INTRODUCTIONThe Maya of Mesoamerica have

fascinated the public for decades. The latestexample is Mel Gibson's movie Apoca1ypto(2006) depicting, with many inaccuracies,the 'decline' of the Maya civilization.Around 900 A.D. most of the major Mayacities in the southern lowlands wereabandoned. Archaeologists refer to thisevent as the 'classic Maya collapse'. Whythe collapse occurred is widely discussed.Archaeologists and scholars of otherdisciplines have provided diverseexplanations for the phenomenon, which canroughly be divided into two groups: modelsthat emphasize ecological/environmentalfactors (e.g., climate change, environmentaldegradation, or diseases), and those thatstress socio-politica1 issues (e.g., classconflict or decentralization). In this paper, Iwill examine different explanations for theclassic Maya collapse and how these authorsconsider the collapse as a result of acombination of multiple factors. I willfurther critically discuss, based on recentresearch, the concept of 'collapse' and arguefor its replacement with the notions oftransition or transformation.

EXPLANATIONS FOR THECOLLAPSE

The Classic period of the ancientMaya (ca. 250-900 A.D.) is characterized bythe rise of city-states with palaces, temples,and inscribed stone monuments (stelae)throughout what is today southern Mexico,Belize, Guatemala and Honduras. Thesestates were ruled by divine kings or lords(Marcus 2003:86; Paine & Freter 1996:37).The major cities were often surrounded bysmaller (satellite) cities governed bysub10rds (Marcus 2003:102). During theTerminal Classic period around 850-950

A.D. (Lucero 2002:820)1, fundamentalchanges occurred. Around 900 A.D. thesechanges resulted in the cessation ofconstruction of the stelae, hieroglyphic textsand other monuments such as temples andpalaces, in the curtailment of production ofpolychrome ceramics, in the end of thedivine ru1ership, and, eventually, in theabandonment of the major cities in thesouthern lowlands. Sites in the northernlowlands, however, continued to flourishuntil around 1000 A.D. (Iannone 2005:26;Rice 2004:2; Sab10ff & Andrews 1986:9;Shaw 2003:157, 159). These transformationshave been termed by archaeologists as the'Classic Maya Collapse'. Scholars havesuggested a variety of possible explanationsfor the 'collapse'; I will present some ofthem in the following sections.

Fig. 1: Map of the Maya area (Sant1ey et ai.1986:124)

1 Rice and colleagues (2004:8) suggest 800/830-950/1000 A.D. as dates for the Terminal Classic.

TOTEM: vo1.16 2007-20082008 TOTEM: The U.W.O. Journal of Anthropology

Climate ChangeNatural scientists from vanous

disciplines such as geosciences, earthsciences and chemistry, argue that severaldroughts played a significant role in thecollapse. According to Haug and colleagues(2003: 1731), three droughts struck the Mayaaround 810, 860 and 910 A.D. Peterson andHaug (2005:327) add a fourth, whichoccurred around 760 A.D. These droughtswere caused by shifts in the atmosphere(peterson & Haug 2005:322). Although theMaya had developed techniques to secureaccess to water such as excavations andquarries as water reservoirs and complexirrigation systems, the southern lowlandsdepended on rainfall for their agriculturalproduction because natural groundwaterresources were scarce (Haug et al.2003:1733f.; Peterson & Haug 2005:323f.,327). In contrast, the population in thenorthern lowlands had better access togroundwater and were, therefore, lessaffected by the droughts. The authors implythat the different access to groundwater isthe reason why the northern lowland sitesdid not collapse at the same time as thestates in the southern lowlands (Haug et al.2003: 1734; Peterson & Haug 2005 :327).

Drawing on archaeologists and otherscholars, the natural scientists list furtherfactors that contributed to the collapse suchas rapid population growth, environmentaldegradation (Haug et al. 2003: 1733;Peterson & Haug 2005:328), resourceexploitation, and internal warfare (peterson& Haug 2005:328). Moreover, the droughtsundermined the power of the lords. Theirauthority was closely linked to the control ofthe water resources and, therefore, declinedas their ceremonies and technologies failedto secure rainfall (Haug et at. 2003: 1734;Peterson & Haug 2005:328).

Yancheva and colleagues (2007)argue that changes in the global climatebetween 700 and 900 A.D., specifically

migrations in the intertropical convergencezone, caused a drier climate and a series ofmulti-year droughts in the Maya area(ibid.:74, 77). Although these naturalscientists do not present further possiblecauses, their proposition that the "migrationsof the tropical rain belt could havecontributed' to the collapse (ibid.:74; myemphasis) implies that other factors mayhave also played a role.

Shaw (2003), an archaeologist, alsosuggests climate change as a major factorcontributing to the collapse. She argues thatanthropogenic deforestation exacerbated analready drier (worldwide cooler) climateresulting in famine (ibid.:157, 164). Due topopulation growth, the Maya deforestedlarge areas for agricultural use whichresulted in increased temperatures, adecrease in evapotranspiration2 and, thus, ina decrease in rainfall (ibid.: 162).Additionally, when rain fell heavily indeforested areas it caused soil erosion andflooding (ibid.: 164). Shaw further points outthat Maya sites were not uniformly affectedby the climate change, referring not only todifferences between the northern andsouthern lowlands but also to different siteswithin the southern lowlands (ibid.: 160f.).According to her, deforestation is a possibleexplanation for the "mosaic" climate change(ibid.: 157, 161).

Moreover, Shaw suggests thatdroughts affected the Maya in the southernlowlands more severely than those in thenorthern lowlands because: (a) they weremore dependent on rainfall throughevapotranspiration, (b) they had less accessto groundwater, (c) their agricultural

2 Evapotranspiration means "the transport of waterinto the atmosphere from surfaces, including soil(soil evaporation), and from vegetation(transpiration)" (Burba 2006). Other forms ofevaporation, contributing to the process ofevapotranspiration, are evaporation from wet canopysurface and from "vegetation-covered water surfacein wetlands" (ibid.).

TOTEM: vo1.16 2007-2008

practices relied on a water surplus3, and (d)

deforestation was more widespread than inthe north (2003: 162ff.). She concludes thatdecline of rainfall cannot be viewed as thesingle cause for the collapse. Instead, shesuggests a combination of several factorsincluding population growth, deforestation,drought (regional climate change), aworldwide cooler climate, the decliningpower of the lords4

, and increased warfare5

(ibid.: 164).

Environmental DegradationPaine and Freter (1996), two

archaeologists, reject collapse models whichsuggested natural disaster, epidemic disease,external invasion, and peasant revolt ascauses in the Copan Valley. They argue thatdepopulation, which is considered to be onecharacteristic of the collapse, occurredgradually (ibid.:37, 45). Paine and Freter's(1996:37, 44) explanation for the collapseincludes a combination of relatedenvironmental/ecological factors. Populationgrowth resulted in an intensification ofagriculture in order to sustain thepopulation, and, consequently, in anincreased exploitation of resources. Thisoverexploitation caused soil erosion and adecrease in soil fertility. To put it simply: adegradation of the environmental resourcesresulted.

DiseaseWilkinson (1995:270f., 284), a

cultural anthropologist, argues that yellow

3 The technologies used by the Maya in the southernlowlands included, for example, reservoirs, canals,and raised fields (Shaw 2003:163.).4 The lords could no longer guarantee rainfall andthus surplus production to sustain the elites andspecialists (Shaw 2003: 164).5 The lords try to solve the problem by using warfare.However, this strategy resulted in the disruption ofagriculture and the displacement of peasants (Shaw2003:164).

fever could have been a significant factor forthe large population decline at the end of theClassic period (he claims an 80% to 85%population loss between 800 and 1000 A.D.)and thus for the collapse. Monkeys serve ashosts for the yellow fever virus, which istransmitted through mosquitoes (ibid.:284,288). Wilkinson suggests that the Mayacame into contact with the virus while theywere clearing the forest to use the land foragricultural production and/or throughmonkeys that lived in close proximity to thedwellings (ibid.:279f., 288). The virus wastransmitted between humans throughmosquitoes, which found many breedingsites in the cities such as broken dishes,open pots, and storage containers in whichwater was collected (ibid.:280, 288). TheMaya were severely affected by the diseasebecause they lacked immunity to the virus(ibid.:289). Although the authoracknowledges further reasons for thecollapse, such as population growth andother, non-specified, ecological andsociological factors, he views the yellowfever epidemic as a primary cause (ibid.).

Class Conflict and Peasant RevoltHamblin and Pitcher (1980), two

sociologists, present class conflict betweenthe peasants and the elite and the resultingpeasant revolt as the overall explanations forthe collapse. Although other factors such asoverpopulation, foreign invasion, or diseasescould have contributed to the collapse, theyconsider class conflict as the primary cause(ibid.:262) and try to prove their hypothesiswith mathematical models andarchaeological artefacts. For example, thefaces of elites on stone monuments weremutilated while those of peasants were leftintact, or members of the elite werepresented on stelae as standing overpeasants; the authors view this as evidenceof class conflicts (ibid.:248f.). They proposethat the elite controlled the intensiveagriculture, which resulted in the

TOTEM: vo1.l6 2007-2008© 2008 TOTEM: The V.W.O. Journal of Anthropology

proletariazation of peasants as they weredisplaced from their land, placing them in adeprived position (ibid. :251).

According to Hamblin and Pitcher(1980:251), a variety of factors contributedto the conflict and triggered peasantrebellions in the different centers, such asoverpopulation, drought, famine, and plantdisease. Two factors, however, seem to haveinfluenced the conflict in most centers: theexploitation of the peasants by the elite andthe leadership of peasant revolts by anancient order of priest (ibid.:25lf.). Thesepriests were disempowered by the elitepriests who served the gods of the "Classicpantheon" (ibid.:252). The authors view the'decline' as a gradual process of 600 years;the destruction of the elite resulted finally inthe breakdown of the economic and socialsystems (ibid.:262f.).

DecentralizationCioffi-Revilla and Landman

(1999:585), two political scientists, arguethat the political collapse was caused by thefailure of the Maya city-states to integrate orunify into a pan-Maya system or state,which "would have been necessary tosustain the growing number of politiesalready containing millions of inhabitants"(original emphasis; see also ibid.:588). Theyconsider the maintenance of numerousindependent polities and the lack ofcentralization as a root cause, while viewingother proposed causes such as intensificationof agriculture, ecological degradation,warfare, and escalation of religious violence(human sacrifice) as "secondary effects offailed political integration" (ibid.: 585;original emphasis). The authors suggest thatthe failure to unify occurred because one ormore states lacked the willingness forpolitical centralization, and the materialopportunity for the construction andmaintenance of a pan-Maya state was absent(ibid.:586f).

Iannone (2005 :26), an archaeologist,also proposes that decentralizationcontributed to the collapse whileacknowledging that no single cause can bedetermined for the event. She argues thatparamount rulers (lords of major centers)started in the 8th century to share their powerwith increasingly dissatisfied subordinatelords in order to appease them (ibid.:40f).However, the adoption of power-sharingstrategies resulted in increased politicalinstability (ibid.:40). The already tenuoussystem was exacerbated by factors such aspopulation growth, droughts and decliningagricultural production, which finally led tocollapse and endemic structural failure(ibid. :40f).

Synthesis of Environmental and Socio-Political Factors

Although some of the previouslydiscussed authors consider multipleenvironmental and socio-political factors forthe collapse, they focus one issue or onecause and its resulting effects. Authorspresented in this section, in contrast, providea detailed discussion of several factors.

Santley and colleagues (1986)propose three interrelated environmental andsocio-political factors as significantlycontributing to the collapse in the southernlowlands. First, deforestation andintensification of agriculture were attemptsof the Maya to sustain the growingpopulation resulting in the degradation ofthe environment, for example, in soilerosions. Moreover, extensive huntingdestructed the fauna. Malnutrition anddecline of the population were theconsequences of these environmentallyexploitative strategies (ibid.: 124f, 128, 135,145f.). Second, malnutrition causeddemographic instability: immunity of peoplewas reduced, increasing the possibility ofdiseases; the reproductive rate ofmalnourished women sank while childmortality increased (ibid.: 125, 141).

TOTEM: vo1.l6 2007-2008yright © 2008 TOTEM: The V.W.O. Journal of Anthropology

Additionally, the intensification ofagriculture required more labour power.However, agricultural productivity waslimited because the number of producersdecreased and the work capacity of thesurviving farmers was reduced due tomalnutrition (ibid.: 145f).

Third, macroregional resourceextraction networks that might havecompensated for the local economic stresseswere lacking (ibid.: 125, 147). Thetransportation costs for subsistence goodsfrom the peripheries were too high(ibid.: 148). The infrastructures of the statescould not be sustained at the end of theClassic period. This, together withenvironmental degradation, resulted in adecline of the authority of the rulers,political instability, and eventuallyabandonment of the cities (ibid.). Therefore,the authors reject peasant revolts or externalinvasions as explanations for the collapseand conclude that an "erosion of thesystem's economic base" is the primaryreason (ibid.: 149).

Hughes (1999:84), a historian,draws on archaeological research in hisdiscussion of multiple causes for thecollapse, which he presents as a collapse of"[a]11 social, economic, and politicalsystems" in the southern lowlands. Thecontributing factors include: overpopulationand thus the need for increase in foodsupply; intensification of agricultureresulting in environmental degradation andsoil erosion; deforestation causing erosion,salinization, decline in transpiration and thusrainfall decrease; malnutrition and diseases;and excessive demands of the elite. Therulers increased the construction ofmonuments and thus kept farmers awayfrom agricultural production whilesimultaneously exploiting natural resourcesfor the construction process (ibid.:85ff).

Lucero (2002), an archaeologist,argues that the control of artificial water

reservoirs, which was closely linked to thepower of the rulers, played an important rolein the collapse in the southern lowlands.However, she acknowledges that her modeldoes not explain the diminishing politicalpower of the elite in every Maya center(ibid.:814). She further relates the issue ofwater control with other environmental andsocio-political factors contributing to thecollapse. The kings in regional centers ormajor cities like Tikal, Calakmul or Caracolwere responsible for managing the cleaningof water reservoirs and for securing rainfallthrough the performance of rites, forexample, to the rain god Chac (ibid.:815). Inturn, farmers had to pay tribute to the lords(ibid.:818).

The power of these rulers wasdeteriorating during the Terminal Classic forseveral interrelated reasons. Changes in theclimate (to drier conditions) caused a declinein rainfall and thus in resources andsubsistence which, in turn, resulted in afailure of the water control system and therites that had secured rainfall in the past(Lucero 2002:820ff). Deforestation, soildepletion and diseases further contributed tothe diminishing political power of the rulerswho "were probably blamed for all themishaps" (ibid.:822). Other factors for thecollapse included in-fighting among elitelineages or warfare, for example, betweenPalenque and a secondary center (Tonina) orbetween Calakmul and another Maya groupwhich took "advantage of a weakenedrulership" (ibid.:821).

Webster (2002:327f, 345), anarchaeologist, argues that three main factorstriggered the collapse: failure of theagricultural system and decline of resources,warfare and competition and theirdestabilizing effects, and rejection ofideology and kingship system because thelords were seen as responsible for themisfortunes. The author considers factorssuch as drought and increased vulnerability

TOTEM: vo1.l6 2007-2008© 2008 TOTEM: The U.W.O. Journal of Anthropology

to it, malnutrition, disease, and peasantrevolt as secondary or indirect stresses,which were exacerbated or created by theaforementioned three issues, whileoverpopulation drove the whole process(ibid.:328,347).

DISCUSSIONSome of the previously discussed

models, especially foreign invasion, classconflict, and excessive demands of the elite,are criticized by several authors. Except forHamblin and Pitcher (1980), none of thepresented authors consider foreign/externalinvasion as a cause. According to Webster(2002:229), this hypothesis is generallydiscounted (see also Paine & Freter 1996:45;Santley et at. 1986: 149). Another model thatis reviewed and rejected by several authorsis the class conflict/peasant revolthypothesis (paine & Freter 1996:45; Santleyet al. 1986: 149; Webster 2002:222f.).Hamblin and Pitcher (1980) were criticizedby Lowe (1982:644), an archaeologist, forfailing to "establish the role of class conflictin the Classic Maya collapse." He arguesthat one of the mathematical modelsHamblin and Pitcher used6 could supportother explanations of the collapse (ibid. :645)and that different interpretations ofpresented archaeological evidence arepossible. For example, the destruction of theelite faces on the monuments could havebeen the result of dynastic upheaval.Furthermore, the figures on which the elitemembers stand could have depicted defeatedchiefs and nobles, not peasants, and thuspresented warfare not peasant revolts(ibid.:644).

Related to the class conflicthypothesis is the excessive demand modelwhich is criticized by Webster (1985).According to this model, the demands of theelite for agricultural production and

6 See Hamblin and Pitcher (1980) as well as Lowe(1982) for details.

monument construction contributed to thecollapse. The author, in contrast, argues thatelite demands alone would not haveproduced intolerable stress (ibid.:395). Forexample, only 5% of the populationbelonged to the elite, compared to 90% whowere farmers; the last 5% were non-food-producing or only partially food-producingspecialists (ibid.:384f.). Increasedagricultural production for elite andspecialists demands (he calculates anapproximately 10% surplus for the elite andspecialists) was manageable for farmersbecause the elite did not export food butconsumed the produced amount (ibid.:390f.,395). Furthermore, the construction ofmonuments was possibly spread over yearsand in consideration with the seasonality ofagricultural production; thus, it did notinterfere with farming activities (ibid.:392,394f.). The author finally proposes that elitedemands in combination with other factorscould have contributed to the collapse, buthe does not view elite demands/policies as asignificant cause (ibid.:395f.).

Three issues are especially discussedby several scholars: population loss, theuniformity of the collapse, and the notion ofthe collapse itself. Some authors list massivepopulation loss as a characteristic of thecollapse (Paine & Freter 1996:37; Shaw2003: 164; Santley et at. 1986: 149;Wilkinson 1995:284), while others haveraised doubts of the extent of the populationdecline. Lucero (1999:242f.; 2002:821f.),for example, argues that the populationreorganized, i.e. they migrated from thecentres to the hinterlands, built non-platformhouses and used decorated gourds instead ofceramic, and, in these ways, left lessevidence in the archaeological record.

While several authors acknowledge adifference between southern and northernlowlands (Haug et at. 2003: 1734; Peterson& Haug 2005:327; Shaw 2003), most ofthem view the southern lowland collapse as

TOTEM: vo1.16 2007-2008

uniform. Furthermore, some scholarsconsider the collapse or decline as a gradualprocess (Hamblin & Pitcher 1980:262; Paine& Freter 1996:45). Iannone (2005:26)suggests that the collapse occurred graduallyor rapidly depending on the center. Thisauthor, I propose, can be considered part ofa 'group' of scholars, mainly archaeologists,who emphasize regional differences andchanges within the southern (and northern)lowlands and, consequently, reject thenotion of a uniform collapse (Lucero2002:814; Rice et al. 2004:2, 9; Shaw2003:161; see also Bove 1981:1 1Of.).

Moreover, several authors criticizethe notion of 'the' collapse altogether,especially the notion of the collapse of theMaya civilization (e.g., Demarest et al.2004; Rice et aI., 2004). Some of thepreviously discussed scholars, includingarchaeologists, use the phrases "decline ofMaya civilization" (Santley et ai. 1986: 123),"Maya civilization collapse" (Williams1993 :705), "Maya demise" (Haug et al.2003: 1731), and "demise of Mayacivilization" (peterson & Haug 2005:322).The idea of collapse in general, and ofcollapse of the Maya civilization inparticular, is problematic for severalreasons. First, it is offensive, especially toliving Maya (Rice et ai. 2004:6). Second, itimplies that something morally,aesthetically, and, I add, socially superiordeclined or regressed into something inferior(ibid.:5). I propose that such a view is basedon a Western social evolutionary model inwhich technologically advanced and sociallystratified societies are considered 'morecomplex', 'more developed', and (implicitlyor explicitly) as 'superior'.

Evidence of such a presentation ofthe Maya is found in the followingstatements: "[p ]erhaps what fascinates usmost is not the collapse itself, but theinability of the Maya to recover in so manycases" (Marcus 2003:105; my emphasis);

"[ ... ] the more appropriate question is to askwhy Maya society failed to recoverfollowing dynastic collapse" (Manahan2004:108; my emphasis); and "[w]hen theconquistadors arrived, they encountered ashadow of Maya civilization" (Hughes1999:87; my emphasis). I suggest that theseclaims clearly reveal an image of Postclassicand, possibly, contemporary Maya asincapable of restoring the past Classic'glory' and the 'complex' and 'advanced'system.

As some authors rightly pointed out,it was not the civilization or culture thatcollapsed, declined, or disappeared, but aparticular political system: the system ofdivine kingship with its socio-politicalhierarchies, economic system, inscribedstone monuments, and temples (Demarest etal. 2004:569, 572; Rice et ai. 2004:6, 9; seealso Lucero 2002:820; Iannone 2005:41).The Maya continued to practice otheraspects of their society such as traditionalceremonies (Lucero 2002:820), the beliefsystem, and a core mythic charter (Demarestet al. 2004:569). Therefore, the changesoccurring in the 9th century might be moreaccurately termed and, consequently, viewedas socio-political transitions ortransformations rather than as 'the collapse'(see also Lucero 1999:241; Rice et ai.2004:9).

CONCLUSIONWhat caused the 'Classic Maya

Collapse'? This question has fascinatedarchaeologists and other scholars fordecades. In this paper I have presentedseveral explanations for the so-calledcollapse, which occurred around 900 A.D.They can roughly be divided into twogroups: (l) environmental/ecologicalfactors, including climate change due toatmospheric shifts and deforestation, declineof rainfall and drought, increasedexploitation of resources, environmentaldegradation (soil depletion and erosion),

TOTEM: vo1.16 2007-2008© 2008 TOTEM: The U.W.O. Journal of Anthropology

intensification of agricultural production,malnutrition, disease (yellow fever), anddemographic instability; and (2) socio-political factors such as class conflict,peasant revolt, competition, warfare, controlof artificial water reservoirs, lack ofmacroregional resource extraction networks,excessive demands of the elite, rejection ofideology and kingship system, anddecentralization (failure to unify a pan-Mayastate or political instability caused by power-sharing between paramount and subordinatelords). The majority of authors claim thatrapid population growth and/oroverpopulation contributed to or triggeredthe collapse.

Moreover, most authors consider thecollapse as caused not by a single issue butby multiple factors. However, they proposeseveral combinations of factors and theyemphasize different causes. Some authors,for example, suggest one primary or rootcause, such as class conflict or the absenceof a unified pan-Maya political system.Several scholars stress the non-uniformity ofthe collapse, i.e. regional differences notonly between the southern and northernlowlands but also within the southernlowlands. Having reviewed the variousmodels, it seems most likely to me thatdifferent combinations of multiple factorshave caused and triggered changes at thevarious sites. Consequently, this viewopposes searches for 'the one' cause or formultiple factors that explain a generalsouthern lowland collapse; instead,following current research, the focus oughtto be on regional particularities and linksbetween sites (Rice et al. 2004: 11).

Finally, I have presented, drawing onrecent archaeological accounts, a discussionof the notion of the collapse in general andof the collapse of the Maya civilization inparticular. I follow the arguments ofDemarest and colleagues (2004) and Riceand colleagues (2004) that the civilization

did not collapse, but a particular politicalsystem declined or disappeared. I haveproposed that the idea of civilizationcollapse presents a view of the Classic Mayaas more complex, advanced and, therefore,'superior' than the Postclassic (and possiblycontemporary) Maya. I thus argue for areplacement of the concept of 'collapse' (or'decline') with the less judgemental notionsof transition or transformations.

AcknowledgementsI thank Ian Colquhoun and the twoanonymous reviewers for their comments onthis paper.

Bove, Frederick J. 1981. Trend Surface-Analysis and the Lowland Classic MayaCollapse. American Antiquity 46(1):93-112.

Burba, George (lead author), Jason A.Hubbart, and Michael Pidwirny(contributing authors) 2006. Consulted:February 23, 2008. Evaporation. InEncyclopedia of Earth, ed. Cutler J.Cleveland. Washington, D.C.:Environmental Information Coalition,National Council for Science andEnvironment. Dr!:http://www .eoearth. org/ articlelEvapotranspiration.

Cioffi-Revilla, Claudio, and Todd Landman1999. Evolution of Maya Polities in theAncient Mesoamerican System.International Studies Quarterly 43:559-98.

Demarest, Arthur A., Prudence M. Rice, andDon S. Rice 2004. The Terminal Classic inthe Maya Lowlands: Assessing Collapses,Terminations, and Transformations. In TheTerminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:Collapse, Transition, and Transformation,ed. Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M. Rice,

TOTEM: vo1.16 2007-2008

and Don S. Rice, 545-72. Boulder:University Press of Colorado.

Hamblin, Robert L., and Brian L. Pitcher1980. The Classic Maya Collapse: TestingClass Conflict Hypotheses. AmericanAntiquity 45(2):246-67.

Haug, Gerald H., Detlef Gunther, Larry C.Peterson, Daniel M. Sigman, Konrad A.Hughen, and Beat Aeschlimann 2003.Climate and the Collapse of MayaCivilization. Science 299(5613): 1731-35.

Hughes, J. Donald 1999. The Classic MayaCollapse. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism10(1):81-89.

Iannone, Gyles 2005. The Rise and Fall ofan Ancient Maya Petty Royal Court. LatinAmerican Antiquity 16(1):26-44.

Lowe, John W.G. 1982. On Mathematical-Models of the Classic Maya Collapse: TheClass Conflict Hypothesis Reexamined.American Antiquity 47(3):643-52.

Lucero, Lisa J. 1999. Classic Lowland MayaPolitical Organization: A Review. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 13(2):211-63.

Lucero, Lisa J. 2002. The Collapse of theClassic Maya: A Case for the Role of WaterControl. American Anthropologist104(3):814-26.

Manahan, T. Kam 2004. The Way ThingsFall Apart: Social Organization and theClassic Maya Collapse at Copan. AncientMesoamerica 15(1):107-25.Marcus, Joyce 2003. Recent Advances inMaya Archaeology. Journal ofArchaeological Research 11(2):71-148.

Paine, Richard R., and AnnCorinne Freter1996. Environmental Degradation and theClassic Maya Collapse at Copan, Honduras

(A.D. 600-1250). Ancient Mesoamerica7(1):37-47.

Peterson, Larry c., and Gerald H. Haug2005. Climate and the Collapse of MayaCivilization. American Scientist 94(4):322-29.

Rice, Prudence M., Arthur A. Demarest, andDon S. Rice 2004. Terminal Classic and the"Classic Maya Collapse" in Perspective. InThe Terminal Classic in the MayaLowlands: Collapse, Transition, andTransformation, ed. Arthur A. Demarest,Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, 1-11.Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Sabloff, Jeremy A., and E. Wyllys AndrewsV. 1986. Introduction. In Late LowlandMaya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic,ed. Jeremy A. Sabloff, and E. WyllysAndrews V., 3-13. Albuquerque: Universityof New Mexico Press.

Santley, Robert S., Thomas W. Killion, andMark T. Lycett 1986. On the MayaCollapse. Journal of AnthropologicalResearch 42(2):123-59.

Shaw, Justine M. 2003. Climate Change andDeforestation: Implications for the MayaCollapse. Ancient Mesoamerica 14(1): 157-67.

Webster, David 1985. Surplus, Labor, andStress in Late Classic Maya Society. Journalof Anthropological Research 41(4):375-99.

Webster, David 2002. The Fall of theAncient Maya: Solving the Mystery of theMaya Collapse. London, New York:Thames & Hudson.

Wilkinson, Robert L. 1995. Yellow Fever:Ecology, Epidemiology, and Role in theCollapse of the Classic Lowland Maya

TOTEM: vo1.16 2007-2008008 TOTEM: The U.W.O. Journal of Anthropology

Civilization. Medical Anthropology16(3):269-94.

Williams, JeffT. 1993. SpatialAutocorrelation and the Classic MayaCollapse: One Technique, One Conclusion.Journal of Archaeological Science20(6):705-09.

Yancheva, Gergana, Norbert R. Nowaczyk,Jens Mingram, Peter Dulski, GeorgSchettler, Jorg F.W. Negendank, Jiaqi Liu,Daniel M. Sigman, Larry C. Peterson, andGerald H. Haug 2007. Influence of theIntertropical Convergence Zone on the EastAsian Monsoon. Nature 445:74-77.

TOTEM: vo1.16 2007-2008