In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Framing the Maya Collapse Continuity, Discontinuity, Method, and Practice in the Classic to Postclassic Southern Maya Lowlands Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase Despite substantial new research on both the Classic (ad 250–900) and the Postclassic (ad 900–1542 [1697]) period Maya, views of the Classic Maya collapse and of the changes that took place in the subsequent Postclassic period are very little changed from paradigms established more than thirty years ago. While the Postclassic Maya are no longer viewed as a decadent and declining population, explanations for a regenerated Maya society continue a traditional focus on causal factors such as environmental change or destruction, internal or external warfare, and the rise of mercantilism. We suggest that viewing the Maya from the perspective of “frames”—a methodological approach that is used in other disciplines (see Goffman 1974)— provides a different and potentially more holistic view of the transformation and restructuring of Maya society. Our archaeological research at the sites of Caracol (Belize), Nohmul (Belize), Santa Rita Corozal (Belize), and Tayasal (Guatemala) provides the data for a multiframe analysis.We believe that this perspective not only is more dynamic, but also more clearly indicates the disjunctions of the Terminal Classic (ad 790–900) with bordering time periods and highlights the aspects of Classic period society that are incorporated into the regenerated Postclassic period. The Classic Maya collapse, defined by the cessation of erecting carved and inscribed stone stelae and altars and by the depopulation of Classic Maya cities in the southern lowlands during the ninth century฀ad, has been viewed as resulting from a variety of factors.Possible causal explanations include peasant revolts and warfare, ideological predilections, environmental degradation, drought, epidemic disease, and natural disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes (see Culbert 1973a, 1988). The subsequent reconstituted Postclassic society has been portrayed as more focused on warfare, water, and trade (Chase and Rice 1985). Some have suggested that the Post11 Classic to Postclassic Southern Maya Lowlands 169 classic Maya can be characterized by decentralized and privatized worship (Freidel and Sabloff 1984). Other archaeologists, following Jeremy Sabloff and William Rathje (1975), consider a defining characteristic of the Postclassic Maya to have been mercantilism (e.g., Masson 2002). While there is a long history of publication on the collapse and on the transition between the Classic and the Postclassic period, no single viewpoint is overwhelmingly supported by hard archaeological data, leaving most archaeologists to avoid the question and to note the probability that complex multiple causes were responsible for the collapse (e.g., Sharer 1994; Webster 2002). There have been critical advances in our knowledge base relative to the Classic Maya collapse. Investigations have revealed key facts that we were unaware of thirty years ago. Importantly, it is now apparent that the collapse was not a single uniform event but rather took place at different times throughout the sites of the southern Maya lowlands (fig. 11.1). Hieroglyphic inscriptions ceased at Dos Pilas at฀ad฀760, when the site was under siege (Demarest 1997), and at Tikal at฀ad฀889, when that site’s palaces were being infilled with trash (Harrison 1999). Complicating this picture, however, are the many Maya sites that were occupied past their last monument dates (such as Caracol [A. Chase and D. Chase 2004a:345]). Other sites, which were not overt participants in the Late Classic Maya stela-altar cult, had substantial populations that continued into the Postclassic era (e.g., Lamanai [Pendergast 1986] and Tayasal [A. Chase 1990]). Thus, population decline is not necessarily correlated with a cessation of monument erection or a lack of monuments (see also Webster 2002:187 for Copán and A. Chase and D. Chase 2006 for Caracol).A focus on monument erection alone likely provides a skewed picture of the Maya collapse (e.g., Lowe 1985), but without the monuments as a guide, dating of the latest archaeological occupation at any site can prove difficult. Even advances in radiocarbon dating and in obsidian hydration dating have not resolved the timing of the collapse; instead, these absolute dating methods have been used to argue (somewhat controversially, e.g., Braswell 1992) for lingering populations that lasted for two centuries beyond the dates on the latest stone monuments at sites such as Copán, Honduras (Webster 2002; Webster et al. 1993). However, our knowledge of the latest Classic period (or“Terminal Classic ”) Maya has been expanded. It is now apparent that the final monuments in the southern Maya lowlands are often distinct stylistically...

Share