AbstractTeams from the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) and the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) have put forth a new chronology for Chichen Itza that challenges recent scholarly opinion favoring a date of roughlya.d.800/850–1000/1050 for the so-called “Toltec” or Modified Florescent occupation. The new chronology instead argues for the placement of this occupation betweena.d.950–1150, a span favored by scholars prior to the 1970s. This paper presents a critique of the ceramic, radiocarbon, and stratigraphic foundations of these arguments, arguing that, on present evidence, Chichen Itza experienced a tenth-century florescence. Although the site may very well have been occupied into the next century, at present we have no absolute dates aftera.d.1000 and no evidence for later monumental construction. Furthermore, arguments for a proposed hiatus or discontinuity at the onset of the Modified Florescent period are rejected in favor of a model of continued development of Toltec ideas from the late ninth century onward.
Obituary Gerald D. Feldman (1937–2007) Member of the Editorial Board of Contemporary European History