tions—meaning educated guesswork—derived from archae-
ological data. With the exception of the Classic Maya (ca.
250–650 c.e.), these cultures either did not employ writing
at all or left written records that we cannot yet decipher (as is
the situation with the Olmec). Although we can now read the
titles and personal names of Mayan rulers and brief descrip-
tions of their coronation rites, military conquests, and reli-
gious duties, we lack such information for most other ancient
Native American governments and must rely on other kinds
of evidence.
For example, diff erences in grave goods, tomb construc-
tion, and other burial practices within a culture can reveal
something about the nature of its government. Th e fi nding
of relatively small number of burials with richer off erings or
more substantial tombs than those of the majority indicates
that some people were considered more important than most
others. Th e presence of a few graves containing scarce or
luxury items suggests unequal access to valued resources, in-
dicating the presence of elite individuals or ruling classes. A
burial holding the remains of human sacrifi ces to accompany
the deceased refl ects his or her importance in the community
and power over life and death.
Similarly, diff erences in residential architecture—such
as in the size, building materials (for example, stone versus
wood), and location of housing structures—across a cul-
ture imply diff erences in social status. Th e existence of a
few large residences in a separate or elevated area of a com-
munity points to the presence of rulers—especially if these
residences are near the main structures used for civic and
ceremonial purposes by the community. Large-scale public
works and monumental architecture do not necessarily in-
dicate the existence of a centralized government or a ruling
class, but they do point to a high degree of social organiza-
tion and cooperation. So does evidence of concentrated set-
tlements with large populations, necessitating a system for
maintaining social order.
A more direct kind of evidence comes from sculpture
and paintings portraying rulers, usually in elaborate cos-
tumes, oft en on a massive scale, and typically engaged in
actions indicating their rank, such as vanquishing captives,
receiving tribute, or performing important religious rituals.
Th e existence of monumental images of such fi gures also
demonstrates their command of labor power and raw ma-
terials. Human remains can provide clues to social ranking.
For instance, anatomical evidence of inherited illnesses or
deformities can disclose familial connections among those
with special access to wealth as revealed in their graves. In
Mesoamerica ruling groups used artifi cial deformities, such
as head fl attening and jade-inlaid teeth, to distinguish them-
selves from their subjects. A riskier and more speculative
approach is to interpret patterns of archaeological informa-
tion from the distant past in light of accounts by European
explorers and colonists aft er 1492 describing the Native
American governments they encountered. Th e problem, of
course, is that a lot can change in a few hundred years, let
alone millennia.EARLY DEVELOPMENTS
From the available evidence it is apparent that the earliest set-
tlers of the New World from Asia at the end of the last ice
age did not possess government in the sense of centralized
institutions and sharply stratifi ed hierarchies of command.
Th ey were small migratory bands of hunter-gatherers who,
like most other peoples at a similar level of social organiza-
tion, were relatively egalitarian. Certain individuals may have
been especially consulted in decision making because of their
experience in such pursuits as hunting, and there is some
evidence of ritual specialists or shamans, but there were no
social classes and no formal leaders. Similar conditions seem
to have prevailed for several thousand years.
Th e adoption of limited agriculture to supplement wild-
food collection and the expansion of trade networks in eastern
North America during the period from roughly 1000 b.c.e. to
500 c.e. led to greater social complexity. Th is change shows
up in the archaeological record in the form of elaborate buri-
als for some people and evidence of large-scale community
projects, like the construction of large earthen burial mounds
and ritual enclosures. However, settlements remained small
and scattered, and there is little evidence of hereditary elites,
suggesting that any status diff erences were based on individ-
ual achievements in trading or ritual activity rather than on
class or a stable hierarchical structure.MESOAMERICA
Only with the expansion of population and formation of per-
manent villages and towns permitted by the development of
intensive agriculture in Mesoamerica in the last few millennia
b.c.e. did conditions emerge for the rise of centralized hier-
archical governments. Th e earliest of these seem to have been
what anthropologists call “chiefdoms.” Chiefdoms are small-
scale (population in the thousands) class societies ruled by
individual, usually male chiefs, whose position is inherited.
Th e chief ’s family constitutes the wealthiest and most power-
ful social class, while the majority of the population consists
of agricultural laborers living on family farms. Chiefdoms
lack complex bureaucracies. Permanent political offi ces are
limited to the chief and a few subordinate positions, such as
war captains or priestly authorities.
Chiefs maintain their power by public ritual, conspicu-
ous consumption of luxury goods, and bestowing rewards
on loyal followers. Th ey control the surplus wealth of the so-
ciety (such as stores of grain) and its distribution and may
also control trade with outsiders. Th ey are able to organize
their subjects to labor on such public construction projects as
elite residences and shrines. Th ey oft en function as war lead-
ers, but they do not have a monopoly on the use of force and
usually lack absolute power over their subjects. Th eir infl u-
ence depends to a great degree on their wealth and personal
charisma. Bad fortune may lead their followers to abandongovernment organization: The Americas 535