WI: No Classic Maya Collapse
- Thread starter Caesar
- Start date
It might have happened later. How is it avoided? A heavy-handed possibility is, they develop really good sailing ships, and some priestess-type gets a dream which seems to be a message from the gods, telling the Mayans they should all leave their homeland and sail to another land somewhere, and the Mayans all pack up and wind up in Cuba. That doesn't seem all that likely though.
Or somebody discovers Iceland in 200 AD, it's famous for its whale soup, so it doesn't get ignored. Celtic Christians set up monasteries there and the Icelanders start fishing off Newfoundland ca. 500. Then explorers start sailing down the eastern coast and meet the Mayans ca. 700, barely in time to introduce lots of nice new ideas and prevent the Mayan collapse.
Or somebody discovers Iceland in 200 AD, it's famous for its whale soup, so it doesn't get ignored. Celtic Christians set up monasteries there and the Icelanders start fishing off Newfoundland ca. 500. Then explorers start sailing down the eastern coast and meet the Mayans ca. 700, barely in time to introduce lots of nice new ideas and prevent the Mayan collapse.
Yes, that might be a problem... But I was thinking more along the lines of cultural devleopment.
You would first have to explain why it did not occur. The Maya collapse was environmental, caused by a merciless exploitation of the soil by their brand of agriculture, as well as deforestation. When a drought hit in the early 10th century AD, it caused a catastrophic collapse on an already fragile existence.
Wasn't part of the problem that one of the Mayan city-states upset the traditional balance of power and began to subjugate other cities, then eventually collapsed? Or was that expansion in reaction to the environmental problem?
I vaguely remember reading about that somewhere, but I'm not sure what exactly happened.
The drought theory doesn't explain why the drier part of the Yucatan actually flourished as the Classic Period of the wetter Southern Lowlands was ending. Anyways, if the Terra Preta idea was adopted Tikal would probably continue its quest to dominate the Maya and after their subjugation over Calakmul nobody could possible stop them. They'd form some sort of a hegemonical empire over all the Maya and with terra preta be able to sustain a massive and dense population without too much deforestation.
wasn't mayan decline a combination of bad agriculture, and loss of faith in the kings?
on the flip side, if they did last that long, i can see the possiblilty of an extended Mayan empire from SW America to mexico, and the Mayan empire comes into conflict with the expanding United states of america.
on the flip side, if they did last that long, i can see the possiblilty of an extended Mayan empire from SW America to mexico, and the Mayan empire comes into conflict with the expanding United states of america.
the ecological disaster scenario seems probable, and is confirmed by archeological finds, but it still does not explain why the Mayan civilisation just collapsed like that
i mean cultures in so many places in the world managed to survive starvation and lack of resources, its was never easy, but it is doable, eventually a sustainable system is developed and things stabilize
the reason might be more cultural, or sociological
so perhaps a sociologically different Mayan culture, maybe with a stronger middle class that is more villing to maintain a classical form of culture, on a smaller more sustainable scale, than to simply let everything go and run for the hills
a scenario in which a kind of re urbanisation occurs with parallel ruralisation of the empire, similar to what happened in the Roman empire from around 300 to 500 AD
most of the urban population scatters, forming small sustainable rural communities, but the cities are never completely abandoned, rather the city outlay is reorganised, making room for inner gardens and small industry, with smaller denser residential blocks centered around forts or citadels, all within stronger fortifications closing up the formerly more opened area
the new rural population stays in relation with the new smaller urban centers as these are basically selfsustainable forts, maintaining political and economic control of the rural population with military superiority and cultural hegemony
so you get a new Mayan empire, or more probably a set of federations, or just warring city states, that somehow, even with a huge population drop, mutilated culture and reduced living standards, survives the general collapse, made out of dozens of small scattered heavily fortified burgs, in a landscape dotted with farms and vilages, but no more modernist urban planning and intensive monoculture
basically the middle ages, Central American stile
also hunting and resource regulation laws, such as those on Havai and the Eastern islands, set up for basically the same reasons, would be helpfull
of course for all this to happen first certain critical things must change in the cultural/sociological structure of the whole Mayan society
i mean imagine a culture dominated by large plan built urban areas, centered around a political system that is at once the administrative, religious and military complex, made out of the ruling aristocracy, but where the majority of the newly urbanized population are basically slaves and pesants, only a few generations out of the woods, who might have even lived better out there, and are now here, for the most part, basically because armed people tell them to, or their religion orders it
obviously as soon as such a system, sustained by a suicidal use of intensive monoculture, begins to break under the strain of inevitable starvation and the toll of frequent wars, the great majority of people living in these urban centers is most likely to just leave, as soon as the system is screwed up enough that theres no one effectively stopping them, especially if the colapse of the socio/economic system means the collapse of their belief system simultaneously
but if those people living in the big urban centres have something to keep them there besides social pressure, religion or threat of state violence, if those people consider that place to be theirs in some way, have a place there they have made themselves, a life as tradesmen or craftsmen, and as such a specific function and standard they want to keep, in other words if they identify with that place and consider they have a clam to it, they might be villing to stick around even after the former system colapses, reorganize their lives, find someone new to rule them, rearange the furniture a bit, but stay put
ewen if most of the population gets out as soon as possible and newer comes back it is enough that say...20% of the urbanised population stay put and survives, to maintain some kind of fortified urban living
later it is inevitable that these surviving fortified burgs become cultural and political centres, ruling the rural population
but for something like this to happen the urban population must not just live there, they must be truly urbanised, and see themselves as such, othervise when a large system colapses, obviously any logical human goes where more food is at, after all the local store has been consumed or looted
i mean cultures in so many places in the world managed to survive starvation and lack of resources, its was never easy, but it is doable, eventually a sustainable system is developed and things stabilize
the reason might be more cultural, or sociological
so perhaps a sociologically different Mayan culture, maybe with a stronger middle class that is more villing to maintain a classical form of culture, on a smaller more sustainable scale, than to simply let everything go and run for the hills
a scenario in which a kind of re urbanisation occurs with parallel ruralisation of the empire, similar to what happened in the Roman empire from around 300 to 500 AD
most of the urban population scatters, forming small sustainable rural communities, but the cities are never completely abandoned, rather the city outlay is reorganised, making room for inner gardens and small industry, with smaller denser residential blocks centered around forts or citadels, all within stronger fortifications closing up the formerly more opened area
the new rural population stays in relation with the new smaller urban centers as these are basically selfsustainable forts, maintaining political and economic control of the rural population with military superiority and cultural hegemony
so you get a new Mayan empire, or more probably a set of federations, or just warring city states, that somehow, even with a huge population drop, mutilated culture and reduced living standards, survives the general collapse, made out of dozens of small scattered heavily fortified burgs, in a landscape dotted with farms and vilages, but no more modernist urban planning and intensive monoculture
basically the middle ages, Central American stile
also hunting and resource regulation laws, such as those on Havai and the Eastern islands, set up for basically the same reasons, would be helpfull
of course for all this to happen first certain critical things must change in the cultural/sociological structure of the whole Mayan society
i mean imagine a culture dominated by large plan built urban areas, centered around a political system that is at once the administrative, religious and military complex, made out of the ruling aristocracy, but where the majority of the newly urbanized population are basically slaves and pesants, only a few generations out of the woods, who might have even lived better out there, and are now here, for the most part, basically because armed people tell them to, or their religion orders it
obviously as soon as such a system, sustained by a suicidal use of intensive monoculture, begins to break under the strain of inevitable starvation and the toll of frequent wars, the great majority of people living in these urban centers is most likely to just leave, as soon as the system is screwed up enough that theres no one effectively stopping them, especially if the colapse of the socio/economic system means the collapse of their belief system simultaneously
but if those people living in the big urban centres have something to keep them there besides social pressure, religion or threat of state violence, if those people consider that place to be theirs in some way, have a place there they have made themselves, a life as tradesmen or craftsmen, and as such a specific function and standard they want to keep, in other words if they identify with that place and consider they have a clam to it, they might be villing to stick around even after the former system colapses, reorganize their lives, find someone new to rule them, rearange the furniture a bit, but stay put
ewen if most of the population gets out as soon as possible and newer comes back it is enough that say...20% of the urbanised population stay put and survives, to maintain some kind of fortified urban living
later it is inevitable that these surviving fortified burgs become cultural and political centres, ruling the rural population
but for something like this to happen the urban population must not just live there, they must be truly urbanised, and see themselves as such, othervise when a large system colapses, obviously any logical human goes where more food is at, after all the local store has been consumed or looted
Last edited:
Snake Featherston
Banned
Considering the Maya were only part of one simultaneous collapse all over Mesoamerica, the changes required to do this have to effect some of the same contemporary societies. No Uzto-Aztecan migration south, perhaps?
Snake Featherston
Banned
That's all well and good...except everywhere else collapsed at the same time in Mesoamerica. Environmental collapse doesn't explain the fall of say, Teotihuacan at the same time, or the Oaxaca Valley civilization....
So why did all the other Mesoamerican societies collapse at around the same time?
The collapse is everywhere in the region, from the Yucatan up to the Valley of Mexico. My opinion is that the Uzto-Aztecan migration combined with other factors to mean that traditional Mayan solutions were outstripped by the problems their societies faced.
Was there a drought in Oaxaca or the Valley of Mexico?
Again, to avoid this, you have to avoid a Mesoamerican collapse, not just a Mayan one alone. It's like trying to prevent the revolutions in Russia, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire, as all were interconnected.
I'm afraid whether the Mayans collapse or not would probably make no difference. In the end, the Spanish would bring guns, germs, and the Bible to the region, and the end result would look pretty similar to today's Americas.
Except that as far as we can tell, the collapse of Mesoamerican civilizations was neither rapid, simultaneous nor complete. The dating of the collapse of Teotihuacan is somewhat contested, but the balance of evidence suggests that it collapsed during the seventh century CE. The Classical Maya lasted a lot longer; most of their cities collapsed during the ninth and tenth centuries CE, and even then some of their cities lasted longer (Chichen Itza until around 1000 CE, Uxmal until 1200 CE). The decline of Zapotecs in the the Oaxaca Valley was not swift; their capital at Monte Alban slowly declined in influence as other regional centres emerged, and was abandoned by around 750-800 CE, again before the collapse of the Classical Maya.
While the collapse of these societies was not simultaneous with that of the Maya, agricultural collapse was common amongst a lot of Mesoamerican and neighbouring civilizations over a variety of periods. It affected the Anasazi and Mississippian agricultural civilizations at various periods too, for example. The nature of the Mesoamerican agricultural package doesn't seem to have been suitably for long-term stability in the same sites. While peoples often relocated within the same general area (a lot of the Anasazi, at least for a while), the relatively marginal nature of their agriculture shouldn't be underestimated.
The question is whether the Uto-Aztecan migrations were what caused the collapse, or were allowed by the collapse. Even then, the Uto-Aztecans don't really seem to have reached a lot of the areas of Classical Maya civilization.
It probably comes back again to the agricultural package. Better crops, or at least better farming techniques, were needed. Either earlier use of bronze tools, knowledge of fertilisation by wood ash and the like, crop rotation, transmission of Andean crops and domesticated animals (potatoes, sweet potatoes, llamas) or some combination of the above would have definitely helped.
Snake Featherston
Banned
According to what I've read, by AD 750, most classical Mayan cities were no more significant than say, Lugdunum would have been by AD 400. The collapse began and expanded rapidly right around when Monte Alban began to collapse, as did Teotihuacan.
Jared said:
Demographically, by AD 800, most Classical Mayan cities were villages by comparison to what they were 200 years prior to that. The collapse was simultaneous.
Jared said:
You could ask the same about the Volkerwanderung in the West in the 500s. Was that what caused the collapse of Roman rule, or was it allowed by a collapse already long in place?
Jared said:
The Classic Mayan cities weren't that much smaller than Teotihuacan, which collapsed around the same time the demographic bust began in the Mayan cities proper. Something that can support tens of thousands on Paleolithic technology ain't that bad....
Our sources must differ, because from what I've read, Teotihuacan reached its peak around 450 CE, with the population entering significant decline during the sixth century, and with the city abandoned entirely sometime around 650 to 700 CE. Some Maya cities may have been declining by then, but lots of them were still flourishing, with enough population to support some rather extensive building works even during the mid to late eighth century. (Cancuén built its major palace around 770 CE, for example). The collapse really hit during the ninth century. So where Teotihuacan started to decline during the sixth century, the Maya mostly started to decline during the eighth century. I wouldn't consider that simultaneous.
Monte Alban itself went into population decline from around 500 CE, and although the site doesn't seem to have been abandoned as rapidly as Teotihuacan, it had become insignificant by 700 CE, while the Classical Maya were still going along quite well.
By AD 700, Teotihuacan was abandoned, and Monte Alban was insignificant, and both those cities had been in decline since 450-500 AD, when the Maya were still flourishing.
Given that Rome had started fighting amongst itself long before the Volkerwanderung really got started, and had also been in population decline long before then; demographically, Rome didn't really recover from the Antonine Plague. So in that particular case, I'd say that the Roman collapse had started significantly before the Volkerwanderung, although the latter certainly didn't help.
In the case of Mesoamerica, the question could be rephrased as whether invasion brought about the end (or was otherwise a significant contributor) to the Classical Maya collapse. Or that of Teotihuacan, come to that. Invasion is certainly one possibility for Teotihuacan (although sources differ), but is generally viewed as insignificant in the collapse of the Classical Maya.
The thing is that maize as a crop can give really high yields; much higher than wheat did, usually classical farming techniques. This supports a high population... for a while. But maize is quite labour-intensive and very hard on the soil. Without some techniques for refertilising the soil (crop rotation, wood ash, animal manure if you have domesticated animals), it really does exhaust the soil. It also means that even a couple of bad years can be really bad.
Maize-based agriculture exhausting the soil seems to be quite a common pattern going back as far as the Olmecs, with San Lorenzo and La Venta being abandoned in turn. It showed up again during the Anasazi (repeatedly) and with a lot of the Mississippian cities; Cahokia and Moundville, for instance. And soil exhaustion (from maize-based agriculture) has been implicated as part of the reason for the Classical Maya collapse, although of course it may not be the only one.
As to the problem of soil depletion, some recent discussions in some of the classes have gotten me thinking. I know that in the southern lowlands they used raised field cultivation with decaying plant matter as fertilizer, but as has been brought up before there is a limit to what they could do raise yields. Now, one of the classes I'm taking is on ancient Mesoamerican art and there is strong evidence of contact with Teotihuacan and Central Mexico. Perhaps a stronger trade network could help to supplement food resources?
Given the population collapse of Native populations pst Columbus I sometimes wonder if there may of been an earlier contact that introduced disease of some sort. A ship gets blown off couse and winds up in the Yucatan with a crew carrying Small Pox or Measles. The crew never gets home hence nobody in Europe, Asia or North Africa finds out about the Americas? I have never heard this mentioned as a reason for the collapse but.......
Going past how the Classic Maya continue onward (lets say they sustain the population and environment as best they can using terra preta), what would the Yucatan look like when the Spanish arrive? Will Tikal continue going on the warpath and absorbing polities within its sphere of influence? What will happen to Calakmul? Destroyed? Integrated?
The way I see it Tikal would eventually form a hegemonical empire that lets each polity retain its nobility (mostly at best, if they had tried to resist) and puppet kings that govern their own land as long as they work toward Tikal's greater purpose. The Itza might form a similar arrangement in the northern Yucatan if they survive, but I can't see them surviving for long or very well without the OTL imports from places like Chetumal that they relied on. So by the time the Spanish come the Itza may have willingly joined the Maya. The Aztecs, if they are not butterflied away, would not be able to harm them considering the Maya have a long history of complex warfare and political intrigue that develops diplomacy and fighting technique to a degree the Aztec newcomers cannot fathom.
The result may be a modern Maya state, considering in OTL they have been beaten down again and again, suffered drought, plague, and poverty, and they still fight on. Chan Santa Cruz lasted a spectacular long time. So with greater sense of unity and more time for scientific advancements can a modern Maya state survive to the present, perhaps even retaining their religion in any form, language, and writing system? I desperately want to write a story about this happening now.
The way I see it Tikal would eventually form a hegemonical empire that lets each polity retain its nobility (mostly at best, if they had tried to resist) and puppet kings that govern their own land as long as they work toward Tikal's greater purpose. The Itza might form a similar arrangement in the northern Yucatan if they survive, but I can't see them surviving for long or very well without the OTL imports from places like Chetumal that they relied on. So by the time the Spanish come the Itza may have willingly joined the Maya. The Aztecs, if they are not butterflied away, would not be able to harm them considering the Maya have a long history of complex warfare and political intrigue that develops diplomacy and fighting technique to a degree the Aztec newcomers cannot fathom.
The result may be a modern Maya state, considering in OTL they have been beaten down again and again, suffered drought, plague, and poverty, and they still fight on. Chan Santa Cruz lasted a spectacular long time. So with greater sense of unity and more time for scientific advancements can a modern Maya state survive to the present, perhaps even retaining their religion in any form, language, and writing system? I desperately want to write a story about this happening now.
Last edited: