These provide a remarkably well-dated chronicle of royal successions, ceremony, war, and political interaction between these low-density urban centers ( Martin and Grube, 2000) that can be compared to archeological, paleoecological, and climatic data through time (e.g., Kennett et al., 2012). The basis of Classic Maya Kingship was political and economic (Tourtellot and

Sabloff, 1972, Graham, 1987, Rice, 1987, Marcus, 1993, McAnany, 1993, Scarborough and Valdez, 2009 and Scarborough and Burnside, 2010), with backing from an elite fighting force (Webster, selleck inhibitor 2002). Ritual and ideology, as reflected in art, architecture and writing was used to display and reinforce this power (Demarest, 2004b). The integrity

of kingship had major economic and social implications for people integrated into these polities. Evidence from texts indicates that a defeat Angiogenesis inhibitor in war undermined the office and put a polity into political or economic decline (e.g., Tikal hiatus, AD 562–692; Caracol hiatus, AD 680–798; Martin and Grube, 2000) followed by reinvigoration of the office and greater prosperity under the rule of a different king. Key ritual responsibilities of the king at each center were to appease the gods and bring order to the universe through highly ritualized public ceremonies dictated by the Maya calendar, astronomical observations, and the agricultural cycle (Theatre-State; Demarest, 2004b). To influence the gods, kings would imbibe hallucinogens to enter the spirit world, provide auto-sacrifice by perforating

their tongues or genitalia, or capture and sacrifice elite members of competing groups Idelalisib concentration (Martin and Grube, 2000). These traditions have foundations in the Preclassic Period (1500 BC–AD 300; Friedel and Schele, 1988, Estrada Belli, 2011 and Inomata et al., 2013) and were central to the ritual celebrations of the office of kingship. However, the success or failure of a king was best monitored by the economic and political integrity of each polity and the impact on the agrarian population via the agricultural cycle and associated prosperity or human suffering. Political centers were nodes within overlapping and interacting economic and sociopolitical networks. These networks served as communication and trade conduits that changed through the Classic Period as kings negotiated antagonistic and cooperative relationships with kings and queens from other polities. Linkages extended across the peninsula, and commerce and contact were primarily via foot along paths, elevated causeways near political centers (e.g., Shaw, 2008, Dahlin et al., 2010 and Chase et al., 2011) and rivers. Shared ceramic styles across the region in the Early Classic (AD 300–600) suggest a broad cultural identity that appears to break down and become more regionalized in the Late Classic (Ball, 1993).