Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Mayan Civilization & Its Disappearance.
- Thread starter cassanova
- Start date
They just grew tired of the silly hats and wigs, hung up their jaguar skins, and joined the rest of civilization. Now they work at McD's.
errr sorry for a serious answer when we're having so much fun. But speaking as an historian...
Take anything the History Channel says with a big 'ole grain of salt. They pump up the melodrama to make television and in the process usually distort whatever they're talking about beyond all recognition, often by playing on outdated stereotypes. If you listen real carefully to the real live historians they interview, and compare it to what the husky narrator voiceover says, you'll often find that the narration contradicts or is at least unrelated to what the historian actually said. They bring guys in (colleagues of mine in some cases) to lend the shows an air of legitimacy and then, instead of giving you the story as historians actually believe it to have been, throw a lot of guff out that was invalidated generations ago.
Anyhow, the Maya -- yes, are still around today, and yes, got conquered by the Spanish and all. They didn't disappear. But they did stop building those amazing temples and cities and so forth and generally abandoned the ones already built. Although they were one of the few Native American civilizations to have writing, they used it for calendars and mythology rather than "secular" history or record keeping so we have basically no information to go on to explain what happened to cause them to revert to simpler social organization. It technically belongs to prehistory rather than history for this reason.
Monumental construction is based on social hierarchy and social hierarchies only last as long as those at the top are able to maintain their grip on those on the bottom. What cracked that grip is open to speculation -- revolution? disease? economic changes? external conquest? That's open to anyone's guess unless the archaeologists can give us a better idea. There is a good parallel (equally uncertain) with the disappearance of Mycenaean civilization in ancient Greece -- the people were certainly still there, but they stopped building these great citadels and palaces, for equally unknown reasons.
Take anything the History Channel says with a big 'ole grain of salt. They pump up the melodrama to make television and in the process usually distort whatever they're talking about beyond all recognition, often by playing on outdated stereotypes. If you listen real carefully to the real live historians they interview, and compare it to what the husky narrator voiceover says, you'll often find that the narration contradicts or is at least unrelated to what the historian actually said. They bring guys in (colleagues of mine in some cases) to lend the shows an air of legitimacy and then, instead of giving you the story as historians actually believe it to have been, throw a lot of guff out that was invalidated generations ago.
Anyhow, the Maya -- yes, are still around today, and yes, got conquered by the Spanish and all. They didn't disappear. But they did stop building those amazing temples and cities and so forth and generally abandoned the ones already built. Although they were one of the few Native American civilizations to have writing, they used it for calendars and mythology rather than "secular" history or record keeping so we have basically no information to go on to explain what happened to cause them to revert to simpler social organization. It technically belongs to prehistory rather than history for this reason.
Monumental construction is based on social hierarchy and social hierarchies only last as long as those at the top are able to maintain their grip on those on the bottom. What cracked that grip is open to speculation -- revolution? disease? economic changes? external conquest? That's open to anyone's guess unless the archaeologists can give us a better idea. There is a good parallel (equally uncertain) with the disappearance of Mycenaean civilization in ancient Greece -- the people were certainly still there, but they stopped building these great citadels and palaces, for equally unknown reasons.
My family and I vacationed in Cancun in '03 and took a bus trip out to Chitzen Itza and I can tell you that Yucatan is full of 100% pure Mayan. They look exactly like their ancient carvings (which aren't really that ancient). I don't think Mayan civilization died out. They were dominated and taxed and somewhat absorbed by the Aztecs and then the Spanish came and took over.
I think you're wondering why their city states waned and why cities with impressive structures were abandoned and overgrown by jungle. Who knows?
But I do think all the human sacrifice screwed up the Maya, Aztecs and others of the region. After that vacation I was interested in native Mexican civilzations and read some books. Even with the Spanish being greedy gold crazed bastards, I ended up more sympathetic to them due to the pervasiveness of human sacrifice and its terrorizing and numbing effect on the indigenous people. The indigenous priests ran a terror death cult civilization.
If you havent already, read up on it. Read about Cortez and the conquest of Mexico. The human sacrifice wasn't only in the cities. It was in little huts in the jungle, in the middle of nowhere between villages, caked in blood, swarming with flies, stinking, skulls. Just absolutely nuts.
I think you're wondering why their city states waned and why cities with impressive structures were abandoned and overgrown by jungle. Who knows?
But I do think all the human sacrifice screwed up the Maya, Aztecs and others of the region. After that vacation I was interested in native Mexican civilzations and read some books. Even with the Spanish being greedy gold crazed bastards, I ended up more sympathetic to them due to the pervasiveness of human sacrifice and its terrorizing and numbing effect on the indigenous people. The indigenous priests ran a terror death cult civilization.
If you havent already, read up on it. Read about Cortez and the conquest of Mexico. The human sacrifice wasn't only in the cities. It was in little huts in the jungle, in the middle of nowhere between villages, caked in blood, swarming with flies, stinking, skulls. Just absolutely nuts.
Author Jaraed Diamond addresses this very issue in this 2005 book "Collapse":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed
He won a Pulitzer Prize for his previous book "Guns Germs and Steel":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed
He won a Pulitzer Prize for his previous book "Guns Germs and Steel":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel
Thank you for a serious answer. I'm a history freak, so I appreciate the input. No worries, I do take everything I see on the History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc, with a grain of salt.
I am an adamant believer that mankind is going to be the cause of its own extinction.
Thanks Headroom -- I enjoyed Guns, Germs and Steel, haven't gotten to Collapse yet. Have to take a look. And it's gratifying to see the history buffs around the forum!
So far the human race seems to have been able to survive just about anything, barring the sun exploding, nuclear holocaust or the moon getting knocked out of its orbit (anyone here read Life as We Knew It?). But cultural forms may become unsustainable. I can see global warming or a pandemic of some kind, if sufficiently cataclysmic, putting an end to our civilization as it currently exists, but not ending life on earth.
I'm curious about the human sacrifice issue. Cortez' reports are often all we have to go on to describe mesoamerican civilization on the eve of conquest, but of course he is... err... not EXACTLY an objective, disinterested observer. Not that it wasn't occurring -- the Popol Vuh makes it essential to human survival, the price of fire -- but Cortez certainly would have played up a lurid image of it.
I am as horrified as anyone by human sacrifice, but taking a step back to think objectively about its impact on a society, I'm not sure that it is necessarily disintegrative to social structure. There's plenty of evidence for it in ancient European and Middle Eastern societies, though not on the same scale and they generally abandoned it at some point (substituting animal sacrifices). In any case, societies survive and thrive by managing conflict and violence, not by eliminating it, and I can easily see human sacrifice as a device to control and channel and therefore limit disruptive violence in a community. However common it may have been, I doubt it was enough to have an real demographic impact compared to war, famine and disease.
I appreciate your skepticism but it was more than Cortez who recounted it - it was also his officers and others who were with him, many of whom weren't big fans of his and many that followed later. Also, the Spanish empire in the early 1500's wasn't particularly concerned with drumming up moral justifications for their conquests - spreading the catholic faith was enough to cover that in any case. And of course human sacrifice didn't end with Cortez overthrowing Tenochtitlan.
In Chitzen Itza there's a huge platform monument called the Tzompantli, which means platform (or rack) of skulls and all over their monuments there are elaborate carvings of human sacrifice. It's the dominant theme by far. It's really something. I would definitely recommend visiting Chitzen Itza. It's amazing.
Anyways, if you google the word Tzompantli, you'll see these things were common - the real thing, not carvings. The conquistadors and the Spanish that followed encountered them many times. Racks with rows and rows and rows of impaled skulls of sacrificed humans, right out in the open.
I thought that kind of thing was hollywood so I was shocked to see elaborate Mayan Monuments with hundreds of depictions of human sacrifice and matrices of skulls. Right up close. You can just walk up and touch the carvings. There were a few times where we'd be standing by an innocuous looking wall with nothing obvious on it and then I'd notice in the weathered surface, more depictions of human sacrifice and death. It's everywhere in that place, and in many, many others like it in Mexico. It's really weird and fascinating.
In Chitzen Itza there's a huge platform monument called the Tzompantli, which means platform (or rack) of skulls and all over their monuments there are elaborate carvings of human sacrifice. It's the dominant theme by far. It's really something. I would definitely recommend visiting Chitzen Itza. It's amazing.
Anyways, if you google the word Tzompantli, you'll see these things were common - the real thing, not carvings. The conquistadors and the Spanish that followed encountered them many times. Racks with rows and rows and rows of impaled skulls of sacrificed humans, right out in the open.
I thought that kind of thing was hollywood so I was shocked to see elaborate Mayan Monuments with hundreds of depictions of human sacrifice and matrices of skulls. Right up close. You can just walk up and touch the carvings. There were a few times where we'd be standing by an innocuous looking wall with nothing obvious on it and then I'd notice in the weathered surface, more depictions of human sacrifice and death. It's everywhere in that place, and in many, many others like it in Mexico. It's really weird and fascinating.
He agreed it was widespread, just that it did not have a demographic impact. I'm sure 100 sacrificed bodies may have looked gruesome, but it did not vaporize their population.
When I said I think human sacrifice screwed up the Maya and Aztecs, I didn't mean I thought direct deaths by human sacrifice significantly reduced their numbers. I don't know about that either way.
What I meant was I think it degraded their society psychologically and morally. I think it damaged and numbed and demoralized them and left them particularly vulnerable.
I don't think human psychology is totally culturally relative. IMO, a big part of it is biologically based and outlines certain natural laws.
What I meant was I think it degraded their society psychologically and morally. I think it damaged and numbed and demoralized them and left them particularly vulnerable.
I don't think human psychology is totally culturally relative. IMO, a big part of it is biologically based and outlines certain natural laws.
Maybe. IMHO I think we're too adaptable to kill ourselves off. we've gone this far and we seem to have done very well for something with no attached weaponry or an exoskeleton, and no night vision.
