The collapse of the Maya Empire

The reading passage contends that there are three plausible theories to account for the downfall of the Maya Empire. On the other hand the lecture contradicts the reading by say that none of the three theories are convincing.

First, the speaker argues that social turmoil caused by a peasant revolution did not lead to the collapse of Maya society.
The reason is that there are no records of uprising, even though the Maya used a sophisticated writing system. Moreover, the Maya Empire was decentralized, so a revolt in one city might not have had effect on other cities. This casts doubt on the reading passage's claim that revolution would have gave rise to the end of Maya society.

Second, the lecturer claims that it is unlikely that the destruction of Teotihuacan, a trade hub at the time, caused Maya to crumble. This is because Teotihuacan had reduced its economical importance since sixth century which is many centuries before Maya Empire collapsed. Also, it is hard to say that changing trad routes contributed to the collapse of Maya cities. This refutes the reading passage's claim that Maya Empire were disappeared was the result of the fall of Teotihuacan as a trade hub.

The final point made by the lecture is that there is no evidence that epidemic brought about the decline of the Maya Empire. This is supported by the fact that disease like malaria and yellow fever were brought to Central America later than the collapse. In addition, mass graves or other indication that many people died in a short period of time have not been found. This counters the reading passage's claim that an outbreak of epidemic was the reason for the fall of the Maya Empire.