I recall in a book on Mayan rulers, the focus was primarily on city-states from the Classic Period, but little about the Post-Classic cities of Chichen Itza and Mayapan is detailed. Why is the Post-Classic relatively poorly understood?

by Paulie_Gatto
Mictlantecuhtli

This is a result of public and academic focus. Since the publication of "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan" by Frederick Catherwood and John Lloyd Stephens, the public has been enamored with "lost cities" in the jungles of southern Mexico and northern Central America. To satisfy public curiosity, academia has explored those "lost cities". As work progressed, many of these cities that public was interested in were abandoned towards the end of the Classic period. Academia has been struggling for decades now to understand the causes and reasons behind that abandonment. Cities that had been abandoned at the end of the Preclassic only to reoccupied at the end of the Classic or beginning of the Postclassic, or new cities that were founded and grew, or cities that were not abandoned at the end of the Classic period sort of fell by the wayside in terms of research. With so many academics focused on the Classic period, a disproportionate amount of work and information of that period exists. That's not to say that some scholars did not focus on the Preclassic or Postclassic. This information is just more difficult to find and read than Classic period related literature.

We can see something similar in other parts of Mesoamerica. For example, most scholars focus on the Early and Middle Formative periods in Veracruz during the time of the Olmec. Very few scholars focus on the Late Formative period of the Epi-Olmec or the Classic period culture (I've only seen it referred to as Classic Veracruz). Then you have some scholars that focus on the Postclassic Totonacs in Veracruz, but they are few in number compared to the Olmec scholars.

In my region of Western Mexico, most scholars focus on the Late Formative to Classic period when multiple cultures across primarily three states were burying some of their dead in shaft and chamber tombs dug into the earth (not everyone was buried this way). The Early and Middle Formative periods and subsequent Epiclassic and Postclassic periods have received comparatively little focus despite providing a context for the Late Formative and Classic period cultures (i.e. development of shaft and chamber tomb use from Early Formative to Classic period, or understanding why the use fell out of favor after the Classic period).

While we can take a step back and point to regions and time periods and say that they need work, it is not easy to direct people to focus on those regions or time periods. There has to be a sufficient level of interest for a scholar to want to investigate that area/time in order for the scholar to spend their own time developing a research question, writing grant proposals, and conducting field and laboratory work to answer those questions. When you work in an area or time period that receives a lot of scholarly attention, it is easier to formulate research questions and draw upon existing literature to support your own despite the difficulty in competing with other scholars for limited grant money. It is difficult to work in areas or time periods where few others work. A lack of interesting may prohibit being able to acquire sufficient grant money, few peers can evaluate your work and challenge you, and the public may see you as wasting your time when you could be researching a culture that is perceived by many to be more interesting.

If you want, I have provided some sources that you can track down to be better understand the Postclassic Maya period. I hope they prove useful and interesting.