Central Precinct Layouts: Comparisons Among Regions

To establish the SPPG at the high end of a continuum of consistency, I discuss selected Mesoamerican reports, emphasizing those with multiple centers with central precinct maps, essential for detecting consistency. In the Classic-period southern Maya lowlands, Ashmore and Sabloff (2002, 2003) proposed underlying cosmological directional principles and political emulation of major sites to account for the arrangements of buildings and plaza groups, but these patterns are enacted in a varied fashion, partly due to long histories of many sites. The cosmological implications have been disputed (M. E. Smith 2003a, 2005). Ashmore and Sabloff focused their discussion on nine centers but cite additional cases. Categories of buildings are repeated in Maya centers, along with certain subsidiary plaza groups, as well as a degree of cardinality, but the overall arrangements of buildings and groups vary considerably among centers.

In Chiapas in the Upper Grijalva Valley, De Montmollín (1995:125–135) notes 31 Classic Maya centers with the “Tenam Rosario Plaza Format,” and he recognizes varying degrees of similarity. The 14 centers most closely representing the plaza format have three pyramids plus a ballcourt surrounding the plaza. Orthogonality and exact placement of structures vary. Elongated “range” structures are present at some plazas, also. The overall amount of variation is akin to the variation in a smaller sample for four Aztec-period settlements in Morelos in Central Mexico. There, Smith (2008:87–89) argues for a repeated arrangement of buildings around a central plaza following the “Tula plaza plan,” an instance of emulation of a historically significant capital. In these examples, particular kinds of buildings and some placements recur, such as a major pyramid on the east side of the main plaza, but other buildings vary (e.g., two of the four examples have ballcourts, two of the four examples have T-shaped buildings on the south side of the plaza), and some sites have rows of other structures. Consequently, a plan is recognizable but not enacted in a highly standardized fashion.

The Quiché and Cakchiquel areas of the western Guatemalan highlands exhibit moderate coordination and standardization in Postclassic-period plaza groups. The central plazas are dominated by a temple mound (sometimes two or more of them) and partly framed by one or more elongated mounds (substructures) supporting long buildings (with multiple rooms and benches along the back wall in many cases); usually a ballcourt is present, and sometimes one or more small altars are preserved in the plaza (Fox 1978; Wallace 1977). Large sites may exhibit multiple plazas as well as palaces. Positioning of plaza groups varies considerably, in part reflecting topographic constraints on ridgetops. Among Fox’s (1978) compendium of 43 mapped centers, 30 exhibit plazas with the temple(s) and elongated mound(s).¹ Fox (1978) discusses regional and temporal variants within this corpus, along with emulation of capitals. Despite the variations in placement of structures and in the number of temples, the plaza units at different sites are relatively consistent in their inventory and arrangement.

Quiché and Cakchiquel elongated mounds are interpreted as “council houses” or “community houses” that were foci of lineages with varying stature (Fox 1978). A considerable body of ethnohistoric data attests to the lineage structure and ruling houses of Quiché, Mam, Ixil, Cakchiquel, and other language groups in the Guatemalan highlands, several of which eventually fell under Quiché rule (Carmack 1973, 1981; Fox 1978, 1987; Nance et al. 2003; Wallace 1977). Elaborate palaces were associated with the local ruling families, while elongated structures likely provided varying functions, with some that fronted the main plazas likely supporting mainly assembly and civic activities, perhaps with some residential roles, but with other long structures likely mainly residential. The repeated long structures appear to be manifestations of the patrilineages prominent in these polities. The Quiché and Cakchiquel ethnohistoric data play an important role in linking a fairly consistent form of central precinct and a particular elongated building form with an important corporate element in political life. The Quiché and Cakchiquel information provides a key warrant for interpreting repeated elongate buildings as linked to corporate groups in Mesoamerican architectural traditions. Other examples may represent different groups than patrilineages, however. Dual organization is a possibility for south-central Veracruz.

Compared to the Guatemalan highlands, even greater coordination and standardization in layouts is evident in the Teuchitlan tradition during the Late Formative to Early Classic periods in Jalisco (Beekman, chapter 3, this volume; Weigand 1996, 2000). Sites in this tradition display a distinctive pattern of circular elements. Around a central structure, a raised circular patio is framed by a circular banquette supporting a series of platforms and buildings. Often other circular groups are contiguous or nearby but not in a set juxtaposition. The sizes of the circular units vary, as does the central element (altar or pyramidal platform), but the general layout is highly consistent. Sites differ in their number of circular units according to the settlement hierarchy. The banquettes with multiple platforms atop are argued to reflect a corporate emphasis in governance (Beekman 2008; see also Beekman, chapter 3, this volume), and palaces that might signal a ruling dynasty are absent. Maps are available for 30 of the Teuchitlan sites (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996).

Thus, we see a range in Mesoamerica from more tenuously manifested layout principles (Classic Maya) to more consistent ones (Postclassic Quiché-Cakchiquel plaza plans) to highly consistent ones (Late Formative/Early Classic Teuchitlan). In this array, the last two instances show marked standardization in buildings and layouts in central precincts, and Guatemalan highland ethnohistory records strong patrilineage corporate group organization. The SPPG in south-central Veracruz are more coordinated and standardized than most cases discussed, matched or exceeded only by the Teuchitlan tradition.

To examine the SPPG, I stress that buildings are created and renovated for particular purposes by particular sets of people. Buildings may serve a broad range of the society but very differentially. To unlock the reasons for a repetitive pattern, we need to consider the possible roles of buildings and their sponsorship or designated users. While such information may be sketchy for south-central Veracruz and partly dependent on extrapolation from regions with ethnohistoric and epigraphic data, such information may point us toward a better understanding of south-central Veracruz centers. In particular, I argue that the repetitive plaza layout reflects a balancing of different social interests and activities expressed in a culturally recognized template. During the Classic period, south-central Veracruz was not obviously disrupted by conquest or emulation of foreign capitals, maintaining an independent trajectory of change. Thus, the SPPG was not dislodged by external factors nor based upon them. Nevertheless, the Late Classic period (AD 600–900) witnessed changes in the proportions of variants of the SPPG and an increase in the numbers of palatial platforms, both of which point to some erosion of corporate emphasis.

Background for the Gulf Lowlands

The central and southern Gulf lowlands comprise several regions geomorphologically and culturally. During the Classic period, the SPPG is one of a “family” of repeated layouts at centers. The SPPG is particularly characteristic in south-central Veracruz. In southern Veracruz, the Long Plaza Plan (Domínguez Covarrubias 2001; Killion and Urcid 2001; Urcid and Killion 2008) is alternatively labeled the Villa Alta Quadripartite Arrangement (Borstein 2001, 2005; see Lunagómez 2011 for additional plaza groups in southern Veracruz). These plazas had a dominant conical mound and elongated dual laterals—sufficiently elongated that the plaza is distinctly rectangular in contrast to the square tendency of the SPPG. Ballcourts do not occur at the end of the plaza opposite the conical mound, but, instead, parallel the plaza, using the back of a lateral as one of the flanking mounds for the court. Opposite the conical mound is another smaller conical mound, which may link to the next plaza in a linear “chain” of long plazas of diminishing proportions. Whereas the SPPG spans the Classic period, the Long Plaza Plan appears to be mainly a Late Classic phenomenon.

At the western margin of the Tuxtla Mountains, prior to the Classic period but continuing during the Early Classic (AD 300–600), Tres Zapotes exhibits the Tres Zapotes Plaza Group (Pool 2008) in which a conical mound is accompanied by an elongated or slightly elongated mound. The plaza may contain a small adoratorio, and the end of the plaza opposite the dominant conical mound usually has another conical mound. No ballcourts are associated with the Tres Zapotes Plaza Group. Tres Zapotes has four widely spaced repetitions of this plaza group, which Pool (2008) ascribes to factionalism. The laterals are presumed to be headquarters of factions, as some exhibit residential midden debris, but are thought also to play some administrative roles.

Classic-period Tres Zapotes has historical roots in the Formative Olmec era, and Olmec stone monuments at Tres Zapotes include colossal “portrait” heads, suggesting a society with both corporate and exclusionary principles in governance. Pool (2008:147) suggested the Tres Zapotes Plaza Group was also employed at other sites in the vicinity, such as El Mesón, confirmed by Loughlin’s (2012:244) research. Although the Tres Zapotes Plaza Group does not occur at other smaller monumental centers in El Mesón’s vicinity, other examples in the Tres Zapotes vicinity are likely (Pool 2008:147). Because of its long Formative history, Tres Zapotes provides a possible antecedent for some aspects of the SPPG. An apogee of Tres Zapotes in size and activity occurred during the Late Formative period (Hueyapan phase, 400 BC–AD 1). La Venta, with a Middle to Late Formative span, also has been suggested as a partial antecendent for the SPPG (Stark 2007:58–59), due to the two long parallel mounds arranged north of the main conical mound (which do not form a ballcourt). The primary point is that conical and elongated lateral mound plaza arrangements have a long history in Veracruz, and more than one regional tradition exists. Longitudinal and comparative data point to a mix of corporate and exclusionary principles, the latter emphasizing personal leadership and clientage networks (Blanton et al. 1996).

I examine SPPG data primarily from a survey by Daneels (2002) along the lower Cotaxtla River and from my adjacent project in the western lower Papaloapan basin, along the lower Blanco, Guerengo, and Tlalixcoyan rivers (Stark 1999, 2003), an area sometimes referred to as the Mixtequilla (also the local name for the municipio of Ignacio de la Llave and of a monumental center nearby; figure 5.2). My underlying method is systematic comparison of plaza groups in multiple centers, not focusing on the layout of a single center. For example, all the capitals recorded in my survey have some unique features that set them apart. The Early Classic capital of Cerro de las Mesas is unlike the later capitals in the Mixtequilla in its agglomerative tendency, with multiple SPPGs and other buildings, such as monumental palace platforms (Stark 2003). The paired, adjacent Late Classic complexes of Ajitos and Pitos on the paleodunes likewise are unlike other capitals in south-central Veracruz. Capitals are particularly prone to idiosyncratic characteristics in part because they incorporate more structures and groups than the Standard Plan, and, as noted, they may be subject to innovation to achieve greater distinction. For many lower-order centers, a single SPPG dominates the central precinct.

The Standard Plan was defined by Daneels (2002:174–181) to include a conical mound (probably pyramidal) at one end of an approximately square plaza (figure 5.2) also framed by two elongate lateral mounds facing each other (but sometimes only one). Opposite the conical mound at the other end of the plaza, a ballcourt is formed by two parallel, closely spaced flanking mounds demarcating a game court. In Daneels’s definition, the ballcourt axis matched the plaza axis bisecting the conical mound; however, rarely, ballcourts are transverse to the plaza axis in the data discussed here, which constitutes a variant. A rectangular monumental platform is nearby in Daneels’s original definition, and some platforms have a conical mound on them. Monumental platforms likely supported a palatial residence (Daneels 2002:188–192; Stark 1999:209), as confirmed at La Joya along the lower Cotaxtla (Daneels 2008a, 2011). Elite or royal residences may take other forms than monumental platforms, such as a mound with an attached terrace, or, at lesser centers, a monumental platform may be less imposing to the point that its status is debatable. Variation in the Standard Plan as a whole is an important topic, but not the focus here. In this study, I concentrate on SPPGs.

In terms of arrangements, formality, monumentality, orthogonality, and access, the SPPGs are highly planned. The SPPG is a formal geometric arrangement, and, at the higher-order centers, many of the mounds are monumental; however, at lower-order centers, the structures are more modest. Access between buildings makes the plazas relatively open.

In the Cotaxtla survey, 32 SPPGs were mapped, including variants (Daneels 2002:181–183), two in a single complex. In the Mixtequilla, 41 SPPGs were mapped including variants, five of them in complexes with two or more SPPGs. Variants are of interest because they may disclose the circumstances in which a degree of deviation from a prevalent pattern occurred. Included in the counts are instances of possible ballcourts, where a mound of the appropriate size is located in the ballcourt position but disturbance (mainly plowing) has erased any surface evidence of the two flanking mounds of the court. The possible functions of the component SPPG buildings are a starting point for explaining the prevalence of the layout.

Structures and their Functions in the Standard Plan Plaza Group

Conical Mounds

In keeping with general Mesoamerican analogies, steep conical mounds likely were pyramidal platforms for temples with ritual functions conducted by a few people but witnessed by large assemblies in the plaza.

Ballcourts

SPPG ballcourts have not been excavated, and we have no information about caches or other ritual associations; we lack associated imagery, such as accompanies some Tajín ballcourts (Ladrón de Guevara 1999), and we do not know if ballgames were occasions for public feasts, as argued for Honduras (Fox et al. 1996). In terms of general Mesoamerican practices, the ballgame was multifaceted, with cosmic, competitive, social, and recreational functions (summarized in Stark 2012). Lines of sight and the number of people who could have directly watched the ballgame reveal that ball-game viewing involved social distinctions, as many fewer people could witness a game compared to those who could be accommodated in a plaza to witness ceremonies atop adjacent platforms and pyramids (Stark 2012).

Lateral Mounds

The functions of the lateral mounds are the most enigmatic among the central plaza structures. The elongated lateral mounds may have supported adobe or perishable multiroom structures that may have served particular corporate social groups in the society, possibly in some form of dual organization. If so, the typical inequality in height of the laterals suggests the possibility of ranked groups. Moieties are one possibility.

Some Maya elongated platforms with multiroom structures have been proposed as council houses, that is, structures used by some corporate entity(s) related to civic activities (Cheek 2003; De Montmollín 1995:66; Fash et al. 1992; Stomper 1996, 2001). This proposition is akin to the possible corporate group role of elongated Quiché or Cakchiquel platforms, interpreted as council houses for segmentary lineage affairs (Fox 1987; Wallace 1977). Corporate or council functions may involve periodic or continuous residence by some participants, and activities could include training and feasting. By way of comparison, at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Pool (2008) excavated domestic refuse behind three of the long structures in Tres Zapotes Plaza Groups and suggests these mounds were elite residences possibly also with administrative or ceremonial roles.

Could at least one lateral have had a royal administrative role? The likely presence of royals in government can be inferred both from monumental carvings at Cerro de las Mesas (Miller 1991; Stirling 1943) and from the occurrence of the monumental palatial platforms that represent substantial investments of labor. These palaces likely had multiple roles, including royal residence, storage, rituals, and some audience functions, perhaps also some crafts. However, the palaces do not commonly front on the Standard Plan Plaza, and use of laterals for activities related to royal governance therefore remains dubious. Royal representation is unlikely at all levels of the settlement hierarchy in which SPPGs occurred. Where monumental palatial platforms are closely associated, however, it is likely that a local noble family or a member of a royal line held sway.

Daneels (2002:179) proposed a role in astronomical rituals for laterals (or buildings on them), with solstitial sightings from one side across a line of sight transecting the edges of the opposite structure, similar to “E Groups” in the Maya lowlands. However, the use of E-Groups for solar seasonal observations is now thought unlikely in most cases, although seasonal rituals may have been important at the groups (Aimers and Rice 2006). In Daneels’s interpretation, all SPPG structures likely had ritual roles. Nevertheless, I consider a corporate or governance role more likely for laterals because of the considerable variation in the azimuths of plaza “facings”—the axial direction bisecting the conical and the plaza midline and looking from the conical mound toward the other end of the plaza. Figure 5.3 shows facing percents by cardinal quadrants, using 34 measurements for SPPG facings for the Cotaxtla survey, 37 for the Mixtequilla, and 21 for Hueyapan Long Plaza Plans (Domínguez Covarrubias 2001). The Cotaxtla SPPGs have facings northward or southward much more frequently than the Mixtequilla SPPGs, which favor eastward or westward, as does the Hueyapan area. For solstitial observations an appropriate north-south alignment of the SPPG and the laterals is requisite. Thus, a solar observatory or related symbolic role for laterals as proposed by Daneels is more feasible for the Cotaxtla area, but even there it does not account for all the layouts.²

Figure 5.3. Summary of facings (azimuth starting from main conical mound and bisecting the plaza) of SPPGs and Long Plaza Plans based on data from three surveys.

Summary

The SPPG clearly includes key buildings associated with ritual events at the main temple or at the ballgame, but laterals may have been used by corporate groups, possibly ones involved in civil administration, supplementing the administrative roles of major palatial platforms placed nearby. The regular presence of laterals around the main plaza assembly space attests to their importance. At larger centers additional mounds and other plaza groups may have provided administrative or ritual functions as well (see Daneels 2002:186). Single laterals could have been used on a rotational basis by corporate segments or by a single council; single laterals suggest less corporate representation than dual laterals, however.

Explaining the Standard Plan

To posit particular functions for mounds in the SPPG does not address why the SPPG is frequently repeated at different settlement levels, across multiple polities, and over many centuries, with minor variations that maintain much of the same format. Several interpretations could explain the consistency and are not mutually exclusive.

Ruler or Government Control

The highest political authorities command resources and may engineer the design of buildings and their arrangement in centers. Such efforts are particularly likely if they lead to display and glorification of a ruler’s power and of sacred precepts. Conceivably, then, the SPPG testified to rulers’ power, with insistence on conformity in several levels in the settlement hierarchy. The AD 1573 edicts of Phillip II concerning the central plaza, streets, and associated buildings in the founding of Spanish towns in the New World are an unusual example of a top-down process that met with some success (Crouch et al. 1982). Apart from the central plaza and streets opening onto it, however, other buildings were left relatively flexible in their positioning (Crouch et al. 1982), with a church to be near the central plaza, civil buildings facing the plaza, and porticos for merchant activities. In fact, Roman Catholic churches were usually placed facing the plaza or alongside it (facing an access street), and they represent a separate corporate organization from the Spanish Crown. The Spanish edict did not result in the degree of standardization shown by the SPPG, but the position of churches suggests a role for a powerful corporate entity assuring itself a prominent plaza position.

The small states of Classic-period south-central Veracruz were not, so far as we can discern, expansionist militaristic states. Thus the resources and power to despotically mold settlements to a single plan do not seem adequate to the task. Among the many demands on state resources and efforts for maintenance of elite power, meddling in the layouts of third-order settlements or neighborhood complexes, for example, does not seem a pressing concern. We confront a problem in explaining why multiple rulers used the same plan and enforced it up and down the settlement hierarchy across centuries in the Mixtequilla and the neighboring lower Cotaxtla region (see Daneels 2011 concerning La Joya settlement hierarchy).

Emulation could create a combined top-down and bottom-up effect, with people in different community levels striving to repeat a prestigious pattern to which leaders adhered. At capitals, some types of elaboration or innovation occurred, yet we do not see replication of capital innovations in lower-order settlements, which cleaved instead to the SPPG layout. Emulation leaves considerable room for local interpretation and seems unlikely to achieve the degree of repetition across polities and over centuries that we see in the SPPG, for which most variation is minor and consists of whether one or two laterals are present. Partial SPPGs keep to the same plan but omit either the conical mound or the ballcourt (though they may be present elsewhere in the monumental core).

Cultural and Social Values and Symbols

One might argue that south-central Veracruz was subject to extensive, active communication and sharing of cultural and social values expressed in the SPPG. We see that both the highest echelons of society and commoners in small communities expressed the same design for central precincts because the SPPG appears at first-, second-, and several third-ranked centers. Extensive communication and sharing of ideas across south-central Veracruz is documented not only in settlement patterns but also in ceramics (Daneels 1997; Stark 2001). Possibly the frequency of ballcourts (Daneels 2008b) and periodic marketplaces (Stark and Ossa 2010), in addition to a ritual calendar of observances, fomented an unusual degree of visiting by people among centers. Daneels (2008b) argued that ballgames performed a key integrating function in south-central Veracruz, as the courts were widely distributed. Active communication would be abetted by a standard layout so that visitors were well acquainted with the facilities and practices at centers across south-central Veracruz.

We have little concrete information concerning symbolism of centers that might be shared. Perhaps the pyramid represented access to a celestial realm, with the ballcourt at the other end of the plaza for ritual events involving descent to the underworld (e.g., Taladoire 1981:545, 548). The space between, with one or two laterals and a plaza, could represent the domain of regular human activities in civic, political, and economic life (cf. Beekman, chapter 3, this volume).

Despite considerable promise, an explanation based on a shared template is unsatisfactory taken alone because a template may have existed without precluding considerable interpretive license, as is evident in the comparative societies discussed. Also, each building had particular functions, and buildings differentially served elements of the society, such as the ballgame in formal courts serving higher-status persons (Stark 2012), or lateral mounds possibly serving particular corporate or civic groups. South-central Veracruz society was hierarchical, with different interests and values among classes and communities, at least to some extent, which could yield considerable deviation.

Shared Power

I propose that in addition to a context of communication and emulation, the SPPG Group construction was likely related to more widespread social action than simply rulers’ dictates or nearly slavish adherence to a shared concept for centers. The use of laterals by ranked, dual corporate groups would create a broader interest in construction and maintenance of the SPPG. If the laterals imply a corporate element in civic affairs, despite the presence of royal families, SPPG centers would exhibit a degree of collective action or “voice” (e.g., Blanton and Fargher 2008; Levi 1988)—that is, “bottom-up” efforts to consistently engineer architectural forms that represented diverse vested interests.

I suggest that the repetitive character of the SPPG reflects checks and balances among key social segments (e.g., royals and corporate groups), a dynamic tension that recreated the culturally accepted presentation of a center because doing so afforded an avenue for expression of shared power. The economic context of south-central Veracruz provides insight into a basis for shared power. Stark et al. (1998) noted that the region is suited to cotton production as well as sustaining reliable agriculture. Whorls and sewing gear attest to cotton production and processing. Cotton production and processing require both land and labor. Thus, important land-holding elites, royals, and commoners might have enjoyed exchange advantages trading cotton and cloth to areas that could not produce them, as well as social display advantages (fine cotton garments).

Testing the Shared-Power Interpretation Using Variants of the Standard Plan

To test the idea of shared power versus top-down control, I examine the occurrences of variations in the SPPGs to see if they are linked to innovations by central powers at the top of the settlement hierarchy or, instead, prove to be more characteristic of lower-level settlements that did not have to maintain a strict conformity (or lacked some of the resources—or permissions—necessary to create all the SPPG repertoire). In the examination of the relationship to the settlement hierarchy, I show that single lateral variants initially were associated more with lower-order settlements, a pattern not compatible with strong top-down conformity. I also show that the incidence of variants overall is higher in the Mixtequilla area than the lower Cotaxtla, so the realm that underwent unification in the Early Classic period did not demonstrate greater conformity, calling into question top-down processes as a basis to account for conformity. As an outgrowth of examining variants in relation to the settlement hierarchy, I detect that later in the Classic period, variants implying a decreased corporate role (single laterals) became increasingly associated with the upper part of the settlement hierarchy, suggesting shifts in power relationships.

Some sources of variation (table 5.1; figure 5.4) include the initial definition allowing one or two laterals. Other variation involves rare instances in which the ballcourt is transverse to the main plaza axis bisecting the conical mound. A different kind of variation is introduced by some arrangements that are “partial” because one ingredient is left out, either the conical mound or the ballcourt, usually the latter. In addition, in a single case (figure 5.4, Variant D), the two elongated laterals do not face each other but are placed instead at right angles, and the ballcourt is absent (making it debatable whether this case is usefully considered as an SPPG variant). A different variant was defined for the Cotaxtla area, discussed further below. I first examine settlement associations for one versus two laterals, which I argue does not support a top-down process of conformity. I next describe the partial SPPGs and then consider the contexts of partial SPPG and rare transverse ballcourts, which also do not support an explanation based solely on top-down conformity.

Single and Dual Laterals

The Standard Plan definition allows one or two lateral platforms. This variation is politically significant if the lateral structures represent corporate groups with civic functions.³ Note also that with a single lateral, access to the plaza is more open, with a lower overall investment in construction. We can ask if the single laterals correlate with a particular part of the settlement hierarchy to assess top-down versus bottom-up variation or if some other factor is at work, such as change over time or geographic variation. Mixtequilla data show that the single laterals initially had mainly a lower position in the administrative hierarchy during the Early Classic period, but not in the Late Classic. Eventually during the Late Classic period, an increased frequency of single laterals in several parts of the region suggests a diminished but not extinguished role for the corporate groups or councils they possibly represent.

Figure 5.4. Mixtequilla survey: SPPG variants.

The Cotaxtla survey has 6 single laterals among 32 SPPGs (19%), and the Mixtequilla has 20 single laterals among 41 SPPGs (49%, partial SPPGs are included). Greater prevalence of single laterals in the Mixtequilla likely reflects more variation in the degree to which corporate groups played key roles in centers. In particular, the Early Classic unification of the Mixtequilla under Cerro de las Mesas means that the region that experienced the most developed central authority had more variation, undermining the idea that royal edicts ensured central precinct conformity. In the Late Classic, the Mixtequilla, like the lower Cotaxtla throughout the Classic period, was divided among several smaller polities. In a section that considers all types of variants, not just single versus double laterals, I return to this point.

Mixtequilla temporal analyses show that some of the higher incidence of variants is due to the single lateral becoming more common during the Late Classic period (table 5.2).

In the Mixtequilla by time periods, 5 complexes are Early Classic, while 12 are Late Classic, and 5 occur in both periods. The only top-ranked center during the Early Classic period is Cerro de las Mesas, with an extensive central precinct that includes 6 subsidiary SPPGs or partial SPPGs; among these, only one partial complex has a single lateral. During the Early Classic period, 9 lower-level centers have single laterals. In contrast, during the Late Classic period, three capitals have a single lateral in their primary plaza along with 14 in lower-order settlements or in parts of settlements (e.g., Nacaste-Patarata). Single laterals are particularly common in the Guerengo area, in the interfluve between the Guerengo and Blanco rivers, and in the mangrove swamp. Thus, there are subregional and Late Classic emphases.⁴

Concomitantly, Mixtequilla data show a Late Classic proliferation of monumental palatial platforms, which points to the expansion and entrenchment of elites, probably large landholders. If single laterals represent an erosion of dual corporate group representation in civic centers, then the proliferation of high-ranking families with palatial residences may have come at the expense of wider corporate representation.

Overview of Partial Standard Plan Plaza Groups

This section describes partial SPPGs, which then figure in settlement analysis in the next section. Two circumstances apply. A few occurrences are at primary or secondary centers in which the missing component is present elsewhere. For example, two partial SPPGs at Early Classic Cerro de las Mesas lack the conical mound, but these plaza groups are in the immediate vicinity of the north part of the central precinct where four conical mounds are positioned closely around interlinked plazas (Stark 2003). The Late Classic Nacastle-Patarata settlement in a mangrove swamp provides a different example (Stark 2003). Partial SPPGs at subsidiary neighborhood groups lack a ballcourt, but the central complex, Tio Perciliano, has a ballcourt. In both of these capitals, partial SPPGs are part of subsidiary segments of construction. In contrast, partial SPPGs in many lower-order settlements do not have the “missing” structure supplied elsewhere in the same settlement (table 5.3).

Daneels defined a different Cotaxtla variant. She observed five instances in which a monumental palatial platform faced a plaza with a ballcourt; with one exception the courts are not at the opposite end of the plaza but alongside the plaza. Elongated lateral mounds are not present except in one case. In the Mixtequilla variants, laterals are always present.

Mixtequilla survey registered two complexes similar to those recognized by Daneels. Both are within the Late Classic Nopiloa settlement. Complex 6309 is near the Nopiloa central precinct and forms a subsidiary part of that center. Complex 6309 has a monumental palatial platform and a quite small ballcourt adjacent to a small plaza, with a few additional low mounds. This Late Classic phenomenon resembles the appropriation of architectural prerogatives of the center by an elite family or perhaps a collateral royal, a process of delegation of privileges noted also at the Maya site of Copán during the Late Classic period (Fash 1991:160–172; Fash et al. 1992). The Nopiloa central plaza presents a partial SPPG-B1 with a single lateral mound and a massive palace located where the ballcourt normally would appear; instead, the ballcourt is alongside the plaza. In this example of partial SPPG B1, an additional low conical mound is positioned in place of the second lateral. All of the variants encountered by Daneels are on the paleodunes, and all but one date to the Middle or Late Classic period, as does Nopiloa. Some are in close proximity to other SPPG complexes and one, complex 87, is likely part of the Mata Naranjo center. Consequently, I regard these Cotaxtla variants as distinct from Mixtequilla SPPG variants, but some may be parts of settlements, such as occurred at Nopiloa.⁵

The partial SPPG variants in the Mixtequilla that occur in parts of settlements or lower-order settlements show that laterals appear even if a ballcourt or conical mound does not, and they constitute one of the most pervasive architectural structures. Apparently, the smaller neighborhoods or communities invested in corporate civic activity, even if their circumstances were more restrictive in resources or privileges.

Settlement Contexts of Standard Plan Variants

The Cotaxtla and Mixtequilla surveys differ in the proportions and nature of variants, which further casts doubt on a top-down imposition of the replicated format. For my purposes, it is useful to focus on the percent of variants in relation to total SPPGs, rather than to all monumental complexes in the two regions (e.g., isolated palatial platforms); on this score Cotaxtla has 12 variants among 32 SPPGs (38%), while the Mixtequilla has 21 variants among 41 SPPGs (51%.) These figures count instances of transverse ball courts, partial SPPGs, and Cotaxtla variants (table 5.1). The presence of one or two laterals is not tallied as a variant in this analysis. These statistics show less variation from SPPG principles in the Cotaxtla area than in the Mixtequilla.

These two adjacent regions have relevant organizational differences because the Mixtequilla includes Cerro de las Mesas, the largest monumental complex recorded in either region, and one with several carved-stone monuments and probably six ballcourts. During the Early Classic period it appears to have been the capital of the western lower Papaloapan basin or most of it. In contrast, the Cotaxtla area includes multiple independent polities during that time (Daneels 2002). In the Late Classic period, the Cerro de las Mesas realm dissolved into at least four separate smaller polities. Thus, in the lower Cotaxtla, with more independent polities, there is less SPPG variation than in the Mixtequilla, despite the fact that independent polities imply more separate bases of political action that could have led to variation in center layouts.

Despite the Mixtequilla’s Early Classic unification followed by a breakup, partial SPPGs do not appear to be confined to the Early or Late Classic period, with five during the Early Classic and eight during the Late Classic at secondary and tertiary centers (table 5.3). Some of the partial SPPG centers appear to have been active during both the Early and Late Classic periods. (For partial SPPGs that are segments of centers, the results are similar, with three partial SPPGs within Early Classic Cerro de las Mesas, and four within Late Classic Tio Perciliano.)

To summarize, conformity to the SPPG is higher when polities are both more numerous and smaller, as we see in the Cotaxtla region, with variants becoming more noticeable during the Middle and Late Classic periods on the paleodunes. In contrast, when a dominant capital integrated a larger area—Early Classic Cerro de las Mesas—there was a higher frequency of partial SPPGs; however, that larger polity later broke apart during the Late Classic period, and the number of partial SPPGs remained similar. Because of the high level of conformity in the Cotaxtla region, with no instance of extensive integration into a single polity, it is difficult to argue that conformity was imposed by a powerful central authority. Instead, a combination of shared cultural values and the interests of multiple social segments (both rulers and corporate groups) is more promising as an explanation of the repetitive SPPGs. In general, greater deviations (partial SPPGs) are more likely at lower-order centers in the Mixtequilla or within a capital where the “missing” facilities are present elsewhere. A top-down push toward conformity, if applied, did not penetrate the settlement hierarchy very effectively compared to the lower Cotaxtla region.

Summary and Discussion

The SPPG in south-central Veracruz presents a striking phenomenon with high coordination and standardization of structures. The surprisingly repetitive nature of the SPPG, with a modest incidence of relatively minor variants, suggests that recurrent considerations by multiple groups were brought to bear on the erection of platforms and on activities conducted at centers. A likely prominent role for corporate groups in these settlements points to a broader basis of authority and power than solely the royal line. If so, the extent of alluvial farmlands, reliable rainfall, and climatic conditions favorable to cotton production may have involved weaker clientage and more broad-based wealth generation than in many regions of Mesoamerica (Stark et al. 1998). The Early Classic period saw settlement growth eastward in the delta of the Río Blanco and thus at least partially represents a time of expansion of people and landholdings instead of their consolidation into fewer hands. Such patterns would be consistent with Blanton and Fargher’s (2008) observation that higher collectivity or more corporate forms of governing are associated with internal revenues (that is to say revenues provided by a broad constituency of taxpayers). Conversely, the Late Classic period likely witnessed more contrast between wealthy residential groups and commoner households and more consolidation of wealth (likely land holdings) in fewer hands, with diminished corporate group representation in civic affairs. Possibly revenues shifted to more external sources or to sources directly controlled by the governing elite, which could be more readily used to exclude corporate groups from participating in political decision-making and to increase conspicuous consumption by royal lineages (see Blanton and Fargher 2008). Thus, despite marked continuity in use of the SPPGs in south-central Veracruz, there is intriguing variation over time.

Other Mesoamerican instances of repeated layouts in public centers at varying hierarchical levels also point to counterbalancing between corporate and ruling governmental power. The Postclassic Quiché and Cakchiquel highland centers, with temples and long council structures as well as palaces, are a case in point. To a lesser extent, the popol na or council buildings of the Classic lowland Maya point in the same direction, but lack the prominence of laterals in the SPPG and of elongated structures in the Guatemalan highlands. Instead, lowland Maya royal power is conspicuously displayed.

The Teuchitlan tradition in Jalisco displays even more consistency in layouts. In contrast to the south-central Veracruz situation, there are no indications of royal lineages and palatial residences (Beekman, chapter 3, this volume). The settlements contain banquette constructions representing multiple groups, not a dual organization such as south-central Veracruz may have had. The south-central Veracruz plans embody a tension not so much between many near equals as between one or two corporate groups and royal or other socially dominant leadership. In both Teuchitlan and south-central Veracruz the pervasive adherence to a central plaza plan, with scant variation, suggests a wider participation in the construction and use of civic and religious facilities than royal dynasties alone. A degree of “bottom up” contributions to centers was likely part of a balancing of corporate and exclusionary powers.

Increasingly Mesoamerican research is documenting variety in political systems. In Postclassic Tlaxcallan, for example, Fargher, Heredia Espinoza, and Blanton (2011) argue for a nonroyal, more egalitarian political form with councils. The site lacks any central plaza and precinct (a precinct removed from the settlement is suggested as a meeting location), and the settlement has numerous neighborhood plazas and residential terraces, only modest temple mounds, and no palaces (Fargher et al. 2011). Both Postclassic Tlaxcallan and Classic Teuchitlan are exceptional for Mesoamerica in their lack of obvious palaces (see also Heredia Espinoza, chapter 4, this volume). I suggest a common situation is a “tug-of-war” or counterbalancing among powerful social segments involving both corporate and exclusionary principles (in the terminology of Blanton et al. 1996). The long-lived SPPGs attest to endurance for a political formation in which different interests interacted and likely competed. Blanton et al. (1996:2) saw either exclusionary or corporate political strategies tending to be dominant, and they suggested cycling between dominant principles. Six hundred years of the SPPG (and its earlier precedents at Tres Zapotes and possibly La Venta) raise doubts about necessary cycling between these principles or a tendency of one or the other to dominate, but see Fargher (chapter 15, this volume) for examples of shifts in predominate governing principles.

The extremes in which we see either corporate or exclusionary principles emphasized in Mesoamerica should help us better understand a “more populated” middle ground with mixed emphases. The middle ground seems remarkably resilient in south-central Veracruz, even though the Late Classic period shows some decline in corporate emphasis (single laterals) along with a proliferation of palaces. If earlier Olmec times in the Gulf lowlands exemplified a “cult of the ruler” (Grove and Gillespie 1984), and a strong role for exclusionary patronage, the Olmec La Venta layout opens the door to additional factors in governance, provided the elongated laterals there had similar functions to those proposed for Tres Zapotes and the SPPG sites. A profusion of leader or dynastic displays and claims should not obscure the possibility that other social interests were strong in governance (even if ancient rulers would have liked for art displays to convince people otherwise). For the Classic period in south-central Veracruz, resilience of the middle ground was likely powered by the interests of landed elites, perhaps kin-linked “houses” (Joyce and Gillespie 2000) versus “the Crown” as well as by alliances between commoners and elite factions.

Because the south-central Veracruz cultural patterns were truncated at the end of the Classic period, eventually replaced by those of intrusive highland-linked groups (Stark 2008), we cannot determine if the proposed long-lived balancing act in civic principles would have endured or undergone continued change toward more exclusionary emphases. In any case, highly repetitive planned arrangements in central precincts form an important variant in Mesoamerican urbanism. I suggest that Teuchitlan, Quiché-Cakchiquel, and the Veracruz SPPGs all point to ways in which corporate groups constrained architectural variation to bolster their civic roles.

Although the focus in this chapter has been whether corporate groups may have played important roles in governance in south-central Veracruz, this issue falls within broader concerns of how different “agents” and groups of them contribute to the diversity and history of complex societies. Blanton and Fargher (2008) show that a range of collective action emphases yields governmental variability in ancient states. Fargher (chapter 15, this volume) documents an association of more marked corporate power with stronger indications of collective action. My analysis shows considerable durability for what I argue is a representation of corporate interests combined with dynastic rulers. The longevity of both elements could indicate that wider engagement of the population in governance and provisioning of public goods yields greater durability in governmental forms (cf. Blanton 2010); alternatively, a degree of balancing of power principles may contribute to durability by checking governmental excesses. These possible temporal issues, raised by my research and other chapters in this volume (e.g., Beekman, chapter 3, this volume), remain an avenue for future research. Research provoked by Richard Blanton’s attention to multiple governmental forms and processes, including a diversity of agents, will contribute to research directions far into the future.

Acknowledgments. An earlier version of this chapter was presented in absentia at the 54th International Congress of Americanists in 2012, Vienna. Fieldwork in the Mixtequilla was supported by the National Science Foundation (BNS 85-19167, BNS 87-41867, and SBR-9804738) and the National Geographic Society, with permission from the Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. I thank the many students and archaeologists who contributed to the field and laboratory work. I also thank the Mixtequilla communities for their hospitality. George Cowgill, Annick Daneels, Lane Fargher, Verenice Heredía, Michael Smith, and anonymous reviewers provided valuable suggestions to improve the chapter but bear no responsibility for its deficiencies and may dispute some of the arguments.