13 ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVES AND MISSING DATA Refining the chronology of Chichen Itza 1 Beniamino Volta and Geoffrey E. Braswell The history of the ancient Maya city of Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico, has been a subject of debate in archaeology, epigraphy, and art history for more than a century. Despite abundant scholarly attention, little agreement has been reached on a coherent chronological framework for the site. Contradicting chronologies based on hieroglyphic inscriptions, ethnohistorical sources, ceramic typologies, architectural styles, and absolute dates have been proposed. Such alternative chronologies reflect past and current inter- pretations of ancient Maya history. Nonetheless, they often limit new understanding. In this chapter we review existing chronologies of Chichen Itza and attempt to resolve some of the inconsistencies among them. We combine different lines of evidence with data from recent stratigraphic excavations of the Great Terrace, employing Bayesian calibration of radiocarbon determinations to generate a more precise chronology for the site. The results of our analysis refine our understanding of the dynamics of occupation at Chichen Itza during the ninth, tenth, and early eleventh centuries AD. Future research should be aimed at elucidating initial settlement of the site during the Preclas- sic and Early Classic periods, exploring a possible temporary decline during the first half of the tenth century, and understanding the collapse of Chichen Itza during the eleventh century. The nature and timing of the transition between the Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic periods are important and controversial issues in the archaeology of the northern Maya lowlands (Andrews et al. 2003; Andrews and Sabloff 1986; Bey et al. 1997; Chase and Chase 2004; Demarest et al. 2004; Sabloff 2007). As one of the primary political and economic centers in northern Yucatan for at least part – if not all – of the time span between ad 800 and 1200, Chichen Itza plays a major role in any attempt to identify and explain the social processes underlying this significant change (see Figures 1.1 and 13.1; Aimers 2007; Anderson 1998; A. P. Andrews 1990; E. W. Andrews 1979; Ball 1979; Cobos 2004, 2011; Cobos