From an article about the Maya city of El Zotz by anthropologist Stephen Houston, MacArthur winner and professor at Brown, these two paragraphs say a lot about what kingship was and why it endured:
Cross-cultural comparison suggests that only five elements were required for a Maya court:
- a monad (a human pivot to which others defer);
- others that seek contact with, and control over, the monad (courtiers and servitors);
- the resources, symbolic and real, to make this striving worthwhile and to support such extravagance;
- an acute understanding of hierarchy—of how to behave in socially asymmetrical encounters that characterize courts; and
- a physical setting for such encounters.
A vast literature documents these elements, allowing the possibility of broad generalizations about courtly behavior and its recurrent patterns (e.g., Adamson 1999; Brown and Elliott 1980; Costa Gomes 2003; Elias 1983; Geertz 1977, 1980; Howes 2003; Ladurie 2001; Steane 1993, including models from Mesoamerica, Inomata and Houston 2001). For example, as a concept, “court” blurs the distinction, rarely evident in most societies, between bureaucrats and courtiers, administrative duties and the person and spiritual role of the ruler (Inomata 2001:31; Vale 2001:298-299). And it makes clear that, without the monad—the ruler—the system must wither until another monad is found. Against this is a demonstrable predisposition: the physical mass of the court and the many needs it serves create an impetus to maintain the court system and its many practices (Webster 2001:131-132). Logically, a system sustains itself if participants “buy into” its predicates. A firm blow must occur, as it did during the so-called Maya “collapse,” to neutralize such a node of joint self-interest.
The “human pivot” of Maya courts is the “holy lord,” k’uhul ajaw or, rarely, the “lady holy lord,” ix k’uhul ajaw (Houston and Stuart 2001:59-61). Around that pivot operate: family members, near, far, even fictive; courtiers, including “favorites”; servants and those generally in attendance; slaves and purveyors of goods and services; allies of varying fidelity; and, in replications across the landscape, the smaller courts of magnates and lesser nobility (Miller and Martin 2004:23-27, passim; see Waterfield 2003:10-12; Woolgar 1999:8-29). Whatever its scale, the court contains many features of a household, a place of procreation, production, pleasure, and consumption (Fowden 2004:64-84). Among the Classic Maya, scholars now know, some goods and services came from tribute (Houston et al. 2006:244-248), but other economic underpinnings remain unclear: did rulers rely on personal estates for their foodstuffs or on plantations of exportable plants such as cacao and tobacco? The answer to this question is not easily resolved, but courts did at least embody the good life, indulging whim yet allowing displays of exemplary piety (Brown and Elliot 1980:193-199).
















