Clearly, the mid-tenth-century decline of the Puuc centers and the depopulation of the region was not as sudden, uniform, or complete as we once believed (e. g., Dunning 1992; Tourtellot and Sabloff 1994). For example, we see a lack of congruence between the change in monumental architecture and ceramic changes (see Andrews V and Sabloff 1986: 450), in that monumental architecture is abandoned, while ceramic traditions continue. This fact may point to at least two nonexclusive conclusions: 1) that, much like work at Copan has demonstrated, the decline of the Puuc centers was initially an elite collapse that did not have immediate or major impacts on the larger population, and 2) that the elite were not involved in ceramic production, at least not for the majority of the Cehpech wares. In short, the nature and timing of the depopulation of the Puuc is far from clear. Some communities appear to have been abandoned fairly suddenly, others to have significantly lingered, and a few (along the western and northern margins of the region) to have transformed into Postclassic centers.
In an effort to remain true to the goal of providing a chapter that is regionally comparable regarding the causes of the Maya collapse, we now turn to a brief summary using “prime mover”-type terminology. Based on recent archaeological, demographic, and iconographic research, it appears that a general assessment of the Terminal Classic Puuc region can be offered. As with other views of the southern lowlands Classic collapse, the Puuc evidence suggests multicausal factors. One clear factor in the decline of the Puuc region in the Terminal Classic is population growth, which caused significant agricultural stress. Climatic change in the form of drought may have been a further causal factor, particularly given the utter dependence of the Puuc’s population on rainfall. However, our present understanding of Puuc cultural history does not accord well with apparent paleoenvironmental trends suggesting that the Maya lowlands was experiencing peak aridity during the time that regional population was growing rapidly.
An additional stress on the Terminal Classic Puuc region appears to have been endemic political competition and warfare, both within and from outside the Puuc region. We know that Chichen Itza experienced a rapid political ascent during the late period at Uxmal and gained large-scale dominance after the fall of that site; indeed, the rise of the former may have a direct link to the decline of the latter. Moreover, it appears that at least in some cases the initial collapse of the Terminal Classic Puuc centers may have primarily been an elite collapse, as the Puuc royal rulers lost status and divine legitimization through their inability to control ecological or political events occurring around them, much as their Classic period, southern lowland counterparts did approximately a century earlier.
With regard to the question of which of the forces and factors discussed above had primacy in the collapse of Classic Maya society in the Puuc, further speculation is premature. Our understanding of both the internal chronology of the Puuc as well as the precise meshing of this culture history with that of other parts of the northern lowlands is too coarse to allow for a clear determination of event sequences. Furthermore, the lack of adequate paleoenvironmental data from the Puuc itself severely hampers our ability to assess the role of ecological factors in the collapse. Because of these data deficiencies, we conclude by outlining ways in which we see these inadequacies best being addressed.
World History
