Ancient civilizations-2

Settlement pattern

There is still controversy over whether the Late Classic sites built by the lowland Maya were actually cities or whether they were relatively empty ceremonial centres staffed only by rulers and their entourages. The common people built their simple pole-and-thatch dwellings on low earthen mounds to keep them dry during the summer rains. Thus, total mapping of a particular site should always include not only masonry structures but house mounds as well. Several Maya sites have been so mapped. The mightiest Maya centre of all, Tikal in northern Petén, has a total of about 3,000 structures ranging from the tiny mounds up to gigantic temple pyramids; these are contained, however, within an area of six square miles. The Tikal population has been estimated from this survey to be 10,000–11,000 people, but perhaps as many as 75,000 within an even wider area could have belonged to Tikal.

This sounds very much like a city, but the evidence actually can be differently interpreted. First, at the time of the conquest the Maya generally buried their dead beneath the floors of houses, which were then abandoned. Thus, an increase in number of house mounds could just as easily indicate a declining population in which the death rate exceeded the birth rate. Second, the appearance of even such a tremendous centre as Tikal is quite different from that of such true cities as Teotihuacán. An ordinary Maya family typically occupied two or three houses arranged around a rectangular open space. These were grouped into unplanned hamlets near good water and rich, well-drained soils. A survey of Petén has shown that for every 50 to 100 dwellings there was a minor ceremonial centre; this unit has been called a zone. Several zones formed a district for which a major centre like Tikal acted as the ceremonial and political nucleus. Neither Tikal nor any other such centre shows signs of town planning or neatly laid out streets.

Tikal, Guatemala: Jaguar, Temple of theTemple of the Jaguar atop Pyramid I at Tikal, Guatemala.Dennis Jarvis (CC-BY-2.0) (A Britannica Publishing Partner)

There are also ecological factors that must have set certain limits upon the potential for urban life in the Maya lowlands. Slash-and-burn cultivation would have made for widely settled populations; and, as has been argued, the uniformity of the lowland Maya environment would have worked against the growth of strong interregional trade, always a factor in urban development. Yet these statements must be qualified. It is known that raised-field, or chinampa-type, farming was used in many places and at many times in the Maya lowlands. This would have allowed for greater population concentration. It is also known that there was a brisk trade in some commodities from one lowland Maya region to another.

What, then, can be concluded about lowland Maya urbanism? Clearly, the urban form, even at a metropolis such as Tikal, was not as large or as formally developed as it was at highland Teotihuacán. At the same time, a centre whose rulers could draw upon the coordinated efforts of 75,000 people must inevitably have had some of the functions of a true city—in governance, religion, and trade, as well as in the development of the arts and intellectual life.