William Rathje's Study Of Mayan Civilization

Despite the fact that archaeology has been a long-standing area of scientific study, one of the most seemingly basic questions in the field is still unanswered: how do civilizations arise? Although the great nations of the past have left scientists clues and indicators as to their existence, history is still laden with inconsistencies and discrepancies. These irregularities have created a plethora of theories that attempt to explain how civilizations were born and how they developed. Margaret Murray, a British anthropologist who studied witch culture in Western Europe, attempts to explain the variety: "Archaeology has in it all the qualities that call for the wide view of the human race, of its growth from the savage to the civilized, which
is seen in all stages of social and religious development." This "wide view" is reflected by the abundance of theories in archaeology. Looking at the various nations of the past, however, trade is a ubiquitous quality. From Mesopotamia to Mesoamerica, evidence indicates that trade was a driving influence on the specialization of labor, the division of classes, and the centralization of power in ancient times.
The two prevailing authorities on trade theories are William Rathje and Colin Renfrew.
William Rathje, in his study of Mayan civilization, realized that in ancient times, Mesoamerica was a network of trading groups, in which scarce goods were able to overcome distance barriers. In his theory, Rathje identifies certain areas within these networks as the "Core Area," or the area, which consumes the majority of the resources in the region. The "Core Area" is surrounded by "Buffer Zones," regions with a multitude of resources. This system produces a centralized, trading hot-spot in which the resources are pooled to one area. As the system progresses, however, the "Buffer Zones" become more complex and autonomous. Slowly, the former "Core Area" fades out, and a number of new trade networks are born from the former "Buffer Zones." In the context of Mesoamerica, the lowlands – deficient in vital resources – needed to draw important goods from the resource-rich highlands. As trade continued, luxury goods began to pass between the regions, apparent in the presence of similar ceramics styles throughout Mexico. These transactions yielded an order in which only certain people – who, ultimately, formed the upper tier of society – could have access to the luxury goods; social stratification was a
result.
Colin Renfrew's research from the Minoan Civilization on Crete contains a similar interpretation on the impact of trade. During the times of ancient Crete, demand for luxury goods, like grapes (for wine) and olives, was high, but the goods were not available on the island. As a result, the Minoan civilization established overseas trading; Crete's location in the Aegean Sea became a strategic advantage as many ships stopped through the islands' ports. Minoan influence, in fact, is present in Egypt, Mesopotamia and even Spain. This boom in trade quickly created social divisions within the society; those in control of the trading became the wealthy class of Minoan civilization. The influence of trade, however, was not only applicable to Crete; states in contact with Crete increasingly specialized in order to meet Crete's consumption habits. Renfrew's theory, like Rathje's, acknowledges that trade was a driving force behind civilizations' development.
Both Renfrew's and Rahtje's theories, however, contain fallacies that are worth mentioning. In the case of the Minoan civilization, chronology is the issue. Although scientists can agree that the domestication of grapes and olives – as a result of trade – greatly impacted the growth of Minoan society, evidence reveals that grape and olive production did not intensify until the Late Bronze Age; the rapid increase of complexity within the Minoan society, however, occurred during the Early Bronze Age, about 300 years earlier. William Rathje's argument, on the other hand, is weakened because scientists believe that the lowlands had substitutes for the scarce materials; in other words, trade was not necessary.
In Mesopotamia, however, trade was essential to the development of the area. Because the Near East is an extremely arid region, Mesopotamian states needed raw materials and resources that were not available to them locally; thus, extensive trade routes were established. During the time of the Ubaid culture (6500 – 4200 BC), trade connections with villages along the Persian Gulf were established, granting Mesopotamian states with crucial raw metals and stones. During the time of the Uruk World System (3450 – 3100 BC), trade provided timber and stone necessary for the enlargement of new cities. Archaeologists even believe that due to the high demand of raw materials, colony-like villages were settled in modern day Turkey and the Northern fringes of Mesopotamia to maintain a dependable resource base. In both examples, trade acted as a stepping-stone to the expansion of larger, complex cities. The rise of trade in Mesopotamia also necessitated more efficient and productive irrigation methods. Trade and irrigation, in fact, worked hand in hand in Mesopotamia; with more resources and better technology from abroad, states could produce more food, but as states produced more food and as the population increased, demand for foreign goods increased.
When trade is active, though, specialization of labor is compulsory, since production – and eventually, profit – is maximized. Once vital items, such as food products or raw metals begin to be traded, luxury goods enter the market, and a double-headed socioeconomic class arises: those who control and manage trade transactions, and those who can attain the luxury goods. Oftentimes, the rise of a new, upper class not only entails more social stratification, but also organized labor and an increasingly complex internal government. In the case of the Minoan civilization, the new social class of the rich was able to build elaborate palaces by organizing labor. When construction ceased, the buildings were utilized as venues for governmental meetings and administrative offices; because of trade, this state (and similar ones) were able to specialize, develop social classes, organize labor, and develop a centralized government. In Mesoamerica, on the other hand, leaders – and ultimately, social stratification – arose because trade was only possible if it was long-distance. As a result, villages would arrange ceremonies in which gifts would be exchanged between distant towns. With the continuation of trade, these different areas would syndicate into one state and civilization. Trade is not just relatable to administrative situations; through trade, the transportation of ideas and cultures can proliferate, as well.
When the Silk Road was heavily traveled during the first millennia, for instance, the cross-cultural exchange and conglomeration of art and religion was rampant. Through the travels of the Silk Road, Buddhism was able to spread into China, and eventually to Korea and Japan. The introduction of Buddhism to East Asia drastically changed the social and cultural dynamics of the nations. After a period of internal unrest during the early parts of the first century, for instance, China was completely unified as a result, in part, to Buddhist practices. Art, as well as different art forms, was also passed through the Silk Road; heavy conglomeration of Middle-Eastern, Indian, Chinese, and Hellenistic also occurred. Similarly in Crete, heavy Greek and Egyptian influences are seen.
But, can one theory explain the growth of civilization? One of the most popular explanations for the development of civilization is V. Gordon Childe's theory of Urban Revolution. In his theory, Childe makes the role of cities to be paramount, and he emphasized the importance of craft specialization and metallurgy. Although no one doubts the significance of craft specialization, many archaeologists identify craft specialization as the result of civilization, not the cause.
Another theory, championed by Robert Carneiro, identifies warfare to be the leading cause of state birth and development. By using data from the Peruvian coastal areas, Carneiro believed that as individual villages begin to grow, population pressure forces these villages to fight for the limited supply of resources in the area. As a result, small villages are swallowed up by larger ones, and a civilization is able to grow. Carneiro's theory was debunked, however, when archaeological evidence indicated that warfare was actually rare in Peru's Santa Valley. Furthermore, some scientists believe that warfare is only possible after a civilization has been established; "only when absolute and despotic monarchs came into power did warfare become endemic" (Scarre 37).
Like warfare, irrigation in ancient Mesopotamia is scrutinized, especially because archaeologists are not sure which developed first: civilization or irrigation.
German scientist Karl Wittfogel believed that Mesopotamian states needed extensive irrigation to survive, and that large, state-run irrigation was developed to control and stabilize water transportation. Wittfogel argues that because only complex, state-run organizations could manage such a large flow of water, irrigation forced civilizations to start up and develop. In many aspects, Wittfogel's assumptions are accurate; the emergence of large-scale irrigation prompts high levels of specialization, organization, and centralized rule. But Wittfogel's theory is weakened because his theory applies only to extremely arid regions, primarily Egypt and Mesopotamia. Actually, extensive irrigation is only apparent in some of the world's civilizations and
cities.
But one must realize after seeing the multitude of theories, that one hypothesis cannot be applied to these case studies. Because of the varied circumstances of each civilization's maturation, one state may require something that another state may not need. In fact, civilization has risen and thrived due to the intricate development and interplay of the various factors of society: urban evolution, warfare, irrigation, specialization of labor, social stratification, and of course, trade. Trade, however, appears to be the most influential force on the development of civilization. Through the exchange of raw materials, foods, luxury items, and even religion, civilizations are able to attain those goods necessary to their own survival, and even pass those goods on to another state. Eerily similar to the globalization of today, early trade was able to span distances states could interact and share ideas and cultures, thereby creating a far reaching network of goods and information.