Ancient Mesoamerica, 7 (1996), 135-147 Copyright @ 1996 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A. POLITICAL BOUNDARIES AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE The limits of the Teuchitlan tradition --_._-- _._----_ ..... - ---------------------------------------- Christopher S. Beekman Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, USA Abstract Many social scientists have proposed a relationship between the structure of a boundary and that of the system it delimits. Substantial anthropological and historical research has found the same tendency in analyses of traditional political structure. A model based on these findings was applied to the Teuchitlan tradition of Classic-period West Mexico, a region where the degree of political complexity and unification has been a subject of debate. A focused study of the eastern boundary of the Teuchitlan Valley was undertaken to examine the nature of its political structure. Fieldwork located a number of defensive features forming a well-structured boundary system in the La Venta corridor that connects the Teuchitlan and Atemajac Valleys. Other fortifications ringing the Teuchitlan Valley strongly suggest that a defensive network had been established to monitor access into the core of the Teuchitlan area. A unitary, territorial form of administration (following the work of Southall and Luttwak) is proposed as a model for political dynamics in the core region, but a review of the evidence for the more-distant Teuchitlan architecture suggests that, at most, only a hegemonic form of control more akin to that of the segmentary state was exercised outside of the core valley. A connection with long-distance resource acquisition is possible, but highly speculative at present. The delimitation of territory among pre-Hispanic polities is of interest to archaeologists for various reasons. Not only can it clarify culture-historical questions as to the size of the polity or the limits of its conquests (e.g., Marcus 1992:153-189), but it may aid in answering broader questions on political structure. Several researchers, including political sociologists (Strassoldo 1980), classicists (Luttwak 1976; Mattingly 1992), anthropologists (Hassig 1985; Southall 1988), and archaeologists (Gorenstein 1985; Kowalewski et al. 1983; Redmond 1983) have proposed or implied that the structure of a boundary reflects that of the polity that it delimits. Stephen Houston and I (Beekman and Houston 1993) sug- gested that boundaries can be a productive area to study polit- ical complexity, and we used examples with extensive historical documentation to develop a model applicable to prehistory I The study developed out of a dissatisfaction with the standard studies from political geography (e.g., Kristof 1959; Prescott 1987), which only peripherally addressed questions of interest to anthropologists. We compared the ethnohistorically known boundary between the Tarascan and Aztec empires of the Late Postclassic with those attested by epigraphy among the Classic- period lowland Maya. Whereas the former was marked by a heavy investment in border fortifications and the placement of sites in strategic locations (Gorenstein 1985), the latter are rarely visible archaeologically and often do not even display a clear II am well aware that political, economic, and social boundaries need not coincide (e.g., Hodder 1977; Marcus 1983), and refer here spe- cifically to the limits of political administration. 135 break in settlement distribution (Houston 1993: 142-145). Fre- quent hostilities have been documented in each of these cases (e.g., Houston 1993), so something beyond a basic concern for defense was influencing the form of these boundaries. We sug- gested that political structure was a second major factor involved. To illustrate this, we presented a number of cross-cultural exam- ples that dichotomized socially defined polities structured around the personal influence of the ruler, with more territo- rially defined polities whose authority rests in a more formal and impersonal administrative network. Southall's (1988:79-81) distinction between segmentary and unitary states parallels our division, and provides an established anthropological framework to which our preliminary observa- tions on boundaries might be linked. Segmentary states have been suggested as appropriate models for Classic Maya politi- cal structure (e.g., de Montmollin 1989; Houston 1993), in which Maya rulers appear to have exercised mostly hegemonic, typically ceremonial and symbolic, authority over subsidiary lords at other sites. This may well have involved extractive trib- utary relationships or other forms of dominance, but political absorption or economic restructuring is rarely evidenced. Southall sketches a hypothetical evolutionary trajectory, trac- ing how such a segmentary state might obtain greater control of local affairs over time and develop a more unitary, bureau- cratic state structure. In this context, it is notable that the only defined boundaries (not simply walled sites) identified among the lowland Maya are those of the most extensive and internally complex centers, as in the case of the massive earthworks mark- ing the outer territory of Tikal (Puleston 1983:23-24). We can