What do you think?
Rate this book
The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse
UK edition of 0500051135
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2002
6 people are currently reading
171 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
September 17, 2018
Very well written book with a ton of great detail on the culture of the Maya. Nice layout of chapters with lots of illustrations. Recommended
March 9, 2008
Picked this up in a "free books" pile on a local park bench. Figured what the heck -- it was a hardcover, in great condition, and about something that fascinates me (visited the Xunantunich and Caracol ruins in Belize a couple years ago). HOWEVER, and sadly enough, this was the first book in my 36 years that I simply could not finish. Dry, repetitive, obtuse, indirect, and, believe it or not, far too much detail. It's obvious that the Maya are the writer's life's work, but he seems to forget that someone "on the other end" is actually READING this stuff.
February 10, 2024
Perhaps it would be fairer to give this book no rating at all, because I gave up around page 100 of a 350 page book. I forced myself through that first third because I'm interested in precolumbian culture, and I had been looking forward to what I anticipated would be an enriching read.
Not so.
In the first place, the book meanders too much, making it hard for the reader to follow, or even remain engaged. In a chapter about "Why is there a Maya mystique?", for instance, we all of a sudden find ourselves being told all about rainfall in different parts of the Yucatan. The story veers back and forth between very high-level (centuries of history) to details (stele nr x in room y of archeological site z). In a similar vein, there were too many generic statements of the type "these communities had their own social, economic and financial rules, their own rituals and ceremonies, and were led by a person with the title of (...)". Well, a statement like that applies both to a Ladies' Sewing Circle and the International Monetary Fund, so these pronouncements didn't really help me understand the social fabric of Maya Society.
Second, the author's voice is that of a peeved expert who just can't understand why others don't simply agree with him. He complains that whenever he sits next to someone in an airplane and he tells them what his profession is, that person will inevitably ask about the collapse of the Mayan empire. Well, one could also take this as an indicator of polite interest, or even as an encouraging sign that the mysterious Mayas continue to hold sway over popular imagination. He also complains that tourists can now visit famous Mayan ruins, making the reader wonder whether he feels that these wonderful places should be cordoned off altogether and kept exclusively for the private visits of archeologists?
Third- and unforgivably- I found a howler of a mistake on page 46. The title of a book by a French explorer is cited - in the caption to an illustration, no less- as "Les anciennes villes de Nouveau Mond". That makes two mistakes in what should be "Les anciennes villes du Nouveau Monde". Seriously? In the production of this book by a respected academic, not a single person either had enough high-school French to pick up this mistake - or no one bothered to check? Goofs like this made me wonder what other errors might have passed unnoticed.
In summary: I laid this book aside with some regret, but also with the certainty that continuing on would have generated frustration rather than knowledge.
Not so.
In the first place, the book meanders too much, making it hard for the reader to follow, or even remain engaged. In a chapter about "Why is there a Maya mystique?", for instance, we all of a sudden find ourselves being told all about rainfall in different parts of the Yucatan. The story veers back and forth between very high-level (centuries of history) to details (stele nr x in room y of archeological site z). In a similar vein, there were too many generic statements of the type "these communities had their own social, economic and financial rules, their own rituals and ceremonies, and were led by a person with the title of (...)". Well, a statement like that applies both to a Ladies' Sewing Circle and the International Monetary Fund, so these pronouncements didn't really help me understand the social fabric of Maya Society.
Second, the author's voice is that of a peeved expert who just can't understand why others don't simply agree with him. He complains that whenever he sits next to someone in an airplane and he tells them what his profession is, that person will inevitably ask about the collapse of the Mayan empire. Well, one could also take this as an indicator of polite interest, or even as an encouraging sign that the mysterious Mayas continue to hold sway over popular imagination. He also complains that tourists can now visit famous Mayan ruins, making the reader wonder whether he feels that these wonderful places should be cordoned off altogether and kept exclusively for the private visits of archeologists?
Third- and unforgivably- I found a howler of a mistake on page 46. The title of a book by a French explorer is cited - in the caption to an illustration, no less- as "Les anciennes villes de Nouveau Mond". That makes two mistakes in what should be "Les anciennes villes du Nouveau Monde". Seriously? In the production of this book by a respected academic, not a single person either had enough high-school French to pick up this mistake - or no one bothered to check? Goofs like this made me wonder what other errors might have passed unnoticed.
In summary: I laid this book aside with some regret, but also with the certainty that continuing on would have generated frustration rather than knowledge.
March 9, 2019
I always have a problem with anthrological studies. They can get so lost in the weeds of what they're studying and excavating that it's hard to find any narrative or argument. It's just piles of stuff. This book on the collapse of the Maya doesn't even get around to discussing theories of the collapse until your over 200 pages into this book (which is about 350 pages of text, not including back material). You can discussions of various sites, and what the Mayans were and what collapse means and what is meant by the word civilization, and ..... look, I understand why it's all there. But there's so much background material that the book's title feels misleading.
At any rate - why'd the ancient Mayans fall? There are a bunch of traditional theories, and none work perfectly - and some don't work at all. It was a combination of factors. Webster notes that saying "they all did it!" is lame, but he does focus on a few main factors. First, is economic underproduction. He notes that his interpretation is essentially Malthusian - they had too many people and lacked the land space (he says their civilization core was the size of Florida) and technology to keep up food production. Wars aggrevated the agricultural stresses. There was not much effective leadership to deal with the problems. (He compares to a much later Aztec ruler, who built big aquaducts to help during a problem - no leadership with the Mayans was strong enough or able enough to do likewise). Eventually, this discredited their old notion of kingship. Kings went all the way back for the Mayans, but there was always a sense that if something went wrong (or right) it was due to the person in charge, not anything structural. For long times, kings cultivated this idea to justify their power. But now it turned around and backfired on them. If kings were to praise for success, then screw them if there were problems. Kings were central to the Mayan political culture, so when it collapsed the ancient Mayan civilization collapsed.
There were still plenty of Mayans when the Spanish came - and there are still plenty now, but that's why the old Mayan centers fell into ruins.
It's a decent argument, but slogging through this book to find it was a chore. I think I could've skipped the first 330 pages and gotten about as much out of it as I did.
At any rate - why'd the ancient Mayans fall? There are a bunch of traditional theories, and none work perfectly - and some don't work at all. It was a combination of factors. Webster notes that saying "they all did it!" is lame, but he does focus on a few main factors. First, is economic underproduction. He notes that his interpretation is essentially Malthusian - they had too many people and lacked the land space (he says their civilization core was the size of Florida) and technology to keep up food production. Wars aggrevated the agricultural stresses. There was not much effective leadership to deal with the problems. (He compares to a much later Aztec ruler, who built big aquaducts to help during a problem - no leadership with the Mayans was strong enough or able enough to do likewise). Eventually, this discredited their old notion of kingship. Kings went all the way back for the Mayans, but there was always a sense that if something went wrong (or right) it was due to the person in charge, not anything structural. For long times, kings cultivated this idea to justify their power. But now it turned around and backfired on them. If kings were to praise for success, then screw them if there were problems. Kings were central to the Mayan political culture, so when it collapsed the ancient Mayan civilization collapsed.
There were still plenty of Mayans when the Spanish came - and there are still plenty now, but that's why the old Mayan centers fell into ruins.
It's a decent argument, but slogging through this book to find it was a chore. I think I could've skipped the first 330 pages and gotten about as much out of it as I did.
August 22, 2019
Not enough explanation of how he came to particular conclusions.
July 30, 2025
Did Not Finish
May 16, 2012
The study of the Maya has been a hobby since the time of planning a first trip Qunitana Roo back around 1989. Now, visiting my old roommates, the Miley brothers, I find that both of them have become interested in the topic, Tom intending a trip to the Yucatan this coming winter. Tom also intends a audio-visual composition about the Maya calendar. I read this book on their recommendation to get my hand back in.
Most of my work in this field beyond visiting sites ranging from Cancun in the north, Coba in the west and the Belize border to the south has been to read books I've encountered about the Maya. Being cheap, most of these books were used and, therefore, dated. Much progress has been made in the decipherment of the written language since the time those books were published. Webster's book, having been published in 2002, was of interest because it represents scholarship supplemented by a pretty thorough understanding of the ancient texts and inscriptions.
The "pretty thorough understanding" of what little remains of Mayan writing turns out to be rather disappointing. Thanks to zealous Christians and inclement climate most of their books were destroyed long ago and we rely primarily on inscriptions and painted pottery, none of which convey very much. What remains is mostly about the elites, regnal dates, wars and astronomical and calendrical data.
Still, with this evidence it is possible for Webster to challenge many of the older, pre-decipherment hypotheses about why the Maya declined so in the five centuries before the Spanish conquest of their lands. While the former hypotheses tended to be simplifying, tending towards the assumption of a generalized collapse, Webster's conclusions are more nuanced, tracing the collapse as a plural phenomenon, different "cities" declining at different times at different rates for different reasons. One Maya city even remained independent until 1696!
While written with the lay reader in mind, this is not properly an introductory text. Much about the Maya is not explained, the focus being more on the decline of their civilization than on its nature.
Most of my work in this field beyond visiting sites ranging from Cancun in the north, Coba in the west and the Belize border to the south has been to read books I've encountered about the Maya. Being cheap, most of these books were used and, therefore, dated. Much progress has been made in the decipherment of the written language since the time those books were published. Webster's book, having been published in 2002, was of interest because it represents scholarship supplemented by a pretty thorough understanding of the ancient texts and inscriptions.
The "pretty thorough understanding" of what little remains of Mayan writing turns out to be rather disappointing. Thanks to zealous Christians and inclement climate most of their books were destroyed long ago and we rely primarily on inscriptions and painted pottery, none of which convey very much. What remains is mostly about the elites, regnal dates, wars and astronomical and calendrical data.
Still, with this evidence it is possible for Webster to challenge many of the older, pre-decipherment hypotheses about why the Maya declined so in the five centuries before the Spanish conquest of their lands. While the former hypotheses tended to be simplifying, tending towards the assumption of a generalized collapse, Webster's conclusions are more nuanced, tracing the collapse as a plural phenomenon, different "cities" declining at different times at different rates for different reasons. One Maya city even remained independent until 1696!
While written with the lay reader in mind, this is not properly an introductory text. Much about the Maya is not explained, the focus being more on the decline of their civilization than on its nature.
June 21, 2012
I checked this out at the library cause it was the one with the most information for my research paper. Sadly, it made me regret choosing that topic, which was my favorite at the time, because the author concentrates more on criticizing other archaeologists and "Mayanists" than he concentrates on actually talking about what caused the "Collapse". While it has proven to have the most information in book form that I needed than the other books I chose to cite as sources, next time I will choose Wikipedia over David Webster should I choose another "favorite" topic for a research paper if another of his books prove to be the one with the seemingly most information. When I am researching a paper and choose a book over a free online encyclopedia, I want the book to focus on the topic, not on criticizing every archaeologist, "Mayanist", and theorist out there.
February 24, 2015
Reading about the Maya is one of my favorite things. I read everything from pure non-fiction (such as this book is) to Adrian Gilbert's "2012 - Mayan Year of Destiny" that tells you what was supposed to happen in December 2012 (but didn't).
This book was good but I was really hoping to get some new insight into "solving the mystery" as the title implies. Instead it's a fairly straightforward account of the decline of the Mayan empire in Central America. I didn't find a lot of new ideas in this book but it was interesting to see in one place theories of the fall of the major cities (Copan, Tikal, Piedras Negras, etc.)
This book was good but I was really hoping to get some new insight into "solving the mystery" as the title implies. Instead it's a fairly straightforward account of the decline of the Mayan empire in Central America. I didn't find a lot of new ideas in this book but it was interesting to see in one place theories of the fall of the major cities (Copan, Tikal, Piedras Negras, etc.)
March 5, 2016
Possibly a 3.5...
This is a very interesting, but very dry book about the ancient Maya. I am not using dry history as an insult, by the way; I just think it's something to be aware of if you're looking for a light read. The author discusses several theories about why ancient Mayan culture may have collapsed, offering arguments for and against and coming to a multi-faceted conclusion of his own. I genuinely enjoyed this book, but I did feel it covered the same ground a few times and in that respect was padded out a bit. Still, I would recommend it if you have a serious interest in ancient Mayan history.
This is a very interesting, but very dry book about the ancient Maya. I am not using dry history as an insult, by the way; I just think it's something to be aware of if you're looking for a light read. The author discusses several theories about why ancient Mayan culture may have collapsed, offering arguments for and against and coming to a multi-faceted conclusion of his own. I genuinely enjoyed this book, but I did feel it covered the same ground a few times and in that respect was padded out a bit. Still, I would recommend it if you have a serious interest in ancient Mayan history.
March 10, 2011
A comprehensive discussion of the many possible reasons for the collapse of classic Maya civilization.
Read
November 20, 2018Tells what could have happened to the Maya of about 800 A.D. Very well written
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews