The main idea, which is being explored throughout the course of Inomata’s article, is that the functional purpose of plazas in ancient Mayan cities has been concerned with providing Maya’s rules with an opportunity to expose their subjects to public spectacles.
In their turn, these spectacles served the purpose of endowing ancient Mayans with the sense of communal belonging – hence, contributing to the formation of collectively explored self-identity, on their part, “Large-scale theatrical events gave physical reality to a community and helped to ground unstable community identities” (Inomata 818).
Given a rather unconventional sounding of this idea, it is not very surprising why the publication of Inomata’s article attracted a number of critical responses.
According to Aoyama, Inomata’s line of argumentation can indeed be considered as such that represents a scientifically objective value, as the analysis of plazas’ holding capacities supports the validity of a suggestion that they could have been used for staging public performances.
Aoyama explores the legitimacy of his point of view, in regards to the relevant empirical data, collected by archeologists in the Mayan cities of Aguateca and Copan.
Becker, however, is challenging Inomata’s assumption. According to him, there is no rationale in believing that plazas served this specific purpose.
This is because the amount of plazas’ open space may in fact be reflective of polities’ wealth, which in turn cannot be discussed as such that directly relates to the size of corresponding populations.
Becker also criticizes Inomata for his failure to consider the possibility that, as time went on, plazas’ ‘holding’ function might have undergone a qualitative transformation.
Yet, it is specifically the fact that Inomata’s idea is based upon the assumption that Mayan polities have been unilaterally governed by ‘divine rulers’, which appears to have caused Becker to adopt a strongly critical stance towards his colleague’s line of argumentation.
Mazariegos’s reaction to Inomata’s article can be referred to as being generally positive. After all, he does recognize the validity of Inomata’s idea that Mayan plazas are in fact theatrical spaces.
At the same time, however, Mazariegos points out to the fact that there a number of more effective ways of endowing people with the sense of a shared identity, such as prompting them to participate in a warfare, “Opposition to outside enemies, the shared vicissitudes of military campaigns… are likely to create shared identities” (822).
Nevertheless, Mazariegos does welcome Inomata’s article, as such that is being potentially capable of advancing our understanding of ancient Mayan civilization.
Ruiz and Pavon’s response to Inomata’s article can also be defined as being generally positive. In it, they acknowledge that by publishing his article, Inomata was able to contribute immensely to our knowledge of ancient Mayan culture.
At the same time, Ruiz and Pavon suggest that there are no good reasons to believe that the artistic depictions on stelaes are being necessarily concerned with theatrical performances.
Partially, the validity of this suggestion can be illustrated in regards to the specifics of steales’ location, “The (Inomata’s) analysis links the presence of stelae with the largest plazas, but this link cannot be asserted categorically” (823). This appears to be the only critical remark in Ruiz and Pavon’s response.
According to Clancy, the assumption that plazas in Mayan cities served theatricality-related functions is indeed being fully legitimate, “Ancient Maya plazas were surely places for performances choreographed by royal intentions” (823).
At the same time, however, Clancy does not quite subscribe to the suggestion that it was solely ancient Mayans’ exposure to public performances, which used to endow them with the sense of a communal identity.
Grube’s response to Inomata’s article can be defined as being enthusiastically supportive, “I strongly concur with Inomata’s conclusions” (824).
According to Grube, the reason why Inomata’s idea can be considered thoroughly legitimate is that it correlates with our knowledge of how the rulers of Mayan polity-states used to go about exercising a political authority.
Given the fact that, due to the absence of adequate technologies, Mayan rulers could not utilize any technical means for imposing their authority upon populations, they had no choice but to rely upon purely psychological ones. In this respect, staging public performances, on the part of Mayan rulers, would prove particularly effective.
Even though that, while reflecting upon Inomata’s article, Isendahl did acknowledge its high discursive value, he nevertheless expressed his concerns as to whether Inomata’s utilization of the term ‘theatricality’ is being conceptually appropriate, “Theatricality is simply not the most appropriate analogy” (825).
Moreover, Isendahl appears rather skeptical about Inomata’s assumption as to what accounted for the actual nature of centrifugal tendencies in ancient Mayan societies.
According to Stuardo, Inomata can be well congratulated for having advanced our understanding of what might have accounted for the very principle of political centralization in ancient Mayan city-states.
Nevertheless, it is specifically the fact that Inomata’s article allows the conceptualization of new methodological approaches to researching subject matters, concerned with ancient Mayan civilization, which Stuardo considers the most important aspect of this article.
Looper’s response to Inomata’s article can also be defined as being highly supportive. Nevertheless, this response does contain a few critical remarks.
For example, Looper points out to the fact that Inomata’s line of argumentation implies ancient Mayan societies having been rather secularized.
However, this point of view is being inconsistent with how the majority of historians and archeologists discuss the discursive implications of the factor of religion in these societies, “Theatrical metaphors and models risks secularizing ancient Maya performance” (826).
According to Looper, however, this does not affect the overall legitimacy of Inomata’s article.
According to Lucero, Inomata’s line of argumentation does deserve to be taken into consideration by mayanists.
At the same time, Lucero suggests that in his article, Inomata downplayed the importance of a number of down-to-earth factors for ancient Mayans (especially rural dwellers) to be committed to participating in mass-gatherings.
After all, one of the possible reasons why Mayan rural dwellers used to participate in these gatherings is that they were driven to do so by purely objective circumstances , “Rulers also fulfilled (people’s) material needs—specifically, water during the annual drought” (827).
The foremost of aspect of Newsome’s response to Inomata’s article is that this response stresses out the discursive importance how the author went about substantiating his line of argumentation.
According to Newsome, it is not only that Inomata succeeded in revealing the actual mechanics of how Mayan rulers used to ensure the societal integrity of polities, but that he also succeeded in discovering a qualitatively new dimension to the very notion of ‘theatricality’.
Therefore, the reading of Inomata’s article will prove utterly beneficial to just about anyone who strives to overcome the limitations of a number of euro-centric discursive conventions.
In his response to Inomata’s article, Dorado criticizes the assumption that the staging of public spectacles should be considered a universally applicable tool of maintaining the social integrity of just about every hierarchically structured state.
At the same time, however, Dorado expresses his agreement with Inomata, as to the fact that plazas in ancient Mayan cities did in fact serve the function of accommodating crowds for a number of ritualistic purposes.
According to Sanchez, Inomata’s hypothesis, in regards to the functional purpose of plazas, can indeed be defined as being logically and discursively coherent.
At the same time, Sanchez suggests that this hypothesis is far from being considered as such that represents an undeniable truth-value, because as of today, the concerned subject matter remains relatively unexplored.
Despite the fact that Tokovinine does admit that the author did contribute to our knowledge of ancient Mayan civilization, he also points out to an essentially speculative nature of many of Inomata’s conclusions.
In particular, Tokovinine suggests that there is no well-grounded rationale in believing that the theatrical activities, depicted on Mayan murals, connote publicity.
While replying to the earlier outlined responses, on the part of his critics, Inomata pointed out to the fact that, even though his interpretation of what should be considered Mayan plazas’ functional significance is far from being considered unchallengeable, it does help to explain how Mayan rulers were able to exercise an administrative control over their subjects.
In addition, Inomata suggests that in many cases, responses’ critical overtones appear to reflect the fact that some of his arguments have been misinterpreted.
I personally consider the line of Inomata’s argumentation logically coherent but somewhat speculative. This is because; the discussion of a significance of just about any public event through the conceptual lenses of a particular ‘performance theory’ becomes invariably affected by this theory’s discursive subtleties.
Given the fact that there are strongly defined euro-centric undertones to how Inomata went about elaborating on the societal implications of public performances in ancient Mayan city-states, it is quite doubtful whether Inomata’s conclusions could be considered ideologically neutral.
Bibliography
Inomata, Takeshi. “Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters of the Classic Maya.” Current Anthropology 47.5 (2006): 805-842. Print.