There are significant
societal differences evident in the material remains of the Classic period (ca.
AD 250-600) city of Teotihuacan in central Mexico compared to contemporary Maya
kingdoms in southern Mexico and Guatemala, despite both being part of the
larger Mesoamerican civilization, sharing many cultural features. One proposed explanation for these
differences derives from an analytical social science dichotomy that contrasts
groups and individuals. According to
this approach, Maya art and architecture indicate a society centered on
individuals, particularly the rivalrous semi-divine rulers. Teotihuacan’s
depersonalized art, lack of royal tombs, and gridded city plan are believed to
indicate a corporate ethos in which individuals were subsumed by the societal
collective. However, archaeological
evidence for these interpretations is not compelling; moreover, the dichotomy
itself is misleading. The key to these
differences may lie in conceptions of embodied versus emplaced personae. The identity of Teotihuacanos was shaped by
living within the city itself, and their concepts of personhood were entwined
with their built environment in ways different from their Maya counterparts.
