Conspicuous Consumption as Wasteful Advertising: a Darwinian Perspective on Spatial Patterns in Classic Maya Terminal Monument Dates

Abstract

Spatial patterns in Classic Maya terminal monument dates offer clues about the processes behind theClassic "collapse" and the spatial scale of political competition that preceded it. A Darwinian theory of wasteful advertising delivers a simple model of how the collapse and political competition might map onto terminal monument dates. Modern statistical techniques provide the tools required to decompose spatial variation in terminal dates from a sample of 69 sites into the components required by the model. The large-scale trend in the cessation of dated monument construction, estimated using local robust regression (loess), supports recent evidence that the ultimate cause of the end of dated monument construction was an ecological disaster. The variogram characterizes spatial variation in residuals from this trend. The results suggest that as the collapse proceeded, monument-constructing elites, or individuals competing for that status, abandoned their original sites to enter political competition at sites on average 65 km distant, thus increasing competition, and prolonging monument construction at those recipient sites. This implies spheres of political competition in the Late Classic were small, and supports recent evidence from epigraphic sources they averaged about 50 km in diameter.

Up speeds you down. Awe-evoking monumental buildings trigger behavioral and perceived freezing

“…The finding of building induced-immobility furthermore dovetails with evolutionary theories of architecture (Joye & Verpooten, 2013) and archeological studies into monumental architecture (Neiman, 1998). According to these, one of the important functions of monumental buildings throughout history was defensive.…”

“…Animals exploit this bias in so-called dominance/threat displays, where they attempt to threat and ward off rivals through selfaggrandizement (e.g., by extending arms and legs, by pilo-erection;De Waal, 1982). Recent research has interpreted certain instances of monumental architecture as built threat displays (Joye & Verpooten, 2013), through which rulers and elites sought to intimidate potential rivals and to consolidate their superior position with respect to commoners (Neiman, 1998).…”

“…According to these, one of the important functions of monumental buildings throughout history was defensive. Specifically, by their sheer size and height, such buildings have been interpreted as signs of (political) competitive ability, which intimidated and overawed subordinates and competitors, and thereby discouraged them from taking action against the reigning elite builders (Trigger, 1990;Neiman, 1998;Joye & Verpooten, 2013;Glatz & Plourde, 2011). Our findings tentatively suggest that such inaction might have been partly driven by the awe-evoking, and hence immobilizing character of such structures.…”

Emergent Complexity, Changing Landscapes, and Spheres of Interaction in Southeastern South America During the Middle and Late Holocene

“…Archaeologists working on this subject are interested in the material correlates of frontier zones; one of the most conspicuous expressions of rapid sociopolitical change is the spread of new forms of monumental public architecture, such as burial mounds, which create a new political landscape onto which institutions are projected (Bernardini 2005a, b;Dillehay 2007;Pauketat 2007;Pauketat and Loren 2005;Smith 2003). Due to their high visibility, monuments also are related to the assertive demarcation of territories (O'Shea and Milner 2002), especially from the perspective of evolutionary archaeologists that regard this phenomenon as a form of costly signaling-conspicuous displays to advertise a powerful message to outsiders (e.g., Boone 2000;Neiman 1997). …”

Evolutionary Demography and the Population History of the European Early Neolithic

“…Indeed, precisely this argument has been used by van der Velde (1990) and Kneipp (1998) (cited by Zimmermann 2002) to account for the establishment of the Niedermerz cemetery. Increased competition also provides a basis for explaining the deposition of rich grave goods as a form of costly signaling (Bliege Bird and Smith 2005;Neiman 1997), in which the ability to make extravagant displays represents an honest signal of a group's power and control over resources that would otherwise not be apparent. Thus the number of rich burials would not simply be a refl ection of the size or power of, for example, a senior lineage but of the competitive pressure it was under in particular places and times.…”