(This is a guest post by Gary Feinman)
Published in the journal Science, Medina-Elizalde and Rohling’s (2012) quantitative analysisof Terminal Classic period Maya (AD 800-1000) climatic shifts is a welcomerefinement of the extent of a late 1st millennium episode ofclimatic change. Yet the author’s speculations regarding the fall of inlandMaya settlements (the so-called Maya Collapse) is fraught with failures inlogic and limitations in hypothesis evaluation that too often are characteristicof natural scientists delving naively into the causes and complexities ofsocietal change. Even more problematic is the repeated license given by one ofthe world’s premier science journals to this kind of disciplinary overreach ata time when extremely few articles by archaeologists are offered this broadlyvisible platform.
Medina-Elizalde and Rohling beginwith the premise that drought precipitated the collapse of these inlandcenters. But, when finding precipitation declines of only 40%, they do notreconsider their presumed causality, instead inferring that the Maya politieswere so fragile that even the estimated rainfall declines were enough togenerate collapse. These findings then underpin their policy warning that evenminor climatic shifts may fatally endanger contemporary states facing presentclimatic shifts.
Left entirely unconsidered in theirhistorical reconstructions of causality are the numerous other factors, fromwarfare to shifts in pan-Mesoamerican exchange patterns, that have beenadvanced as keys to the fall of the Classic Maya states. The consideration,evaluation, and elimination of alternative hypotheses are central to trulyscientific inquiry, and their absence from this work only reinforces thepreconceived bias that the prehispanic Maya were not sufficiently ingenious torespond to natural environmental fluctuations. It is crucial to recognize thatMaya polities in northern Yucatán and coastal Belize, some of the driest partsof the Maya domain, thrived during and after the decline of inland settlementsand populations.
Also problematic are the advancedpolicy implications. While I share concerns about anthropogenic environmentaland climatic changes that hazard the modern world, the authors’ perspectivesview humans as incapable of forging effective responses to externalperturbations. And yet, those of us dedicated to understanding our species’history recognize that we have repeatedly established cooperative networks atvarious scales to address and forestall similar challenges. If modern societiesfail and fall, the responsibilities will be borne in part by our cooperative,competitive, and leadership networks and arrangements rather than merely theconsequence of declines in rainfall.
At its current best, contemporaryarchaeological practice strives for serious evaluations of the causes andconsequences of social actions and change. Repeatedly we have seen that throughhistory rarely have climatic perturbations alone been both the proximate andultimate causes of significant shifts in human settlement and catastrophicupheavals in political organization (e.g., Middleton 2012). Given the problemsfaced by our species today, the publishers of Science ought to lend their weighty profile and give greater voiceto those of us endeavoring to understand the repertoire of behaviors thathumans and their social groupings have derived and innovated to address thesuite of challenges that they have faced. Many of those historical episodes maybear key insights for addressing the hazards and challenges that we as aspecies and a society face today.
ReferencesCited
Medina-Elizalde, Martín, and Eelco J.Rohling
2012 Collapse of Classic MayaCivilization related to modest reduction in precipitation. Science 335:956-959.
Middleton, Guy D.
2012 Nothing lasts forever:environmental discourses on the collapse of past societies. Journal of Archaeological Research 20. In press (available online).
Gary M. Feinman
The Field Museum
