In archaeology, the classic Maya collapse is a model to describe the destabilization of Classic Maya civilization and the violent collapse and abandonment of many southern lowlands city-states between the 7th and 9th centuries CE. Modern scholars increasingly describe this period as a "rupture" or transformation rather than a true collapse, because a number of Maya cities survived even if they faced a period of instability.
The Classic Period of Mesoamerican chronology is generally defined as the period from 250 to 900 CE, the last century of which is referred to as the Terminal Classic.See Stuart and Stuart (1993, p. 12), McKillop (2006, p. 90, pp. 339–340) The Classic Maya collapse is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries in archaeology. Urban centers of the southern lowlands, among them Palenque, Copán, Tikal, and Calakmul, went into decline during the 8th and 9th centuries and were abandoned shortly thereafter. Archaeologically, this decline is indicated by the cessation of monumental inscriptions and the reduction of large-scale architectural construction at the primary urban centers of the Classic Period.
Although termed a collapse, it did not mark the end of the Maya civilization but rather a shift away from the Southern Lowlands as a power center; the Northern Yucatán in particular prospered afterwards, although with very different artistic and architectural styles, and with much less use of monumental hieroglyphic writing. In the Post-Classic Period following the collapse, the state of Chichén Itzá built an empire that briefly united much of the Maya region,Кнорозов, Ю. В. Письменность индейцев майя. — М.—Л.: Изд-во АН СССР, 1963. — 664 с. and centers such as Mayapán and Uxmal flourished, as did the Highland states of the Kʼicheʼ and Kaqchikel Maya. Independent Maya civilization continued until 1697 when the Spanish conquered Nojpetén, the last independent city-state. Millions of Maya people still inhabit Guatemala and the Yucatán Peninsula today.
Because parts of Maya civilization unambiguously continued, a number of scholars strongly dislike the term "collapse".Aimers, James J. "What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya Lowlands." J Archaeol Res (2007) 15:329–377 In his recent book, The Four Heavens, David Stuart argues that historical ruptures were a regular if dramatic part of Maya culture, noting similar abandonment events at Aguada Fenix in 1000 BCE and El Mirador at the end of the Preclassic. He notes that one of the major changes was the government system--the abandonment of the Ajawlel. This may have been the result of the political rise of the merchant class.
But an objection to the term "collapse" is nothing new. As early as the 1970s, E. Wyllys Andrews IV went as far as to say, "in my belief no such thing happened."Andrews IV, E. W. (1973). The development of Maya civilization after the abandonment of the southern cities. In Culbert, T. P. (ed.), The Classic Maya Collapse, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 243–265
Progression of the decline The Maya often recorded dates on monuments they built. Few dated monuments were being built circa 500 – around ten per year in 514, for example. The number steadily increased to twenty per year by 672 and forty by around 750. After this, the number of dated monuments begins to falter relatively quickly, collapsing back to ten by 800 and to zero by 900. Likewise, recorded lists of kings complement this analysis. Altar Q at Copán shows a reign of kings from 426 to 763. One last king not recorded on Altar Q was Ukit Took, "Patron of Flint", who was probably an usurper. The dynasty is believed to have collapsed entirely shortly thereafter. In Quirigua, north of Copán, the last king Jade Sky began his rule between 795 and 800, and throughout the Maya area all kingdoms similarly fell around that time.
A third piece of evidence of the progression of Maya decline, gathered by Ann Corinne Freter, Nancy Gonlin, and David Webster, uses a technique called obsidian hydration dating. The technique allowed them to map the spread and growth of settlements in the Copán Valley and estimate their populations. Between 400 and 450, the population was estimated at a peak of twenty-eight thousand, between 750 and 800 the population then began to steadily decline. By 900 the population had fallen to fifteen thousand, and by 1200 the population was again less than 1000.
Another piece of evidence used by historians to date the Classic Mayan decline is the absence of new buildings in the central Maya area after 830.
Theories More than 80 different theories or variations of theories attempting to explain the Classic Maya collapse have been identified.Gill (2000, p. 371) From climate change to deforestation to lack of action by Maya kings, there is no universally accepted collapse theory, although drought has gained momentum in the first quarter of the 21st century as the leading explanation, as more scientific studies are conducted."Like most things, collapse explanations are subject to fashion, and the one most in the limelight today is climatic change, or more specifically, megadrought." Quote is from Webster (2002, p. 239); see also article by Diamond (2003)
Foreign invasion The archaeological evidence of the Toltec intrusion into Seibal, Peten, suggests to some the theory of foreign invasion. The latest hypothesis states that the southern lowlands were invaded by a non-Maya group whose homelands were probably in the gulf coast lowlands. This invasion began in the 9th century and set off, within 100 years, a group of events that destroyed the Classic Maya. It is believed that this invasion was somehow influenced by the Toltec people of central Mexico. However, most Mayanists do not believe that foreign invasion was the main cause of the Classic Maya collapse; they postulate that no military defeat can explain or be the cause of the protracted and complex Classic collapse process. Teotihuacan influence across the Maya region may have involved some form of military invasion; however, it is generally noted that significant Teotihuacan-Maya interactions date from at least the Early Classic period, well before the episodes of Late Classic collapse.See Braswell(2003)
The foreign invasion theory does not answer the question of where the inhabitants went. David Webster believed that the population should have increased because of the lack of elite power. Further, it is not understood why the governmental institutions were not remade following the revolts, which happened under similar circumstances in places like China. A study by anthropologist Elliot M. Abrams came to the conclusion that buildings, specifically in Copán, did not require an extensive amount of time and workers to construct. However, this theory was developed during a period when the archaeological evidence showed that there were fewer Maya people than there are now known to have been.Webster (2002 pp. 221–223) Revolutions, peasant revolts, and social turmoil change circumstances, and are often followed by foreign wars, but they run their course. There are no documented revolutions that caused wholesale abandonment of entire regions.
Collapse of trade routes It has been hypothesized that the decline of the Maya is related to the collapse of their intricate trade systems, especially those connected to the central Mexican city of Teotihuacán. Preceding improved knowledge of the chronology of Mesoamerica, Teotihuacan was believed to have fallen during 700–750, forcing the "restructuring of economic relations throughout highland Mesoamerica and the Gulf Coast".Webster (2002 pp. 231) This remaking of relationships between civilizations would have then given the collapse of the Classic Maya a slightly later date. However, after researchers learned more about the events and the periods when they occurred, it is believed that the strongest Teotihuacan influence was during the 4th and 5th centuries. In addition, the civilization of Teotihuacan started to lose its power, and maybe abandoned the city, during 600–650. This differs greatly from the previous belief that Teotihuacán power decreased during 700–750.Webster (2002 pp. 231–234) But since the new decline date of 600–650 has been accepted, the Maya civilizations are now thought to have lived on and prospered "for another century and more"Webster (2002 pp. 232) than what was previously believed. Rather than the decline of Teotihuacan directly preceding the collapse of the Maya, its decline is now seen as contributing "to the 6th-century 'hiatus'".
Epidemic diseases The disease theory is also a contender as a factor in the Classic Maya collapse. Widespread disease could explain some rapid depopulation, both directly through the spread of infection itself and indirectly as an inhibition to recovery over the long run. According to Dunn (1968) and Shimkin (1973), infectious diseases spread by parasites are common in tropical rainforest regions, such as the Maya lowlands. Shimkin specifically suggests that the Maya may have encountered endemic infections related to American trypanosomiasis, Ascaris, and some enteropathogens that cause acute diarrheal illness. Furthermore, some experts believe that, through development of their civilization (that is, development of agriculture and settlements), the Maya could have created a "disturbed environment", in which parasitic and pathogen-carrying insects often thrive.Anderson and May (1982); R. Anderson (1982); Lycett (1985). Among the pathogens listed above, it is thought that those that cause the acute diarrheal illnesses would have been the most devastating to the Maya population, because such illness would have struck a victim at an early age, thereby hampering nutritional health and the natural growth and development of a child. This would have made them more susceptible to other diseases later in life, and would have been exacerbated by an increasing dependence on carbohydrate-rich crops. Such ideas as this could explain the role of disease as at least a possible partial reason for the Classic Maya Collapse.Santley, Killion, and Lycett (1986, pp. 140–141)
Drought theory
The drought theory holds that rapid climate change in the form of severe drought (a megadrought) brought about the Classic Maya collapse. Paleoclimatologists have discovered abundant evidence that prolonged droughts occurred in the Yucatán Peninsula and Petén Basin areas during the Terminal Classic. Large droughts likely caused a decline in agricultural fertility due to regular seasonal drought drying up surface waters,Webster (2002, p. 239) as well as causing thin tropical soils to erode when deprived of vegetation and forest cover.Coe (1999, pp. 26–27)
Climatic factors were first implicated in the collapse as early as 1931 by Mayanists Thomas Gann and J. E. S. Thompson.Gann & Thompson, The History of the Maya, 1931 In 1995, Hodell, Curtis, and Brenner published a paleoclimate record from Lake Chichancanab on the Yucatán Peninsula that showed an intense, protracted drought occurred in the 9th century AD and coincided with the Classic Maya collapse. In The Great Maya Droughts, Richardson Gill gathered and analyzed an array of climatic, historical, hydrologic, tree ring, volcanic, geologic, and archeological research, and suggested that a prolonged series of droughts likely caused the Classic Maya collapse.Gill (2000, passim.) The drought theory provides a comprehensive explanation, because non-environmental and cultural factors (excessive warfare, foreign invasion, peasant revolt, less trade, etc.) can all be explained by the effects of prolonged drought on Classic Maya civilization.Webster (2002, p. 99)
According to Gill in The Great Maya Droughts: