• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Dark Knight

Troll-slayer
2 Badges
Jun 8, 2000
9.512
1
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • 500k Club
No Cataclysm Brought Down Maya
New Research Suggests 200-Year Dry Spell and Drought Had Big Role in 'Collapse'

By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 14, 2003; Page A13

Beginning in the 8th century and continuing for 150 years, the great Mayan civilization of the Petén rain forest in present-day Guatemala fell apart. Cities were abandoned, people fled and wars raged across the encroaching wilderness.

This prolonged event -- known traditionally as the Maya "collapse" -- is one of the enduring mysteries of pre-Columbian America and a subject of continued debate. How did it happen?

In research reported yesterday, a German-led team of earth scientists offered new evidence that a 200-year dry spell, punctuated by three periods of serious drought, may have played an important role.

"There's competition for food, there are wars, there's deforestation, and the climate is drier," said paleo-oceanographer Gerald Haug of Potsdam's Geoscience Center. "These were problems you could cope with to a certain degree -- but then you had the extremes. It's a subtle catalyst."

By measuring the undisturbed sediments of Venezuela's Cariaco Basin on the Caribbean coast, Haug's team was able to identify a significant decline in regional rainfall beginning around A.D. 750, with drought spikes starting at 810, 860 and 910.

The sequence corresponds fairly closely to protracted Maya upheavals that began in the western Petén in the late 7th century, and in the central Petén lowlands in the 9th century. By A.D. 930, some archaeologists calculate that the Maya heartland had lost 95 percent of its population.

For more than a century, this diaspora bewildered archaeologists even as it cemented the popular vision of a "lost civilization" of spectacular pyramids and monuments overtaken by jungle in a trackless tropical wilderness.

Much more is known today, and archaeologists are much less likely to accept overarching theories for the "collapse," a term that is losing cachet as evidence accumulates that the Maya did not "disappear," but simply moved: north to Yucatan in Mexico, eastward to Belize and to highland settlements on the edges of the rain forest.

"It's not a question of whether there was a drought or an invasion. There wasn't some big, single anything that happened at some big, single time," said Vanderbilt University archaeologist Arthur A. Demarest, who is editing a book on the period. "This kind of theory doesn't have a place anymore, given the detail of cultural history we have."

More sympathetic was the University of Pennsylvania's Robert J. Sharer, author of a classic text on the Maya, who noted that "climate changes, including drought, have always been part of the mix," and "the argument has been strengthened" over the last 10 years. "But what everybody wants is a pat answer," Sharer continued, "and we're still not at that point, and probably never will be."

The new research, reported yesterday in the journal Science, was sponsored by the Ocean Drilling Program, a multinational initiative led by the National Science Foundation. Haug's team studied the topmost layers of a 170-meter Cariaco Basin core sample.

The basin in Venezuela is about 1,800 miles east of the Petén, but both places lie on the "Intertropical Convergence Zone," also known as the doldrums, a band that encircles the Earth where the northern and southern trade winds meet to create a region of almost perpetual thunderstorms. When it rains in the basin, it is raining in the Petén.

"The Cariaco Basin is the best climatological archive in the tropics, and since the

Maya region is clearly affected by the same climate, it was perfect for us," Haug said.

Just as important, the deeper waters of the Cariaco Basin have been oxygen-free for 14,600 years, since rising sea levels breached natural barriers and filled what had been a lake, displacing fresh water, which subsequently returned to cover the surface like a suffocating blanket. The sterile environment allows sediment to fall unimpeded to the bottom of the basin, where it rests undisturbed.

During the rainy season, runoff from the surrounding area deposits dark sediments on the basin bottom. When the convergence zone migrates, the dry season sets in, and the sediments are lighter, composed principally of plankton from the basin's oxygenated top layer.

Each year has a dark and a light layer, and Haug's team found that the dark layers beginning around A.D. 750 became thinner, and then became much thinner during the three spiking periods of three to 10 years each.

"No one archaeological model is likely to capture completely a phenomenon as complex as the Maya decline," the authors wrote in Science. "Nevertheless, the Cariaco Basin sediment record provides support for the hypothesis that regional drought played an important role."

Demarest said, however, that the western Petén was receiving 100 inches of rainfall per year during the latter half of the 8th century, when warfare ravaged the region and destroyed the culture. "It's a very varied picture," Demarest said, and no single theory fits everywhere.

Besides drought and war, scholars over the years have placed varying degrees of blame for the Maya decline on pestilence, overpopulation, environmental degradation and class warfare, with varying degrees of evidence.

"But that kind of theory doesn't work anymore, because we have too many details," Demarest said. "The only approach that works is to look at it in detail, region by region, and hook up the cultural histories, and we are just doing that now. These changes in the Maya took a long time -- like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire."
 

Vandelay

CEO Vandelay Industries
4 Badges
Feb 13, 2001
1.406
0
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
I agree with the article in that the decline of the Maya can´t be de explained by one factor, but rather a combination of factors - both ecological (drought, other climate changes, the difficulties of farming in rain forest etc.) and societal (near endemic internal warfare, possible invasion from central Mexico, the "parasitical" nature of the towns and cities).

The interesting thing is that while Maya urban culture is impressive it mightn´t have been all that beneficial to the average Mayan Joe. After all the cities declined but the Maya themselves remained and remain to this day.

Cheers,
Vandelay
 

unmerged(5487)

First Lieutenant
Aug 24, 2001
229
0
Visit site
Core-samples can be used to determine many things, but to put more weight behind the "drought theory" a combined study of core-sample and a study of macro-fossils (seeds, leaves, fracture of plants) from within the rain forestwould have strengthen the theory.
A drought in a rain forest must have some kind of effect on the plants living there.

As usual when large populations disappear, several factors are involved.
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Vandelay
I agree with the article in that the decline of the Maya can´t be de explained by one factor, but rather a combination of factors - both ecological (drought, other climate changes, the difficulties of farming in rain forest etc.) and societal (near endemic internal warfare, possible invasion from central Mexico, the "parasitical" nature of the towns and cities).

The interesting thing is that while Maya urban culture is impressive it mightn´t have been all that beneficial to the average Mayan Joe. After all the cities declined but the Maya themselves remained and remain to this day.

Cheers,
Vandelay

But was the *Roman* empire, impressive as it was, all that good for the average Roman Joe?

Remember, the Roman smallholders reduced from yeoman status to serfs tied to the land - the Senatorial families owning large holdings - the extensive reliance on slavery as a means of production - the unemployed urban proles - the crushing tax burden ...
 

Vandelay

CEO Vandelay Industries
4 Badges
Feb 13, 2001
1.406
0
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
But was the *Roman* empire, impressive as it was, all that good for the average Roman Joe?

Depends. For the Roman slave probably No. For the Roman citizens? Well, they received free bread and other handouts/ political bribes tec, but then again we might ask the question was the neolitization benificial to Joe the Hunter? Probably no...

More seriously: Mayan urbanism to seems to me to be very much a temple/palace based affair (similar to early Mesopotamian urbanism) with a near parasitical nature in the sense that they seem to have been producers of ideology (monarchy and religion entwined) and some luxuries but little else. There seem to have been no transition to a partial market-economy and merchant class, unlike Mesopotamia where such tenedencies are present in the early 2nd millenium BC, or signs of the city functioning as a platform for a communal decision making progress such as the Greek polieis.

This might indicate that Mayan urbanism didn´t have as robust a political or economical base as e.g. urban societies in the Near East, North Africa and Europe.

Anyway, this is just so much rambling. My point was really that Mayan civilization didn´t collapse. Urbanism as one phenomenon of Mayan civilization did. The Mayans are still around.

Cheers,
Vandelay
 

unmerged(2833)

Grandpa Maur
Apr 10, 2001
8.614
5
Visit site
Well, i once heard that societes where humans have the biggest amount of free time are hunter-gatherer ones. Seems that civilization reached its peak 12'000 years ago and since then its steadily declining:D
 

unmerged(2695)

General
Apr 5, 2001
1.848
0
Visit site
Originally posted by DarthMaur
Well, i once heard that societes where humans have the biggest amount of free time are hunter-gatherer ones. Seems that civilization reached its peak 12'000 years ago and since then its steadily declining:D

The male of the human species in fact lost everything in the course of scoial evolution. No more lazing about in the sun between the hunting trips watching the women do all the heavy work. No more adrenaline kicks in hunting or battle. No more wanton violence, rape and slaughter.

Just mindless discipline and backbreaking toil;)
 

unmerged(10416)

Winter depri
Jul 28, 2002
3.333
3
Originally posted by DarthMaur
Well, i once heard that societes where humans have the biggest amount of free time are hunter-gatherer ones. Seems that civilization reached its peak 12'000 years ago and since then its steadily declining:D

exACTly, dude! :D

of course, going from well-fed to starving doesn't take all that long for a hunter-gatherer, and there's a reason people exchanged their pleasant (during good times) life for the monotony of agriculture, where in good times life was not as pleasant as the hunter's life but where bad times were not nearly as bad for the farmer as they were for the hunter.
 

Malthus

Malthusian
Aug 10, 2001
343
0
Visit site
Originally posted by Karl Martell
exACTly, dude! :D

of course, going from well-fed to starving doesn't take all that long for a hunter-gatherer, and there's a reason people exchanged their pleasant (during good times) life for the monotony of agriculture, where in good times life was not as pleasant as the hunter's life but where bad times were not nearly as bad for the farmer as they were for the hunter.

I don't know if this is strictly speaking true, as hunter-gatherers could almost always find *something* to eat, even in the worst times and on the most marginal land (where most hunter-gatherers live these days).

Farmers, on the other hand, are extremely dependant on the weather - while they may have sufficient food stored of *one* bad year, two or more in a row usually created famines. Unlike hunter-gatherers, the farmers generally could not rely on switching to less suitable foods during lean times - it was the crops or nothing.

So why be a farmer? This is in fact a bit of a mystery.

One theory - Well, there were certainly a lot of "inbetween" phases, where hunter/gatherers "aided" suitable plants in a proto-agricultural way. This would lead to an increase in the amount of favoured foods, and an increase in population (hunter gatherers usually practiced population control, to avoid over-population). At some point, the population would get so large as to become dependant on the crops. With more people, agricultural societies would tend to displace numerically inferior hunter-gatherers, forcing them onto marginal lands - and become at the same time dependant on crops.

Thus was hard work born. :p
 

Vandelay

CEO Vandelay Industries
4 Badges
Feb 13, 2001
1.406
0
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • 500k Club
  • Europa Universalis III: Collection
One theory is that cereal farming and animal husbandry developed in response to them being used in various rituals (offerings, potlatches) - some suggest the cereals would have been used to make alcohol (which would have been used in the rituals).

Another hypothesis is that the development/ encouragemnt of settled life and agriculture allowed high-status individuals to amass more status (e.g. by officiating at above rituals).

And of course the oldest theory - agriculture as part of a response to population growth and/ or climate changes.

Take your pick!!!

Cheers,
Vandelay