Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:49:16.017Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Es nuestra tradición: the archaeological implications of an ethnography on a modern ballgame in Oaxaca, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2023

Marijke M. Stoll*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
*
Corresponding author: Marijke M. Stoll, email: mamastol@iu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pre-hispanic ballgames have an extensive temporal depth and geographical breadth across Mesoamerica, with over 1,500 ball courts recorded on 1,200 archaeological sites in Mexico alone. It is likely that ballgames played critical but variable roles in how communities related to each other. Most interpretations emphasize ballgames as cosmological rituals and legitimation practices exclusive to elites, perhaps often overlooking the more mundane sociopolitical processes and reasons why they carried such critical meaning for people of all classes and statuses. Ethnographic research on modern ballgames played by Indigenous and mestizo communities today can helpfully provide some insights or maybe deeper understandings into ancient ballgame practices and their relation to Mesoamerican communities. While modern games are not isomorphic with the ancient games, the duration of these traditions underscores their continuing importance and their relativity to current research. In this article I present the results of an ethnographic study of the modern ballgame pelota mixteca de hule (Mixtec rubber ballgame) in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca. Considering the results from the ethnographic data, I then discuss an archaeological case study in the Nejapa Valley of southeastern Oaxaca where numerous ballcourts were recently documented over the past decade.

Resumen

Resumen

Los juegos de pelota prehispánicos tienen una gran profundidad temporal y amplitud geográfica en Mésoamerica, con más de 1500 canchas de pelota registrados en 1200 sitios arqueológicos solo en México. Es probable que los juegos de pelota desempeñaran papeles críticos pero variables en la forma en que las comunidades se relacionaban entre sí. La mayoría de las interpretaciones del juego de pelota pone enfatizan los juegos de pelotas como rituales cosmológicas y prácticas de legitimación exclusivos de las elites, quizás a menudo pasando por alto los procesos sociopolíticos más mundanos y las razones por las que tienen un significado tan crítico para las personas de todas las clases y estados. La investigación etnográfica sobre los juegos de pelota modernes jugados por las comunidades indígenas y mestizos de hoy en día puede proporcionar algunas ideas o tal vez una comprensión más profunda de las prácticas de los juegos de pelota antiguos y su relación con las comunidades mesoamericanas.

Si bien los juegos modernos no son isomorfos con los juegos antiguos, la duración de estas tradiciones subraya su importancia continua y su relatividad para la investigación actual. En este artículo presento los resultados de un estudio etnográfico del moderno juego de pelota conocido como pelota de mixteca de hule en el sureño estado mexicano de Oaxaca. Considerando los resultados de los datos etnográficos, analizo un estudio de caso arqueológico en el valle de Nejapa, en el sureste de Oaxaca, donde recientemente se documentaron numerosas canchas de pelota durante la última década.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

Mesoamerican scholars have always recognized the importance of the Indigenous ballgames played there (de Borhegyi Reference de Borhegyi1980). Despite the diversity in the material evidence, researchers have often assumed that there was a singular ballgame and that it primarily served the interests of elites. The sociopolitical processes that made both the games and the courts on which they were played efficacious to all social members are not relatively well understood. Similarly, interpretations of iconography are often rigid and anachronistic (Cohodas Reference Cohodas1975; Uriarte Reference Uriarte and Whittington2001; Wilkerson Reference Wilkerson, Scarborough and Wilcox1991), while ballcourt studies have mostly been limited to questions of typology or construction sequences. Thus, change or flexibility in this 3,000-year-old tradition is not always adequately accounted for.

Recently there has been a shift in how scholars approach the study of ballgames and ballcourts, incorporating perspectives of ballgames as agentive social praxis and by recognizing that games had more multifaceted functions in Mesoamerican society than previously assumed. Concurrently, there has also been increasing use of ethnographic data and research techniques to better evaluate data from the archaeological record (Arnold Reference Arnold2003; Binford Reference Binford2002; Bradley Reference Bradley1984; Chance Reference Chance1996; Chang Reference Chang, Rossignol and Wandsnider1992; David and Kramer Reference David and Kramer2001; Dietler and Herbich Reference Dietler and Herbich1993; Gould Reference Gould1978; Terrell Reference Terrell2003). Ballgames are still played today in different states throughout modern Mexico (Leyenaar Reference Leyenaar1980; Stern Reference Stern1948; Turok Reference Turok2000). While these modern games have been transformed significantly by European colonialism and intervention over the past 500 years, their duration underscores their continuing importance. Ethnographic research on modern ballgames and their place in communities today may help investigators gain insight into how these games operated in the past. While the ethnographic present is not isomorphic with the archaeological past, careful comparison can help provide insight into the more human dimensions of ballgames missing from the material record.

Over the summers of 2009 and 2010, I conducted an ethnographic study on pelota mixteca de hule or Mixtec rubber ball, a ballgame played today in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca (Figure 1). By showing how ballgames are meaningful social practices presently, we may better understand why they were meaningful social practices for communities in the past. Drawing on the ethnographic research, I argue that core concepts of socially reciprocal obligation and negotiated competition linked ballgames to community networks and politics. Games would have served as a way for people to interact and participate in relationships both conflictive, competitive, and cooperative. Over time these interactions contributed to sociopolitical networks that varied in size, complexity, and function. I then use these insights to evaluate an archaeological case study in the Nejapa region of southeastern Oaxaca.

Figure 1. A map of the southeastern state of Oaxaca, Mexico, and the Nejapa study area. Map by the author.

Current interpretations of the ball game

Previous interpretations of the ballgame can be grouped into either religious cosmological-agricultural-fertility and sacrificial themes, or secular political-economic-conflict metaphor/avoidance themes (Day Reference Day and Whittington2001; Fox Reference Fox, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Fox Reference Fox1996; Gillespie Reference Gillespie, Vernon L. and Wilcox1991; Hill and Clark Reference Hill and Clark2001; Taladoire Reference Taladoire2000, Reference Taladoire and E. Michael2001; Taladoire and Colsenet Reference Taladoire, Colsenet, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Whalen and Minnis Reference Whalen and Minnis1996; Wilkerson Reference Wilkerson, Scarborough and Wilcox1991). In either interpretation, violence of different forms is strongly associated with the game. Secular interpretations link the ballgame with rites of accession and the legitimation of authority between elites. It is also seen as an outlet for inter-elite competition, a substitute for warfare, and a way to avoid or terminate interpolity conflict (Joyce and Winter Reference Joyce and Winter1996:38; Kowalewski et al. Reference Kowalewski, Feinman, Finsten, Blanton, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Stern Reference Stern1948:96–97; Taladoire and Colsenet Reference Taladoire, Colsenet, Scarborough and Wilcox1991:174). Some scholars propose that idle warriors played when not at war to maintain fighting readiness (Kowalewski et al. Reference Kowalewski, Feinman, Finsten, Blanton, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Redmond Reference Redmond1983). Formal court structures appearing right as social hierarchies were emerging suggests that games were connected to developing stratification and a rising elite class (Hill Reference Hill1999; Hill and Clark Reference Hill and Clark2001; Hill et al. Reference Hill, Blake and Clark1998).

Ballcourt construction increased in times of intense political competition, particularly in situations where there are multiple polities in a region, heterarchical settlement systems, or a centralized power is breaking down (Feinman and Nicholas Reference Feinman and Nicholas2011). Moreover, the simultaneous use of multiple ballcourts signaled regional political decentralization with elites in constant competition (Santley et al. Reference Santley, Berman, Alexander, Scarborough and Wilcox1991:4; see Stark [Reference Stark, Daneels, Donner and Arana2018] for a contrasting opinion). While the sociohistorical meaning of ballgames varied, the central objective was always the same—economic and personal gain by ruling elites who either participated themselves or sponsored teams (Santley et al. Reference Santley, Berman, Alexander, Scarborough and Wilcox1991:15; Whalen and Minnis Reference Whalen and Minnis1996, Reference Whalen and Minnis2001).

Religious interpretations posit that games were primarily cosmological and/or agricultural fertility rituals involving acts of sacrifice that were exclusively controlled by elites. Games represented the fight between contradicting and opposing forces such as lightness and darkness, the forces of the underworld, or between the sun and the moon (Berger Reference Berger2009; Day Reference Day and Whittington2001; Fox Reference Fox, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; de la Garza Reference de la Garza2000; Gillespie Reference Gillespie, Vernon L. and Wilcox1991; Uriarte Reference Uriarte2000). Uriarte (Reference Uriarte2000:30–31) points to Venus and solar imagery in pre-Hispanic art as evidence of the game's celestial character. The central Mexican Codex Borgia depicts sacrificed ballplayers painted with red stripes associated with the deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli-Quetzalcoatl, or Venus in its cycle as the Morning Star. Xolotl, or Venus as the Evening Star, was another central Mexican patron deity of the game (Uriarte Reference Uriarte2000:30). Several authors also suggest that games likely represented the cosmos, the ball traveling across the court a symbol of the sun passing through the sky and the underworld (Day Reference Day and Whittington2001; de la Garza Reference de la Garza2000; Gillespie Reference Gillespie, Vernon L. and Wilcox1991). In addition to solar and cosmic images, liminal creatures such as butterflies, frogs, turtles, and crocodiles also appear in ballgame iconography, evidence that the ballgame ritually symbolized “unification through opposition” (Uriarte Reference Uriarte2000:31–33).

The ballcourt's morphology is said to represent either the entrance to the underworld, the underworld itself (de la Garza Reference de la Garza2000; Schele and Freidel Reference Schele, Freidal, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Taladoire Reference Taladoire2000:27, 2001; Uriarte Reference Uriarte2000), or the channel for the birth of the sun and cosmos (Uriarte Reference Uriarte2000:33). In the codices, ballcourts and games are paired with symbolically valued animals such as jaguars, coyotes, eagles, and quetzals. The jaguar and coyote themselves are linked to the earth, night, and war; while the eagle and the quetzal are associated with the daytime world, the heavens, dryness, and the warrior. The codices also depict the court both as a symbol of fertility and a place of confrontation between opposing and complementary forces (Taladoire Reference Taladoire2015).

These interpretations are by no means incorrect as the material evidence does generally support them. Even more so, they demonstrate the multivalence of game meanings. The exclusive focus on elite expressions of ballgame participation or only viewing the game as an elite political strategy or ritual tradition, however, means that we may be missing the larger picture (Stoll and Anderson Reference Stoll, Anderson and Voorhies2017). Contrasting with these either/or interpretations, recent research incorporating poststructuralist perspectives and theory from the anthropology of sport (Baron Reference Baron2006; Fox Reference Fox1994, Reference Fox1996; Hill Reference Hill1999; Ramos Reference Ramos2012; Stoll and Anderson Reference Stoll, Anderson and Voorhies2017) demonstrate that as competitive sports involving some degree of cooperation between opposing teams/social groups, ballgames were integral to community- and network-building for Mesoamerican societies (Stoll and Anderson Reference Stoll, Anderson and Voorhies2017).

Ballgames and ballcourts in Oaxaca

Investigation into ballgames and ballcourts in Oaxaca is relatively limited. The only regional studies published so far, from the Central Valleys (Kowalewski et al. Reference Kowalewski, Feinman, Finsten, Blanton, Scarborough and Wilcox1991) and Pacific Coast (Zeitlin Reference Zeitlin1993), and a small number of courts have been excavated. But what evidence we do have paints a complicated picture of ballgames, game ceremonies, and their role in intra- and intercommunity politics and relationships. Based on a ballplayer figurine (dated to 1399–899 b.c.; Blomster Reference Blomster2012) and a recently excavated ballcourt (dated to 1374 b.c.; Blomster and Salazar Chávez Reference Blomster and Salazar Chávez2020) at the Etlantongo site, ballgames were played in the Mixteca Alta by the Early Formative period. The games may have been present even earlier: the Archaic site of Geo-Shih features two 20-m-long parallel lines of stones placed seven meters apart that could possibly be a dance floor (Flannery and Spores Reference Flannery, Spores, Kent V. and Marcus1993) or a playing field (Blomster Reference Blomster2012:8022; Hill Reference Hill1999:6). Parallel stone alignments have been found at other similar Archaic sites (Lohse et al. Reference Lohse, Sagebiel and Baron2013). These stone alignments resemble the open ballcourts (parallel mounds instead of lines) that appeared later in the Formative. Masonry courts are first constructed in the Late Formative (300 b.c.a.d. 300); around 100 masonry structures have been registered so far and more remain to be recorded.

There are not many artistic representations of ballcourts, games, and players. Ballplayer figurines are not very numerous and few ceramic vessels (de Borhegyi Reference de Borhegyi1980) and tomb murals that depict ballplayers (Urcid Reference Urcid2005) and Atzompa (García Robles y Cuatle Reference García, Andrade Cuatle, Nelly M. and Rivera Guzmán2011). Stone effigies of ballgame equipment such as yokes are known but few, hachas are slightly more common while palmas are completely absent.

Ballcourt sculptural art is also limited and includes some simple, undecorated, center-alley stone markers; free-standing stone figures (possible dead ballplayers), mostly at sites in the Costa Chica region on the Pacific Coast (Zeitlin Reference Zeitlin1993) and the Chontal Alta (Zborover Reference Zborover2014); and possible ballplayer monuments from Tlacochauaya and Dainzu in the Central Valleys and Tequixtepec in the Mixteca Baja (Taladoire Reference Taladoire2003:328). There is some debate over the identification of the Dainzu monuments. Bernal (Bernal and Seuffert Reference Bernal and Seuffert1979) initially identified them as ballplayers playing a handball game. While not disagreeing with this identification, Orr (Reference Orr, Koontz, Reese-Taylor and Headrick2001, Reference Orr2003) theorized that the carved figures are engaged in one-on-one ritualized combat using stone balls. Alternatively, they could be boxers fighting ritualized matches (Taube and Zender Reference Taube, Zender, Orr and Koontz2009) or warriors celebrating a successful military campaign or battle (Berger Reference Berger2011). Urcid (Reference Urcid, Winter and Santiago2014) disagrees, arguing that, while the figures are indeed ballplayers, the carvings actually commemorate either the death of two Dainzu governors or the sacrifice of important captives by Dainzu.

Two recent discoveries underscore the uniqueness of Oaxaca ballgame art. Three, large, clay ballcourt sculptures were recorded at the Late Formative Cueva el Rey Kong-Oy site in the Mixe region (just north of Nejapa). One court lies next to a life-sized, mud-sculpted human figure wearing ballplayer regalia, a small ball in each hand (Winter et al. Reference Winter, Ballensky, Ballensky, Guerrero, Winter and Santiago2014). Over in the Quiechapa region, Badillo (Reference Badillo2022) recorded 30 carved ballcourt icons, the largest number found so far in Mesoamerica. These icons represented actual courts and were likely loci for game-related rituals associated with fertility, death, and renovation (Badillo Reference Badillo2022:14–17).

Where we find the most game representations are the Mixtec codices (Joyce et al. Reference Joyce, Workinger, Hamann, Kroefges, Oland and King2004; Taladoire Reference Taladoire2015). Sections dealing with time immemorial show deities in and around ballcourts (Macazaga Ordoño Reference Macazaga Ordoño1982:64). Most of the court icons are parts of place names or represent physical spaces where important historical events occurred (Byland and Pohl Reference Byland and Pohl1994; Joyce et al. Reference Joyce, Workinger, Hamann, Kroefges, Oland and King2004; Pohl Reference Pohl2004).

Oaxacan communities utilized ballgames in different ways. Some argue that games played social mediating roles while ballcourts marked physical boundary markers different polities (Byland and Pohl Reference Byland and Pohl1994; Feinman and Nicholas Reference Feinman and Nicholas2011; Finsten et al. Reference Finsten, Kowalewski, Smith, Borland and Garvin1996; Gillespie Reference Gillespie, Vernon L. and Wilcox1991; Joyce and Winter Reference Joyce and Winter1996; Pohl and Byland Reference Pohl and Byland1990; Pohl et al. Reference Pohl, Monaghan, Stiver, Smithers, Sosa and Bracas1997). Zeitlin (Reference Zeitlin1993) proposes that games were integral to a widespread peer-polity network in the southern Isthmus and Costa Chica. Orr (Reference Orr, Koontz, Reese-Taylor and Headrick2001, Reference Orr2003) suggests that there was a ritualized combat handball performed in conjunction with pilgrimages to sacred hill centers. Yet others claim that games helped warriors maintain fighting readiness when idle while also reinforcing key state and elite ideologies (Kowalewski et al. Reference Kowalewski, Feinman, Finsten, Blanton, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Redmond Reference Redmond1983).

The ballcourt sculptures discovered in the Cueva del Rey Kong-Oy challenge some of our assumptions about ballgames of Oaxaca. Alongside the ballcourt models are life-sized clay jaguars and human figures with exaggerated genitalia. Some of the male and female figures are depicted in coitus, while other female sculptures are in birth positions with prominently displayed vaginas—images not frequently found in Mesoamerican art (Winter et al. Reference Winter, Ballensky, Ballensky, Guerrero, Winter and Santiago2014:312–313). These sculptures suggest other ideological meanings linked to the ballgame that remain to be explored.

Indigenous sports and games of the Americas

That Mesoamerican ballgames were also sports has often been dismissed or seen as secondary (Altuve Reference Altuve1997; Bernal and Seuffert Reference Bernal and Seuffert1979; Cohodas Reference Cohodas1975; Day Reference Day and Whittington2001; Fox Reference Fox, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Koontz Reference Koontz and John Edward2008; Leyenaar Reference Leyenaar1980; Miller Reference Miller and Whittington2001; Miller and Houston Reference Miller and Houston1987; Schele and Freidel Reference Schele, Freidal, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Uriarte Reference Uriarte2000; Zeitlin Reference Zeitlin1993), unnecessarily separating ballgames as sports from ballgames as rituals. As liminal phenomena, sports are easily ritualized and politicized (Bell Reference Bell1997). This explains why elites and other invested social classes would seek to engage in or align with friendly (and not) organized, competitive social activities. To better understand Mesoamerican ballgames, it helps to place them in their larger social context as autochthonous sports and games played by the Indigenous peoples of the Americas, as there are significant differences between Western and Indigenous attitudes towards sports to be considered.

Indigenous sports and games (ISG) were often described in early seventeenth- and eighteenth-century colonial narratives (Barnett Reference Barnett2014), and they have been studied by anthropologists since at least the nineteenth century (see Mooney's [Reference Mooney1890] “Cherokee Ball Play” and Culin's [Reference Culin1907] Games of North American Indians for early ethnographies). Many of the pre-contact practices and meanings were still present during this latter period, even as there were ongoing efforts by settler populations to constrain or even wipe out games completely (Rocha Ferreira Reference Rocha Ferreria2014:51). These early ethnographies therefore capture a critical picture of ISG in their mostly original sociopolitical and cultural contexts.

ISG are typically divided into four general categories: kinetic competence, chance, games of representation, and strategy. Different games were emically related to diverse social processes such as sex role differentiation, group identity, decision-making models, symbolic identification, the development of important physical skills necessary in adult life, communal integration, and resource distribution through wagering (Cheska Reference Cheska, Norbeck and Farrer1979:229; Reference Cheska1984:250; King Reference King2006:32; Pesavento Reference Pesavento1974:3; Penz Reference Penz1991:54; Salter Reference Saltar1974:497–498). In this way, the meanings of ISG extended beyond physical activity to other important cultural beliefs and traditions (Cheska Reference Cheska1984:250; Delashut Reference Delsahut2018: 217–222; Krus 2011:139; Penz Reference Penz1991:47; Stoll and Anderson Reference Stoll, Anderson and Voorhies2017; Voorhies Reference Voorhies and Voorhies2017).

For instance, lacrosse was frequently associated with warfare by the Wendat, Iroquoian, Anishinaabeg, and other groups that played it (McGarry Reference McGarry2010), while Choctaw (Chahta) stickball or toli was known as the “little brother of war” (Vennum Reference Vennum1994). This connection to warfare has influenced some interpretations of the Mesoamerican ballgame and its function in pre-Hispanic societies (Redmond Reference Redmond1983). Lacrosse, however, also had different and changing social meanings through its connection to spirituality, medicinal practices, shamanism, warfare, and gambling (Salter Reference Saltar1974; Vennum Reference Vennum1994). Sports and games were also recreational activities (Cheska Reference Cheska1984:250; Krus 2011:138). Celebrations of annual corn harvests in Mississippi included feasting, and dancing, and toli games, with teams representing villages or moieties (Barnett Reference Barnett2014:12–14). Like lacrosse, toli was a competitive sport linked to spirituality and traditional ceremonialism (Barnett Reference Barnett2014: 16).

Gambling was and still is a common activity that accompanied nearly all ISG (Michelson Reference Michelsen1981; Williamson and Cooper Reference Williamson, Cooper and Voorhies2017:31; Yanicki Reference Yanicki and Voorhies2017; Zych Reference Zych2017) and can even be considered a universal aspect of pre-contact Indigenous societies (Cameron and Johansson Reference Cameron, Johansson and Voorhies2017:1–2). Gambling is popular because it acts as a social leveler, redistributing material wealth and creating some stability between social groups and nations— there is always the possibility that losses can be regained (Delashut Reference Delsahut2018:220; Williamson and Cooper Reference Williamson, Cooper and Voorhies2017:34). In contrast to Western and Christian views, for Indigenous societies gambling was both a religious behavior (Salter Reference Saltar1974:499; Walden and Voorhies Reference Walden, Voorhies and Voorhies2017:7) and a pleasurable activity that added drama to games (Cameron and Johansson Reference Cameron, Johansson and Voorhies2017:1–2; Evans Reference Evans and Voorhies2017). Gamblers bet property, clothes, family members, and even their own lives (Cameron and Johansson Reference Cameron, Johansson and Voorhies2017; Voorhies Reference Voorhies and Voorhies2017:22; Yanicki Reference Yanicki and Voorhies2017). The Blackfoot or Siksiká word for gambling is used interchangeably with the words for gaming and play (Yanicki Reference Yanicki and Voorhies2017:13).

Through their performance, sports and games create a shared sense of unity or communitas (sensu Turner Reference Turner1969) among members and opportunities for strengthening group affiliation (King Reference King2006; López von Vriessen Reference López von Vriessen and Gertude2004; Penz Reference Penz1991:46; Piña Chan Reference Piña Chan1969; Rocha Ferreira Reference Rocha Ferreria2014:49). This was especially true for Indigenous societies prior to and outside of contact/colonial situations (Cheska Reference Cheska1984). The Oldman River was the playing grounds for the Siksiká Peoples of Southern Alberta's Rocky Mountains (Yanicki Reference Yanicki and Voorhies2017:1), while Ute tribes gathered in the Provo River region to engage in various sports such as horse-racing, trading, gambling, foot racing, and wrestling (Janetski Reference Janetski and Voorhies2017:1). Going back further, there is evidence that ballgames in the Hohokam region of the Southwest were opportunities for social and economic interactions between communities (Abbot Reference Abbott2006).

ISG were often included in sacred ceremonies and other social celebrations; they were also tied to symbolic identification and cultural maintenance (Acuña Reference Acuña1978; Cheska Reference Cheska, Norbeck and Farrer1979:236–237, Reference Cheska1984:250; Gutiérrez Reference Gutiérrez and Voorhies2017; López Austin Reference López Austin1967; Pesavento Reference Pesavento1974:3; Salter Reference Saltar1974:497; Voorhies Reference Voorhies and Voorhies2017:3; Yanicki and Ives Reference Yanicki, Ives and Voorhies2017). With their highly stylized pregame and game procedures, ballgames like lacrosse and toli have been particularly highlighted as symbolic mechanisms for group identity (Cheska Reference Cheska, Norbeck and Farrer1979:232, Reference Cheska1984:252–253). Ballgames have always been integral to Chahta society and politics; in the eighteenth century, fields located adjacent to mound sites and depicted on historic shell gorgets (Howe Reference Howe2014:77, 84). Many game-related myths explain the earliest origin of things. Games themselves were divinely sanctioned because they were played by the gods first, then gifted to the people (Cheska Reference Cheska, Norbeck and Farrer1979:237; Penz Reference Penz1991:47).

Catlin's (Reference Catlin, Mead and Calas1953) descriptions of Chahta toli matches from the late nineteenth century provide rich descriptions of the game as it was played when stickball still retained many traditional practices and attitudes. Feasting, ceremonial activities, and other games such as handball and a version of jacks would take place before, during, and after the main event (Blanchard Reference Blanchard1981:23–43; Catlin Reference Catlin, Mead and Calas1953:290, 293). Matches were announced several months in advance, with arrangements made between the captains or champions of the respective teams. People would travel around 15–30 kilometers on average to attend these events. Officials or apisaĉi kept score using visual mnemonic devices, typically sticks that represented points for the competing teams inserted into the ground. Drummers played throughout the match and attendant ceremonies, keeping up the excitement of the game (Blanchard Reference Blanchard1981:35). Other key figures were doctors (ritual specialists), singers or italowa, clowns, and men who supervised the gambling (Blanchard Reference Blanchard1981:36). Although many of these traditional elements are not part of stickball matches today, the sport is actively played by the Chahta and Chikasha (Chickasaw) in Mississippi where it still has an important role in community integration and identity creation (Barnett Reference Barnett2014:17).

Many Indigenous peoples today participate in Euro-American sports (Aicinena and Ziyanak Reference Aicinena and Ziyanak2019; Blanchard Reference Blanchard1995; Cheska Reference Cheska, Norbeck and Farrer1979, Reference Cheska1984; Davies Reference Davies2020; King Reference King2006, Reference King2015). These sports, however, have been integrated into the repertoire of each specific community's cultural performance and group expression (Cheska Reference Cheska1984:250) and can therefore be a form of resistance against colonial culture (King Reference King2006:135-136). For example, the way the Diné (Navajo) play basketball echoes their ethos of cooperation among teammates in ways that contrast with more Euro-American playing styles (Cheska Reference Cheska1984: 253).

Es nuestra tradición: Modern ballgames in Mexico and Oaxaca

Because the focus of my dissertation research was the pre-Hispanic ballcourts in Oaxaca, I thought that an ethnographic study of modern ballgames would be a unique opportunity to observe these games in a living social context. There are very few areas in Mexico today that have both modern ballgames and pre-Hispanic ballcourts. Despite the immense research into Mesoamerican ballgames, however, there has been comparatively little investigation by archaeologists on their modern counterparts (see Taladoire Reference Taladoire2003) To address this gap, I directed an ethnographic research project in 2009 and 2010 on the pelota mixteca games of Oaxaca (Table 1).

Table 1. Location and dates of pelota game matches visited for the ethnographic field project.

Throughout the project's different stages, I worked constantly to manage any expectations about what I would learn and observe. Given both the passage of time and the violent impact of European colonialism on Indigenous cultural practices including ballgames, I could not assume that modern games were simply direct analogues of their ancient counterparts. This is especially true for ballgames, which were frequently denounced in missiological writings and by colonial authorities because of their “warlike” nature and the gambling that was integral to them (Delashut Reference Delsahut2018:216). Instead, I focused on what the players themselves had to say about pelota mixteca and what they felt was most important or meaningful about the game to them.

The primary method for recruiting participants was the chain referral or snowball technique. First, a colleague introduced me to one player, Don Quique, who then introduced me to several others. Those I interviewed would then tell me that I just had to speak to such and such other person, and so on. Sometimes while at games I would simply introduce myself to players. If someone expressed interest in doing an interview, I read them the project protocol that they would then sign if they agreed to participate, of which they received a signed copy for their own records. Only players who agreed to do so on the signed protocol are mentioned here by name. For others I use only their apodos or nicknames. Interviews were recorded when given permission; otherwise, I simply took notes. Some players did not want to sign the protocol but were willing to speak with me anyway. The information they provided is subsumed within the general descriptions of the game.

I interviewed retired and current ballplayers on the game's connection to community functions, whether ritual, political, or economic. Questions focused on technical aspects such as game rules, how often the players meet to play, and how games are organized, as well as more social aspects including how they learned to play, what playing meant to them, and if they knew the game's origins. During the interviews, other questions would come up in response to what players told me. I did initially ask about any mythology, rituals, or symbolism associated with pelota mixteca. These questions were rather unsuccessful: for example, when asked if the ball represented the sun, the men simply said no or were confused and would move on. Although some did tell me stories about the game's origins, mythic histories like the Popol Vuh (Tedlock Reference Tedlock1996) were absent. I later cut these questions entirely. Nevertheless, what I learned from the ethnographic data opened my perspective on Mesoamerican ballgames.

The traditional sports of Mexico today

Despite violent efforts by Spanish authorities to suppress ballgames, Indigenous and mestizo campesinos continued to play in secret throughout the Colonial and National periods. These games survived European colonialism to varying degrees, retaining some of their pre-contact rules and play techniques (Stern Reference Stern1948; Turok 2002:61). In 1988, the Mexican government officially recognized their cultural importance with the formation of the Federación Mexicana de Juegos y Deportes de Origen (Mexican Federation of Games and Sports of Origin). Ballgame associations in the Distrito Federal and the states of Sinaloa, Guerrero, Oaxaca, and Michoacán were the initial participants. Today, the organization is now known as the Federación de Deportes Autóctonos y Tradicionales (Federation of Autochthonous and Traditional Sports [FDAT]). It includes 13 state associations and many groups playing a diverse number of Indigenous and syncretic physical sports and strategy games (Turok Reference Turok2000:59).

There are currently 13 surviving ballgames played today. Due to space limitations, I discuss only a few examples here. The game considered to have the most pre-Hispanic elements is ulama de cadera (hipball), a descendent of ullamaliztli (alternatively tlachtli or ōllamalīztli) or the hipball game described by sixteenth-century Spanish scholars. Although the Jesuit priest Calvijero (Reference Calvijero1945[1780]) recorded north and West Mexican groups such as the Nayarita, Opata, and Tarahuamra playing ulama, now it is predominantly played in the states of Nayarit and Sinaloa, although it is now being revived in Mexico City and among some Maya groups.

Ulama de cadera uses a three- to four-kg ball struck with the hips (Turok Reference Turok2000:62). Matches take place on a taste or field that is approximately 60 meters long by four meters wide, divided by a center line called the analco that represents the other side of a shore or river. The judges (the veedores or juezes) who keep track of the score and make decisions during rule disputes stand in the end zones or chichis (Ramos Reference Ramos2012; Turok Reference Turok2000). Two teams of three to five players, assigned to different playing positions on the court, try to keep the ball in motion and not let it hit the ground. If it bounces out of bounds the serving team loses a raya or point, while the opposing team receives a point if the ball hits a player outside of the hip-thigh zone. Players described the rules as complicated and that they [the rules] take years to learn, especially since each town has its own rule system (Ramos Reference Ramos2012:210).

Related games include ulama de antebrazo (armball), where players strike the ball with the forearm; ulama de mazo, where players use two sticks; and ulama de palo (stickball), in which players use one stick instead of two. While the ball is smaller in these three games, many of the terms for the playing field and end zones, the point system, and the referees or judges are the same (Aguilar-Moreno Reference Aguilar-Moreno2004; Ramos Reference Ramos2012; Turok Reference Turok2000). These games are currently popular in various towns in Sinaloa.

In the three versions of pelota purépecha, players use sticks of various sizes to strike the ball (Turok Reference Turok2000:62). Pelota purépecha encendida (flaming Purépecha ball) is played in Jalisco and Sinaloa, where in the latter it is known locally as quiche. This is one of the few that has symbolic overtones. A cultural tradition “rescued” by the local FDAT of Sinaloa, the game represents a fight between the old and new suns. A maguey root ball is soaked in petroleum and lit on fire, then struck with a hockey stick-like wooden baton. For this reason, the game is played at night (Turok Reference Turok2000:62-63). Pelota purépecha de trapo follows similar rules and playing techniques but uses ball made of different materials. In pelota purépecha de Piedra, players employ a flat wooden paddle to strike a basalt stone ball.

How to play pelota mixteca

There are three versions of pelota mixteca in Oaxaca: de hule (rubber), de forro (skin or covering), and del Valle (from the Valley). Each uses a different type of ball and playing gear (Don José Ángel, personal communication 2009). In pelota mixteca de forro, the ball is made of yarn, wool, or worsted yarn lined with suede. Work gloves of hide and cloth protect players’ hands when striking the ball. Pelota del Valle involves a small skinny tablet or plank measuring 20 × 2 cm to strike a small foam ball, although one informant told me that he once used a shoe when he didn't have tablet. De forro and del Valley are mostly played by Afro-Oaxacan and Indigenous communities on the coast.

Pelota mixteca de hule (hereafter pelota mixteca) is the most popular and widely played. The Enciclopedia de los Municipios de México lists 55 municipalities (out of 570) in Oaxaca that still have a pelota mixteca field, mostly in the Mixteca Alta and Central Valleys (Reyna Reference Reyna2016:14), although many more existed in the past. Players use colorfully painted, vulcanized rubber balls weighing one kg and specially produced by a factory in Mexico City (Figure 2). This game is famous for the heavy, colorful leather gloves players wear that are made of about 36 layers of stiff cow leather that are held together with hundreds of metal studs or nails and weigh three to five kilograms (Figure 3). They are specially made to order by the only glove maker or guantero, a man nicknamed El Caballo (The Horse).

Figure 2. Volcanized rubber ball used for playing pelota mixteca. They are colorfully painted with the name of the village or player. The former are used in the torneos or tournaments where multiple teams from different villages are playing. This ball specifically belongs to the team from the colonia of Buena Vista. Photograph by the author.

Figure 3. A pelota mixteca glove, brightly decorated and studded with over a hundred nails. Photograph by the author.

The technical aspects of playing pelota mixteca

In the past, pelota mixteca was played on designated canchas or courts (alternatively patios), sometimes on a street in front of or near the church or central plaza, or wherever open space was available (Berger Reference Berger2009:9–11). Most formal courts existing today are located in polideportivos or sports centers, alongside other fields for Western sports such as soccer and baseball (Berger Reference Berger2009:9); or are located close to the town center, such as at Magdalena Jaltepec in the Mixteca Alta. An official court, however, is not necessary to play. Many patios are simply cleared fields wherever space is available, like the patio at Buena Vista located behind Don Quique's house (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The informal patio at Buena Vista behind Don Quique's house and next to his corn fields. Photograph by the author.

The cancha measures 100 × 10 m and is divided into three zones: the zona del saque, which covers around 3/4 of the field (~70 meters); the zona del resto; and the cajón (which can be translated as drawer or bin), an eight-m section in the zona del resto (Berger Reference Berger2009; Turok Reference Turok2000). Where the ball falls in the cajón determines which player on the opposing team can hit the ball. In the zona de saque, a player also called the saque bounces the ball against a flat, inclined stone or botadura and then strikes it across the field (Figure 5; Don José Ángel, personal communication 2009). Prior to the game, the field is carefully measured and outlined. The lines are marked by older players with chalk or are simply scratched into the ground (Berger Reference Berger2009:6). This was also a common practice in historic Chahta toli games (Catlin Reference Catlin, Mead and Calas1953:291).

Figure 5. The botadora stone is used in pelota mixteca to launch the play into play. Two have been set up in the patio at Buena Vista for a torneo where multiple teams would be playing. Photograph by the author.

According to Don José Ángel, how much of the field is in play depends on the strength of the saque (según la capacidad del saque) or how far they can strike the ball. Players are placed into categories or fuerzas (strengths) of primeras, segundas, and teceras (firsts, seconds, and thirds) beforehand by the coime, or the custodian of the court, and the team captains. He explained that teams are composed of five players called quintas and that the team that plays in the zona de saque and serves the ball is the saque or contrarresto (counter), while the opposing team is the resto (Figure 6). Game time varies and can last for hours, although matches between primera teams often finish in half an hour.

Figure 6. The saque (left) and resto (right) teams playing at Buena Vista. Photographs by the author.

Though the rules of play and point scoring have been recounted elsewhere (Taladoire Reference Taladoire2003), I repeat them here because it was clear they are very important in the players’ perspective. Once the ball is put into play, the responding team returns, and play continues until the it goes out of bounds. A point or tanto is then awarded to the resto. Players explained that the point system is like tennis, with points counted as quinces (fifteens) using the pattern of 15, 30, and 40. Once one team has achieved 40 points, then a set or juego (game) has been won. The first team to win three sets out of five wins the partido or match, or as Don Jorge said, “el que ganó la ventaja,” he who wins the advantage. They were quick to point out that this was the only resemblance between the two sports and that pelota mixteca is “muy distinto,” very different.

One complicated way to win a juego is through rayas. As Don Pablo described it, “si sale el bote, donde cruza es una raya” (“if the ball leaves [the court], where it crosses is a line”). At the point where the ball goes out of bounds after bouncing once on the field, or where it bounces twice infield but stays inbounds, the chacero or referee marks a raya or line (Berger Reference Berger2009:8). According to several players, “si no hay quinces y hay dos rayas, se cambian, pero si no hay rayas, no se cambian,” “if there are no points, and there are two lines, they change sides, but if there are no lines, they do not.” Even when the serving team has won their set, if there is a raya they must still switch sides—as Don Pablo explained it, “lo que hace es hacer rayas para cambiarse…se ven acá, hay una raya y quince, trienta, cuarenta y si hay una raya, se cambia” (“what they do is they make lines to change, they come here [switch sides], there is a line and 15, 30, 40, and if there is a line, they change”). If there are no rayas marked and neither team has won the set, they continue to play in their positions. Marking rayas reduces the playing field, making it more difficult for the resto team to score. Should the resto hit the ball past the raya, then the tanto is awarded to them. Failure to do so awards the point to the other team (Berger Reference Berger2009:7–8). Therefore, the goal of the saque is to block the ball from going past the raya.

Everyone I spoke to stressed that a good player knows the rules and how to play. Don José Ángel described the reglamento (rule system) as being “muy sagrado,” “very sacred,” and for Don Claudio the rules have never changed, “son las mismassiempre esta contabilidad,” “they are the same…always this counting system,” a sentiment that was echoed by others. Whether they have stayed the same or not, this emphasis on the rule system, its antiquity and stability, underscores the importance of proper forms of social conduct in game play and the interactions between players. Proper conduct in social interactions among individuals is important for Indigenous communities in Oaxaca, forming the core of many existing traditions (Monaghan Reference Monaghan1995; Royce Reference Royce2011). At the same time, arguments over scoring still occur.

Players begin learning between the ages of eight to 14. Don José Luis said that while they use a normal-sized ball, boys are given smaller-sized gloves and only switch to the adult-sized gloves as they grow older (Berger Reference Berger2009:11). When I asked who taught them to play, I received a variety of answers. Some, like Don Claudio and Don Catarino, learned from their fathers. Others like Don Elfino learned from older friends (“de un amigo…un día me dijo, ¡vamos a jugar a pelota!”(”from a friend…one day he told me, we're going to play ball!”) Don José Ángel explained that players mostly learned from friends or relatives; his own father learned from his tíos or uncles. On the other hand, Don Elfino mentioned that some fathers choose not to teach their sons because they consider the game to be dangerous. I met quite a few men while doing fieldwork in Oaxaca who said their own fathers had played but had refused to teach them. The ball travels very fast when struck and can cause serious injuries. Most often, the sons themselves are just not interested in learning—Don Elfino lamented that he had five sons, enough for a quinta, but unfortunately they did not want to play.

There are two other important roles in pelota mixteca, mentioned previously: the coime and the chacero. According to Don Jorge, the coime keeps track of the quintas playing that day, pays for the maintenance of the cancha, provides food and refreshments for players and spectators, and ensures that the court is regulated: “cada patio debe estar reglamentado”(“every field should be regulated”). For instance, if the police are called because a fight broke out and the court is not legally approved, the coime and the players could go to jail. Coimes also receive some of the money made through bets (Turok Reference Turok2000:64), in most cases about 10 percent (Berger Reference Berger2009:5), and must be familiar with rules as “él define si es buena o es mala la pelota,” “he decides if the ball is good or bad.” If there is a dispute over a point or rule, the coimetiene encargado si hay problema,” “he is in charge if there is a problem.”

The chaceros keep track of the point scoring and rayas. Scores are kept in a variety of ways, such as making small rips in leaves, scratching points into the dirt with a bamboo stick, or point stones (Figure 7). Sometimes the chaceros use a combination of all three. They also use the bamboo stick to mark rayas. When there are multiple teams playing, such as at tournaments, a chacero will be assigned to a specific team. Current and former players occupy these roles.

Figure 7. Score is kept in different ways by the chacero or referee. Here point stones are used to keep track. Photograph by the author.

When and where games are played

Pelota mixteca games are usually held on Sundays. Those not arranged beforehand are partidos libres (free games), with teams made of whoever shows up that day. For scheduled matches or partidos de compromiso, arrangements are made beforehand about where and when a game will take place. Don José Ángel explained that the two captains are responsible for discussing the game arrangements, “los que unen, ellos son responsables y hablan los capitanes” (“those that unite, they are responsible, and the captains talk”). Then there are the torneos or tournaments for celebrating a town's fiesta patronal (saint's feast day) or other special holidays. Players and teams come from different towns and villages to participate. The more important the tournament, the higher the number and quality of teams, and the more likely there are to be teams composed of players de primera fuerza, first strength. Men attend games on whichever day the celebration falls on, which means taking time from work to travel. Players can spend up to half their year traveling on pelota mixteca match circuits (Reyna Reference Reyna2016), just as people in the past traveled in local and regional networks to attend ballgames and other celebratory activities (Abbot Reference Abbott2006).

Discussion: Pelota mixteca and community relationships

There are certain expectations—“tiene sus reglas,” “it has its rules”—of pelota Mixteca players. Don Jorge said that when a team is invited to play de compromiso, they are obligated to go. He likened the compromiso games to guelaguetza, a Zapotec tradition of cooperative socially obligated reciprocity that has deep roots (Royce Reference Royce2011:2–3). He explained it this way: “si me das, te doy,” “if you give to me, I give to you.” When one team invites a team from another village for a game de compromise or torneo, the invited team is expected to come. In turn, they can expect to be hosted and fed. “Este es el respeto al vistante,” “this is the respect paid to the visitor,” Don José Ángel said. It is then expected that the guest team will return the favor and invite their host for a game. Don José Ángel described it as “amor con amor se paga,” “you pay love with love.” For Don Jorge, the game is “para vivir y para compartir []es parte de esta tradición,” “for living and sharing […] it is a part of this tradition.” Socially obligated relationships of reciprocity are thus created between host and guest players as well as between their respective communities through invitations to friendly matches and gambling debts

When a team or player does refuse an invitation or fails to show up for a scheduled game, there are social and economic consequences for both players and hosts. Teams who decline invitations to compete may find their own future invitations rejected, while those that do not show up automatically lose the match and any bets placed beforehand (Taladoire Reference Taladoire2003:322). They are also said to lose their calidad moral or moral quality (Stoll Reference Stoll, Anderson, Clark and Anderson2015). Because the percentage of gambling bets the coimes earn are used to maintain the court, pay any government permit fees, and cover the food and drink expenses, they are affected if invited teams do not show up.

Another link between ballgames and community relationships comes from the origin stories told by the retired men. According to the Asociación Oaxaqueña de Pelota Mixteca (Oaxacan Association of Pelota Mixteca), it originated sometime before the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries in the Mixteca region. Don José Ángel explained that during these times there were many kings and “mucho oro, mucha riquesa,” “a lot of gold, a lot of riches,” which caused many problems among the people. When too many began to die from fighting, they invented pelota mixteca “para evitar guerra,” “to avoid war.” The game was then brought down from the Mixteca Alta to the Baja and Costa, and once the communities had been united there it was given to the Zapotecs.

Don Gustavo, who said he did not know the game's origin, still stressed that it is an ancient tradition “con miles de años,” “with thousands of years,” invented “muy antes del Cristo,” “long before Christ,” passed down from the ancestors to the players today. Any changes, he claimed, occurred only after the Conquest. Don Elfin Trujillo also declared that pelota mixteca had been played long before the Spanish arrived and that it came from the Mixteca. The most interesting origin story was told by Don Catarino Pérez, also known as El Oficial (The Official). When the Spanish arrived, they asked who had invented this game. They were told that it was a woman and that she played with a tiny ball. After she invented the game, everyone began to play it. Interestingly, Formative-era figurines do feature male and female players holding small balls in the in their hands.

Some scholars argue pelota mixteca is of European origin, noting similarities to several handball games from Spain, including boce lucea and de largo y rebote (Turok Reference Turok2000:65). Berger (Reference Berger2009:55–57) suggests that the game's antecedent, pelota a mano fría (cold handball), may have been introduced by Spanish friars sometime during the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries after they banned ullamaliztli, with Indigenous populations adopting European handball games as substitutes. He rightly cautions, however, that this does not mean that pelota mixteca is not a traditional game, as the balls and gloves are clearly local developments.

There is evidence for handball games in colonial-era Indigenous dictionaries (Taladoire Reference Taladoire2003). According to Taladoire (Reference Taladoire2003), Cordova's (Reference Cordova1942 [1578]) Vocabulario Castellano–Zapoteco lists several terms for different ballgames: the hipball game (Jugar a la pelota de los yndios con las nalgas [Indian ballgame with the hips]), listed as tiquija láchi, cotija, qquiquijaya, and i tiquijaya; and another game specifically referred to as a handball game (Jugar a la pelota nuestra con la mano [our hand ballgame]), known as tigàapayapitipi, pelólo, and cotàapaya. We see the same distinction in Mixtec (yocotenidinama [hipball]; dizen de boleo [handball]; Alvarado Reference Alvarado1962 [1593]); Tarascan (taranduqua chanaqua and taranduni [hipball], apantzequa chanaqua and apantzeti [handball]; Gilberti Reference Gilberti and Peñafiel1901); and Nahuatl (nematotopeuiliztli [handball]; Molina Reference Molina1977 [1880]).

While Europeans influences are likely, especially given colonial violence towards “idolatrous” Indigenous practices, the players I interviewed strongly insisted that for them pelota is an ancient, pre-contact tradition. For Don Gustavio and Don Jorge, playing is “toda la tradición de la familia” (“tradition of the whole family”). Don Claudio said we have to take care of the game to ensure its survival because it is “nuestra tradición,” “our tradition.” As one of two young brothers, known by their collective apodo Las Ranas (The Frogs), explained to me when I asked them why they played:

“Yo juego porque a mí el juego me llama la atención más que el fut [fútbol] o el béisbol…un día pasé y ví un juego que nunca nunca lo ví…y me llamó la atención porque jugaban con guantes y me lo pareció bien diferente, me dirigí a la cancha para platicar con los señores, me lo explicaron el juego…y cuando aprendí que es tradición de Oaxaca…pues tradición de nuestra gente, me dio ganas de aprender y jugar…”

“I play because [pelota mixteca] is more interesting to me than soccer or baseball…one day I was passing by and I saw a game I had never ever seen before…and it interested me because they were playing with gloves and it looked so different, I went over to the playing field to talk with the men, they explained the game to me…and when I found out that it was a tradition of Oaxaca…well [a] tradition of our people, I really wanted to learn and play…” (Las Ranas, personal communication 2010).

While my research focused on the Central Valleys and Mixteca Alta, pelota mixteca is also played on the Costa Chica (Reyna Reference Reyna2016), the coastal region shared between Oaxaca and Guerrero. Games are played on Sundays; “el domingo tenemos compromise,” “Sunday we have an engagement,” is a common saying there. Although not every community has a patio, they will still have a team (Reyna Reference Reyna2016:14). In contrast to those other regions, however, there is an additional racial element because only Afro-Oaxaqueños (descendents of escaped slaves) and Indigenous peoples (Chatinos and Mixtecos) play against each other; mestizos do not participate. Normally the relationship between the three groups is characterized by a mutual discrimination and rejection that has roots in colonial systems of structural and social racism (Jackson Reference Jackson1999; Lewis Reference Lewis2003). Despite this racial animosity, Afro-Oaxaqueños treat matches with their Indigenous neighbors seriously. As Reyna (Reference Reyna2016:18) observes, the “process of racialization that characterizes [these] forms of interaction takes on a distinct role” through the medium of the game, where participation carries a strong sense of honor, prestige, and…compromise and reciprocity” (my translation).

The players I interviewed explicitly link pelota mixteca with socially obligated relationships of exchange and reciprocity. Examples of these relationships exist in other areas, particularly among majority-Indigenous communities (Monaghan Reference Monaghan1990; Reyna Reference Reyna2016; Royce Reference Royce2011). In the Mixtec fiesta system known as saa sa'a, households build relationships between themselves by participating in a cycle of hosting and attending (or not attending) fiestas. The cyclical exchanges of goods and wealth link these fiestas together such that each event cannot be treated singularly, as households participate at different levels depending on their debts and credits with others in the system (Monaghan Reference Monaghan1990:58–62).

Saa sa'a is similar to the Zapotec guelaguetza. Another related concept from the Isthmus Zapotec is guendalisaa, literally “making kinship”; i.e., community is created through the social obligations we have to each other and by reciprocating cooperative actions (Royce Reference Royce2011:3). Finally, there is also the tradition of tequio, where individuals participate in communal projects and/or assist fellow community members with their labor needs. Food and drink are provided in exchange, and it is expected that as many as possible will pitch in. All these terms encapsulate communal obligations tied to cooperative behavior that is ideally reciprocated, but also carries the implicit threat of social consequences for those who refuse to participate.

As a competitive and cooperative sport, pelota mixteca is a part of these community-building traditions, the commensality generated from playing, gambling, and reciprocity of invitations among players. Pelota mixteca fits into this larger moral framework, integral to many rural Indigenous and mestizo communities, that emphasizes socially obligated reciprocity and proper conduct between individuals as members of the same community (Royce Reference Royce2011:69).

Because players travel frequently to fulfill their obligations to play, they establish extensive social networks at scales beyond the immediate community via these annual game circuits. Many would point out which pueblos the quintas were coming from, often listing several from different regions in Oaxaca—“vienen de distantes lugares,” “they come from distant places” (Figure 8). They explained that the pelota mixteca was important because “se usó para unir los pueblos,” it was used to unite the people/villages,” in the past and today as well, “hoy en día también.” Don Jorge said that games maintained amistades, friendships, between people from different and often widely dispersed communities, drawing them together much as stickball did in the past and does today.

Figure 8. Score board for the day's torneo at Guadalupe Etla, showing the different towns the teams are coming from. Photograph by the author.

Because ballgames were (and are) linked to Indigenous systems of socially obligated reciprocity, they become important social metaphors and, through their enactment, physical representations of the relationships of the individual to the community, and in the past a representation of the community to the cosmos. Thus, ancient ballgames could represent agricultural fertility rituals or celebrations of cosmic duality and at the same time be social events where teams competed, bets were won and lost, and people interacted with friends, allies, and rivals. Some events may have had more rituals or sacred ceremonial tones than others (Bell Reference Bell1992; Humphrey and Laidlaw Reference Humphrey and Laidlaw1994, Reference Humphrey, Laidlaw and Kyriakidis2007), in particular those games integral to elite practices, but at their core the games could always be linked back to these broader social practices (Stoll and Anderson Reference Stoll, Anderson and Voorhies2017). The pelota mixteca players themselves repeatedly discussed the sense of community they derived from it, and the fun they had playing with friends and rivals in what they saw as a rich tradition integral to their identity as Oaxacans (Stoll Reference Stoll, Anderson, Clark and Anderson2015).

While for the most part informally organized, pelota mixteca matches are affected by modern political structures. The state government has a general interest through its regulation of the courts and the monetary support it gives for certain tournaments and to the ballgame associations in general. The federal government also sponsors special tournaments through FDAT, including an annual event that pre-pandemic took place in San Diego every September between players from Oaxaca and California. However, many of the men still expressed frustration at the lack of apoyo or support from the Oaxacan government. While matches do occur during the Guelaguetza celebrations in July, an annual event that attracts thousands of tourists, they are never featured in the tourist literature nor in advertisements for the festival, surely a missed opportunity.

Political disagreements also happen among players. Don José Luis often complained that many players only knew the rules of the game and not its true history. When I went to attend a torneo at the Técnico on July 26th, 2019, I was surprised to see so few players. In my interview with Don José Luis that day, he expressed anger and frustration about the issues affecting players and the organization. Apparently, two torneos had been arranged for the same day, but because a large cash prize was being offered at the one in Santa Cruz Amilpas, many of the players went there instead, thereby breaking their compromiso. He declared that those playing at the Técnico were there for the love of the game, while those at Santa Cruz de Milpa were there only for money.

Pelota mixteca, a traditional sport of Indigenous America

There are many similarities between pelota mixteca and the Indigenous sports discussed earlier. Gambling was and is an important practice in both. Placing your apuesta or bet is a critical component of game matches. Don Claudio mentioned that the game was not just for diversión or fun but for gambling as well, and that players must do so to play. For the partidos libres, smaller amounts of money are wagered, but at larger events like the torneos the men will bet anywhere from $2,000–5,000 MX pesos ($108–250 USD in 2010). Nicknames are another similarity. Many of the players have apodos, earned through their participation in games. I met men who were called “Lento” (Slow), “El Diablo” (The Devil), “El Caballero” (The Gentleman), and “No Gano” (I Don't Win), among many others. In fact, many of the men only knew one another by their apodos—if I asked about the whereabouts of a player on game days, I would have to use their nickname, “¿Dónde está El Campeón hoy?” (“Where is The Champion today?”). During historical toli games, different nicknames were awarded to players, such as pałki for the fastest players and saláha wašoha for the slowest. Fans also gave nicknames such as čanáša (moccasin snake), sįti (snake), and opa niškin (owl or owl eyes) to notable players who stood out as exceptional athletes (Blanchard Reference Blanchard1995:37).

Catlin's descriptions of historic toli games demonstrate that they were rich events featuring individuals in a variety of different roles and involved in a range of activities. West Mexican models of ballcourts show that ancient ballgames also featured dancers, musicians, and audience members (Ramos Reference Ramos2012:8, 70), matching early colonial descriptions of ballgames observed in central Mexico shortly after the Conquest. Pelota mixteca, stickball, and other autochthonous ballgames today likewise have individuals in different roles, food, music, and a general atmosphere of excitement and friendly competitiveness.

Both ancient and modern ballgames were and are opportunities for social (via prestige from athletic or gambling prowess) and physical mobility (via travel to other communities and locations for game matches) for both spectators and players (Janetski Reference Janetski and Voorhies2017:1; Yanicki Reference Yanicki and Voorhies2017:1; Zych Reference Zych2017:37–39). Ballgame events drew together people who otherwise lived in dispersed communities, a phenomenon that continues today (Blanchard Reference Blanchard1981). In this way, these sports established—and still do—sociopolitical networks among otherwise spatially dispersed but culturally linked communities. Toli and lacrosse were just as much about competition and athleticism as they were about warfare and spirituality. As with Mesoamerican ballgames, meanings changed as one moved through time and space according to the needs and concerns of the players, game sponsors, and audience members (Stoll and Anderson Reference Stoll, Anderson and Voorhies2017; Vennum Reference Vennum1994).

An archaeological case study: What can modern ballgames tell us about ancient ballgames in Oaxaca and Mesoamerica?

Although no longer explicitly linked to Indigenous cosmologies or elite political legitimation rituals, what the ethnographic data shows is that modern ballgames like pelota mixteca still have the capacity for communal integration, e.g., bringing people together for social engagement, engendering other kinds of cooperative and possibly conflictive interactions. For ancient Mesoamerican ballgames, what role they may have played is interpreted through the number and location of ballcourts within regional systems. Often this is correlated to the degree of regional political centralization or integration—the more ball courts, the more fractious the society (Santley et al. Reference Santley, Berman, Alexander, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Whalen and Minnis Reference Whalen and Minnis1996).

Given what we have learned about Indigenous sports and their role in community relationships, how might our interpretations of court distribution, number, and their significance change? What insights might we gain for settlements with multiple ballcourts, e.g., Cantona (Puebla), El Tajin, (Veracruz), El Arnel (Jalisco), Monte Alban and Atzompa (Oaxaca), or regions/heterarchical political systems where multiple small- to medium-sized sites have their own ballcourt, such as northwest Yucatan (Anderson Reference Anderson2011), the Cuyumapa River region of Honduras (Hendon et al. Reference Hendon, Joyce and Sheptak2009), the Upper Grijalva Basin (de Montmillon Reference de Montmollin1997) and the northeast Peten, Guatemala (Rega Reference Rega2020)? In these cases, multiple ballcourts may instead be evidence of socially integrated communities that competed and cooperated with each other, negotiating their internal and external social relationships via sport, and where conflict was limited to small-scale rivalries or low-level violence between individuals (i.e., injury but not death).

Our case study is the Nejapa region in Oaxaca's Sierra Madre del Sur mountains (Figure 9). Because of its unique geographic position, the valley was crisscrossed by several historical interregional trade routes connecting the Central Valleys to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (and by extension central Mexico to the Xoconusco region of Chiapas and the greater Maya area); and the Oaxacan coast to the Mixe region and Veracruz (King Reference King, Oland, Hart and Frink2012; King and Zborover Reference King, Zborover, Schieber and Zedeño2015). Here the rivers Río Grande and Río de la Virgen also merge to form the Río Tehuantepec. Today, Nejapa is a frontier region between the modern territories of the Mixe, Chontal, and Zapotec-speaking peoples (King Reference King, Oland, Hart and Frink2012; King et al. Reference King, Konwest and Badillo2012, Reference King, Badillo, Konwest and Enriquez2014). These same ethnolinguistic groups were already living in the area when the Spanish first arrived (Burgoa Reference Burgoa1934 [1674]; Paso y Troncoso Reference Paso y Troncoso1905).

Figure 9. Map of the Nejapa study area in Oaxaca. Map by the author.

Outside Nejapa, ethnohistorical documents indicate frequent conflicts between Zapotecs and various Chontal and Mixe communities during the Postclassic period (King and Zborover Reference King, Zborover, Schieber and Zedeño2015; Zborover Reference Zborover2014). Within Nejapa, ethnolinguistic identity is much more ambiguous and difficult to trace. People likely forged shared, social identities—identities shared because of the unique ecological environment they lived in, the common vernacular architecture, and the clay sources they utilized and ceramic vessels they made in common—that may have at times conflicted with each other. Given their potential for both social bonding and conflict resolution, ballgames may have been one way for Nejapa communities to negotiate social relationships and identities.

During the Early and Middle Classic (a.d. 250–650), there are courts that likely hosted two different types of games: one that was played in I-shaped courts near or on the valley floor; and the other played in palangana or rectangular courts located high in the mountains (Figure 10). By the Late Classic, depending on when these different certain courts were abandoned, there could have been as many as three I-shaped courts in use (the palangana courts were certainly abandoned by the Middle Classic) or as few as one. If the ballcourt at the Cerro Maluco site was the only one in use at this time, then it would signify a change from communities going to games at different courts at several locations, perhaps as part of seasonal ceremonies, to people traveling to a single court, albeit the largest in the region, for different types of ceremonies (Stoll Reference Stoll2018:711–717).

Figure 10. A comparison between palangana courts and I-shaped courts. While palanganas appear only during the Early to Middle Classic and were limited to specific geographic areas, I-shaped ballcourts existed for millennia and can be found throughout Mesoamerica. Images by the author.

We have the most courts in use during the Early to Middle Postclassic (a.d. 1000–1250), the majority of which are in the dispersed neighborhoods of the valley-floor Greater La Amontonada (GLA) community (King et al Reference King, Badillo, Konwest and Enriquez2014; Konwest Reference Konwest2017). By late Middle Postclassic, there are more courts in the mountains than the valley floor, especially after the abandonment of GLA. In fact, depending on when another valley-floor court at the Terezona site was constructed and then abandoned, it may have been that only the two mountain courts were active during the late Middle Postclassic to the Late Postclassic (a.d. 1350–1521). The complete abandonment of valley-floor courts and shift to the mountain courts may point to yet other changes in the significances and purposes of ballgames and game ceremonies as well as the social contexts in which they took place (Stoll Reference Stoll2018:718–721).

Although there are slight differences in Classic and Postclassic ballcourt dimensions, they are not statistically significant. In other words, communities across time constructed courts according to their specific tastes and needs while following local preferences with respective to the sizes of architectural features and overall design. For example, the length/width ratios of the central alleys show a preference in their proportions (Figure 11), pointing to shared ways of playing that also continued across time (Baron Reference Baron2006). When rules or game practices did change, they did so in the negotiation of practices between communities or social groups when playing. Most likely, Nejapa communities strategically used games and game ceremonies within their communities, with their neighbors, and with outsiders from other regions. Certain practices persisted, but strategies would have changed over time according to the needs and goals of hosts, players, and audience members for the specific contexts in which these events took place (Stoll Reference Stoll2018:703–709).

Figure 11. A boxplot comparing Classic and Postclassic central alley length/width (L/W) ratios. The results suggests that there were shared playing styles that continued across time. Graph by the author.

Researchers in Oaxaca have proposed that most ballcourts were constructed at sites on the regional or subregional boundaries of polities (Kowalewski et al. Reference Kowalewski, Feinman, Finsten, Blanton, Scarborough and Wilcox1991), with some in dominant reginal centers. Some have proposed that ballcourts abandoned in a previous period became neutral sites for boundary-making or pilgrimage rituals in the next (Byland and Pohl Reference Byland and Pohl1994; Zeitlin Reference Zeitlin1993). Yet others suggest that courts were used as practice spaces for warriors to maintain fighting readiness (Kowalewski et al. Reference Kowalewski, Feinman, Finsten, Blanton, Scarborough and Wilcox1991; Redmond Reference Redmond1983). The locations of the Nejapa courts (Table 2) contrast somewhat with these proposed patterns (Stoll Reference Stoll2018). There is little evidence, for instance, that they were used as practice spaces for warriors in between periods of conflict.

Table 2. Sites with ballcourts in the Nejapa region.

a Sites that form part of the Greater La Amontonada community.

b Sites with multiple ballcourts.

Nejapa courts were not constructed at sites on obvious political boundaries, regional/subregional capitals, or dominant centers (King et al. Reference King, Konwest and Badillo2012, Reference King, Badillo, Konwest and Enriquez2014; Stoll Reference Stoll2018:728); nor do court size, measurements, and presence/absence correlate to site size (Figure 12) The Late Formative/Early Classic site Mogotes del Panteón was important given its location at the entrance to the valley, yet it was smaller than nearby contemporary sites Colonia San Martín and much larger Nejapa Viejo. The palangana at the Early to Middle Classic site Llano las Casas was constructed in an isolated intermountain valley and was probably used for communal ceremonies and pilgrimage rituals by different communities. The largest court is found tucked away on a hill far from the primary areas of occupation on the valley floor, at a Late Classic site (Cerro Maluco) smaller than many of its contemporaries.

Figure 12. The lengths and widths of the central alleys compared to the sizes of sites with and without ballcourts. Images by the author.

Meanwhile, Classic-period Ejido de Canseco was either a small-sized occupation or a neighborhood associated with the more powerful Nejapa Viejo. Similarly, one of the Early to Middle Classic palanganas was found in a neighborhood of the mountain site El Sitial. Los Chorros, where we find another palangana, may have either been a neighborhood of the nearby Los Picachos, or an earlier Classic occupation. It was not very large, however, and was not very accessible due to its high-elevation location. Another Classic site, Tanaguixi may have been influential during its time, but its court was constructed away from the hilltop occupation closer to the valley floor.

In the Postclassic, GLA was likely an influential, though not dominant, community when it was occupied, especially given its location near the confluence of the three major rivers. Ballcourts were constructed both in its higher status neighborhood and in other mixed-status neighborhoods. Contemporary La Puerta, a piedmont site, is much smaller than its neighbor Los Mogotes del Burro, yet there is only a court at the former. Although Cerro del Convento was a prominent ritual site, getting to the court would have been very difficult as access was tightly controlled; the same can be said about El Sitial. Finally, Terezona remains a puzzle. With its multiple ceremonial zones, it may have been influential as well, but without firmer dates it is difficult to ascertain the site's relationship to others in the Postclassic.

Instead, spatial results reveal that most are found in and around the rivers or other areas that would have experienced the most foot traffic and/or where it would have been possible to observe movement in and out of the region (Figure 13). These locations possibly relate to Nejapa's geographic position as a crossroads for interregional trade and population movements. Yet all these courts, wherever they were located, were structures where important events took place, based on the density of serving bowls and ritual objects documented from both survey and excavated contexts directly related to the courts (Stoll Reference Stoll2018:702).

Figure 13. Ballcourt viewsheds for the (a) Classic and (b) Postclassic periods, or where from where on the landscape a ballcourt can be seen and those locations that could be seen from the ballcourt. The results reveal that most courts, especially in the Postclassic, were constructed in and around areas best for observing movement in and out of the region, such as the rivers. Images by the author.

There are striking similarities in architectural forms and style. All the courts are enclosed with sunken playing floors, even Terezona's unusual T-shaped structure (i.e., missing a terminal mound) and the palanganas. With very few exceptions, Nejapa ballcourts feature low to non-existent terminal mounds on the exterior and much larger lateral mounds. While there are some minor variations in construction technique, court mounds were built using a mixed earth and pebble matrix, then covered with locally obtained stones. El Sitial is distinct because of the faced stones on the mounds and their interior clay/sandy matrix, but its dimensions fall within the preferred size ranges, most notably in the court dimensions that influenced game play (i.e., the central and terminal alleys as well as the interior slopes of the lateral mounds).

From the construction of the first court to the last, there was probably several shifts in the role or meaning of ballgames played among the communities in Nejapa. When there were multiple courts in use, they would have formed a network of places for hosting and participating in competitive games, ritual ceremonies, and communal feasting. When there was only one court in use, these structures were probably used exclusively by that community, only inviting allied or associated neighbors and outside people under the tightly controlled conditions of the hosting community and its leaders. The role of ballgames and game ceremonies in the local politics of this multiethnic frontier region would have changed as needed in response to shifts in community alliances, settlement patterns, and larger historical trends. Like other types of rituals or ritualized practices, sports in their performance and form may remain stable over time even as their functions and meanings change in response to historical and political shifts (Bloch Reference Bloch1992).

How ballgames were played in Nejapa and whether they were linked to game traditions from other areas of Oaxaca is currently unknown. For example, we do not see a clear ballgame ideology and symbolism in Nejapa, unlike other regions in Mesoamerica. At the same time, there is evidence for shared ceremonial practices, suggesting that ideological pluralism was a strategic choice. Likewise, pelota mixteca players and teams come from different communities with their own local practices in other social areas, but how to play is shared (Reyna Reference Reyna2016; Stoll Reference Stoll, Anderson, Clark and Anderson2015).

In its social and historical context, Nejapa was a diverse multiethnic and multilingual frontier with communities that had their own practices and ways of living, yet who also shared similar experiences, material cultures, and expressions of strategically deployed identities. Different communities formed variable political and social networks that connected some and not others, and these alliances and rivalries would have shifted and morphed over time. Such relationships frequently crossed ethnolinguistic boundaries that previously have been treated as more defined, static, or even impermeable. Ballgames certainly would have been crucial opportunities where these relationships could be negotiated. The spatial and material evidence suggests that in Nejapa there was a hyper-local ballgame tradition (or traditions) that emerged out of the localized practices and social identities, sometimes shared and sometimes in conflict, of the communities that lived in this unique frontier.

Conclusion

Mesoamerican ballgames were not just linked with war, life, death, fertility, and cosmology, but also with community identity, social integration, and political negotiation grounded within Indigenous systems of socially obligated reciprocity. Their multivalency means games could be and were understood and experienced on many different levels. The historical and ethnographic data on Indigenous ballgames in North America and modern Mexico demonstrate how games were linked to both daily social practices and larger cosmological and political themes. People would use or manipulate game practices, experiences, and symbols in ways that made sense to them.

Understanding the communal role of ballgames in social relationships can help us better interpret cases where the distribution of courts in a settlement system is distinct, such as cities with multiple ballcourts like Cantona and El Tajin; or regions like Nejapa where there are no dominant communities nor signs of large-scale conflict, and/or where small to medium-sized communities/neighborhoods have their own ballcourts. Moreover, we move away from simple binaries where ballcourts only indicate how politically centralized or decentralized a region is. Finally, while we can never just superimpose the present onto the past with the direct historical approach, the ethnographic data does underscore the importance of incorporating Indigenous perspectives into our datasets and interpretations whenever possible.

References

Abbott, David R. 2006 Hohokam Ritual and Economic Transformation: Ceramic Evidence from the Phoenix Basin, Arizona. North American Archaeologist 27:285310.10.2190/C407-11Q2-6051-14R3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Acuña, Rene 1978 Farsas y representaciones escénicas del os mayas antiguos. Centro de Estudios Mayas, Vol. 15. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Aguilar-Moreno, Manuel 2004 Filosofía y simbolismo del juego de pelota mesoamericano. Estudios Jaliscienses 56:1028.Google Scholar
Aicinena, Steven, and Ziyanak, Sebahattin 2019 Examining the Gathering of Nations Powwow and a NCCA Division I Basketball Game. International Journal of Human Sciences 16:875884.10.14687/jhs.v16i3.5742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altuve, Eloy 1997 Juego, historia, deporte y sociedad en América Latina. Maracaibo, Venezuela: Universidad del Zulia, Vicerrectorado Académico, Centro Experimental de Estudios Latinoamericanos.Google Scholar
Alvarado, Francisco de 1962[1593] Vocabulario En Lengua Mixteca. Edición facsimilar. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Anderson, David S. 2011 Xtobo, Yucatán, México, and the Emergent Preclassic of the Northern Maya Lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 22:301322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Philip J. III 2003 Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization: A Mexican Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Badillo, Alex Elvis 2022 Ballcourt Representations in Quiechapa, Oaxaca, Mexico: Ritual Offering, Fertility, and Life. Ancient Mesoamerica. doi:10.1017/S0956536121000523.Google Scholar
Barnett, James F., Jr. 2014 Ferocity and Finesse: American Indian Sports in Mississippi. Southern Quarterly 51(4):914.Google Scholar
Baron, Joanne P. 2006 Sport, Community, and the Ballgame at Yalbac, Belize. Unpublished bachelor's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Bell, Catherine M. 1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bell, Catherine M. 1997 Ritual Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Martin 2009 Pelota Mixteca. Master's thesis, Department of Archaeology. University of Leiden, Leiden.Google Scholar
Berger, Martin 2011 The Ballplayers of Dainzú? An Alternative Interpretation of the Dainzú Iconography. Mexicon 33:4651.Google Scholar
Bernal, Igancio, and Seuffert, Andy 1979 The Ballplayers of Dainzú. Akademic Druk-u. Verlagsanst, Graz.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis R. 2002 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Blanchard, Kendall 1981 The Mississippi Choctaws at Play: The Serious Side of Play. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
Blanchard, Kendall 1995 The Anthropology of Sport: An Introduction. Bergen and Garvey, Westport.Google Scholar
Bloch, Maurice 1992 Prey into Hunter: The Politics of Religious Experience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Blomster, Jeffrey P. 2012 Early Evidence of the Ballgame in Oaxaca, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:80208025.10.1073/pnas.1203483109CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blomster, Jeffrey P., and Salazar Chávez, Víctor E. 2020 Origins of the Mesoamerican ballgame: Earliest Ballcourt from the Highlands Found at Etlatongo, Oaxaca, Mexico. Science Advances 6:eaay6964. http://science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aay6964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradley, Richard 1984 The Social Foundations of Prehistoric Britain: Themes and Variations in the Archaeology of Power. Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Boston.Google Scholar
Burgoa, Francisco de 1934 Geográfica descripción. Publicaciones del Archivo General de La Nación XXVI. Talleres Gráficos e la Nación, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Byland, Bruce E., and Pohl, John M.D. 1994 In the Realm of 8 Deer: The Archaeology of the Mixtec Codices. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Calvijero, Francisco 1945[1780] Historia antigua de México: Sacada de los mejores historiadores españoles, y de los manuscritos y de las pinturas antiguas de los indios dividida en diez libros: Adornada con mapas y estampas. Departamento Editorial de la Dirección General de las Bellas Artes, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Cameron, Catherine M., and Johansson, Lindsay D. 2017 The Biggest Losers: Gambling and Enslavement in Native North America. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 273285. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Catlin, George 1953 A Choctaw Ball Game. In Primitive Heritage: An Anthropological Anthology, edited by Mead, Margaret and Calas, Nicholas, pp. 289295. Random House, New York.Google Scholar
Chance, John 1996 Mesoamerica's Ethnographic Past. Ethnohistory 43:379-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Claudia 1992 Archaeological Landscapes: The Ethnoarchaeology of Pastoral Land Use in the Grevena Province of Northern Greece. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by Rossignol, Jacqueline and Wandsnider, Luann, pp. 6589. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheska, Alyce Taylor 1979 Native American Games as Strategies of Social Maintenance. In Forms of Play of Native North Americans, edited by Norbeck, Edward and Farrer, Claire R., pp. 227247. West Publishing Company, St. Paul.Google Scholar
Cheska, Alyce Taylor 1984 Sport as Ethnic Boundary Maintenance: A Case of the American Indian. International Review for the Sociology of Sport 19:241257.10.1177/101269028401900304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohodas, Marvin 1975 The Symbolism and Ritual Function of the Middle Classic Ballgame in Mesoamerica. American Indian Quarterly 2:99130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordova, Juan de 1942 [1578] Vocabulario Castellano–Zapoteco. Biblioteca lingüística mexicana I. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Culin, Stewart 1907 Games of North American Indians: Twenty-Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
David, Nicholas, and Kramer, Carol 2001 Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Wade 2020 Native Hoops: The Rise of American Indian Basketball, 1895–1970. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, Jane Stevenson 2001 Performing on the Court. In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Whittington, E. Michael, pp. 6477. Thames and Hudson, Charlotte.Google Scholar
de Borhegyi, Stephan Francis 1980 The Pre-Columbian Ballgames: A Pan-Mesoamerican Tradition. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee.Google Scholar
de la Garza, Mercedes 2000 El juego de pelota según las fuentes escritas. Arqueología Mexicana 8(44):5053.Google Scholar
Delsahut, Fabrice 2018 Violence in North-American Indian Sports Games. Philosophical Journal of Conflict and Violence 2. https://doi.org/10.22618/TP.PJCV.20182.2.437002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Montmollin, Olivier 1997 A Regional Study of Classic Maya Ballcourts from the Upper Grijalva Basin, Chiapas, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:2341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietler, Michael and Herbich, Ingrid 1993 Living on Luo Time: Reckoning Sequence, Duration, History and Biography in a Rural African Society. World Archaeology 25: 248260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Susan T. 2017 Aztec Gambling and Magical Thinking. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 259272. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Feinman, Gary M., and Nicholas, Linda M. 2011 The Ballcourt at El Palmillo: Implications for Late Classic Oaxaca, Mexico. Mexicon 33(4):98104.Google Scholar
Finsten, Laura, Kowalewski, Stephen A., Smith, Charlotte A., Borland, Mark D., and Garvin, Richard D. 1996 Circular Architecture and Symbolic Boundaries in the Mixtec Sierra, Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:1935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flannery, Kent V., and Spores, Ronald 1993 Excavated Sites of the Oaxaca Preceramic. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by Kent V., Flannery and Marcus, Joyce, pp. 2325. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fox, John G. 1994 Putting the Heart Back in the Court: Ballcourts and Ritual Action in Mesoamerica. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Fox, John G. 1996 Playing with Power: Ballcourts and Political Ritual in Southern Mesoamerica. Current Anthropology 37:489509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John W. 1991 The Lords of Light Versus the Lords of Dark: The Postclassic Highland Maya Ballgame. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Scarborough, Vernon L. and Wilcox, David R., pp. 213240. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
García, Nelly Robles and Andrade Cuatle, Augustín E 2011 El Proyecto Arqueológico del Conjunto Monumental de Atzompa. In Monte Albán en la Encrucijada Regional y Disciplinaria. Memoria de La Quinta Mesa Redonda de Monte Albán, edited by Nelly M., Robles García and Rivera Guzmán, Ángel I., pp. 285313. CENTRO INAH Oaxaca, Oaxaca City.Google Scholar
Gilberti, Fray Maturino 1901 Diccionario de la lengua tarasca o de Michoacán, Vol. 1. Edited by Peñafiel, Antonio. Tipografía de la Oficina impresora de estampillas, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Gillespie, Susan D. 1991 Ballgames and Boundaries. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Vernon L., Scarborough and Wilcox, David R., pp. 317346. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Gould, Richard 1978 Explorations in Ethnoarchaeology. 1st ed. School of American Research, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, Gerardo 2017 Acrobatic Dances and Games of Mesoamerican as Ritual-Entertainment. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 235258. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Hendon, Julia, Joyce, Rosemary, and Sheptak, Russell 2009 Heterarchy as Complexity: Archaeology in Yoro, Honduras. Anthropology Faculty Publications, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg. https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=anthfac.Google Scholar
Hill, Warren D. 1999 Ballcourts, Competitive Games, and the Emergence of Complex Society. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Hill, Warren D., and Clark, John E. 2001 Sports, Gambling, and Government: America's First Social Compact? American Anthropologist 103:331345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Warren D., Blake, Michael, and Clark, John E. 1998 Ball Court Design Dates Back 3,400 Years. Nature 392:878879.10.1038/31837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Leanne 2014 Embodied Tribalography: Mound Building, Ball Games, and Native Endurance in the Southeast. Studies in American Indian Literature 26 (Special Issue: Tribalography):7593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, Caroline, and Laidlaw, James 1994 The Archetypal Actions of Ritual: A Theory of Ritual Illustrated by the Jain Rite of Worship. Clarendon Press and Oxford University Press, Oxford.10.1093/oso/9780198277880.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphrey, Caroline, and Laidlaw, James 2007 Sacrifice and Ritualization. In The Archaeology of Ritual, edited by Kyriakidis, Evangelos, pp. 255276. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Robert Howard 1999 Race, Caste, and Status: Indians in Colonial Spanish America. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Janetski, Joel C. 2017 Gaming in Fremont Society. In Prehistoric Games of North America: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 119138. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Joyce, Arthur A., Workinger, Andrew G., Hamann, Byron, Kroefges, Peter, Oland, Maxine, and King, Stacie M. 2004 Lord 8 Deer “Jaguar Claw” and the Land of the Sky: The Archaeology and History of Tututepec. Latin American Antiquity 15:273297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, Arthur A., and Winter, Marcus 1996 Ideology, Power, and Urban Society in Pre-Hispanic Oaxaca. Current Anthropology 37:3347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, C. Richard 2006 Introduction: Other Peoples’ Games: Indigenous Peoples and Sport in North America. The International Journal of the History of Sport 23:131137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, C. Richard 2015 Native Americans in Sports. Routledge, London, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Stacie M. 2012 Hidden Transcripts, Contested Landscapes, and Long-Term Indigenous History in Oaxaca, Mexico. In Decolonizing Indigenous Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology, edited by Oland, Maxine, Hart, Siobhan M., and Frink, Liam, pp. 230262. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
King, Stacie M., Badillo, Alex Elvis, Konwest, Elizabeth, and Enriquez, Juan Jarquín 2014 Informe final del Proyecto Arqueológico Nejapa/Tavela, temporada III, 2013, Volume 1: Recorrido sistemático. Indiana University. Final report submitted to the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.Google Scholar
King, Stacie M., and Zborover, Danny A. 2015 Beyond Ethnonyms: Interdisciplinary Research on Mountain Identity in the Sierra Sur of Oaxaca, Mexico. In Engineering Mountain Landscapes: An Anthropology of Social Investment, edited by Schieber, Laura L. and Zedeño, María Nieves, pp. 131146. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
King, Stacie M., Konwest, Elizabeth R., and Badillo, Alex Elvis 2012 Informe final: Proyecto Arqueológico Nejapa/Tavela, temporada II, 2011. University of Indiana-Bloomington, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Konwest, Elizabeth R. 2017 Material Markers of Community Identity in Postclassic Nejapa, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University-Bloomington, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Koontz, Rex 2008 Ballcourt Rites, Paradise, and the Origins of Power in Classic Veracruz. In PreColumbian Landscapes of Creation and Origin, edited by John Edward, Steller, pp. 1129. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalewski, Stephen A, Feinman, Gary M., Finsten, Lauren, and Blanton, Richard E. 1991 Pre-Hispanic Ballcourts from the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Scarborough, Vernon L. and Wilcox, David R., pp. 2544. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Krus, Anthony Michael. 2011 History and Prehistory: The Possible Antiquity of a Native American Ballgame. Native South 4:136145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Laura A. 2003 Hall of Mirrors: Power, Witchcraft, and Caste in Colonial Mexico. Duke University Press, Durham.Google Scholar
Leyenaar, Ted J.J. 1980 Ulama: Perpetuación en México del juego de pelota prehispánico: Ullamalistli. Gobierno del Estado de Sinaloa, Dirección de Investigación y Fomento de Cultura Regional, Culiacán.Google Scholar
Lohse, Jon C., Sagebiel, Kerry L., and Baron, Joanne 2013 The Ballgame, Community Ceremony, and Political Development in Northwestern Belize. In Classic Maya Political Ecology: Resource Management, Class Histories, and Political Change in Northwestern Belize, edited by Jon C. Lohse, pp. 99126. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press, Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López Austin, Alfredo 1967 Cuarenta clases de magos en el mundo nahuatl. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 7:87117.Google Scholar
López von Vriessen, C. 2004 The Palin or Chueca-an Ethnographic Study of a Traditional Mapuche Game. In Games of the Past-Sports for the Future? Globalization, Diversification, Transformation, 9, edited by Gertude, Pfister, pp. 5561. Academia-Verlag, Sankt Augustin.Google Scholar
Macazaga Ordoño, César 1982 El Juego de Pelota. Editorial Innovación, Mexico City.Google Scholar
McGarry, Karen 2010 Sport in Transition: Emerging Trends on Culture Change in the Anthropology of Sport. Reviews in Anthropology 39:151172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelsen, Ralph 1981 Peon: a North American. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California-Irvine, Irvine.Google Scholar
Miller, Mary Ann 2001 The Maya Ballgame: Rebirth in the Court of Life and Death. In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Whittington, E. Michael, pp. 7887. Thames and Hudson, Charlotte.Google Scholar
Miller, Mary Ellen, and Houston, Stephen D. 1987 The Classic Maya Ballgame and Its Architectural Setting: A Study of Relations between Text and Image. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 14:4665.Google Scholar
Molina, Fray Alonso de 1977 Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Porrúa, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Monaghan, John 1990 Reciprocity, Redistribution, and the Transaction of Value in the Mesoamerican Fiesta. American Ethnologist 17:758774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monaghan, John 1995 The Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sacrifice, and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Google Scholar
Mooney, James 1890 The Cherokee Ball Play. American Anthropologist 3:105132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orr, Heather 2001 Procession Rituals and Shrine Site: The Politics of Sacred Space in the Late Formative Valley of Oaxaca. In Landscape and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Koontz, Rex, Reese-Taylor, Kathryn, and Headrick, Annabeth, pp. 5580. Westview Press, Boulder.Google Scholar
Orr, Heather 2003 Stone Balls and Masked Men: Ballgame as Combat Ritual, Dainzu, Oaxaca. Ancient America 4:73104.Google Scholar
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del (editor) 1905 Papeles de Nueva España, publicados de orden y con fondos del gobierno mexicano. Segunda serie. Establecimiento tip. Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, Madrid.Google Scholar
Penz, Otto 1991 Ballgames of the North American Indians and in Late Medieval Europe. Journal of Sport and Social Issues 15:4358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesavento, Wilma J. 1974 Motivations of North American in Athletic Games. Education Resources Information Center, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Piña Chan, Roman 1969 Games and Sport in Old Mexico. 2 vols. Edition Leipzig, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Pohl, John M.D. 2004 The Archaeology of History in Postclassic Oaxaca. In Mesoamerican Archaeology, edited by Julie A. Hendon and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 217238. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.Google Scholar
Pohl, John M.D., and Byland, Bruce E. 1990 Mixtec Landscape Perception and Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:113131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohl, John M.D., Monaghan, John, and Stiver, Laura R. 1997 Religion, Economy, and Factionalism in Mixtec Boundary Zones. In Códices y Documentos sobre México. Segundo Simposio, edited by Smithers, Salvador Rueda, Sosa, C. Vega, and Bracas, R. Martínez, 1, pp. 202235. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Ramos, Maria Isabel 2012 Women Playing a Man's Game: Reconstructing Ceremonial and Ritual History of the Mesoamerican Ballgame. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Visual Arts, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Redmond, Elsa M. 1983 A Fuego Y Sangre: Early Zapotec Imperialism in the Cuicatlán Cañada, Oaxaca. Studies in Latin American Ethnohistory and Archaeology, Vol.1. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rega, Maria Felicia 2020 Political and Social Dimension of Ballgame in North-East Petén, Guatemala: A Comparative Analysis of Ballcourts Distribution through a Regional Perspective. Ethnologia Actualis 20:2855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reyna, Citlali Quecha 2016 El juego de pelota mixteca entre los afrodescendientes de la Costa Chica: Relaciones interétnicas a través del juego. Anales de Antropología 50:199215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha Ferreria, Maria Beatriz 2014 Indigenous Games: A Struggle Between Past and Present. Bulletin: Journal of Sport Science and Physical Education 67:4854.Google Scholar
Royce, Anya Peterson 2011 Becoming an Ancestor: The Isthmus Zapotec Way of Death. SUNY Press, Albany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saltar, Michael A. 1974 An Analysis of the Role of Games in the Fertility Rituals of the Native North American. Anthropos 3:494504.Google Scholar
Santley, Robert S., Berman, Michael J., and Alexander, Rani T. 1991 The Politicization of the Mesoamerican Ballgame and Its Implications for the Interpretation of the Distribution of Ballcourts in Central Mexico. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Scarborough, Vernon L. and Wilcox, David R., pp. 324. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Schele, Linda, and Freidal, David M. 1991 The Courts of Creation: Ballcourts, Ballgames, and Portals to the Maya Otherworld. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Scarborough, Vernon L. and Wilcox, David R., pp. 289316. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara 2018 Canchas de La Mixtequilla. In El juego de pelota en el centro de Veracruz, edited by Daneels, Annick, Donner, Natalia R., and Arana, Johnathan Hernández, pp. 7994. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Stern, Theodore 1948 The Rubber-Ball Games of the Americas. J.J. Augustin, New York.Google Scholar
Stoll, Marijke 2015 Es Nuestra Tradición: The Continuing Importance of Ball Games Among Migrant Mixtec Communities in the United States. In Constructing Legacies of Mesoamerica: Archaeological Practices and the Politics of Heritage in and Beyond Mexico, edited by Anderson, David S., Clark, Dylan J., and Anderson, Heath J., pp. 6793. American Anthropological Association, Arlington.Google Scholar
Stoll, Marijke 2018 The Seriousness of Play: What Ballcourts Tell Us About Sociopolitical Negotiation in Nejapa and the Eastern Sierra Sur, Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Stoll, Marijke, and Anderson, David S. 2017 Sport and Ritual as Social Bonding: The Communal Nature of Mesoamerican Ballgames. In Prehistoric Games of North Americans Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 219234. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Taladoire, Eric 2000 El juego de pelota mesoamericano: Origen y desarrollo. Arqueología Mexicana 8(44):2029.Google Scholar
Taladoire, Eric 2001 The Architectural Background of the Pre-Hispanic Ballgame: An Evolutionary Perspective. In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by E. Michael, Whittington, pp. 97115. Thames and Hudson, New York.Google Scholar
Taladoire, Eric 2003 Could We Speak of the Super Bowl at Flushing Meadows?: La Pelota Mixteca, a Third Pre-Hispanic Ballgame, and Its Possible Architectural Context. Ancient Mesoamerica 14:319342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taladoire, Eric 2015 Las aportaciones de los manuscritos pictográficos al estudio del juego de pelota. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas Vol. 37:181221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taladoire, Eric, and Colsenet, Benoit 1991 "Bois Ton Sang Beaumanoir": The Political and Conflictual Aspects of the Ballgame in Northern Chiapas. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame and Ball-courts, edited by Scarborough, Vernon L., and Wilcox, David R., pp. 161174. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Taube, Karl, and Zender, Marc 2009 American Gladiators: Ritual Boxing in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Blood and Beauty: Organized Violence in the Art and Archaeology of Mesoamerica and Central America, edited by Orr, Heather and Koontz, Rex, pp. 161220. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedlock, Dennis 1996 Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of The Mayan Book of The Dawn of Life and The Glories of Gods and Kings. Original Touchstone, New York.Google Scholar
Terrell, John 2003 Archaeological Inference and Ethnographic Analogies: Rethinking the Lapita Cultural Complex. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 13:6976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Victor W. 1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and AntiStructure. Aldine Publishing, Chicago.Google Scholar
Turok, Marta 2000 Entre el sincretismo y la superviviencia: El juego de pelota en la actualidad. Arqueología Mexicana 8(44):5865.Google Scholar
Urcid, Javier 2005 The Zapotec Social Tradition: Knowledge, Memory, and Society in Ancient Oaxaca. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc, Coral Gables.Google Scholar
Urcid, Javier 2014 Otra narrative de jugadores de pelota en Dainzú. In Panorama arqueológico: Dos Oaxacas, edited by Winter, Marcus and Santiago, Gonzalo Sánchez, pp. 4356. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Oaxaca.Google Scholar
Uriarte, María Teresa 2000 Práctica y símbolos del juego de pelota: Mariposas, sapos, jaguares y estrellas. Arqueología Mexicana 8(44):2835.Google Scholar
Uriarte, María Teresa 2001 Unity in Duality: The Practice and Symbols of the Mesoamerican Ballgame. In The Sport of Life and Death: The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Whittington, E. Michael, pp. 4049. Thames and Hudson, Charlotte.Google Scholar
Vennum, Thomas 1994 American Indian Lacrosse: Little Brother of War. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Voorhies, Barbara (editor). 2017 Introduction. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 118. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walden, John, and Voorhies, Barbara 2017 Ancient Maya Patolli. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 197218. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Whalen, Michael E., and Minnis, Paul E. 1996 Ball Courts and Political Centralization in the Casas Grandes Region. American Antiquity 61:732746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, Michael E., and Minnis, Paul E. 2001 Architecture and Authority in the Casas Grandes area, Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 66:651668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkerson, S. Jeffrey K. 1991 And Then They Were Sacrificed: The Ritual Ballgame of Northeastern Mesoamerica Through Time and Space. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame, edited by Scarborough, Vernon L. and Wilcox, David R., pp. 4572. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Williamson, Ronald F., and Cooper, Martin S. 2017 “He Must Die Unless the Whole Country Shall Play Crosse”: The Role of Gaming in Great Lakes Indigenous Societies. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited Voorhies, by Barbara, pp. 4862. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Winter, Marcus, Ballensky, Tamara, Ballensky, Jason, and Guerrero, Javier Pérez 2014 La Cueva del Rey Kong-Oy. In Panorama arqueológico: Dos Oaxacas, edited by Winter, Marcus and Santiago, Gonzalo Sánchez, pp. 293320. Arqueología Oaxaqueña 4. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Oaxaca City.Google Scholar
Yanicki, Gabriel M. 2017 Reinventing the Wheel Game: Prestige Gambling on the Plains/Plateau Frontier. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 104118. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Yanicki, Gabriel M., and Ives, John W. 2017 Mobility, Exchange, and the Fluency of Games: Promontory in a Broader Sociodemographic Setting. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Voorhies, Barbara, pp. 139162. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Zborover, Danny A. 2014 Decolonizing Historical Archaeology in Southern Oaxaca, Mexico: Late Formative to Republican Periods. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeitlin, Judith Francis 1993 The Politics of Classic-Period Ritual Interaction. Ancient Mesoamerica 4:121140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zych, Thomas J. 2017 Chunkey and the Historic Experience in the Mississippian World. In Prehistoric Games of North American Indians: Subartic to Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, pp. 6386. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. A map of the southeastern state of Oaxaca, Mexico, and the Nejapa study area. Map by the author.

Figure 1

Table 1. Location and dates of pelota game matches visited for the ethnographic field project.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Volcanized rubber ball used for playing pelota mixteca. They are colorfully painted with the name of the village or player. The former are used in the torneos or tournaments where multiple teams from different villages are playing. This ball specifically belongs to the team from the colonia of Buena Vista. Photograph by the author.

Figure 3

Figure 3. A pelota mixteca glove, brightly decorated and studded with over a hundred nails. Photograph by the author.

Figure 4

Figure 4. The informal patio at Buena Vista behind Don Quique's house and next to his corn fields. Photograph by the author.

Figure 5

Figure 5. The botadora stone is used in pelota mixteca to launch the play into play. Two have been set up in the patio at Buena Vista for a torneo where multiple teams would be playing. Photograph by the author.

Figure 6

Figure 6. The saque (left) and resto (right) teams playing at Buena Vista. Photographs by the author.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Score is kept in different ways by the chacero or referee. Here point stones are used to keep track. Photograph by the author.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Score board for the day's torneo at Guadalupe Etla, showing the different towns the teams are coming from. Photograph by the author.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Map of the Nejapa study area in Oaxaca. Map by the author.

Figure 10

Figure 10. A comparison between palangana courts and I-shaped courts. While palanganas appear only during the Early to Middle Classic and were limited to specific geographic areas, I-shaped ballcourts existed for millennia and can be found throughout Mesoamerica. Images by the author.

Figure 11

Figure 11. A boxplot comparing Classic and Postclassic central alley length/width (L/W) ratios. The results suggests that there were shared playing styles that continued across time. Graph by the author.

Figure 12

Table 2. Sites with ballcourts in the Nejapa region.

Figure 13

Figure 12. The lengths and widths of the central alleys compared to the sizes of sites with and without ballcourts. Images by the author.

Figure 14

Figure 13. Ballcourt viewsheds for the (a) Classic and (b) Postclassic periods, or where from where on the landscape a ballcourt can be seen and those locations that could be seen from the ballcourt. The results reveal that most courts, especially in the Postclassic, were constructed in and around areas best for observing movement in and out of the region, such as the rivers. Images by the author.