What actually collapsed, declined, gradually disappeared, or was transformed at the end of the Classic period was a specific type of political system and its archaeological manifestations: a system of theater-states, identified by Emblem Glyphs, dominated by the k’ul ajawob (holy kings) and their inscribed stone monuments, royal funerary cults, and tomb-temples, the political hegemonies of these divine lords, and their patronage networks of redistribution of fineware polychrome ceramics, high-status exotics, and ornaments. This system ceased during the late eighth and ninth centuries in most of the west and some areas of central Peten. Its ending was often accompanied within a century by the depopulation of major cities, drastic reduction of public architecture, and other changes. Notably, however, in other areas, such as Belize, the Mopan Valley, and the northern lowlands, the close of the Classic period saw more gradual change or even florescence. There clearly was no “uniform” collapse phenomenon, but rather a sequence of highly variable changes. Yet in all cases there was a pronounced change in the Classic Maya sociopolitical order by the end of the Terminal Classic (varying from a. d. 950 to 1100), with the “termination” of the divine k’ul ajaw institution and most of its distinctive, archaeologically manifest features of elite culture.
The intention of this volume was not to find common cause(s) of these phenomena, but rather to plot this very variability as a starting point for future interpretations of the transition from Classic to Postclassic Maya lowland political and economic systems. The modest goal was to compile and compare summaries of the Terminal Classic and Florescent period (circa a. d. 750-1050) archaeological evidence and culture-histories from excavations and interpretations in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s. With only brief epistemological digressions here and in Chapter 2, then, most chapters are archaeologists’ culture-historical summaries of their data on the late eighth to eleventh centuries from their regions of research. Most scholars in the volume implicitly or explicitly apply their reconstructions (regional or pan-lowland) of decline, transition, or transformation to the political systems of Classic Maya lowland kingdoms. And most of the chapters end with some speculative discussion of the broader nature of the end of the Classic Maya kingdoms and the beginnings of the Postclassic in their respective regions. Indeed, several move more broadly beyond the period under discussion to describe the Postclassic florescence (e. g.. Chapters 17 and 18) or to posit a more gradual transition to Postclassic political and economic systems (Chapter 2). In our final summary (Chapter 23), we argue that some chronological patterns and parallels can be discerned in the wide array of evidence presented. There we also try to more clearly delineate the nature of the disagreements about data or interpretation seen in these many chapters.
RESULTS AND PROSPECTS
We did not expect any manner of consensus to arise from these chapters—and none has! What we did expect was that intriguing patterns might emerge, that directions for future research might be better defined, and that disagreements could be clarified as to their degree and nature. In general, the chapters in this volume provide summaries of regional archaeological evidence and culture-histories, a snapshot of the “state of the art” in Maya research on the centuries of the Classic to Postclassic transition, a. d. 750-1050. These summaries and interpretations allow comparisons and contrasts between the assemblages, the events, and the processes proposed for the many subregions of the Maya lowlands. Some contributions describe depopulation and political disintegration in their regions, while others present evidence for a more gradual change in institutions with less dramatic shifts in demography, economy, and political order. It is hoped that this compilation of data and ideas will provide an overview of the highly variable archaeological record and the wide range of scholarly interpretations of the evidence on this period, upon which research and syntheses can build.
Yet we do believe, as stated previously, that the volume represents a watershed in studies of the Classic to Postclassic transition, moving away from global projection of local evidence or grand theories to hypothesize a uniform pan-Maya catastrophe. The evidence presented here largely argues against the concept of a uniform, chronologically aligned collapse or catastrophe in all regions of the lowlands or even a uniform “decline” in population or political institutions. (Note that some recent climatological theories run counter to this trend and return to cata-strophism, e. g., Chapters 9 and 15; Hodell et al. 1995; Haug et al. 2003). In light of the data and perspectives in most of these chapters, th? enigmas of the Terminal Classic become more manageable and less value-laden problems. We can plot the various collapses, declines, or transformations of Classic Maya regional culture across the political landscape of the Maya lowlands and note the common underlying structural problems, the varying proximate “causes” and external forces, and the different results in each region. The beginning of such a comparative plotting was the principal goal of this volume and the meetings, correspondence, and debates that generated these papers.
We hope that these chapters will provide a baseline that will stimulate, clarify, and direct the continuing systematic compilation of regional culture-histories of the end of the Classic and beginning of the Postclassic period. This new epoch of research on the problem should leave behind the myth of global, pan-Maya catastrophism and the “mystery” of the collapse. Instead, the specifics of the varying regional sequences, and linkages between them, may lead to a more sophisticated understanding of the changes in lowland Maya political and economic systems.
World History
