Classic Maya collapse

Maya civilization

People
Society
Languages
Writing
Religion
Mythology
Sacrifice
Cities
Architecture
Astronomy
Calendar
Stelae
Art
Textiles
Trade
Music
Dance
Medicine
Cuisine

History
Preclassic Maya

Classic Maya collapse

Spanish conquest of the Maya

Yucatn
Chiapas
Guatemala
Petn

v
t
 e

In archaeology, the classic Maya collapse is the decline of Classic Maya civilization and the
abandonment of Maya cities in the southern Maya lowlands of Mesoamerica between the 8th and
9th centuries, at the end of the Classic Maya Period. Preclassic Maya experienced a similar
collapse in the 2nd century.

The Classic Period of Mesoamerican chronology is generally defined as the period from 250 to
900, the last century of which is referred to as the Terminal Classic.[1] The Classic Maya
collapse is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in archaeology. Urban centers of the southern
lowlands, among them Palenque, Copn, Tikal, and Calakmul, went into decline during the 8th
and 9th centuries and were abandoned shortly thereafter. Archaeologically, this decline is
indicated by the cessation of monumental inscriptions and the reduction of large-scale
architectural construction at the primary urban centers of the Classic Period.

Although termed a collapse, it did not mark the end of the Maya civilization but rather a shift
away from the Southern Lowlands as a power center; Northern Yucatn in particular prospered
afterwards, although with very different artistic and architectural styles, and with much less use
of monumental hieroglyphic writing. In the Post-Classic Period following the collapse, the state
of Chichn Itz built an empire that briefly united much of the Maya region,[citation needed] and
centers such as Mayapn and Uxmal flourished, as did the Highland states of the K'iche' and
Kaqchikel Maya. Independent Maya civilization continued until 1697 when the Spanish
conquered Nojpetn, the last independent city-state. Millions of Maya people still inhabit the
Yucatn peninsula today.[citation needed]

Because parts of Maya civilization unambiguously continued, a number of scholars strongly

dislike the term collapse.[2] Regarding the proposed collapse, E. W. Andrews IV went as far as to
say, "in my belief no such thing happened."[3]

Contents
1 Progression of the decline
2 Theories
o 2.1 Foreign invasion
o 2.2 Collapse of trade routes
o 2.3 Epidemic diseases
o 2.4 Drought theory
o 2.5 Systemic ecological collapse model
o 2.6 Other explanations
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
Progression of the decline
The Maya often recorded dates on monuments they built. Few dated monuments were being built
circa 500 around ten per year in 514, for example. The number steadily increased to twenty per
year by 672 and forty by around 750. After this, the number of dated monuments begins to falter
relatively quickly, collapsing back to ten by 800 and to zero by 900. Likewise, recorded lists of
kings complement this analysis. Altar Q at Copn shows a reign of kings from 426 to 763. One
last king not recorded on Altar Q was Ukit Took, "Patron of Flint", who was probably a usurper.
The dynasty is believed to have collapsed entirely shortly thereafter. In Quirigua, twenty miles
north of Copn, the last king Jade Sky began his rule between 895 and 900, and throughout the
Maya area all kingdoms similarly fell around that time.[4]

A third piece of evidence of the progression of Maya decline, gathered by Ann Corinne Freter,
Nancy Gonlin, and David Webster, uses a technique called obsidian hydration. The technique
allowed them to map the spread and growth of settlements in the Copn Valley and estimate their
populations. Between 400 and 450, the population was estimated at a peak of twenty-eight
thousand, between 750 and 800 - larger than London at the time. Population then began to
steadily decline. By 900 the population had fallen to fifteen thousand, and by 1200 the
population was again less than 1000.

Theories
Some 88 different theories or variations of theories attempting to explain the Classic Maya
collapse have been identified.[5] From climate change to deforestation to lack of action by Maya
kings, there is no universally accepted collapse theory, although drought is gaining momentum
as the leading explanation.[6]

Foreign invasion

The archaeological evidence of the Toltec intrusion into Seibal, Peten, suggests to some the
theory of foreign invasion. The latest hypothesis states that the southern lowlands were invaded
by a non-Maya group whose homelands were probably in the gulf coast lowlands. This invasion
began in the 9th century and set off, within 100 years, a group of events that destroyed the
Classic Maya. It is believed that this invasion was somehow influenced by the Toltec people of
central Mexico. However, most Mayanists do not believe that foreign invasion was the main
cause of the Classic Maya collapse; they postulate that no military defeat can explain or be the
cause of the protracted and complex Classic collapse process. Teotihuacan influence across the
Maya region may have involved some form of military invasion; however, it is generally noted
that significant Teotihuacan-Maya interactions date from at least the Early Classic period, well
before the episodes of Late Classic collapse.[7]

The foreign invasion theory does not answer the question of where the inhabitants went. David
Webster believed that the population should have increased because of the lack of elite power.
Further, it is not understood why the governmental institutions were not remade following the
revolts, which happened under similar circumstances in places like China. A study by
anthropologist Elliot M. Abrams came to the conclusion that buildings, specifically in Copan, did
not require an extensive amount of time and workers to construct.[8] However, this theory was
developed during a period when the archaeological evidence showed that there were fewer Maya
people than there are now known to have been.[9] Revolutions, peasant revolts, and social turmoil
change circumstances, and are often followed by foreign wars, but they run their course. There
are no documented revolutions that caused wholesale abandonment of entire regions.[citation needed]

Collapse of trade routes

It has been hypothesized that the decline of the Maya is related to the collapse of their intricate
trade systems, especially those connected to the central Mexican city of Teotihuacn. Preceding
improved knowledge of the chronology of Mesoamerica, Teotihuacan was believed to have
fallen during 700750, forcing the "restructuring of economic relations throughout highland
Mesoamerica and the Gulf Coast".[10] This remaking of relationships between civilizations would
have then given the collapse of the Classic Maya a slightly later date. However, after knowing
more about the events and the periods when they occurred, it is believed that the strongest
Teotihuacan influence was during the 4th and 5th centuries. In addition, the civilization of
Teotihuacan started to lose its power, and maybe abandoned the city, during 600650. This
differs greatly from the previous belief that Teotihuacano power decreased during 700750.[11]
But since the new decline date of 600650 has been accepted, the Maya civilizations are now
thought to have lived on and prospered for another century and more[12] than what was
previously believed. Rather than the decline of Teotihuacan directly preceding the collapse of the
Maya, their decline is now seen as contributing to the 6th-century hiatus.[12]

Epidemic diseases

The disease theory is also a contender as a factor in the Classic Maya collapse. Widespread
disease could explain some rapid depopulation, both directly through the spread of infection
itself and indirectly as an inhibition to recovery over the long run. According to Dunn (1968) and
Shimkin (1973), infectious diseases spread by parasites are common in tropical rainforest
regions, such as the Maya lowlands. Shimkin specifically suggests that the Maya may have
encountered endemic infections related to American trypanosomiasis, Ascaris, and some
enteropathogens that cause acute diarrheal illness. Furthermore, some experts believe that,
through development of their civilization (that is, development of agriculture and settlements),
the Maya could have created a "disturbed environment", in which parasitic and pathogen-
carrying insects often thrive.[13] Among the pathogens listed above, it is thought that those that
cause the acute diarrheal illnesses would have been the most devastating to the Maya population,
because such illness would have struck a victim at an early age, thereby hampering nutritional
health and the natural growth and development of a child. This would have made them more
susceptible to other diseases later in life. Such ideas as this could explain the role of disease as at
least a possible partial reason for the Classic Maya Collapse.[14]

Drought theory

Large droughts hit the Yucatn Peninsula and Petn Basin areas with particular ferocity, as thin
tropical soils decline in fertility and become unworkable when deprived of forest cover,[15] and
due to regular seasonal drought drying up surface water.[16] Colonial Spanish officials accurately
documented cycles of drought, famine, disease, and war, providing a reliable historical record of
the basic drought pattern in the Maya region.[17]

Climatic factors were first implicated in the collapse as early as 1931 by Mayanists Thomas
Gann and J. E. S. Thompson.[18] In The Great Maya Droughts, Richardson Gill gathers and
analyzes an array of climatic, historical, hydrologic, tree ring, volcanic, geologic, lake bed, and
archeological research, and demonstrates that a prolonged series of droughts probably caused the
Classic Maya collapse.[19] The drought theory provides a comprehensive explanation, because
non-environmental and cultural factors (excessive warfare, foreign invasion, peasant revolt, less
trade, etc.) can all be explained by the effects of prolonged drought on Classic Maya
civilization.[20]

Climatic changes are, with increasing frequency, found to be major drivers in the rise and fall of
civilizations all over the world.[21] Professors Harvey Weiss of Yale University and Raymond S.
Bradley of the University of Massachusetts have written, "Many lines of evidence now point to
climate forcing as the primary agent in repeated social collapse."[22] In a separate publication,
Weiss illustrates an emerging understanding of scientists:

Within the past five years new tools and new data for archaeologists, climatologists, and
historians have brought us to the edge of a new era in the study of global and hemispheric
climate change and its cultural impacts. The climate of the Holocene, previously assumed static,
now displays a surprising dynamism, which has affected the agricultural bases of pre-industrial
societies. The list of Holocene climate alterations and their socio-economic effects has rapidly
become too complex for brief summary.[23]

The drought theory holds that rapid climate change in the form of severe drought brought about
the Classic Maya collapse. According to the particular version put forward by Gill in The Great
Maya Droughts,

[Studies of] Yucatecan lake sediment cores ... provide unambiguous evidence for a severe 200-
year drought from AD 800 to 1000 ... the most severe in the last 7,000 years ... precisely at the
time of the Maya Collapse.[24]

Climatic modeling, tree ring data, and historical climate data show that cold weather in the
Northern Hemisphere is associated with drought in Mesoamerica.[25] Northern Europe suffered
extremely low[clarification needed] temperatures around the same time as the Maya droughts. The same
connection between drought in the Maya areas and extreme cold in northern Europe was found
again at the beginning of the 20th century. Volcanic activity, within and outside Mesoamerica, is
also correlated with colder weather and resulting drought, as the effects of the Tambora volcano
eruption in 1815 indicate.[26]

Mesoamerican civilization provides a remarkable exception: civilization prospering in the

tropical swampland. The Maya are often perceived as having lived in a rainforest, but
technically, they lived in a seasonal desert without access to stable sources of drinking water.[27]
The exceptional accomplishments of the Maya are even more remarkable because of their
engineered response to the fundamental environmental difficulty of relying upon rainwater rather
than permanent sources of water. The Maya succeeded in creating a civilization in a seasonal
desert by creating a system of water storage and management which was totally dependent on
consistent rainfall.[28] The constant need for water kept the Maya on the edge of survival.
Given this precarious balance of wet and dry conditions, even a slight shift in the distribution of
annual precipitation can have serious consequences.[16] Water and civilization were vitally
connected in ancient Mesoamerica. Archaeologist and specialist in pre-industrial land and water
usage practices Vernon Scarborough believes water management and access were critical to the
development of Maya civilization.[29]

Critics of the drought theory wonder why the southern and central lowland cities were
abandoned and the northern cities like Chichen Itza, Uxmal, and Coba continued to thrive.[30]
One critic argued that Chichen Itza revamped its political, military, religious, and economic
institutions away from powerful lords or kings.[31] Inhabitants of the northern Yucatn also had
access to seafood, which might have explained the survival of Chichen Itza and Mayapan, cities
away from the coast but within reach of coastal food supplies.[32] Critics of the drought theory
also point to current weather patterns: much heavier rainfall in the southern lowlands compared
to the lighter amount of rain in the northern Yucatn. Drought theory supporters state that the
entire regional climate changed, including the amount of rainfall, so that modern rainfall patterns
are not indicative of rainfall from 800 to 900. LSU archaeologist Heather McKillop found a
significant[clarification needed] rise in sea level along the coast nearest the southern Maya lowlands,
coinciding with the end of the Classic period, and indicating climate change.[33]

David Webster, a critic of the megadrought theory, says that much of the evidence provided by
Gill comes from the northern Yucatn and not the southern part of the peninsula, where Classic
Maya civilization flourished. He also states that if water sources were to have dried up, then
several city-states would have moved to other water sources. That Gill suggests that all water in
the region would have dried up and destroyed Maya civilization is a stretch, according to
Webster.[34]

A study published in Science in 2012 found that modest rainfall reductions, amounting to only 25
to 40 percent of annual rainfall, may have been the tipping point to the Maya collapse. Based on
samples of lake and cave sediments in the areas surrounding major Maya cities, the researchers
were able to determine the amount of annual rainfall in the region. The mild droughts that took
place between 800-950 would therefore be enough to rapidly deplete seasonal water supplies in
the Yucatn lowlands, where there are no rivers.[35][36][37]

A study published in Nature Scientific Reports in 2016 showed that between 750 and 900 a
cluster of four earthquakes affected the wet tropical mountains south of the Yucatn lowlands,
which are not vulnerable to drought, and include such important cities as Quirigua and Copn.
These earthquakes left detectable destruction in several Maya cities and led to the abandonment
of Quirigua. The study hypothesizes that repeated destruction combined with declining trade
with the Maya kingdoms of the Yucatn lowlands to propagate the collapse to the southern part
of the Maya realm. [38]

Systemic ecological collapse model

Some ecological theories of Maya decline focus on the worsening agricultural and resource
conditions in the late Classic period. It was originally thought that the majority of Maya
agriculture was dependent on a simple slash-and-burn system. Based on this method, the
hypothesis of soil exhaustion was advanced by Orator F. Cook in 1921. Similar soil exhaustion
assumptions are associated with erosion, intensive agricultural, and savanna grass competition.

More recent investigations have shown a complicated variety of intensive agricultural techniques
utilized by the Maya, explaining the high population of the Classic Maya polities. Modern
archaeologists now comprehend the sophisticated intensive and productive agricultural
techniques of the ancient Maya, and several of the Maya agricultural methods have not yet been
reproduced. Intensive agricultural methods were developed and utilized by all the Mesoamerican
cultures to boost their food production and give them a competitive advantage over less skillful
peoples.[39] These intensive agricultural methods included canals, terracing, raised fields, ridged
fields, chinampas, the use of human feces as fertilizer, seasonal swamps or bajos, using muck
from the bajos to create fertile fields, dikes, dams, irrigation, water reservoirs, several types of
water storage systems, hydraulic systems, swamp reclamation, swidden systems, and other
agricultural techniques that have not yet been fully understood.[40] Systemic ecological collapse
is said to be evidenced by deforestation, siltation, and the decline of biological diversity.

In addition to mountainous terrain, Mesoamericans successfully exploited the very problematic

tropical rainforest for 1,500 years.[41] The agricultural techniques utilized by the Maya were
entirely dependent upon ample supplies of water. The Maya thrived in territory that would be
uninhabitable to most peoples. Their success over two millennia in this environment was
"amazing."[42]

Other explanations

Anthropologist Joseph Tainter wrote extensively about the collapse of the Southern Lowland
Maya in his 1988 study The Collapse of Complex Societies. His theory about Maya collapse
encompasses some of the above explanations, but focuses specifically on the development of and
the declining marginal returns from the increasing social complexity of the competing Maya
city-states.[43] Psychologist Julian Jaynes suggested that the collapse was due to a failure in the
social control systems of religion and political authority, due to increasing socioeconomic
complexity that overwhelmed the power of traditional rituals and the king's authority to compel
obedience.[44]