LAT: Maya 'War Crimes Scene' Uncovered: Key to civilization's fall

[DeepModem Mom]

Maya 'War Crimes Scene' Uncovered
Archeologists say bones and other items indicate a massacre that was key to the civilization's fall.
By Thomas H. Maugh II, Times Staff Writer


Archeologists excavating the ruined Guatemalan city of Cancuen have stumbled across the remains of what they believe is one of the pivotal events in the collapse of the Maya civilization — the desperate defense of the once-great trading center and the ritual execution of at least 45 members of its royal court.

An enemy as yet unknown not only wiped out the royal dynasty about AD 800, but systematically eliminated religious and cultural artifacts — in effect, killing the city and leaving it abandoned to the elements, according to new research announced Wednesday.

The archeological team found dozens of remarkably preserved skeletons piled in mass graves, as well as other artifacts, indicating what the lead researcher described as "a war crimes scene."

After the siege of Cancuen, cities in the western Maya lowlands in what is now Guatemala were abandoned, most within 20 to 30 years, the researchers said. The displaced populations moved to the east and north, where they eventually depleted local resources and faded away.

"This was a critical historical moment, like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand World War I," said archeologist Arthur A. Demarest of Vanderbilt University, whose team discovered the charnel house this summer. "It set off the domino of Classic Maya collapse."...


http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-maya17nov17,0,5217592.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[sybylla]

1. Very interesting

Thanks for posting

[AzDar]

2. Unknown enemy? Any Cheney ancestors lurking about the continent, then? LOL

[Judi Lynn]

3. Makes a person shudder. I agree it seems there were Bush/Cheney

forebearers there:

Added archeologist David Freidel of Southern Methodist University, "This is an effort not to try to subordinate the royal court to an overlord, but to absolutely wipe it out. It's a remarkable and very poignant example of the kind of violence that marks the collapse of the Maya civilization."
(snip)

The Maya dominated Central America for more than 1,500 years, from well before the birth of Christ to late in the first millennium. They established a complex network of kingdoms dominated by "holy lords," building large cities with palaces and pyramids in the region, reaching their peak from AD 300 to 900.
(snip)

The invaders also went through the city and chipped the faces off monuments, ritually "killing" them, he added. "They were not only terminating the dynasty, they were terminating the entire site."
(snip)

Sounds like Fallujah, doesn't it?

[M155Y_A1CH]

10. Impeachment Mayan style

If there were Bush/Cheney types in the royal dynasty it is understandable why they wished to remove all traces of them.

The article lists a peasants revolt as one possible sceanario.

[Xithras]

4. An incredible tragedy.

Had the Mayan civilization not collapsed, Chris Columbus might have been greeted by a technologically equal society when he landed in the Americas. Up to the point where the Mayans fell, they were almost equals with Europe in trade and technology. Their only weak area was metalworking, but it had been invented and its development was advancing right up to the point of their collapse.

The Mayans are one of the great "almosts" of history. Whatever destroyed them changed the course of history for the entire planet.

[Codeine]

5. Without Gunpowder

they never would have stood a chance anyway. No contact with China would have prevented that crucial development.

[Xithras]

9. I disagree.

The first Europeans they came in contact with came in small groups. They carried tiny cannons and muzzleloading rifles that were slow to fire and reload. An organized resistance could have easily captured them. Once captured, the Mayans, like anyone exposed to a cool new techology, would have been extremely interested to learn how these new "guns" worked. By the time mass migrations began a century later, the Mayans would have had it worked out.

The America's fell because the only advanced civilizations that existed when the Spanish arrived were the Inca and Aztec, and they had just barely matched the advancement of the Maya by that point. They were 500 years behind the curve and didn't stand a chance against the Spanish. They were also hobbled by their religious beliefs which stopped them from mounting any real offense until it was too late. There's no indication that the Maya shared in those beliefs.

[Marie26]

13. But smallpox was the biggest threat

No contact w/Europeans meant the Mayans weren't immune to any European diseases. It seems like smallpox would have wiped out the Mayans as it did to the Aztecs.

[geek tragedy]

14. Europeans conquered many civilizations that were roughly

equivalent in terms of advancement.

The one thing that Europeans had mastered much more so than any other group of people was the application of organized violence. This goes beyond technology.

[Taverner]

7. Well the Mormons would say it was the Lamanites

I think....

[Igel]

12. But the equality would have ended fairly quickly.

Even granted that the Europeans wouldn't have been able to import sufficient weaponry so that the relative scarcity of metal would have been a problem, the infectious diseases would still have resulted in the collapse of their society.

They did elsewhere, where there are scant records apart from the occasional traveller or archeological dig to attest to the collapse in population.

[rayofreason]

15. Nonsense.

The Maya were nowhere near Europe in technology. Metallurgy is just one of many areas where there was literally thousands of years of difference between Europe and the Maya. The Maya cannot even be considered Bronze Age. Shipbuilding is another area where even the ancient Mediterranean peoples were far in advance of the Maya; exploration age Europe was leaps and bounds beyond that. Without ships or draft animals (more on that later), there is no way that Mayan trade networks would have compared with Europe except at the very high luxury, low mass end of the scale (think Quetzal feathers and jade). Classical era grain shipments from Egypt to Rome far out massed (by orders of magnitude) anything the Maya could have sent around by porter, and 15th century Europe shipped huge amounts of grain, fish, wool, lumber, etc. from the Mediterranean to the Baltic and back.

The lack of large domestic mammals in North America meant that only human power could be used for any activity. So no plows (with a consequent impact on agricultural productivity), no carts (and no use of the wheel - including watermills that were widespread in Europe), no cavalry (Mayan infantry would have folded under a charge just as Aztec and Inca soldiers did), and most important of all, no herd diseases that had jumped to humans. Even a technologically advanced power would have been powerless against smallpox, which played a crucial role in the conquest of the Aztecs by Cortez.

New world civilizations were doomed, through no fault of their own. The relative lack of the raw material for agriculture and animal husbandry relative to the old world ensured that new world societies would have crippling disadvantages when the continents met. A vibrant Maya civilization would not have affected that situation at all. If you want more background on this, I recommend "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond.

[Xithras]

18. I forgot about smallpox, but you missed my point.

I never said that the Mayans were equal to 15th century Europe, but that they were equal to the Europeans at the point of their collapse with the sole exception of metallurgy. Technologically, there wasn't all that much technological difference between a 5-7th century European civilization and the Mayans of the same time period. Were the Europeans more advanced? Certainly, but not nearly as much as they are often portrayed as. European technological superiority didn't really begin to take off until the Renaissance, by which time the Mayans had already collapsed.

The Mayans were already working on metallurgy when they collapsed, so their status as a "pre-bronze age culture" was only a century or two away from changing as it was. There have also been archaeological discoveries indicating that Mayan explorers made it across the Caribbean and there's a good chance that they explored at least some distance up the Mississippi. Contrary to your suggestion that they packed everything on foot, the Mayans actually had an extensive sea trade network and had several large port cities like Tulum. They had the ability to travel incredible distances over water, and had mastered navigation in the open sea.

Your point about the lack of large herd animals is valid, but I can't help but wonder what their civilization would have done if they'd had a few more centuries to explore and discover the nearby bison. The range of the bison orginally extended into Texas and northern Mexico, so their "large herd animal" was right on their doorstep. It would be interesting to see what a few generations of slective breeding could have done. The deliberate breeding of teosinte into maize shows that the Mayans had a solid understanding of the concept of using heredity to shape a plants behavior, so it's likely that someone somewhere in their society would have tried applying the same concepts to bison.

[rayofreason]

24. Bison and other things.

If bison had been easily domesticated, they would have been by the native Americans who lived beside them for thousands of years. To this day bison are not quite "domesticated" -even though they are raised for food on a limited basis, no one milks them. Bison have nasty tempers. So Mayans would not have domesticated them either.

Regarding 7th Century Europe, it was far more advanced and possesed of far more advantages than the contemporary Mayans. Horses, cattle, iron and steel (thousands of years beyond primitive bronze, which the Mayans may or may not have been able to use effectivey), a written literature extending a thousand years or more (though much was lost in the Dark Ages, much was also preserved), knowledge of the existence of other civilizations, the true arch in building - the list goes on and on.

None of this is to denigrate the achievments of the Maya. I am personally fascinated with their civilization, the fact that they invented the zero and used a place value system for writing numbers, and that they were the only culture in the western hemisphere to invent true writing. But were they the technological equals, or even competitors of Europe, or did they ever have the chance to be? No way.

[madmark]

34. Even if you disregard the small pox; the Mayans would not have

even been able to withstand the Romans (the barbarian tribes that the Romans subdued would have put more of a fight), let alone a more modern European force with the use of gunpowder. Even Hannibal, or Alexander, would have beat the hell out of them. The New World simply was not developing military technologies, techniques, or strategies on par with the Old World, European or Asian. Had there been an Asian land bridge, the Mongols would have swept down in the 13th century and killed them all if they had resisted like they did to the Kwarzm Empire, Bagdag, or certain Russian Cities.

[ovidsen]

6. Humanity's evil twin

It would appear that the urge to eradicate every trace of your enemy is an inclination that's endemic to humans.

How perversely unique to our species! No doubt the product of intelligent design.

[Psephos]

11. Actually, it's not endemic to humans.

Humans, however, have perfected it. Common chimps can be extraordinarily nasty to each other. It's more of a primate trait than a strictly human trait, although some close relatives, such as the bonobo chimps, have taken a different behavioral path. In their social structure, they have discarded xenophobia and most violence, and replaced them with peace-making. They use ritualized sexual contact as the peace-making activity. Hmmm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

As Eibl-Eibsfeldt described in his masterwork, Human Ethology: The Foundations of Human Behavior, the "eradication urge" is a deep instinct to sort other humans into in-groups and out-groups. The emotional brain spends a great percentage of its time doing exactly this. It's a legacy of our evolution as a tribal species, in which tribes of protohumans fought other tribes. You did whatever it took to remain loyal to your tribe (the source of blind loyalty), and whatever it took to eliminate other tribes (the source of blind hatred), because there were not enough resources for all. Evolution quickly culled those who did not feel the emotions strongly enough.

This is the origin of hate. To kill someone, you must hate them, and to hate someone, you must find a reason (almost any reason will do) to think them different, and therefore, inferior. This is the source of racism, the source of class hatred, and the source of gut hatred of freepers by us, and of us by them. Look around this board. Hate pours out of nearly every thread. It's true of all political boards. Whoever doesn't think exactly the same way gets the out-group treatment.

Until we figure out how to undo this biological adaptation, I see no reason to think war, classism, racism, or schadenfreude will disappear soon.

These are my opinions, nothing more, nothing less.

Peace.

[rayofreason]

16. Biology...

...is at the base. I agree completely. And it seems that all social animals (not just primates) maintain hierarchies and territories, so until we are no longer social animals we will always have those with us.

But I also agree that through conscious reflection and the ability to store knowledge and insight outside of our immediate experience, we as a species can ameliorate the tendency of all social animals to commit cruelty. This is what I mean by being civilized. And the first principle for living the civilized life is to respect others.

In my opinion, we have done quite well in that regard, with lots of room for improvement. Western civilization is not nearly a bloodthirsty as the Romans were, and the gratuitous cruelty in everyday life of classical times (think the games and slaves) is out of the question today. Significant progress.

But there still are societies where the knowledge and insight corresponding to the Reformation and Enlightenment is an otherworldly echo. Fierce patriarchs sit in disapproval of these "Western" values, and worry that maybe women will get uppity ideas, among other calumnies. Modernity is hard on such folks, and the disorientation and sense of cultural loss is real. Nonetheless, I look forward to the day when an "honor" killing brings only shame.

[DeepModem Mom]

17. In Rome, I sat outside the Colosseum in a personal protest...

against what went on there, while the rest of the family went inside. This response to your eloquent post is my way of saying that I agree with what you said. I was centuries too late, I suppose, but I just didn't want to go in there.

[Judi Lynn]

19. Nothing could be more evil than killing for entertainment.

Good for you.

People can imagine themselves very civilized while living as absolute primitives inwardly. They expose themselves when they condone and promote violence against others, claiming moral superiority, like the horrendous dive into darkness undertaken by the _Bush Republicans.

[madmark]

37. They actually had matches between blind people and children;

when you accept slavery as an institution; there are no moral bounds to what people will do to each other.

[Psephos]

25. Heh, after a cup of coffee, I suddenly find your optimism persuasive

I broke my own rule: no posting until caffeinated. Now life seems quite full of promise again. :-)

Seriously, you're correct to remind me (and everyone else) that we've come a long way, and that the foundation of a civilized life is simple respect for others. Our biological underpinnings shaped our past, but they needn't shape our future. Our knowledge of them gives us the key to transcend them.

Peace.

[ovidsen]

20. Endemic to primates maybe?

You caught me overgeneralizing with my remark about mass murders of opposing groups being unique to humans.
I hate you for that!:crazy:

Seriously, a very interesting point. But while I may disagree with some DUers, the thought of hunting them down and killing them has never crossed my mind. It's a freeper trait, dontcha know.

I'll just repeat the Rodney King mantra, "Can't we all just get along?"

[Psephos]

27. LOL :-) n/t

[daleo]

30. Some chimps are extremely violent

This is the key reason why they should never be made president.

[phusion]

31. Not endemic to humanity, but to the worldwide culture of civilization.

Research theories on erratic retaliation and you will see that annihiliation is not practiced across the board.

[FlaGranny]

8. The Mayans were known for

human sacrifice. Perhaps the humans they were sacrificing took offense to being sacrificed and decided to take definitive action.

[Bridget Burke]

23. Actually, the Maya only recently became "known for human sacrifice"

They were considered the gentle poet-astronomers of Mesoamerica, while the Aztecs were notorious for human sacrifice. After we learned to read the Mayan glyphs, we discovered that they were not all that innocent. The Aztec need for large numbers of victims helped Cortez. On the way to Tenochtitlan, he made allies of several cities tired of feeding Huitzilopochtli.

Both the Maya & the Aztec had rich cultures with many admirable qualities. Most cultures have human sacrifice in their history. Anyone wishing to feel "superior" to these cruel practices really ought to review Twentieth Century European History.

[brentspeak]

26. I feel superior to those cruel practices

They were savages. As were the savages of Nazi Germany, etc.

[Bridget Burke]

29. But you think that slavery is OK?

Since you have a slaveholder as your Avatar.

[rayofreason]

36. And who is your avatar?

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Marxism-Leninism, Europe's only indigenous religion, is a dehumanizing and destructive creed. It has only brought suffering and ruin to those lands that it has conquered. It is dead in its home, the former Soviet Union, and throughout the former Soviet empire of eastern Europe. It remains in place in only a few countries. In the DPRK it has been totally absorbed into the cult of personality, and the DPRK today is the worst hellhole on Earth. In China, it has mutated into the ancient imperial system, but traditional authoritarianism may not long survive the growth of economic freedom and power among ordinary people. In Cuba, once Fidel is gone let's see how long the system lasts, and once it collapses we will see what stories, now hidden, are told.

[Bridget Burke]

39. I know quite a lot about Ernesto Guevara de la Serna

And I know about the good & the bad that he did. I'm not pointing at someone & saying how superior I feel. I even believe that Jefferson did quite a bit of good in his life--even though he was a slaveholder.

Thanks for your little outburst, though, It was quite revealing.

[FlaGranny]

28. I know it is a recent modern discovery.

I'm a fan of archeological digs, though I've never been on one. I'm not trying to say the Mayans are better or worse than other societies - only that the victims may have organized and retaliated.

[madmark]

35. The importance of captives for sacrifice by the Aztecs actually

altered their military tactics and weaponry; it was military doctrine that they tried to stun foes with blunt objects like clubs, drag them behind the front line and bind them for sacrifice. Killing without the purpose of taking captives for sacrifice struck the Aztecs as every strange.

[Romigi]

21. May have been another tribe....

or somekind of jungle raiding clan who lived in the jungle but made raids onto Mayan lands. Interesting either way. Thanks for posting friend.

[Xithras]

22. Most likely a peasant revolution or civil war.

The Mayans were incredibly skilled militarily, and we haven't found any evidence anywhere of another civilization that could have beaten them. There are many theories as to what might have caused it, but much of the evidence seems to indicate that they began fighting themselves. Whether it was one ruler who wanted to take over all of the cities, or some kind of alliance, is lost to history. Whatever happened, the trade which had enriched the Mayan empire collapsed because of the warfare. Most of the citizens fled the southern portion of the empire (understandable if it was a war zone) to the north, and the north simply wasn't capable of supporting that kind of population without trade. They ecologically stripped the surrounding countryside until there was nothing left to eat, and then they just vanished. In all likelihood, the people just packed up and left, looking for a better place to live. The Mayans became so dispersed that they ceased to be a single people.

Without food coming in from the north, any people in the south (where no farming was taking place) would have been forced to abandon the fighting and seek food themselves. The cities emptied practically overnight, and their civilization simply ended.

[hatrack]

33. The carrying capacity argument is interesting

From what I've read on Mayan and pre-Mayan civilizations, anthropologists who've analyzed the bones and teeth of both earlier and later Mayans have found a decline in stature, life expectency and general well-being over time.

Apparently, people in that part of the world lived longer and had better health before the Mayan civilization really got up and running. There's some debate and whether that was about the existing resource base being asked to do more than it was capable of doing, or whether social structure tended to mean shorter and meaner lives for the masses at the bottom, or whether the latter simply exacerbated the former.

Lots of debate sill ongoing, but the soils and ecosystems from the Yucatan south, though home to some awesomely robust rain forests, don't do too well when cleared for agriculture over the medium- to long-term.

[rayofreason]

38. It had nothing to do with trade.

To begin with, there never was a Mayan "Empire" - they were a collection of city-states that often went to war with each other, similar to classical Greece. Trade of bulk commodities like food (maize in this case) requires draft animals and shipping that the Mayans did not have. There is no evidence for large-scale bulk trade except for salt (which would still involve the transport of mass much less than would trade in food). People ate what was grown nearby. So what caused the collapse? The most likely answer is climate change.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0313_030313_mayadrought.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_mayan.html
http://www.studyworksonline.com/cda/content/article/0,,NAV4-43_SAR1228,00.shtml

Climate change and famine produced by long-term drought (not lack of trade) also explains why people would defile the gods and their ancestors by attacking religious and memorial public art - the gods had abandoned them.

[phusion]

32. I don't like the use of "faded away" in this article

The Mayans are still here and many of them still practice traditions that have been around for centuries.

That statement is akin to saying that the American Indian "disappeared" from the West, or was completely assimilated, after colonization was complete. Agh!