We view this time as the golden period of Itza empire. In this vein we must disagree with others who posit a ca. a. d. 1000 downfall for Chichen Itza (Cohos, Chapter 22, this volume; Ringle et al. 1991; Bey et al. 1997). We believe the Itza empire during this period ruled over a large portion of the Yucatan peninsula, campaigned as far as Peten and northern Belize, and had coastal trade contacts as far south as Ambergis and Marco Gonzalez Keys in Belize and Lamanai on the riverine interior (Cobos 1989; Guderjan et al. 1989; Pendergast 1990b).
For the end of the Itza, we accept the historically chronicled date of a. d. 1250 and believe they were brought down by the forces centered on Mayapan but from as far away as the eastern coast. We believe these final conquering forces were made up of those Itza who had been exiled at the end of our postulated Terminal Classic phase three or the beginning of phase four, two and a half centuries earlier. There is a pattern of Mayapan-style (Postclassic) materials associated with final terminations at the Caracol, Temple of the Warriors, and High Priest’s Grave, to name but a few (Suhler and Freidel 1995). Additionally, Mayapan also utilized rule by multepal, first begun at Chichen Itza (Scheie and Freidel 1990) and apparently still practiced by those who went into exile in the tenth century and returned to conquer Chichen Itza in the middle of the thirteenth.
While there may have been some post-termination occupation at Chichen Itza (we find the Casa Redonda a possible candidate), after a. d. 1250 the empire was broken and control of the peninsula passed on to the people of Mayapan.
We hope this model helps explain our orientation in the following description of what we believe to have been Yaxuna’s role in the Terminal Classic history of the northern Yucatan peninsula. We will now move to a consideration of that history from the vantage point of Yaxuna.
World History
