Specific differences or ambiguities in the interpretation of chronology and culture-historical sequences continue to plague interpretation of the nature of the Classic to Postclassic transition from a. d. 750 to 1050. While ever more finely grained chronologies have been established for some regions, such as the Pasion and Petexbatun, in other zones, such as northern Belize, temporal periods are sometimes long and ill defined (e. g., “Tepeu 2-3,” “Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic”), making comparisons and correlation difficult. In northern Yucatan, chronological variability in interpretations has been reduced as new stratigraphic, epigraphic, and iconographic evidence has been recovered (see Carmean et al., Suhler et al., Ringle et al., and Cobos, Chapters 19-22). Yet in other zones, such as the Copdn Valley, recent chronological debates have generated widely divergent models of culture change at the end of the Classic era (e. g., Webster et al. vs. Fash et al.. Chapters 11 and 12). It is hoped that the more refined sequences of some sites or regions will eventually allow cross-dating
And alignment, eliminating the ambiguities in other regional culture-historical sequences.
Other disagreements have their basis in underlying theoretical positions or predispositions. Some scholars tend to interpret the record in their regions in terms of ecological processes or climatological events (e. g., Braswell et al., Chapter 9; Adams et al.. Chapter 15; Gill 2000; Hodell et al. 1995). Others emphasize the impact of known or hypothesized political factors (e. g., O’Mansky and Dunning, Chapter 5; Fash et al.. Chapter 12; Suhler et al.. Chapter 20; Demarest 1992, 1996; Fash and Sharer 1991). Yet other recent studies have almost returned to J. E.S. Thompson’s evaluative perspective in attributing the collapse at some centers to a failure of “moral authority” leading to “despair” and abandonment (Houston et al. 2001). Both chronological and theoretical disagreements seem to be most pronounced in the two chapters on the Copan Valley: Webster et al. (Chapter 11) argue for a gradual process of several centuries’ change driven by ecological degradation, while Fash et al. (Chapter 12) describe a rapid, almost abrupt process of political crisis, collapse, and abandonment. Although the contrasting interpretations between these Copan Valley papers are focused on issues of dating, ceramic sequences, and other culture-historical details, the alternative views in this regional debate (and others in this volume) also tend to align with the established theoretical positions of the scholars involved toward emphasis of ecological, economic, or political factors in culture-historical interpretation.
In addition to contrasting chronologies, culture-histories, or general theoretical paradigms, the papers in this volume show an even wider range of divergence in their conceptions of the very nature of the transition from the Classic to the Postclassic societies of the Maya lowlands. For example, in one chapter, scholars working in northern Belize (Adams et al., Chapter 15) describe a “great collapse” as a dramatic climatological catastrophe, while others, working less than 100 kilometers to the south in central Belize (Chase and Chase, Chapter 2), reject the existence of a “collapse” or even a decline of Classic Maya society, seeing this notion as an interpretive delusion created by long-held misconceptions about the nature of Postclassic institutions and the complex roots of these institutions in Classic-period society.
Many of these disagreements about the very nature of the Terminal Classic transition, its pace, and its processes derive at least in part from confusion about terms, concepts, and frames of reference. As discussed in the first chapter of this volume, scholars tend to talk past each other about what constitutes a “decline,” “collapse,” or “transformation.” This problem becomes manageable only if we clarify these terms as referring to change in regional manifestations of Classic Maya civilization, particularly political systems and political ideology.
Perhaps the greatest problem has been that each group of archaeologists working on the highly variable Classic Maya polities have tended to project the nature and processes in their own region of study as the universal model for culture change at the end of the Classic period. Most archaeologists have posited “causes” from the data in their particular regions or sites that could have been local factors of the specific kind of culture change observed in that area. Yet these processes were then proposed as a universal template for pan-lowland culture-history. Local economic and ecological conditions, and local or regional historical and political processes and events, were combined with pan-lowland problems or processes to generate the specific manifestations of the Classic to Postclassic transition in any given area. Furthermore, external factors or events (e. g., foreign intrusion or influence, climatological factors, etc.) may have affected only certain regions or have affected regions to differing degrees, while other external factors may have been of broader impact.
World History
