The Fall of the Maya: 'They Did it to Themselves'

Author: Dauna Coulter | Editor: Dr. Tony Phillips | Credit: Science@NASA

(http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/06oct_maya/)

October 6, 2009: For 1200 years, the Maya dominated Central America. At their
peak around 900 A.D., Maya cities teemed with more than 2,000 people per square
mile -- comparable to modern Los Angeles County. Even in rural areas the Maya
numbered 200 to 400 people per square mile. But suddenly, all was quiet. And the
profound silence testified to one of the greatest demographic disasters in human
prehistory -- the demise of the once vibrant Maya society.
What happened? Some NASA-funded researchers think they have a pretty good
idea.
"They did it to themselves," says veteran
archeologist Tom Sever.
Right Mayan ruins in Guatemala. Photo
copyright Tom Sever.
"The Maya are often depicted as people who
lived in complete harmony with their
environment,' says PhD student Robert
Griffin."But like many other cultures before
and after them, they ended up deforesting
and destroying their landscape in efforts to
eke out a living in hard times."
The Maya had cut down most of the trees across large swaths of the land to clear
fields for growing corn to feed their burgeoning population. They also cut trees for
firewood and for making building materials.
"They had to burn 20 trees to heat the limestone for making just 1 square meter of
the lime plaster they used to build their tremendous temples,
reservoirs, and monuments," explains Sever. The Maya
deforested through the use of slash-and-burn agriculture a
method still used in their old stomping grounds today, so the researchers
understand how it works.
"We know that for every 1 to 3 years you farm a piece of land, you need to let it lay
fallow for 15 years to recover. In that time, trees and vegetation can grow back
there while you slash and burn another area to plant in."
But what if you don't let the land lay fallow long enough to replenish itself? And
what if you clear more and more fields to meet growing demands for food?
"We believe that's what happened," says Griffin. "The Maya stripped large areas of
their landscape bare by over-farming."

Why Did the Mayan Civilization Collapse? A New Study Points to

Deforestation and Climate Change
A severe drought, exacerbated by widespread
logging, appears to have triggered the mysterious
Mayan demise
By Joseph Stromberg
smithsonian.com
August 23, 2012

It is long been one of ancient historys most intriguing mysteries: Why did the Maya,
a remarkably sophisticated civilization made up of more than 19 million people,
suddenly collapse sometime during the 8th or 9th centuries? In his 2005
book Collapse, though, Jared Diamond put forth a different sort of theorythat a
prolonged drought, exacerbated by ill-advised deforestation, forced Mayan
populations to abandon their cities. That hypothesis has finally been put to the test
with archaeological evidence and environmental data and the results published this
week in a pair of studies. Published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, researchers from Arizona State University analyzed
archaeological data from across the Yucatan to reach a better understanding of the
environmental conditions when the area was abandoned. Around this time, they
found, severe reductions in rainfall were coupled with a rapid rate of deforestation,
as the Mayans burned and chopped down more and more forest to clear land for
agriculture.
Because cleared land absorbs less solar radiation, less water evaporates from its
surface, making clouds and rainfall more scarce. As a result, the rapid deforestation
exacerbated an already severe drought. The lack of forest cover also contributed
to erosion and soil depletion. In a time of unprecedented population density, this
combination of factors was likely catastrophic. Crops failed, especially because the
droughts occurred disproportionately during the summer growing season.
Coincidentally, trade shifted from overland routes, which crossed the heart of the

lowland, to sea-based voyages, moving around the perimeter of the peninsula.

Since the traditional elite relied largely upon this tradealong with annual crop
surplusesto build wealth, they were sapped of much of their power. This forced
peasants and craftsmen into making a critical choice, perhaps necessary to escape
starvation: abandoning the lowlands. The results are the ornate ruins that stretch
across the peninsula today.

What Doomed the Maya? Maybe Warfare Run Amok

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD
Published: November 19, 1991
NASHVILLEThe New York Times

The Mayas' civilization was clearly the greatest to flourish in pre-Columbian America. They
studied the heavens to devise precise calendars, created a true writing system and built imposing
cities, with no evidence of any fortifications. Hence, archeologists assumed, the Mayas were an
unusually gentle, peaceful people living in a relatively benign theocracy ruled by sage priestkings.
But the earlier archeologists apparently got it wrong. In the last few years scholars have made
great strides in translating the Mayas' previously indecipherable writing system. From the
emerging texts and from recent excavations has emerged a new, at times bewildering, picture of
the Maya civilization at its peak, from A.D. 250 to 900. Great as their cultural and economic
achievements manifestly were, they had anything but a peaceful society.
Indeed, the latest feeling among scholars is that the increasing militarism of Maya society may
have undermined the ecological underpinnings of the economy. Some of them speculate that
siege warfare concentrated population in urban centers, caused desperate farmers to abandon
previously successful practices of diversified agriculture and led to overexploitation of the forest.
Dr. Arthur A. Demarest, an archeologist at Vanderbilt University here who directs an ambitious
Maya dig in Guatemala, said the evidence from stone art and texts points to the surprising
conclusion that "the Maya were one of the most violent state-level societies in the New World,
especially after A.D. 600."
Various writings and artifacts, Dr. Demarest said, indicate continual raiding and warfare between
the elites of adjacent city-states and also the practice of ritual bloodletting and human sacrifice.
The prestige of ruling dynasties, and hence their power, seemed to depend on their success in
battle and the sacrifice of prisoners of war.

As warfare became more widespread, Dr. Demarest and others have concluded, food shortages
forced the peasants into destructive farming practices and drove others into overcrowded,
impoverished cities for protection behind stone walls. The balance between ecology and "peace
through war" had been fatally disrupted.

Some Thoughts Concerning Collapse of the Classic Maya

Civilization
4/11/98
by Jeeni Criscenzo
(c)1998 Jeeni Criscenzo, All Rights reserved. Not to be copied or duplicated without written
permission.

Here is my theory:
A ruler's divine status was at the core of the Maya's view of their universe. His power to
influence the gods by bloodletting rituals made him a critical component to the order of
things. In some way or another (self-fulfilling prophecy... power of the human mind...
teamwork... who can say why...) these rulers were successful in bringing prosperity to their
people and so the belief system sustained itself and the civilization grew. And success begot
success. People never questioned the omnipotent power of their rulers and likewise each
new generation of royalty was convinced of their own divine powers.
At some point this unquestioned belief in their rulers started to wear thin. Perhaps there
was a series of natural disasters - drought, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes (maybe an
extreme El Nino?) or maybe ecological stress caused crops to fail. I think that whatever
these problems were, they probably instigated an increase in warfare. Rulers felt their
powers were failing and the gods required more and more royal blood - their own personal
bloodletting was insufficient - there was a frenzied campaign to secure other royalty to
sacrifice to the insatiable gods.
What happened when these royals were captured is that they were not immediately
sacrificed. They were kept for years to be bled at ritual ceremonies. Meanwhile there was no
one running the show back at their homes. Their heirs could not take over leadership
responsibilities because the ruler was still alive. As this frantic capturing of royalty
escalated, it became very risky to be of royal blood. I think that the intellegensia started to
abandon their posts. They were not brought down by their own people, they left
deliberately, in fear of capture by neighboring warriors. The result was chaos. The belief

system was shattered. And finally it got to the point that people just deserted the cities, and
rewrote the rules - adapting their belief system as best they could (they did not have the
education of the elite who had abandoned them, perhaps they couldn't even read or write.)
If this scenario is true - would you say that warfare was the dominant cause? I don't think
so. I would say that the dominant cause was a belief system that couldn't hold up under a
drastic change in circumstances. There is something important here for us to observe and
learn from. Our civilization is also undergoing dramatic change. Our belief systems are also
being questioned. Fundamentalist in all religions are trying desperately to stop change. But
change is inevitable.