During the central Mexican late Postclassic period, the Aztec Triple Alliance became the largest and most powerful empire in Mesoamerica. Yet ancient Tlaxcallan (now Tlaxcala, Mexico) resisted incorporation into the empire despite being entirely surrounded by it and despite numerous Aztec military campaigns aimed at the defeat of the Tlaxcaltecas. How did it happen that a relatively small (1,400 km²) polity was able to resist a more powerful foe while its neighbors succumbed? We propose a resolution to this historical enigma that, we suggest, has implications for the broader study of social and cultural change, particularly in relation to theories of state formation and collective action. We find it particularly interesting that the Tlaxcaltecas abandoned a key tenet of traditional Nahua political structure in which kingship was vested in members of the nobility, substituting for it government by a council whose members could be recruited from the ranks of commoners. To achieve such a significant deviation from typical Nahua authority structure, the Tlaxcaltecas drew selectively from those aspects of Nahua mythic history and religion that were consistent with a comparatively egalitarian and collective political regime.

An excellent illustration of the strong intertwinement of the art, image, text, and ritual characteristics of the ancient Americas is the codex-style pottery of the Mixteca-Puebla style. These ceramics, together with painted books and murals, were manifestations of an artistic style and iconography known as the Mixteca-Puebla style, which developed in central and south Mexico during the late Postclassic period (A.D. 1250–1521). Scholars have long recognized the motifs depicted on these vessels as part of the iconographic corpus of the Borgia group and Mixtec codices, and they have proposed that these vessels had ceremonial uses. A recent study of a large sample of these artifacts from the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley, central Veracruz, the Mixtec region, the Valley of Oaxaca, and the Basin of Mexico confirms both suggestions, showing that the vessels' painted images were more than mere decoration; they conformed to a pictography that referred to essential notions of Mesoamerican rituality. It is proposed that the meaning of this pictography was related to the context in which the vessels were used. Most likely the painted signs conveyed meanings by using stylistic devices of Mesoamerican ceremonial language. Addressed here are the mechanisms of this pictography, the progress made in reading it, and insights into the vessels' use context.

Recent investigations at the site of Xuenkal on the plains north of Chichén Itzá provide evidence of the changing regional political environment during the Terminal Classic Period (A.D. 900–1000). This paper examines a collection of spindle whorls recovered during the 2005, 2006, and 2007 field seasons of the Proyecto Arqueológico Xuenkal (PAX) as evidence for intensification of craft production. Through this analysis and comparison with spindle whorl collections from other Lowland Maya sites, we suggest the inhabitants of Xuenkal rapidly adapted to changing economic demands by increasing the amount of cloth produced in their residential settings, perhaps in response to increased tribute demands that emanated from the dominant political power of the region. Spinning and weaving is associated with the female gender during the Classic Period in Mesoamerica. Thus, intensification of this gendered activity not only produced excess materials for the state, but also reinforced its gender ideology. Analysis of these artifacts adds to the knowledge of Maya cloth production and addresses the nature of Chichén Itzá's influence on regional sites during the height of its influence in the Terminal Classic period.

This paper analyzes the biographical and related archaeological information of 10 artificially shaped skulls from the broader Maya area, which bear resemblance to the high and narrow head morphology depicted in Olmec art. The skeletal evidence of this head form, which was accomplished by combining compression cradleboards with constricting horizontal wraps (tabular erect type in its pseudo-circular variety), is rare and predates A.D. 250 in all cases. Here I compare the cranial vaults shaped in this fashion with that of 49 other Preclassic period Maya indivisuals from different parts of the Maya world. The discussion explores the possible evolving social and religious roles of this emblematic body modification. I argue that Olmecoid head modification was a syncretic cultural adoption, since it was just one of many expressions of a deeply embedded Preclassic tradition, still practiced centuries after the demise of Olman’s societies themselves. The visible effect of the artificial pear-shaped heads most likely reflected gradual shifting ideological schemes, probably emulating early versions of the Maya Maize God, given the resemblance to Preclassic period renderings of this supernatural force.

The earliest Lowland Maya are commonly recognized by permanent architecture and the appearance of pottery. However, when other lines of evidence are considered, strong continuities with late Archaic populations can be seen. Reconciling these views relies on more than simply gathering more data. It is also necessary to consider the effect of decades of scholarship that defines the precolumbian Maya as “civilization” rather than considering the historical contexts of important transitions, such as the one that culminated with sedentism, the adoption of new technologies, and participation in long-distance exchange. The Archaic-to-Preclassic transition was relatively brief and largely obscured by the practices of establishing permanent dwellings. Nevertheless, this period must have been extremely dynamic and marked by significant cultural change, making it important to researchers interested in early Mesoamerica. Using three lines of evidence—subsistence, economy and technology, and stratigraphically controlled radiocarbon data—this article argues that the Lowland Maya had their cultural origins at least in the late Archaic and that the case for pottery before ca. 1000 B.C. remains uncertain. Future research is needed to determine precisely how far back in time certain cultural practices that characterize Preclassic and Classic Maya society can be documented.