Until recently much of what we thought we knew about the Maya collapse was based upon limited data that were difficult to interpret. Stone monuments, with their easily readable dates, provided one clue as to how late a given site was occupied. Certain ceramic types were found in the latest occupation levels at many Classic-period sites and, thus, came to be associated with the collapse. In particular. Fine Orange paste wares and modeled-carved vessels—ceramics that were easily recognized, and at the same time infrequently found, in the southern lowlands—came to play a defining role; the even rarer Plumbate was viewed as being even later, a true “Postclassic” ceramic vessel form. Thus, along with stone monuments, certain ceramics became defining artifacts for the latest Classic Maya.
With the exception of the easily identified finewares, it can prove extremely difficult to distinguish materials related to the “collapse” era from those dating to the Late Classic height of Maya civilization. The problems are perhaps best illustrated at Uaxactun, Guatemala, where the final ceramic phase, Tepeu 3, “was determined by subtracting all recognized earlier types from the vast surface accumulations” (Smith 1955: 13). Sabloff (1973: 114, 121) pointed to similar analytical problems in phasing late ceramics at both Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios. He indicates that “it is virtually impossible to point to a definitely pure Bayal deposit at Seibal” or “to isolate a pure Jimba deposit” at Altar de Sacrificios. At Tikal, however, Culbert (1973c: 69) noted that the “Eznab Complex [Terminal Classic] shows a clear continuity with Imix [Late Classic] but fortunately includes a number of common and distinctive markers that make identification easy.” More interesting from the standpoint of this paper, both he (1973: 69-70) and Fry (1969: 166) generally found the relatively rare Eznab materials in and among stone-constructed range structures or “palaces,” commenting that the “total avoidance of small structures for residence is surprising, even for a period with such light occupation.”
Part of the inability to identify and interpret abandonment materials at the central Peten sites excavated in the 1960s and earlier may be attributed to methodological considerations, such as excavation strategies that did not overly focus on horizontal context and analytical difficulties in dealing with surface materials and large “sherd scatters.” However, problems in identifying late use-related deposits may also be related to the history of Maya archaeology. For instance, we surmise that, at the time that many central Peten sites were dug, a general belief existed that in situ living floors—akin to those found in the American Southwest—likely would not be encountered in Maya palaces or range buildings because of a widespread perception that these buildings were not really lived in. Even though early Mayanists, such as Maler, camped out in these palaces, all noted the dampness of the buildings, the hard bench surfaces, and their general unsuitability for long-term occupation. Following up on these earlier observations and looking at their architectural plans, George Andrews (1975: 43) specifically suggested that these “spaces are not really suited to living purposes.” To some degree the idea that Maya stone palaces were nonresidential may have been a holdover of the “vacant ceremonial center” model that dominated Maya archaeological thought in the 1950s and 1960s (Bullard 1960, 1964; Vogt 1961, 1964; Willey 1956). This view of Maya palaces began to change through the work of Harrison (1969, 1999), who ascribed a habitation function to some of the palace buildings at Tikal’s Central Acropolis, and Adams (1974), who explicitly correlated Uaxactun’s palace benches with sleeping space.
The latest materials found within and about epicentral buildings at many Maya sites generally were not believed to have resulted from the intended use of these structures. Instead, these remains were ascribed to the sporadic activities of popuLation remnants who were camping out in largely deserted centers. At Tikal (Harrison 1999: 48) and Altun Ha (Pendergast 1990a), rooms that were full of Terminal Classic refuse were initially interpreted as confirming such a disjunctive situation. For various reasons, then, the latest materials at many southern lowland sites were deemed to be “worthless” for meaningful interpretation (Adams 1971: 8) and often were interpreted simply as the incomplete remains of squatters from the “commoner” sector of Classic Maya society (Culbert 1988: 74). Within this context, then, any southern lowland Maya site with substantial, use-related Terminal Classic occupation is likely to provide an elaborated, if not an alternative, view of the events leading up to the “collapse.”
World History
