One interpretation seeks to reconcile this evidence of
individual rulership with the lack of such evidence in the
city’s art by positing two stages in Teotihuacán’s political his-
tory: An earlier despotic kingship, refl ected in the Pyramid
of the Feathered Serpent fi nds, was overthrown around 350
c.e. because of its excesses and replaced by a more collective
leadership. But societies from other parts of the world show
that individual ruler portraits are not a necessary feature of
centralized monarchies. Th e Incas, for example, did not de-
velop individual portraiture to any great degree and made few
images of kings, yet they created an empire ruled by divine
monarchs.
At its height Teotihuacán had a population of 125,000
to 200,000 and certainly controlled the Basin of Mexico.
Whether Teotihuacán created an empire, or how far its politi-
cal power extended, is another controversial topic. Imported
Teotihuacán objects and local copies of the city’s architecture
occur across Mesoamerica, but most probably represent the
attempts of local rulers to legitimize their power by emulat-
ing Teotihuacán’s prestige rather than Teotihuacán con-
quests. Foreign rulers may have sought the endorsement of
Teotihuacán’s government and made pilgrimages to the city
to stress their claims to power in the same way medieval Euro-
pean monarchs obtained the pope’s blessing in Rome. Archae-
ological evidence indicates that Teotihuacanos did conquer
and colonize part of the Pacifi c coast of Guatemala, 200 miles
away from the city. Th ey probably wanted to control this area
in order to procure local luxury materials such as chocolate,
jade, and the beautiful iridescent green tail feathers of the in-
digenous quetzal bird, which were used to make headdresses
and other garments for ancient Mesoamerican rulers. Th e na-
ture of their political relations with local Maya city-states re-
mains unclear. At Tikal recent interpretations of hieroglyphs
indicate that in 378 c.e. Teotihuacán directly intervened in the
politics of this city-state, sending a military force to kill the
ruler Great Jaguar Paw and install the next king, Yax Nuun
Ayin. However, not all scholars accept this reconstruction,
and Teotihuacán may have simply backed a faction in a local
struggle for power rather than directly invading Tikal.
PERU
Although large-scale building and irrigation projects involv-
ing thousands of laborers took place in Peruvian agricultural
towns as far back as 2700 b.c.e., there is not much other evi-
dence for rulers during this time. Huge temple platforms
refl ect strong social organization, but there are no real diff er-
ences in grave goods to suggest big diff erences in status among
the population. Perhaps collective organizations like those still
found today in indigenous Peruvian communities, based on
extended family ties and reciprocal work obligations, consti-
tuted the only government. On the other hand, the presence
of two types of housing suggests at least two levels of society,
and the temples atop the platform mounds were small, suggest-
ing access restricted to a few. At Kotosh in the Andean high-
lands as early as 2000 b.c.e. members of some families were
preserved aft er death as mummies, indicating special positions
in society, but supporting evidence for ruling classes is scanty
from contemporary sites. At the coastal town of Cardal indi-
viduals buried in a shrine about 1400 b.c.e. were probably not
members of noble families but religious specialists honored for
their individual achievements. Th ere is no evidence for state
control in these places, despite the size of the buildings.
Between about 900 and 200 b.c.e., however, strong evi-
dence of rulers emerges. At the religious center of Chavín
de Huántar the bones of individuals living close to the main
shrine during the New Temple Period (ca. 400–200 b.c.e.)
show that these folks ate a more varied diet, with more meat,
than people buried farther from the temple. A class with
preferential access to food resources, perhaps priests, had
emerged. At t he contempor a r y site of Ku nt u r Wa si some bu r i-
als contain gold jewelry and regalia—clearly some members
of this community had higher status than others. Cemeteries
from the same time near Paracas, on the south coast, provide
clear evidence for powerful nobles. Some mummy bundles
contain hundreds of feet of elaborately woven textiles, enclos-
ing rich grave goods of ceramics and gold jewelry, and some-
times occupy the central position in tombs, surrounded by
the smaller bundles of their subjects. Anthropologists believe
that these early Peruvian elites were akin to the hereditary
nobles of later Inca times, who presided over clan-based col-
lective groups and served as religious specialists mediating
between their subjects and the deities of fertility responsible
for agricultural success.NORTH AMERICA
Little is known of the governmental organization of ancient
groups in North America. During the Paleo-Indian period (ca.
13,000–ca. 8000 b.c.e.) the earliest inhabitants of North Amer-
ica were organized into very small, highly mobile, and presum-
ably egalitarian hunting bands ranging over the landscape in
search of prey. Th ere is no evidence from burials of any type
of social stratifi cation or hierarchy; as with historically docu-
mented modern hunter-gatherers there was probably no cen-
tralized leadership, though older band members would have
been looked to for guidance based on their experience. Archae-
ological traces of ritual activity hints at the possible presence of
shamans among these small groups, but certainly no priestly
class or caste with governing power. Th rough the subsequent
Archaic Period (ca. 8000–ca. 1000 b.c.e.) band size grew larger,
and there is archaeological evidence for longer occupation of
campsites based on seasonal exploitation of natural resources,
but again there is nothing to suggest the presence of elites or
ruling classes. Like other hunter-gatherers, these bands seem
to have been simply organized without any evidence of fi xed or
centralized leadership positions.
During the Early and Middle Woodland periods in the
Midwest, cultures participating in the Adena (1000 b.c.e.–
200 c.e.) and Hopewell (300 b.c.e.–500 c.e.) burial and ritual
traditions were suffi ciently well organized to bring communi-
ties together for the construction of burial mounds and cer-538 government organization: The Americas