A lesson from the Maya
9/10/11 16:39![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
luzribeiro.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWe've been hearing too often about the Maya lately, mostly in relation to this famed 2012 apocalypse that is about to happen. Hehe. But I think the Maya might have a more interesting lesson to give to us, the presumably advanced modern humanity.
In the 9th century the Maya civilization suddenly disintegrated. For decades the historians and archaeologists have been trying to unravel the enigma about its mysterious demise. Now there's an intriguing theory about the reason: the political Balkanization of the region at the time.
Apparently the decline started suddenly and happened relatively quickly about 1200 years ago. The great temples went into disrepair, the palaces fell apart, people stopped writing hieroglyphs on the stone walls. In just a couple of centuries the Maya abandoned 90% of their cities.
Was it because they became victims of a natural disaster, or a civil war, or maybe a foreign invasion? The answers to these questions could explain how historic decline happens, therefore they're important for understanding what threatens modern societies.
Some scientists see the reasons for the sudden collapse of the Maya in destroying the environmental balance in the region - man-made deforestation, soil erosion, etc. In his book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", the famous Jared Diamond argues that the Maya population increased exponentially and were forced to start consuming the jungle. People destroyed the forests, the soils eroded quickly. The Maya started struggling with ever dwindling resources. The long periods of drought additionally worsened the situation and lead to mass starvation and poverty.
The scientists are unanimous that the lands of the Maya were very densely populated. There were nearly 200 people per sq km, which is similar to the modern population density of Germany today (230). But did the overpopulation of their territories really have a central role for the decline of their civilization? The German Maya-expert Nikolay Grube doubts that. He doesn't share Jared Diamond's theory. While drought was certainly a factor for the demise of their civilization, Grube argues that the excavations in Uxul for example are showing that there were still dense forests existing between the separate cities, even at the late stages. This is a sign that the Maya did not blatantly destroy all their surrounding nature as much as speculated.
Grube has an entirely different approach to the Maya decline. His scenario is based on modern concepts. He posits that for many centuries there were two dominating centers of power in the Maya territories - Calakmul in the southern part of modern Mexico, and Tikal in Guatemala. Between the two political rivals there was a stable power balance, which held their internal and external conflicts in relative equilibrium. It was an early, jungle version of the Cold War.
Somewhere around 695 AD, these relations changed drastically. Tikal sent troops to attack Calakmul, they kidnapped the king and killed him. A similar thing happened in 736 which lead to the collapse of all social and political structures in Calakmul. Soon after that the second regional superpower Tikal also disintegrated, due to the created power vacuum. And this was the actual reason for the end of the great palace culture of the Maya in the south. The scenario repeated a little later in the North, because the northern Maya were tightly interconnected with the South.
After the decline of the kings, the populace survived for a few more decades as a society, but the cities fell apart, and there were minor conflicts everywhere, which grew into violent clashes. Initially the superpowers would wage wars against each other, and the local clashes emerged afterwards. This is what's called the Balkanization of the Maya, according to Grube.
The latest discoveries at Uxul lead to the conclusion that this scenario is not very far from the truth. After the kings abandoned the palaces, the peasants gradually took over. They used the stones from the decaying buildings to build their own homes. But the new settlers had nothing resembling a society that would serve the greater good. It was a free for all. And so, the irrigation systems and the canals stopped working, then drought came and from there the end wasn't very far away. What exactly happened to the last inhabitants of Uxul is unknown. Probably the drought forced them to leave the city.
[edit] Of course, history has shown time and time again that the reasons for the collapse of a civilization are complex. So we would better look at the reasons in this particular case as an amalgam of both factors - the rapid deterioration of the environment, plus the inter-state scramble for dominance over the ever diminishing resources. A parallel that we could see today in the world. History really goes in circles, if not in spirals.
I would also add a third, social factor for the collapse. It's the series of peasant revolts in the late Mayan cities. The hierarchy of the Maya was completely dependent on the slave institution. The so-called "palace culture" was entirely consisting of nobles and priests, which was a tiny layer at the top of society who controlled most of the wealth and the means of production. Eventually this system collapsed like a house of cards, once the Mayan society reached a critical level of social disparity, where the vast majority of people were left without property of their own, without proper income that would sustain their households, and most importantly, without a sense for purpose and future. Meanwhile, the elites were seen bathing in excessive wealth, and distancing themselves even more from the masses. That was a dangerous mixture which inevitably exploded in the end, and vastly contributed to the demise of the Mayans, because the social pyramid crumbled from the bottom up. It's a lesson we might like remembering even today, because there are indications that modern society at large is moving in a similar direction.
Obviously, the Maya continue living in the region long after the collapse of their great cities. Currently there are about 7 million descendants of the Maya, spread across Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. Most of them live in miserable social and economic conditions. But meanwhile the modern Maya are beginning to regain their confidence. In Guatemala there are Maya schools. This is particularly important for preserving and further developing their language and culture. And passing the lessons of history. But there is one thing they don't like discussing broadly in those schools - the collapse that happened 1200 years ago.
In the 9th century the Maya civilization suddenly disintegrated. For decades the historians and archaeologists have been trying to unravel the enigma about its mysterious demise. Now there's an intriguing theory about the reason: the political Balkanization of the region at the time.
Apparently the decline started suddenly and happened relatively quickly about 1200 years ago. The great temples went into disrepair, the palaces fell apart, people stopped writing hieroglyphs on the stone walls. In just a couple of centuries the Maya abandoned 90% of their cities.
Was it because they became victims of a natural disaster, or a civil war, or maybe a foreign invasion? The answers to these questions could explain how historic decline happens, therefore they're important for understanding what threatens modern societies.
Some scientists see the reasons for the sudden collapse of the Maya in destroying the environmental balance in the region - man-made deforestation, soil erosion, etc. In his book "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed", the famous Jared Diamond argues that the Maya population increased exponentially and were forced to start consuming the jungle. People destroyed the forests, the soils eroded quickly. The Maya started struggling with ever dwindling resources. The long periods of drought additionally worsened the situation and lead to mass starvation and poverty.
The scientists are unanimous that the lands of the Maya were very densely populated. There were nearly 200 people per sq km, which is similar to the modern population density of Germany today (230). But did the overpopulation of their territories really have a central role for the decline of their civilization? The German Maya-expert Nikolay Grube doubts that. He doesn't share Jared Diamond's theory. While drought was certainly a factor for the demise of their civilization, Grube argues that the excavations in Uxul for example are showing that there were still dense forests existing between the separate cities, even at the late stages. This is a sign that the Maya did not blatantly destroy all their surrounding nature as much as speculated.
Grube has an entirely different approach to the Maya decline. His scenario is based on modern concepts. He posits that for many centuries there were two dominating centers of power in the Maya territories - Calakmul in the southern part of modern Mexico, and Tikal in Guatemala. Between the two political rivals there was a stable power balance, which held their internal and external conflicts in relative equilibrium. It was an early, jungle version of the Cold War.
Somewhere around 695 AD, these relations changed drastically. Tikal sent troops to attack Calakmul, they kidnapped the king and killed him. A similar thing happened in 736 which lead to the collapse of all social and political structures in Calakmul. Soon after that the second regional superpower Tikal also disintegrated, due to the created power vacuum. And this was the actual reason for the end of the great palace culture of the Maya in the south. The scenario repeated a little later in the North, because the northern Maya were tightly interconnected with the South.
After the decline of the kings, the populace survived for a few more decades as a society, but the cities fell apart, and there were minor conflicts everywhere, which grew into violent clashes. Initially the superpowers would wage wars against each other, and the local clashes emerged afterwards. This is what's called the Balkanization of the Maya, according to Grube.
The latest discoveries at Uxul lead to the conclusion that this scenario is not very far from the truth. After the kings abandoned the palaces, the peasants gradually took over. They used the stones from the decaying buildings to build their own homes. But the new settlers had nothing resembling a society that would serve the greater good. It was a free for all. And so, the irrigation systems and the canals stopped working, then drought came and from there the end wasn't very far away. What exactly happened to the last inhabitants of Uxul is unknown. Probably the drought forced them to leave the city.
[edit] Of course, history has shown time and time again that the reasons for the collapse of a civilization are complex. So we would better look at the reasons in this particular case as an amalgam of both factors - the rapid deterioration of the environment, plus the inter-state scramble for dominance over the ever diminishing resources. A parallel that we could see today in the world. History really goes in circles, if not in spirals.
I would also add a third, social factor for the collapse. It's the series of peasant revolts in the late Mayan cities. The hierarchy of the Maya was completely dependent on the slave institution. The so-called "palace culture" was entirely consisting of nobles and priests, which was a tiny layer at the top of society who controlled most of the wealth and the means of production. Eventually this system collapsed like a house of cards, once the Mayan society reached a critical level of social disparity, where the vast majority of people were left without property of their own, without proper income that would sustain their households, and most importantly, without a sense for purpose and future. Meanwhile, the elites were seen bathing in excessive wealth, and distancing themselves even more from the masses. That was a dangerous mixture which inevitably exploded in the end, and vastly contributed to the demise of the Mayans, because the social pyramid crumbled from the bottom up. It's a lesson we might like remembering even today, because there are indications that modern society at large is moving in a similar direction.
Obviously, the Maya continue living in the region long after the collapse of their great cities. Currently there are about 7 million descendants of the Maya, spread across Mexico, Guatemala and Honduras. Most of them live in miserable social and economic conditions. But meanwhile the modern Maya are beginning to regain their confidence. In Guatemala there are Maya schools. This is particularly important for preserving and further developing their language and culture. And passing the lessons of history. But there is one thing they don't like discussing broadly in those schools - the collapse that happened 1200 years ago.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 14:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 14:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 15:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 22:55 (UTC)And certainly the rise of a state entity=politics.
I like how you connected the dots, and used a "wholistic" (via anthropology) viewpoint, because one vector (unless extreme drought or massive plague kill off or other extreme vent) won't collapse a state, but it certainly makes it more vulnerable to other causes of collapse...
and yes, I can see every major state in the world withering away under the various strains on exterior, and interior environment etc.
Perhaps the Mayans will "rise again" as a state and slowly take over Mexico?
They may be one of the "big powers" in the 2100-2300's. If they combined forces with the Aztec descendents, with their mathematical heritage and know how,they may even spur on a scientific renaissance?
Wayyyyy off topic:
Also, look at a Jarritos soda bottle. The design is on the bottle itself is based on Mayan glyphs, which I find very cool.
(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 07:15 (UTC)I don't see how they can do that.
The Aztec mathematical knowledge compared to today's was like a 5-grader's knowledge compared to a PhD in maths.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 16:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 14:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 14:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 15:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 15:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 15:14 (UTC)Can we talk about the Mayans now?
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 15:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 16:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 20:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 20:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 20:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 14:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 15:55 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 15:11 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 16:01 (UTC)I like that thought. Similar patterns often repeat over certain periods of time, and things very much resemble past events and situations, but are not quite the same - just a bit modified. Sadly, people are too lazy in drawing the parallels and conclusions, so various societies divided by time and space tend to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 17:59 (UTC)*cringe*
And..how about them Mayans?
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 18:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 21:06 (UTC)Which is how these two wars happened and nobody has brought *them* up in the "Utopia-Dystopia" debate: ttp://www.lib.unb.ca/Texts/JCS/bin/get5.cgi?directory=fall99/&filename=THOM.htm#50
http://www.economist.com/node/1213296?story_id=1213296
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 23:02 (UTC)Thinking about spirals now ;)
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 23:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 17:27 (UTC)IIRC, Mann (quoting the experts) suggests the chaos and following destroyed political order led to a more egalitarian experimental market economy (which didn't exist in the hierarchical old order) in the north, one that ignored the old kings and traditions. This population supposedly lasted until the European plagues felled the Americas.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 20:59 (UTC)It is true that the Maya collapsed due to ecological catastrophe but if we look at the 20th Century most states that fell then did so from either war (either world war, de-colonization, the umpty-dozen civil wars in various places) or the delayed effect of a war (USSR). What was true for North America's Hellenes may not follow in the 21st Century. Or if it does it will be because an impending catastrophe with our technology would be far more horrific than this was.
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 21:07 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 21:11 (UTC)I've got this book in my own personal library I might note. ;P
(no subject)
Date: 9/10/11 22:13 (UTC)That's assuming that anything else had existed up until that point. It's interesting how we gloss over the misery that was the life of a common person in pre-modern times by assigning words like "decline" in situations like this. Decline for whom? If people stopped writing and building temples, wasn't that only a tiny minority of people anyway (along with slave labor help)?
(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 00:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/10/11 07:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 05:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 18:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 18:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/10/11 05:22 (UTC)