotzy and I.-S. Lemos, 7–52. Edinburgh Leventis Studies 3. Edinburgh: Edinburgh university Press.

———. 2006b. “The Social Production of Space and the Architectural Reproduction of Society in the Bronze Age Aegean During the 2nd Millennium B.C.E.” In Con-structing Power: Architecture, Ideology and Social Practice/Konstruktion der Macht: Architektur, Ideologie und soziales Handeln, edited by J. Maran, C. Juwig, H. Schwengel, and u. Thaler, 49–73. Geschichte, Forschung und Wis-senschaft 19. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.

———. 2008. “Early Mycenaean Greece.” In The Cam-bridge Companion to the Aegean Bronze Age, edited by C.W. Shelmerdine, 230–57. New york: Cambridge univer-sity Press.

Wright, L.E. 2005. “In Search of yax Nuun Ayiin I: Revisit-ing the Tikal Project’s Burial 10.” Ancient Mesoamerica 16: 89–100.

Variations on a Theme: Dual-Processual Theory and the ... · Mycenaean architecture at Pylos and...

Documents

Transcript of Variations on a Theme: Dual-Processual Theory and the ... · Mycenaean architecture at Pylos and...