Maya warfare: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Toniná 6.jpg|thumb|right|Sculpture of a Maya prisoner of war in the site museum at [[Toniná]]]] |
[[File:Toniná 6.jpg|thumb|right|Sculpture of a Maya prisoner of war in the site museum at [[Toniná]]]] |
||
Although the [[Maya civilization|Maya]] were once thought to have been peaceful (see below), current theories emphasize the role of |
Although the [[Maya civilization|Maya]] were once thought to have been peaceful (see below), current theories emphasize the role of inter-polity warfare as a factor in the development and perpetuation of Maya society. The goals and motives of warfare in Maya culture are not thoroughly understood, but there are several kinds of archaeological clues. These include fortified defenses around structure complexes, artistic and epigraphical depictions of war, and weapons such as [[obsidian]] blades and [[projectile point]]s. Warfare can also be identified from archaeological remains that suggest a rapid and drastic break in a fundamental pattern due to violence. |
||
Like the city-states of ancient Greece, Maya polities engaged in violent [[warfare]] for political control of people and resources. Some scholars have suggested that the capture of sacrificial victims was a driving force behind warfare.<ref>Chacon and Dye 2007</ref> Among the most critical resources were water and agricultural land. Economic control of resources such as [[obsidian]] also increased competition among polities.<ref>Sharer and Traxler 2005</ref> As polities became more successful, they also became more complex. This led to improved efficiency in acquiring and holding valued resources, especially through military force. Population growth increased the competition between polities, resulting in increased levels of violence. |
Like the city-states of ancient Greece, Maya polities engaged in violent [[warfare]] for political control of people and resources. Some scholars have suggested that the capture of sacrificial victims was a driving force behind warfare.<ref>Chacon and Dye 2007</ref> Among the most critical resources were water and agricultural land. Economic control of resources such as [[obsidian]] also increased competition among polities.<ref>Sharer and Traxler 2005</ref> As polities became more successful, they also became more complex. This led to improved efficiency in acquiring and holding valued resources, especially through military force. Population growth increased the competition between polities, resulting in increased levels of violence. |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
===Ideology=== |
===Ideology=== |
||
Warfare was |
Warfare was likely a driving force of cultural change. Although warring leaders undoubtedly benefited materially, one of the main goals may have been to acquire sacrificial victims.<ref name="Webster 2004">Webster 2004</ref> Sacrifice not only legitimized the ruler by intimidating rivals and awing the citizens, but was also associated with concepts of sacred fluids and the passage of time. Warfare is alluded to in to the mythology of the ''[[Popol Vuh]]'', which describes sacrifice through decapitation. Certain events such as the death of a leader or birth of an heir may have required sacrifice.<ref name="Webster 2004"/> |
||
===Tactics and organization=== |
===Tactics and organization=== |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
===Weapons=== |
===Weapons=== |
||
Although the Maya had missile technology, such as the [[atlatl]] and [[spear]], much of the actual fighting was done at close range with "thrusting, stabbing, and crushing".<ref name="Webster 2004"/> Weapons were crafted mostly from [[obsidian]] and [[chert]], obsidian being the sharpest (but more brittle). [[Knapping]] chert or obsidian into bifacial projectile points and attaching them to atlatl darts, spears, and arrows was the dominant technology. Although bows and arrows were used, spears and [[Macuahuitl]] remained much more common.<ref>Aoyama 2005</ref> |
Although the Maya had missile technology, such as the [[atlatl]] and [[spear]], much of the actual fighting was done at close range with "thrusting, stabbing, and crushing".<ref name="Webster 2004"/> Weapons were crafted mostly from [[obsidian]] and [[chert]], obsidian being the sharpest (but more brittle). [[Knapping]] chert or obsidian into bifacial projectile points and attaching them to atlatl darts, spears, and arrows was the dominant technology. Although bows and arrows were used, spears and [[Macuahuitl]] remained much more common.<ref>Aoyama 2005</ref> As well, chipped flint was common in close range combat knives. |
||
==Archaeological sites with evidence of warfare== |
==Archaeological sites with evidence of warfare== |
||
Revision as of 02:31, 4 June 2014
Although the Maya were once thought to have been peaceful (see below), current theories emphasize the role of inter-polity warfare as a factor in the development and perpetuation of Maya society. The goals and motives of warfare in Maya culture are not thoroughly understood, but there are several kinds of archaeological clues. These include fortified defenses around structure complexes, artistic and epigraphical depictions of war, and weapons such as obsidian blades and projectile points. Warfare can also be identified from archaeological remains that suggest a rapid and drastic break in a fundamental pattern due to violence.
Like the city-states of ancient Greece, Maya polities engaged in violent warfare for political control of people and resources. Some scholars have suggested that the capture of sacrificial victims was a driving force behind warfare.[1] Among the most critical resources were water and agricultural land. Economic control of resources such as obsidian also increased competition among polities.[2] As polities became more successful, they also became more complex. This led to improved efficiency in acquiring and holding valued resources, especially through military force. Population growth increased the competition between polities, resulting in increased levels of violence.
Ideological roots, tactics, organization, and weaponry
Ideology
Warfare was likely a driving force of cultural change. Although warring leaders undoubtedly benefited materially, one of the main goals may have been to acquire sacrificial victims.[3] Sacrifice not only legitimized the ruler by intimidating rivals and awing the citizens, but was also associated with concepts of sacred fluids and the passage of time. Warfare is alluded to in to the mythology of the Popol Vuh, which describes sacrifice through decapitation. Certain events such as the death of a leader or birth of an heir may have required sacrifice.[3]
Tactics and organization
Little can be known about how the ancient Maya planned and coordinated their attacks. However, it has been noted that the Maya cities kept some distance between themselves and their enemies with an estimated mean distance of 55 km (about two to eight day's travel) between major settlements.[3]
This seems to support the theory that war was fought by and for elites; that is, the Maya and non-Maya nobility. This may be because of the long distances that had to be traveled between cities. One estimate puts about 500-1000 men on the battlefield on each side of the conflict at maximum based on estimates about the logistics of the journey, such as amount of weight carried and how much food was needed on the journey.[3]
It is thought that enemies would project missiles at long range, then as they advanced on each other, discipline probably declined, allowing individuals to attempt to personal feats of bravery [3] The main body of the population does not appear to have been active in most conflicts unless it involved the overthrow of a ruler.
Military organization is somewhat unclear. Leadership seems to have been embodied mostly in the Halach Uinic, the ajaw or lord of each geopolitical unit, known as a batab. The Halach Uinic was responsible for calling troops together and organizing the military effort.
Weapons
Although the Maya had missile technology, such as the atlatl and spear, much of the actual fighting was done at close range with "thrusting, stabbing, and crushing".[3] Weapons were crafted mostly from obsidian and chert, obsidian being the sharpest (but more brittle). Knapping chert or obsidian into bifacial projectile points and attaching them to atlatl darts, spears, and arrows was the dominant technology. Although bows and arrows were used, spears and Macuahuitl remained much more common.[4] As well, chipped flint was common in close range combat knives.
Archaeological sites with evidence of warfare
Mayapan
Located in the Mexican state of Yucatán, Mayapan is considered to be one of the last major Pre-Columbian Maya settlements. The site had a defensive wall surrounding the structure, and a violent fire was the cause of downfall as evidenced by burnt remains.
Aguateca
Aguateca is a Classic Maya site located in the south-western Petén department of Guatemala. Aguateca was a member of the Petexbatún States among which included such polities as Seibal, Itzan, Dos Pilas, Cancuén, Tamarindito, Punta de Chimino,and Nacimiento.
The city was built on a 90 m. escarpment with defensive fortifications surrounding the city. Archaeological remains, along with epigraphy and iconography at the site reveal an expansion of power and military influence from Aguateca by the ruling dynasty during the 8th century, a period noted for endemic warfare in the region. During this time, 4 km. of defensive walls were hastily constructed concentrically around the site.
Among the weapons found at the site are chert and obsidian bi-facial points, and chert small points which were probably used as arrowheads. Obsidian spear tips, which were found extensively throughout the site, were the primary weapon used based on the number found at the site. other weapons included darts and atlatl darts.
The site reveals a key feature of Mayan war - that being the involvement of the royal elites in the manufacture and execution of warfare. For example, 30-40 broken chert bifacial points were found in the royal residences of Aguateca, along with small bifacial thinning flakes which were the result of failed bifacial point manufacturing. All obsidian bifacial thinning flakes were found in a royal or elite context. This serves as evidence for the hypothesis that rulers, scribes, and artisans at Aguateca served as warriors.
The city was captured and destroyed approximately 810 AD. The capture led to mass evacuations of the city, as marked by the plethora of remains left at the site. It appears that the goal of the capture was to terminate the influence of Aguateca, not to occupy the city or its power.[5]
Colha
Colha is located in north-central Belize, about 52 km. north of Belize City in a chert-rich area, Colha offers an in depth look at Maya warfare and collapsed polities during the Terminal Classic. Colha is associated with extensive lithic production ranging in time from the early Classic and into the Post Classic. The site was captured and later abandoned during the Terminal Classic. The site's demise contains insights into the material motivations for Maya warfare and military strategy. Among the archaeological remains is the Colha Skull Pit, which contained the remains of 30 human skulls. The skull pit is particularly unusual because the faces of the individuals were flayed prior to decapitation. The skin was cut around the skull vault, around the orbital rims and external nasal aperture, inside the mandibular ramus, and along the lower edge of the mandible. Although this pattern is found around the world, it is unusual in Maya ritual.[6]
Another mass grave at Colha was found to have unusual characteristics for a Maya grave site. This suggests that it was not a ritual or sacrificial grave, but was dug during the capture of Colha. Although the site was already an important site of lithic production, archaeological remains show an exponential increase in the volume of stemmed blades produced, which served as the primary weapon in the area. This, along with the large volume of human remains found inside the defensive walls, suggests that perhaps the inhabitants were prepared for an invasion. These remains indicate that the capture of Colha was a strategic move to cut off supply of weapons production for the area by an invader.[6]
La Blanca
The acropolis of the Classic period site at La Blanca in Petén has produced evidence suggestive of warfare. During the Late Classic there appears to have been greater public access to the acropolis, with stairways communicating between the various terraces leading up to the south range.[7] During the Terminal Classic, these stairways were filled in, as were many of the access doorways to the acropolis itself, with some buildings being sealed completely.[7] This closing of public access to the palace reflects the greater political instability engulfing the entire Petén region at this time.[7] The acropolis complex was abandoned by the city's elite in the Terminal Classic, a time when most of the city centre was also deserted by its residents.[8] Many flint projectile points were recovered from the south terraces of the acropolis, this combined with the remains of two individuals very near the surface indicates that a violent confrontation took place around the time that the city was abandoned.[9]
Warfare as a cause of Maya collapse
Endemic warfare is often cited as the cause of the collapse or disappearance of the Maya civilization and abandonment of what are now ruins. Although warfare certainly played a role in the transition to the Terminal or Postclassic, overpopulation, environmental degradation, and drought all played a role in the change of Maya society. The most detailed archaeological information on this phenomenon comes from sites of the Petexbatún state and more recent investigations at the Río Pasión site of Cancuén.
Misconceptions
The prevalent theory on the ancient Maya at the beginning of the 20th century held on to the notion that they had a predominantly peaceful society, idealizing the indigenous culture much like a noble savage. This view shifted as the result of detailed analysis of iconography and the content of Maya script. Ironically, the New Age perspectives common in Mayanism suggest that modern use of ancient Maya wisdom will result in an era of world peace. [citation needed]
Ancient Maya warfare in popular culture
Maya warfare was a major theme in Apocalypto (2006), directed by Mel Gibson. The film depicts the attack on a small village by warriors from a larger polity for the purpose of capturing men to be sacrificed atop a pyramid during a solar eclipse.
See also
References
Bibliography
- Aoyama, Kazuo (2005). "Classic Maya Warfare and Weapons spear, dart, and arrow points of Aguateca and Copan". Ancient Mesoamerica. 16 (2). Cambridge University Press: 291–304. doi:10.1017/s0956536105050248. ISSN 0956-5361. OCLC 359655652.
{{cite journal}}: templatestyles stripmarker in|author=at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Barrett, Jason W. (2005). "Stones Bones and Crowded Plazas Evidence for Terminal Classic Maya warfare at Colha, Belize". Ancient Mesoamerica. 16 (1). Cambridge University Press: 101–18. doi:10.1017/s0956536105050091. ISSN 0956-5361. OCLC 364883700.
{{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|author=at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|coauthors=at position 5 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Chacon, Richard J. (2007). The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians. New York: Springer. pp. 733–799. OCLC 318298644.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|author=at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|coauthors=at position 5 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Sharer, Robert J. (2006). The Ancient Maya (6th (fully revised) ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0-8047-4817-9. OCLC 57577446.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|author=at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|coauthors=at position 6 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Vidal Lorenzo, Cristina (2007). "El Clásico Terminal y el abandono de los palacios de La Blanca, Petén" (PDF online publication). XX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2006 (edited by J.P. Laporte, B. Arroyo and H. Mejía). Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. pp. 561–576. Retrieved 2010-10-25.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|author=at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|coauthors=at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Template:Es icon - Vidal Lorenzo, Cristina (Undated). "Guatemala: La ciudad Maya de La Blanca". Madrid, Spain: Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía. pp. 45–50.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|year=(help); Missing or empty|url=(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|author=at position 1 (help); templatestyles stripmarker in|coauthors=at position 5 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link) Template:Es icon - Webster, David (2000). "The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War". Journal of World Prehistory (14). New York: Plenum Press: 65–119. ISSN 0892-7537. OCLC 15255571.
{{cite journal}}: templatestyles stripmarker in|author=at position 1 (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)