Mayan Civilization Analysis
In regards to the Mayan civilization, Diamond’s opinion is brought into question by Patricia McAnany. They not only debate what caused the civilization to collapse, but if it collapsed at all or just moved and changed.
Diamond believes that the Mayan population did collapse due to culture being lost, a lack of faith in political leaders, and a decrease in population. Mayan rulers were considered to be close to the gods and able to communicate with them. They were expected to be able to predict when droughts would occur and due to their divine right even prevent the droughts. When the region did face a series of droughts, the population began to lose faith in their rulers. Despite the droughts causing food problems, Diamond feels that human caused deforestation and soil erosion was also an important issue. What also pushed their civilization over the edge was the wars the rulers would lead the Mayans into …show more content…
against other rulers in the area. Diamond believed these wars cause many concerns, but the rulers were ultimately at fault for the civilization’s decline.
McAnany acknowledges that the faith Mayan’s put in their rulers was lost, but that the decline was not caused by that.
Instead she argues that the civilization never collapsed at all, simply moved. Her main support for this argument is the 7 million Mayan descendants still alive today (McAnany: 145). She also argues that the population did not decline to the extent Diamond says, but instead that climate changes caused them to relocate. During the droughts there is evidence that the lowland population decreased, but in Northern areas it increased at the same time. Mayan farmers during that period had already begun to live more in the countryside than cities centers anyway. McAnany also feels that war among rulers would not have caused as many deaths as Diamond believed since they preferred taking hostages to killing each other. “Later Spanish accounts of military conflicts with indigenous peoples of the Maya and Aztec worlds describe the intimate nature of conflict and the emphasis on captive taking, rather than killing, among non-Spanish warriors” (McAnany:
146).
Mainly, the two perspectives differ whether the Mayan civilization collapsed at all and if so, was it human’s decisions that caused it or a response to environmental factors. Diamond claims that the lack of faith in rulers is what caused the collapse, while McAnany argues that the drought is the main reason a change occurred.
These questions can also result in a debate about what constitutes a civilization’s collapse. If it moves locations, cultural aspects are lost, there are changes its political system, and changes to its religious system, is it still the same civilization or has the old one collapsed?
Diamond believes that the Mayan population did collapse due to culture being lost, a lack of faith in political leaders, and a decrease in population. Mayan rulers were considered to be close to the gods and able to communicate with them. They were expected to be able to predict when droughts would occur and due to their divine right even prevent the droughts. When the region did face a series of droughts, the population began to lose faith in their rulers. Despite the droughts causing food problems, Diamond feels that human caused deforestation and soil erosion was also an important issue. What also pushed their civilization over the edge was the wars the rulers would lead the Mayans into …show more content…
against other rulers in the area. Diamond believed these wars cause many concerns, but the rulers were ultimately at fault for the civilization’s decline.
McAnany acknowledges that the faith Mayan’s put in their rulers was lost, but that the decline was not caused by that.
Instead she argues that the civilization never collapsed at all, simply moved. Her main support for this argument is the 7 million Mayan descendants still alive today (McAnany: 145). She also argues that the population did not decline to the extent Diamond says, but instead that climate changes caused them to relocate. During the droughts there is evidence that the lowland population decreased, but in Northern areas it increased at the same time. Mayan farmers during that period had already begun to live more in the countryside than cities centers anyway. McAnany also feels that war among rulers would not have caused as many deaths as Diamond believed since they preferred taking hostages to killing each other. “Later Spanish accounts of military conflicts with indigenous peoples of the Maya and Aztec worlds describe the intimate nature of conflict and the emphasis on captive taking, rather than killing, among non-Spanish warriors” (McAnany:
146).
Mainly, the two perspectives differ whether the Mayan civilization collapsed at all and if so, was it human’s decisions that caused it or a response to environmental factors. Diamond claims that the lack of faith in rulers is what caused the collapse, while McAnany argues that the drought is the main reason a change occurred.
These questions can also result in a debate about what constitutes a civilization’s collapse. If it moves locations, cultural aspects are lost, there are changes its political system, and changes to its religious system, is it still the same civilization or has the old one collapsed?