Content uploaded by Michael F Allen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael F Allen on Oct 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
623
Chapter 36
The Maya Lowlands:
A Case Study for the Future?
Conclusions
Michael F. Allen
Arturo Gómez-Pompa
Scott L. Fedick
Juan J. Jiménez-Osornio
INTRODUCTION
Pulling together an overview for such a broad topic as this one is
challenging under the best of circumstances. Organizing the conclusions for a
topic that has been so extensively researched by many of the world’s leading
archeologists, agronomists, biodiversity scientists and ecologists, is daunting.
However, there are several major advances and new directions in this book
that are exciting-both in the context of understanding the Maya and their
extraordinary culture and environment, and for creating a case study of how
humans might begin to address the crucial challenges of the future of the
globe.
There are two potential approaches to analyzing the continuing global
environmental challenges and identifying the causal factors behind them. The
first approach is to attempt to describe or predict the overall changes in the
human and “natural” world over some undefined time period. This approach
has been utilized in major works by eminent authors such as Erlich (1968) and
Diamond (1997). It is also the general approach taken by social and
environmental groups (e.g., Worldwatch Institute, World Wildlife Fund,
United Nations, World Bank). These have lead to several assessments of the
“world situation”, as can be found in many publications (Brown, Flavin, and
French 2001).
Within this approach, there are quantitative assessments of human and
environmental conditions that can be based on countries or other
624 THE LOWLAND MAYA AREA
organizational entities. For example, Wang et al. (2001) developed a
sustainability indicator based on social, economic and environmental
parameters. Interestingly, for countries that include the Maya area, Belize, and
Mexico rank average or above average with an increasing sustainability index
whereas Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua rank below average with a
decreasing sustainability index. The large disparity in values, even within a
cultural region, suggests that these approaches have clear limitations when the
focal unit is on a political entity.
Although this approaches provided considerable understanding of how we
got where we are, few solutions to current environmental dilemmas are
apparent. Nor do we understand how responses have been formulated because
most human groups, when faced with these challenges, have usually migrated,
been subsumed, or died.
A second approach is to develop case studies of individual
cultural/geographic systems that have persisted, despite being subjected to the
perturbations of the environment resulting from both “natural” and “cultural”
impacts. Gómez-Pompa (this book) outlined several challenges, not the least
of which was to justify a focus exclusively on one culture-the Maya.
The Maya fit this second approach. They have remained in a region for
over three millennia. Their “accomplishments” and “failures” are spectacular
and chronicled in both written and archeological records. Finally, they remain
a viable and vigorous population retaining many of their original cultural
traditions, while simultaneously incorporating new and useful ideas into their
technologies, lifeways and belief systems. Because of this, understanding how
the Maya survived past perturbations, how they live today, and how they
perceive the future makes these studies important to the future of our world. In
the last chapter these challenges will be addressed as defined by the
participants in the 21st symposium of Plant Biology and the contributors to
this book.
MOSAICS
A major contribution of this symposium was to expand the view of the
Maya lowlands as a highly variable region in both space and time (see also
Fedick 1996b.c). This mosaic of variability emerges at various scales in both
environmental and cultural characteristics.
When viewed at the macroscale, the Maya lowlands appears to be a
rather homogenous region. As a geological unit, the Maya Block is a single
fragment with little topography, until very recently, it was largely marine in
the geological time-scale. Thus, there is little space or history for geographic
separation in which speciation generally occurs. While a general gradient in
environmental characteristics exists from south to north, the entire region
The Maya Lowlands: A Case Study for the Future? 625
shares common species of most plants and animals. As a culture entity, the
Maya also shares a rather astonishing sameness over thousands of years and
thousands of square kilometers (Pyburn 1996:240-241).
However, as Pyburn has noted (1996), behind this “veneer” of cultural
continuity is a system composed of an interconnected yet highly varied system
of local behaviors. As the landscape comes into focus at increasingly detailed
scales, the mosaic of diversity is revealed (Fedick 1996a). Local variations in
geology, topography and hydrology emerge, which, in turn, influence soil
development and the structure of biotic communities. Dunning Beach, Farrell
et al. (1998) recently defined 27 distinctive adaptive regions of the Maya
lowlands. Each of these units is heterogeneous, but as a repeating pattern of
ecosystem types that define a distinctive landscape (see Forman and Godron
1986). It is at this level of disturbance that Maya land use over at last the last
three millennium shaped the pattern of biodiversity and ecosystem structure.
The pattern of land use by the Maya, both in the present and in the past,
is a clear case of shifting mosaic structure at a range of scales. The persistence
of biota in the region may well be attributed to the dynamic structure of Maya
land use.
At the local scale of homesteads and villages, the seeds of regional biotic
diversity are literally contained and preserved within the homegarden (see
Herera et al.1993); a common component of Maya agriculture, both modern
and ancient, that has until recently been little-recognized by researchers (see
Flores 1993; Goñi 1993; Herrera Castro 1994; Ortega et al. 1993; Stuart
1993). The outfields that surround the village represent an array of cultivation
and management technologies (Toledo Maya Cultural Council and Toledo
Alcaldes Association 1997). Slash-and-burn cultivation, practiced in
combination with selective cutting and replanting, results in the creation of
“forest gardens” as an end product of managed succession (Gómez-Pompa,
Flores, and Sosa 1987; Gómez-Pompa and Kaus 1990). Within particular
landscapes, hillsides might be terraced, and the variety of wetland ecosystems
modified or transformed for cultivation (Beach et al., this book; Beach and
Dunning 1995; Fedick 1997; Fedick, this book; Fedick et al. 2000; Jiménez-
Osorio and Rorive 1999). Dispersed within these managed landscapes, and
surrounding larger units of land use, is the wilderness, or wildland forest. The
interface of wild forest and various forms of cultivation is essential to deer,
peccary, turkeys, and other animals heavily utilized by the Maya. In addition,
while the “forest wilds” were feared by the Maya as places of danger (Taube,
this book), they also served for protection from one’s neighbors and as refuges
for many species of large animals persisting today.
At a larger social scale, archeological and historical evidence clearly
demonstrates that at no time did any one city or political unit dominate the
entire region simultaneously. City-states of varying size and power, ruled by
626 THE LOWLAND MAYA AREA
royal lineages, competed for prestige and control of lands through alliances,
arranged marriages, and warfare (Dahlin 2000; Demarest et al. 1997; Martin
and Grube 1995, 2000). The success or failure of such campaigns likely
corresponded with major shifts in population levels. Thus, while forest
resources would be severely depleted in one area, they might recover at
another in a shifting pattern dependent on the particular status of various
kingdoms (Dunning, Beach, and Rue 1997; Johnson, Breckenridge, and
Hansen 2001). This shifting mosaic model is absolutely essential to the
preservation of biodiversity and forest resources and is a tenet of conservation
biology theory.
BIODIVERSITY
Due to the extraordinarily high human population pressures for such a
long time, we would postulate that biodiversity should be very low. Indeed,
some argued that the diversity is low for a tropical region compared with
expectations. However, the survey information presented in this book strongly
suggests that the biodiversity is not really low. It may be structured differently
due to the geological context of the region. Diversity of any one location is
high. And, as one moves across the landscape, there is continued turnover, but
few real breaks in community types. Although endemism is high in the
Yucatán Peninsula, those organisms are widely found across the region.
Schultz (this book) reported that on an area basis, a small reserve like El Edén
has plant species richness per unit area approaching better-known biodiversity
hot spots (e.g., the Chamela Reserve in Jalisco) in both endemics and total
species per unit area. However, no plant species are endemic to the El Edén
Ecological Reserve or to the larger Yalahau region. They are largely the same
list as the one for the peninsula as a whole.
Research on many other groups, including algae, fungi, slime molds,
protozoa, and the many others reported here, clearly indicate that we have
only scratched the surface of the total biodiversity of the Yucatán Peninsula.
Symbiosis (such as mycorrhizae and dinitrogen fixation) predominate, and the
functioning of the regional ecosystems is dependent on a myriad of unknown
organisms and relationships.
This suggests is that biodiversity was not overwhelmed by the large
human population density and broad land use. Species, even endemics, are
widely spaced across the region. If they decline at one point, they can persist
in another. This allows for continual recolonization events. Many types of
vegetation resprout after natural disturbance such as hurricanes and fires, or
following agricultural practice such as slash-and-burn cultivation, which help
make these plant species highly resilient. Bases on the evidence presented
here, the persistence of biodiversity is largely due to the mosaic management
The Maya Lowlands: A Case Study for the Future? 627
strategies practiced by the Maya themselves, coupled with the regional-scale
mosaic nature of the rise and fall of the individual city-states.
CLIMATE
Climate also provides a dynamic rather than static background, directly
influencing human culture and settlement patterns as well as biodiversity.
Climate also changes at local scales in response to human activities. Isotopic
evidence from Brenner and colleagues (this book) points to the Classic Period
as being unusually dry in the longer climatological history. Further, they
provide clear evidence of a severe prolonged drought coinciding with the end
of the Classic Period (see also Gill 2000; Hodell, Curtis, and Brenner 1995). It
is also important to note (M. Allen and Rincon, this book; see also Sage and
Cowling 1999) that the “natural” atmospheric CO2 level was approximately
one-third lower than today (i.e., less than 250 parts per millon [ppm] during
the rise and fall of Maya civilization to over 370 ppm today). Thus, water-use
efficiency was dramatically lower for C3 (cool-sea-son) plants making any
drought much harsher than would be found today. (this would affect all
vegetable and tree species, excepting only C4 [warmseason] grasses such as
maize.)
However, it is still unclear if the spatial pattern of the Terminal Classic
collapse is important. Archaeological and epigraphic evidence demonstrate
that the major cultural collapse primarily affected the central-southern
lowlands. This may be related to the orographic (i.e., mountainous)
precipitation of the inland region, which, in part, is derived from the
transpiration of upwind vegetation. Alternatively, the precipitation of the
northern regions is dependent on moisture derived from ocean evaporation,
including hurricanes. If deforestation were widespread, then the precipitation
in the inland, higher-elevation sites could have been affected but not
necessarily the northern lowlands. (M. Allen and Rincon, this book).
The northern lowlands also appear to have a greater number of
hurricanes than the southern inland regions (Boose et al., this book). These
can cause extensive damage to croplands and make the forest more
susceptible to fires (Whigham and Olmsted, this book). In his original
description of Maya life, Landa ([1566]1978) described the terrible effects of
hurricane damage on crops, disease and structure of Maya villages (see also
Konrad 1985). Humans have little impact on hurricanes, but the presence of
La Niña can increase hurricane intensity while El Niño can reduce it. The
climate change reported by Brenner and his colleagues (this book) presents
evidence for a severe drought in the northern Yucatán Peninsula, but cautions
that the data related to drought in the inland central-southern lowlands is
628 THE LOWLAND MAYA AREA
ambiguous. It is not known if the drought period seen in the north is tied to
hurricane activity or general precipitation.
COLLAPSE
As agriculture expanded with the increasing population base, the area
devoted to forest resources declined while those reserved for urbanization
increased-a situation not different from today. The forests became less
productive as they shrank, and the resource base within an area controllable
by a landed nobility declined. Importantly, there was not a single “collapse” of
ancient Maya society. The Classic Period of the Maya was characterized by a
large number of city-states vying among each other for hegemony. The
Terminal Classic Collapse really consists of the fall of a number of these
cities-states and interruption of construction of ceremonial centers. Numerous
political and demographic collapses in the Maya lowlands occurred in various
areas, and at various times, both before and after the well-known Terminal
Classic collapse. The fact that this was not a singular event may be critical for
understanding the past as well as for making predictions for the future.
POPULATION DENSITY
Up to the early 1970s, the Maya were still perceived as a collection of
dispersed slash-and-burn farmers peacefully co-existing within their tropical
forest environment (see Hammond 1978; Turner 1978). A decade ago, there
was still some debate as to the human population density and structure in
ancient times and whether the population densities were high into the present
(Culbert and Rice 1990). Current archeological evidence clearly points to
extraordinarily high population densities across the Maya lowlands (see
Turner, Kepleis, and Schneider, this book). The cities were large, requiring
enormous amounts of land for agriculture, wich, in turn, resulted in extensive
land erosion. As sites can be found in almost every region as early as the
Preclassic Period, this implies that the entire region was occupied. The major
Classic sites, however, were concentrated in the central-southern lowlands at
slightly higher elevations. Cities were especially large; the population density
was very high-possibly even higher than today, and the various city-states
probably covered most of the region with developed lands. Just as important,
at the end of the Classic Period, the collapse in the population was largely
focused in the Petén and other inland areas with a simultaneous emergence of
new cities in the lower elevation, flatter regions of northern Yucatán. There
was a second major regional demographic collapse in the sixteenth century
with the introduction of new diseases by the Europeans. The population has
The Maya Lowlands: A Case Study for the Future? 629
continued to rebound through today with expected explosive growth from the
present into the near future. These observations support the notion that there
are patterns of initiation and collapse that have an environmental and cultural
basis.
FOOD
How was food procured during periods of high population densities? A
lot has been learned about the food and fiber plants used by the ancient Maya-
that is, which ones were domesticated, as well as how they were cultivated
(see Fedick 1996c; White 1999). The Maya not only domesticated or adapted
those plants that we know today such as chocolate (Theobroma cacao) and
henequen (Agave fourcroydes Lem), as well as the traditional maize, beans,
squash, and chilies, but they also used many forest and wetland plants. Just as
importantly, forest and wetland animals such as deer, ocellated turkey,
curassow, and apple snails were heavily utilized and probably managed (Carr
1996; Emery 1999; Shaw 1999).
The use of these resources constitutes an extremely important
advancement and likely also sowed the seeds of Terminal Classic Collapse.
The Maya mode of life depended on mosaics of land use. Mosaics of forest
gardens and milpas, within a forest matrix, comprised the landscape of each
population unit, whether village or city-state. Algal mats and wetland muck
may have been a staple mechanism for improving soil fertility, as investigated
by a group of collaborating researchers working at the El Edén Ecological
Reserve (see chapters in this book by Fedick; Morrison and Cózatl Manzano;
Novelo and Tavera, and Palacios-Mayorga et al.). Interestingly, despite many
generalizations on the “impoverished” tropical forests, work in the Maya
lowlands has consistently shown that soil nutrients are actually quite high in
much, if not most, of the region. Growth studies in both agricultural and
restoration sites (see E. Allen et al., this book; M. Allen and Rincón, this
book) show excellent plant growth if water is available. Even Landa
([1566]1978) commented on the fertility and excellent plant growth in the
cracks between the rocks.
Importantly, both ancient writings and symbols and modern practices
clearly demonstrate the crucial role of wildland forest as places with
resources, but also show these areas as the home of magic beings (e.g.,
animals such as jaguars) and as scary regions to penetrate (see Taube, this
book). These myths and reverence together make for careful use and facilitate
the maintenance of wildland mosaics within the regional spatial structure of
even developed city-states (Anderson, this book).
The careful use of resources and innovative development of crops was
clearly coupled with innovative governmental cooperatives, leading to greater
630 THE LOWLAND MAYA AREA
organization and separation of activity. These innovations allowed
populations to expand around villages, then city-states. The resulting division
of labor allowed for the incredible scientific and architectural achievements so
clearly articulated during the Classic Period. They also created disturbances at
ever-larger scales, changing mosaics to large, developed matrices.
PERSISTENCE, RECOVERY AND SUSTAINABILITY
Although the Maya populations collapsed at least twice during this
period, they never disappeared. On numerous occasions their populations
declined in one area, and recovered in another, either by reproduction or
through immigration. The areas from which they declined sometimes
recovered, sometimes not.
One reason may lie in the concept of carrying capacity as outlined so
eloquently by Turner and his colleagues in this book. They postulate that the
population exceeded the carrying capacity leading to a “back-bite” and
ultimately population loss. However, as previously described, the environment
is not a static backdrop. In ecological theory, the carrying capacity, or k value,
is only a theoretical limit for the limiting resource. In the case of the Maya,
the population collapse may have been due to a loss in food production
because of excess land degradation. However, this means that k had dropped
due to soil loss- not necessarily that some number had been exceeded. Further,
because of the drought, production may have been virtually halted as it was
limited by the amount of water available. If k can decline, it can also recover
and grow, and it can also vary spatially.
Thus, the collapse of the Classic Maya may not have been due simply to
the excess utilization of resources, but a caused by a combination of a
temporally and spatially reduction in the major limiting resource (water?),
which regulates k. The fact that k could recover allowed the Postclassic
population recovery to occur. By the time of the Spanish occupation, the
Maya population was likely still rebounding from an earlier high.
The population collapse following the Spanish occupation was largely
caused by the introduction of exotic disease from Europe. These diseases do
not spread except in relatively high population densities. There is little
indication that the Maya were overutilizing their resource base at that time.
The Maya knew when they had taxed their resources to a level beyond
their institutions. Just as they had ceremonies for creating new kingships, they
had an elaborate ceremony to decommission a temple, and kingdom. At
Cerros, for example, when the kingship failed, the Maya undertook a
“termination ritual” and went back to the fisher and farmer lifestyle (Schele
and Freidel 1990). This could be associated with a political collapse, or a loss
due to a dramatic environmental change affecting available resources (reduced
The Maya Lowlands: A Case Study for the Future? 631
k). When this happened, they changed their resource allocations (a higher
proportion of the population engaged in food acquisition versus elite activities
such as science and architecture), or moved to another region.
Nevertheless, the critical elements of their culture survived. Chontal
Maya appears to have persisted as a written language despite the cultural
challenges from the Yucatecan Maya and Spanish. Was this persistence
supported by small groups of knowledgeable scribe/scientists that were
dispersed around the region, and even shifting through time? Perhaps this
occurred in a manner similar to the retention of Latin as in modern science
and religion? If this written language survived, what pockets of wisdom still
remain uncovered by modern anthropologists and biologists? The local
extirpation of both human and wildland resources as a function of hurricanes
or other natural disasters and re-establishment by regarding the region as a
continually fluctuating mosaic bears further careful examination. These
elements are complex, but probably hold the keys to their long-term survival
as a culture, and to the maintenance of natural biodiversity of a heavily
populated region.
SYNTHESIS
If anything is to be learned from the changing Maya world, it is that
understanding space and time is absolutely critical to human persistence.
There is no absolute k value to which we, or any culture, can strive. The k
value is variable. Humans must allow for fluctuations in both wildland and
agricultural use of lands. This must incorporate patchy land use, in both short-
term and long-term utilization. This solution resides at the landscape scale of
occupation and has been eloquently described by Naveh (1998) as
homeorhesis-that is, the shifting landscape patches that cycle in different
stages of succession and human use.
Another solution resides in the creation of corridors at a regional scale
for sustainability of populations and the migration of plants and animals. The
Sian Ka’an an-Calakmul corridor project (World Bank 2000) is one example
of such an effort. Another is the effort of the El Edén Ecological Reserve to
establish linkages stretching across the wetlands from Yum Balam to Sian
Ka’an. It is only in this context that we can understand the Maya world, and
develop models for global human survival.
LITERATURE CITED
Beach, T., and N. P. Dunning. 1995. Ancient Maya terracing and modern conservation
in the Petén rain forest of Guatemala. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 50:138-145.
632 THE LOWLAND MAYA AREA
Brown, L R., C. Flavin, and H. French. 2001. State of the world 2001. The Worldwatch
Institute. W.W. Norton & Co., New York.
Carr, H. S. 1996. “Precolumbian Maya exploitation and management of deer
populations.” Pages 251-261 in S. L. Fedick, editor. The managed mosaic:
Ancient Maya agriculture and resource use. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake
City, UT.
Culbert, T. P., and D. S. Rice (editors). 1990. Precolumbian population history in the
Maya lowlands. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Dahlin, B. H. 2000. The barricade and abandonment of Chunchucmil: implications for
northern Maya warfare. Latin American Antiquity 11:283-298.
Demarest, A. A., M. O’Mansky, C. Wolley, D. Van Tuerenhout, T. Inomata, J. Palka,
H. Escobedo. 1997. Classic Maya defensive systems and warfare in the
Petexbatun region. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:229-253.
Diamond, J. ???? Guns, germs, and steel.
Dunning, N., T. Beach, P. Farrell, and S. Luzzadder-Beach. 1998. Prehispanic
agrosystems and adaptive regions in the Maya lowlands. Culture &
Agriculture 20:87-101.
Dunning, N., T. Beach, and D. Rue. 1997. The paleoecology and ancient settlement of
the Petexbatun region. Ancient Mesoamerica 8:255-266.
Emery, K. T. 1999. “Continuity and variability in Postclassic and Colonial animal use at
Lamanai and Tipu, Belize.” Pages 61-81 in C. D. White, editor.
Reconstructing ancient Maya diet. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,
UT.
Erlich, P. ??? Population bomb.
Fedick, S. L. 1996a. The managed mosaic: Ancient Maya agriculture and resource use.
University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Fedick, S. L. 1996b. “Introduction: New perspectives on ancient Maya agriculture and
resource use.” Pages 1-14 in S. L. Fedick, editor. The managed mosaic: Ancient
Maya agriculture and resource use. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Fedick, S. L. 1996c. “Conclusion: Landscape approaches to the study of ancient Maya
agriculture and resource use.” Pages 335-347 in S. L. Fedick, editor. The managed
mosaic: Ancient Maya agriculture and resource use. University of Utah Press, Salt
Lake City, UT.
Fedick, S. L. 1997. Ancient Maya agricultural terracing in the upper Belize River area:
computer-aided modeling and the results of initial field investigations.
Ancient Mesoamerica 5:107-127.
Fedick, S. L., B. A. Morrison, B. J. Andersen, S. Boucher, J. Ceja Acosta, and J. P.
Mathews. 2000. Wetland manipulation in the Yalahau region of the northern Maya
lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology 27:131-152.
Flores, J. S. 1993. Observaciones preliminares sobre los huertos familiares Mayas en la
ciudad de Mérida, Yucatán, México. Biotica, nueva época 1:13-18.
Forman, R. T. T., and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
Gill, R. B. 2000. The great Maya droughts: water, life, and death. University of New
Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
The Maya Lowlands: A Case Study for the Future? 633
Gómez-Pompa, A., J. S. Flores, and V. Sosa. 1987. The “pet kot”: a man-made tropical
forest of the Maya. Interciencia 12(1):10-15.
Gómez-Pompa, A., and A. Kaus. 1990. “Traditional management of tropical forests in
Mexico.” Pages 45-64 in A. B. Anderson, editor. Alternatives to deforestation:
steps toward sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. Columbia University
Press, New York.
Goñi Motilla, G. A. 1993. Solares prehispanicos en la Peninsula de Yucatan. Thesis,
Escuala Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City, Mexico.
Hammond, N. 1978. “The myth of the milpa: Agricultural expansion in the Maya
lowlands.” Pages 23-34 in P. D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, editors. Pre-
Hispanic Maya agriculture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Herrera Castro, N. D. 1994. Los huertos familiares Mayas en al oriente de Yucatan.
Etnoflora Yucatanense, fascículo 9. Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida,
Yucatán, Mexico.
Herrera Castro, N., A. Gómez-Pompa, L. Cruz Kuri, and J. S. Flores. 1993. Los huertos
familiares Mayas en X-ulib, Yucatán, México. Aspectos generales y estudio
comparitivo entre la flora de los huertos familiares y la selva. Biotica, nueva época
1:19-36.
Hodell, D. A., J. H. Curtis, and M. Brenner. 1995. Possible role of climate in the
collapse of Classic Maya civilization. Nature 375:391-394.
Jiménez-Osorio, J. J., and V. M. Rorive (editors). 1999. Los Camellones chinampas
tropicales. Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida, Yucatán, Mexico.
Johnson, K. J., A. J. Breckenridge, and B. C. Hansen. 2001. Paleoecological evidence of
an early Postclassic occupation in the southwestern Maya lowlands: Laguna las
Pozas, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 12:149-166.
Konrad, H. W. 1985. “Fallout fo the war of the Chacs: The impact of hurricanes and
implications for Prehispanic Quintana Roo Maya processes.” Pages 321-330 in
M. Thomson, M. T. Garcia, and F. J. Kense, editors. Status and stratification:
Surrent Archaeological Reconstructions. Archaeological Association, University
of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Martin, S., and N. Grube. 1995. Maya superstates: how a few powerful kingdoms vied
for control of the Maya lowlands during the Classic period (A.D. 300-900).
Archaeology 48(6):41-46.
Martin, S., and N. Grube. 2000. Chronicle of the Maya kings and queens. Thames and
Hudson, London.
Naveh, Z. 1998. Ecological and cultural landscape restoration and the cultural evolution
towards a post-industrial symbiosis between human society and nature.
Restoration Ecology 6:135-143.
Ortega, L. M., S. Avendaño, A. Gómez-Pompa, and E. Ucán Ek. 1993. Los solares de
Chunchucmil, Yucatán, México. Biotica, nueva época 1:37-51.
Pyburn, K. A. 1996. The political economy of ancient Maya land use: The road to ruin.
Pages 236-247 in S. L. Fedick, editor. The managed mosaic: Ancient Maya
agriculture and resource use. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Schele, L. and D. Freidel. 1990. A forest of kings: The untold story of the ancient Maya.
William Morrow, New York
634 THE LOWLAND MAYA AREA
Shaw, L. C. 1999. “Social and ecological aspects of Preclassic Maya meat consumption
at Colha, Belize.” Pages 83-100 in C. D. White, editor. Reconstructing
ancient Maya diet. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.
Stuart, J. W. 1993. Contribution of dooryard gardens to contemporary Yucatan Maya
subsistence. Biotica, nueva época 1:53-61.
Toledo Maya Cultural Council, and Toledo Alcaldes Association. 1997. Maya atlas:
The struggle to preserve Maya land in southern Belize. North Atlantic Books,
Berkeley.
Turner, B. L. II. 1978. “The development and demise of the swidden thesis of Maya
agriculture.” Pages 13-22 in P. D. Harrison and B. L. Turner II, editors. Pre-
Hispanic Maya agriculture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Wang, X., J. Wang and B. Li. 2001. Developing a sustainable development indicator via
knowledge mining. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 8: 119-126.
White, C. (editor). 1999. Reconstructing ancient Maya diet. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City, UT.
