CONCLUSIONS

At the beginning of the ninth century, the rulers K’an Ko of Uaxactun and Yax Ain II of Tikal had contemporary reigns when their cities still enjoyed the splendor reached in earlier centuries. However, this situation changed a few decades later, around a. d. 830-850, when the pressure on the central area and especially on Tikal must have been very strong. Its last inscription is from a. d. 869, although we know that its lord was in Uaxactun celebrating a bloodletting ritual twenty years later as a witness to the end of the third k’atun of the tenth baktun. Without a doubt, the major part of this crisis fell on the shoulders of the both cities’ last sovereigns, Hasaw Kan K’awil II and K’al Chik’in Chakte, at the end of the ninth century. The years of the tenth century saw the end of this culture in the center of Peten, as testified by the inscriptions of Jimbal, Uaxactun, and La Muneca, dated A. D. 889, with the last text in the central area from a. d. 899 found in Xultun. The last three known texts in the Maya area are from Tonina, Uxmal, and Dzibanche, all pertaining to the year 909, only ten years after Xultun, curiously forming a triangle in the extreme periphery of the great Maya territory.

Starting in a. d. 810, commemorative inscriptions became scarce and sporadic, although other neighboring cities, such as Ixlu and Jimbal, had commemorative celebrations similar to those of Tikal and Uaxactun. In the case of Ixlu, a monument was erected in 10.2.0.0.0 (a. d. 869), at the same time as the last stela at Tikal, while at Jimbal, the end of the period 10.3.0.0.0 (a. d. 889) was ritually celebrated at the same time as the last date from Uaxactun. These two minor sites hold a special importance in the final crisis because their rulers titled themselves K’ul Mutul Ahaw, that is, they shared the royal title with the last king of Tikal.

Here, then, another question resurfaces about why Hasaw Kan K’awil II of Tikal celebrated the end of the third k’atun in Uaxactun and not in his own land. This reference appears to indicate the willingness by the Tikal sovereign to share his great ancient kingdom with other lords of the secondary centers. However, we should not forget that in the particular case of Uaxactun it could represent a demonstration of the solidarity between both cities, which is interesting because it means the continuation of tight ties, both political and familial.

The final noose of the collapse was tightening and the last years were not at all peaceful. In Tikal there are no texts or information for sixty years, and in Uaxactun, the monumental inscriptions bespeak bellicose conflicts. The continuation of a monumental record at Uaxactun until 10.3.0.0.0, or twenty years after Tikal, only shows a slower agony, as K’al Chik’in Chakte competed for scarce resources and power with the lords of Xultun to the north and of Jimbal to the south. The instability reported since the defeat of Dos Pilas at the hands of Tamarindito in a. d. 761, the burnings of Ixkun in 779, Ucanal in 780, and Caracol in 865, as well as the continuous conflicts of Yaxha and Naranjo, on top of those of Bonampak, Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras, and Seibal, laid the foundation for the gradual destruction of a centralized system that could not continue any longer due to the interruption of political and economic networks. The governing elites demonstrated their incapacity to deal with these circumstances and lost effective control, setting in motion the final result.