The year is 810 and the location is Central Petén. Tikal’s ruling dynasty is constructing its last ever building, a stone monument to celebrate the current K’atun ending. Conclusively this was nothing short of remarkable considering Tikal had only recently blossomed like never before in its history, it had a population of roughly 280,000, over 1,500,000 including its vassal city states as well. Indeed the entire Classic Maya world (250AD-900AD) was undergoing changes too, albeit they fluctuated in severity region by region, as the civilisation moved into a new age in its history: The Postclassic Era (900AD-1525AD). Tikal, arguably the greatest Maya city state of the age, was swiftly deserted as the political figure at its foundation, the
…show more content…
Veritably this holds merit in specific areas as at Chichen Itza where the architecture and art explains its existence beyond much of the other Maya cities. Not only is it new and adapted from older Maya mythology, but it closely resembles that of the Toltec capital Tula (which are 800 miles apart). Chichen Itza has 14 Chaacmools , while Tula has 12 , both of which are remarkably similar in style. Hitherto it is probable that trade links were established between the two kingdoms limiting the effects of the drought enabling them to last a few decades longer than the other Yucatan poleis of Puuc and Coba who didn’t have such links. Moreover the speed of the decline was potentially dramatically increased on the regions where the Maya people who fled the hubs from Petexbatun inhabited, like Dos Pilas, as they went to neighbouring cities which were unable to sufficiently cope with the new flux of refugees. However when findings like these are imposed upon the gradual decline of the Maya as a whole, then the accounts become less truthful. Substantiating this was the theory that foreign invasion accounted for the decline. Certainly there is evidence of this at Ceibal , but to then perpetuate the evidence at Chichen Itza to claim it was a Toltec city goes against logistics. Fundamentally viewing the …show more content…
Hodell even goes as far saying it holds the key behind the collapse of the Maya, whilst it makes the subject far simpler to engage. Catastrophically these droughts resulted in less water available for an increasing population, from external factors (refugees) and internal ones. Undeniably there is evidence behind the hypothesis. Tecoh is key, showing that Oxygen-Isotope data points towards 8 severe droughts between 800AD and 950AD. Simultaneously Lake Chichancanab’s data concurs. Conceivably the evidence is broader than this and stretches to Venezuela (a non-Maya area). Notwithstanding some historians dispute the wider evidence, alongside localising it to only northern Maya lowlands. In the southern Petexbatun the gradual decline occurred before any of the data compiled points towards changes climatically causing successive droughts. Therefore how can cyclical droughts contribute to the Classic Maya’s gradual decline here, which is the origin of the Maya Collapse? Moreover the Yucatan experienced population growth during the drought itself, impossible if it had devastating consequences. Alongside this, the success of chultun chambers (southern Maya inventions) at supplying water even during droughts limits its potential impact on Maya states that used them. Furthermore the attitude of some historians towards the role of scientists is problematic. Often they are
Veritably this holds merit in specific areas as at Chichen Itza where the architecture and art explains its existence beyond much of the other Maya cities. Not only is it new and adapted from older Maya mythology, but it closely resembles that of the Toltec capital Tula (which are 800 miles apart). Chichen Itza has 14 Chaacmools , while Tula has 12 , both of which are remarkably similar in style. Hitherto it is probable that trade links were established between the two kingdoms limiting the effects of the drought enabling them to last a few decades longer than the other Yucatan poleis of Puuc and Coba who didn’t have such links. Moreover the speed of the decline was potentially dramatically increased on the regions where the Maya people who fled the hubs from Petexbatun inhabited, like Dos Pilas, as they went to neighbouring cities which were unable to sufficiently cope with the new flux of refugees. However when findings like these are imposed upon the gradual decline of the Maya as a whole, then the accounts become less truthful. Substantiating this was the theory that foreign invasion accounted for the decline. Certainly there is evidence of this at Ceibal , but to then perpetuate the evidence at Chichen Itza to claim it was a Toltec city goes against logistics. Fundamentally viewing the …show more content…
Hodell even goes as far saying it holds the key behind the collapse of the Maya, whilst it makes the subject far simpler to engage. Catastrophically these droughts resulted in less water available for an increasing population, from external factors (refugees) and internal ones. Undeniably there is evidence behind the hypothesis. Tecoh is key, showing that Oxygen-Isotope data points towards 8 severe droughts between 800AD and 950AD. Simultaneously Lake Chichancanab’s data concurs. Conceivably the evidence is broader than this and stretches to Venezuela (a non-Maya area). Notwithstanding some historians dispute the wider evidence, alongside localising it to only northern Maya lowlands. In the southern Petexbatun the gradual decline occurred before any of the data compiled points towards changes climatically causing successive droughts. Therefore how can cyclical droughts contribute to the Classic Maya’s gradual decline here, which is the origin of the Maya Collapse? Moreover the Yucatan experienced population growth during the drought itself, impossible if it had devastating consequences. Alongside this, the success of chultun chambers (southern Maya inventions) at supplying water even during droughts limits its potential impact on Maya states that used them. Furthermore the attitude of some historians towards the role of scientists is problematic. Often they are