The sudden abandonment of Classic Maya cities in the ninth century CE has provoked intense scholarly debate. Initially, archaeologists attributed this collapse almost exclusively to ecological catastrophes. According to this environmental determinist perspective, sustained droughts and severe soil depletion from agricultural overextension inevitably triggered widespread famine, making the urban centers uninhabitable.
Recently, a wave of social historians has countered this narrative by highlighting the profound socio-political turbulence of the era. They point to mounting evidence of endemic warfare, disrupted trade routes, and intensifying competition among ruling elites. For these scholars, the collapse was fundamentally a structural failure; the rigid political hierarchies buckled under their own weight, rendering the environmental challenges merely incidental.
While the social historians correctly identify the political fragility of Maya city-states, their dismissal of ecological factors goes too far. A more comprehensive analysis suggests that environmental and political stressors were inextricably linked. The severe droughts were not just a backdrop, but rather the catalyst that exposed the fatal inflexibility of the Maya political system. It was the rulers' inability to adapt their tribute demands in the face of ecological strain—rather than the strain alone—that ultimately fractured the society.
Which one of the following most accurately describes how the author's perspective on the Classic Maya collapse relates to the views of the environmental determinists and the social historians?
- The author incorporates the social historians' recognition of political fragility but argues that they incorrectly dismiss the catalytic role of the ecological stressors identified by the environmental determinists.Answer
- BThe author agrees with the environmental determinists that ecological collapse inevitably triggered the fall of the cities, even though the social historians correctly identified evidence of warfare.
- CThe author dismisses the arguments of both the environmental determinists and the social historians by demonstrating that neither group relies on valid archaeological evidence.
- DThe author rejects the environmental determinists' evidence of sustained droughts and instead concludes, alongside the social historians, that disrupted trade routes were the sole trigger for the collapse.
- EThe author discusses the environmental determinist model primarily to show that both scholarly groups ultimately agree that agricultural overextension triggered the political collapse.