The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse

Rating:
Summary: The Maya Fall ... and Our Own?
Review: Like many a good scientist, David Webster demythologizes with facts knowing that detailed scientific fact is often more fascinating than myth.

Webster tells of the 'Maya myth' growing out of the first discoveries of the mysterious vine-covered ruins, with their "vacant ceremonial centers," ruins that create the eerie impression of a civilization abandoned almost overnight. By the 1940s the Classic Lowland Maya had "become a kind of intellectual Shangri-La for our wishful thinking about the past and about the human condition."

A big part of the myth was that of the 'peaceful Maya,' a wishful notion that became awkward to maintain after archeologists inconveniently began to uncover extensive military fortifications.

But myth is stubborn. Webster recalls that once on a flight to one of his archeological sites he ran across an airline magazine article with the typical popular emoting, telling how the Maya had 'built palaces with 100 or more rooms, while Europeans lived in mud huts.' The problem is, Webster points out, that while many Europeans lived in mud huts, so did most Maya, and that the advanced civilizations of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans pre-dated that of the Classic Maya.

Political correctness always tends to patronize and diminish those groups it intends to uplift. Surely the Maya achieved enough--the art, the architecture, the hieroglyphics, the socially complex kingdoms, the extensive agricultural economy, all accomplished in an equatorial environment-to make exaggeration unnecessary. (Obviously any new information that might be uncovered showing the Maya more, or less, "advanced" than presently believed should be welcomed as helping to further puzzle out the truth.)

It turns out that even the Maya "collapse" is something of a myth. Webster reminds us that the Classic Maya were part of a larger culture that continues today, and that there were several geographically separate kingdoms that experienced "mini-collapses" long before the final fall.

Webster also answers PC academicians who charge that the whole concept of societal evolution, of simpler societies evolving into more complex or advanced ones, is really just ethnocentric racist Social Darwinism attempting to excuse the West's exploitation of traditional cultures: "More than a century of archaeological research in many parts of the world has documented something very much like ... cultural evolution." Politically correct politics aside, Webster writes, "Cultural evolution, like biological evolution, is a fact, how ever it happens, whether we like it or not, and despite whatever lessons we wish to learn from it."

Webster lists some of the characteristics of collapsing civilizations: Less stratification; less political centralization; less regimentation; decreased exchanges of information and resources; population decline; settlement abandonment; diminished production of Great Tradition components; invasions; diminished confidence in or even rejection of collectively held ideas and values ... (Hmm, last few sound familiar.)

Population decline and growth seem particularly tricky. Even when massive population growth is on the eve, historically speaking, of overwhelming a society's natural-resource base, soon to bring about economic, political and population collapse, to those who are experiencing the final "boom," population growth must seem an open-ended blessing. One thinks of today's continual press characterizations of our Third-World-like post-1965 immigration-generated population growth as being merrily "robust."

One of the many strengths of this book is that Webster seems to have no ideological ax to grind. He systematically takes his readers through the various past attempts at explaining the Maya collapse, from monument construction being too burdensome on peasants, to the disintegration of trade networks, and shows many of them to be wanting.

So what did happen to the Maya? Read this very fine book.

Finally, any volume devoted to civilizational collapse, particularly such an outstanding one as this, is doubly interesting to those who are concerned about the decline of our own civilization.

A big part of the problem for the Maya was environmental, and the environmental Malthusian warning bells are with us today, in fact, ear-shatteringly so. But what do we make of political elites of European-based nations, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and of course Europe itself, who view their rapid replacement by people of some other cultural, ethnic, or racial stock, through immigration and offspring, as not only acceptable, but as fulfilling some glittering vision of the future, or as one Immigration and Naturalization Commissioner gushed, "a wonderful transformation"?

Of course, what happened to the Maya only parallels some of our own dysfunctions, but one seemingly bizarre category of civilizational collapse cataloged separately by Webster catches the eye: a collapse brought about by "ideological pathology."

This is illustrated by the case of the African Xhosa.

"Late in the summer of 1856 the Xhosa, a Bantu-speaking people of southeast Africa, began to methodically kill their cattle, horses, goats, sheep, and foul. They also consumed or threw away all the grain in their storage bins and stopped preparations to plant crops." These things were not done grudgingly, but in celebration. Why?

They had listened to the prophecies of a girl who claimed to hear messages from beyond, telling her that once her people had stripped themselves down to nothing "the world would be reborn." Of course what actually happened was that "untold thousands starved" in one of the "greatest self-inflected immolation in all of history."

The case of the Xhosa "shows that under extraordinary circumstances whole societies can virtually will themselves out of existence."

Rating:
Summary: The Maya Fall ... and Our Own?
Review: Like many a good scientist, David Webster demythologizes with facts knowing that detailed scientific fact is often more fascinating than myth.

Webster tells of the 'Maya myth' growing out of the first discoveries of the mysterious vine-covered ruins, with their "vacant ceremonial centers," ruins that create the eerie impression of a civilization abandoned almost overnight. By the 1940s the Classic Lowland Maya had "become a kind of intellectual Shangri-La for our wishful thinking about the past and about the human condition."

A big part of the myth was that of the 'peaceful Maya,' a wishful notion that became awkward to maintain after archeologists inconveniently began to uncover extensive military fortifications.

But myth is stubborn. Webster recalls that once on a flight to one of his archeological sites he ran across an airline magazine article with the typical popular emoting, telling how the Maya had 'built palaces with 100 or more rooms, while Europeans lived in mud huts.' The problem is, Webster points out, that while many Europeans lived in mud huts, so did most Maya, and that the advanced civilizations of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans pre-dated that of the Classic Maya.

Political correctness always tends to patronize and diminish those groups it intends to uplift. Surely the Maya achieved enough--the art, the architecture, the hieroglyphics, the socially complex kingdoms, the extensive agricultural economy, all accomplished in an equatorial environment-to make exaggeration unnecessary. (Obviously any new information that might be uncovered showing the Maya more, or less, "advanced" than presently believed should be welcomed as helping to further puzzle out the truth.)

It turns out that even the Maya "collapse" is something of a myth. Webster reminds us that the Classic Maya were part of a larger culture that continues today, and that there were several geographically separate kingdoms that experienced "mini-collapses" long before the final fall.

Webster also answers PC academicians who charge that the whole concept of societal evolution, of simpler societies evolving into more complex or advanced ones, is really just ethnocentric racist Social Darwinism attempting to excuse the West's exploitation of traditional cultures: "More than a century of archaeological research in many parts of the world has documented something very much like ... cultural evolution." Politically correct politics aside, Webster writes, "Cultural evolution, like biological evolution, is a fact, how ever it happens, whether we like it or not, and despite whatever lessons we wish to learn from it."

Webster lists some of the characteristics of collapsing civilizations: Less stratification; less political centralization; less regimentation; decreased exchanges of information and resources; population decline; settlement abandonment; diminished production of Great Tradition components; invasions; diminished confidence in or even rejection of collectively held ideas and values ... (Hmm, last few sound familiar.)

Population decline and growth seem particularly tricky. Even when massive population growth is on the eve, historically speaking, of overwhelming a society's natural-resource base, soon to bring about economic, political and population collapse, to those who are experiencing the final "boom," population growth must seem an open-ended blessing. One thinks of today's continual press characterizations of our Third-World-like post-1965 immigration-generated population growth as being merrily "robust."

One of the many strengths of this book is that Webster seems to have no ideological ax to grind. He systematically takes his readers through the various past attempts at explaining the Maya collapse, from monument construction being too burdensome on peasants, to the disintegration of trade networks, and shows many of them to be wanting.

So what did happen to the Maya? Read this very fine book.

Finally, any volume devoted to civilizational collapse, particularly such an outstanding one as this, is doubly interesting to those who are concerned about the decline of our own civilization.

A big part of the problem for the Maya was environmental, and the environmental Malthusian warning bells are with us today, in fact, ear-shatteringly so. But what do we make of political elites of European-based nations, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and of course Europe itself, who view their rapid replacement by people of some other cultural, ethnic, or racial stock, through immigration and offspring, as not only acceptable, but as fulfilling some glittering vision of the future, or as one Immigration and Naturalization Commissioner gushed, "a wonderful transformation"?

Of course, what happened to the Maya only parallels some of our own dysfunctions, but one seemingly bizarre category of civilizational collapse cataloged separately by Webster catches the eye: a collapse brought about by "ideological pathology."

This is illustrated by the case of the African Xhosa.

"Late in the summer of 1856 the Xhosa, a Bantu-speaking people of southeast Africa, began to methodically kill their cattle, horses, goats, sheep, and foul. They also consumed or threw away all the grain in their storage bins and stopped preparations to plant crops." These things were not done grudgingly, but in celebration. Why?

They had listened to the prophecies of a girl who claimed to hear messages from beyond, telling her that once her people had stripped themselves down to nothing "the world would be reborn." Of course what actually happened was that "untold thousands starved" in one of the "greatest self-inflected immolation in all of history."

The case of the Xhosa "shows that under extraordinary circumstances whole societies can virtually will themselves out of existence."

Rating:
Summary: The Ancient Mayans Fall: were they pushed?
Review: Most hard-line academics cannot write for a geneal audience. Their style is so narrowly focused, their scientific sensitivities are so acute, and their language is so stiff that they can't communicate to a general audience. Even when they succeed, they often fall prey to jealous and carping colleagues.
Although Professor Webster is not Carl Sagan his writing is OK for non-specialists. Still, this is a rather dull book about a very interesting subject. Why?

Unlike, "Graham Hancock." Webster wants to retain his scientific credibility as well as telling a rip-roaring story. Webster worries about topics such as, what defines "civilzation," what defines, "city," What defines "state," When you say "Fall" what do you mean exactly? This stuff is important because there is a case that the Mayans never "Fell." Therefore, some parts of the book will puzzle general readers who do not worry about "definitions." If you want excitement, this is not the book. If you want to read an up to date, cautious, "i was there in Yucatan," version of fieldwork, this book is fine.

Webster invested about 20 years of his life digging up the artefacts left by the Mayans. Moreover, he has had lots of help from many other archaelogists working in the same region. I was surpised by the debates among archaeologists, given the weak nature of their evidence. It seems to me that the archaeologists are stretching their theories far, far, beyond their evidence. Early archaeologists made flagrantly mistaken judgments about the Mayans. I don't see how a few buildings and some gyphs plus bones can explain political structures. For my money, archeology only makes sense as part of an interdisciplinary context, not alone.

Naturally I do not want to give away the surprise ending. But those of you who read this book should also read Jared Diamond.

Rating:
Summary: Maya Collapse at Copan?
Review: Mr. Webster does not make it easy for those who want to read about flying saucers sweeping down and doing/undoing the Maya. His tale is a little bit more down to earth as he undertakes to make sure that the reader understands first a few parameters on how cultures grow and meet their demise. Eventually when you read the sections that actually try to explain how the Maya fell, you sort of guess stuff before he tells you. Probably this comes from a Socratic style of teaching from Professor Webster. It also does not help that he can be tongue in cheek sometimes, and deliberately challenging when he confess that he cannot read Mayan glyphs. Is he serious? After a while this has a salutatory effect: the reader realizes that there is no magical mystery to the Maya: they were just like any other civilization, just a little bit odd. They were humans first and that explains very well why they became great and why they also harbored the seeds of their decline. The only mystery here is the mystery of human genius that made this people build such exquisite ensembles as Tikal, or the author's favorite Copan. Definitely a clear book on what are the current thoughts on Maya history based on recent archaeology, a non sentimental look on the Maya, and the best exposition so far to demonstrate that the Maya demise was not as sudden as people would like to think. Also a very salutary reminder that today natives are the descendents of these fabled rulers and that if they stopped building pyramids it was not because they became stupid and degenerated. The truth might be that they just saw the light and kicked the ruling class out when they realized that they had become a burden they could not afford anymore. Clearly, in spite of serious political and ecological problems, the Maya that "greeted" Cortez were the heirs of the ancient Maya.

Rating:
Summary: Maya Collapse at Copan?
Review: Webster's book is a good review of the Collapse theories forwarded to explain the demise of the Classic Maya. While Webster covers all of the relevant arguments in the literature, this book does not cover much new ground. Further, his discussion of the Copan data ignores the possibility of a complete Maya depopulation of Copan at the end of the Classic Period suggested by non-Maya Early Postclassic structures reported from the site center.

Rating:
Summary: A very good synthesis
Review: Webster's book is extremely well written and should appeal to the general reader regardless of their knowledge of Mesoamerican cultures. As opposed to limiting himelf to Late Classic, he relates this to Mayan Civilization at the conquest, what is meant by the collapse of the Mayan "Civilization" and its relations to other ancient civilizations (although I think he missed the analog to the post-fall city-states of Italy and the possible implications). His evidence is excellent and his agruments eloquent. Readers looking for simple answers are warned - you will not find one answer. On the other hand, for those who want a well-thought out argument by a researcher steeped in the Mayan culture, this is your book.