January 08, 2007

Sacrifice stabilized Maya?

Weinberg:  Mel Gibson's heart of darknessWar was a choreographed and symbolic affair for the Maya, more to do with establishing the hierarchy of city-states according to agreed-upon rules than with territorial conquest. War was determined by a calendric system based on the movements of the stars, so the surprise attack Gibson portrays was virtually impossible. And in contrast to Gibson's portrayal, villages were not put to the torch, lands were not ravaged. Nor were peasants (much less largely non-existent hunter-gatherers) the victims. The point was ritual degradation of the kings and high-ranking warriors of the vanquished city-state. It was not the mere arbitrary sadism of “Apocalypto.”

Indeed, one theory on the still-mysterious demise of Classic Maya holds that the abandoning of this system of ritual warfare in favor of fight-to-the-death campaigns of territorial conquest (possibly due to the influence of central Mexican peoples who began to penetrate the Peten) upset the political balance in the rainforest. So, counterintuitively, the system of human sacrifice seems to have had a stabilizing and sustaining effect, channeling aggressive tendencies into controlled ritual form; it was the erosion of this system which may have precipitated the collapse.

5 comments:

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Writerfella here --
Weinberg makes a strange case for 'political stability' in the rainforest, a phrase that comes nowhere near meaning the same as the ecological co-operation of species, which is what really existed in rainforests. But then consider what happens when the Marabunta upset the 'political stability' of the rainforest. The effects can be studied and observed, but what are the explanations if one only sees the surface indications?
Still, the one paragraph that begins, "Indeed, one theory on the still-mysterious demise of Classic Maya..." and ends with, "...it was the erosion of this system which may have precipitated the collapse.", encapsulates writerfella's own researches and ideas; indeed, it also accords the central themes in APOCALYPTO. Thank the Grandfather that this one article writer knew enough to include more than just the side that he espouses and therefore he is to be commended.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

Huh? Weinberg is as anti-Apocalypto as the last time I quoted him. He didn't change his position from one paragraph to the next.

His view is that human sacrifice may have kept the Maya civilization from collapsing. Mel Gibson's view is that human sacrifice contributed to the Maya civilization's collapse. The two views are polar opposites.

writerfella said...

Writerfella here --
Correct, but what you do not realize and what writerfella DID realize is this: "The test of any first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." --F. Scott Fitzgerald, THE CRACK-UP. What Fitzgerald indicates is what lies at the very heart of Manicheism that, to follow faithfully only one idea at a time is the same thing as being blind.
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'

Rob said...

When you say Weinberg's statement encapsulates your own researches and ideas, that means you agree with him. Specifically, you agree with him that human sacrifice stabilized the Classic Maya civilization and didn't cause its collapse. Is that really your position?

Re "what lies at the very heart of Manicheism": Whatever. At least we clarified that Weinberg disagrees with Gibson and agrees with critics like me. Whether you agree with any of us is, as usual, unclear.

writerfella said...

awriterfella here --
The heart and soul of Manicheism is that one may entertain two or more opposing ideas at one and the same time, understanding both or all and being able to espouse both or all, WITHOUT agreeing or disagreeing with either or all, leaving the individual thinker to make his own informed standpoint. Most everyone else, usually, chooses one or the other, and agreement is inescapable. Agreement or disagreement, then, is unclear, if the individual's standpoint is not yours or that of your opposition. The higher ground thus is lightly populated and justly so...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'