| Author |
Message |
    
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1692
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 09, 2006 - 10:54 pm: |     |
If you are interested in ethanological narratives, you might find Mel Gibson's Apocalypto interesting. It isn't great but if you liked stuff like Rapa Nui, you will like this one.
John Hawks on Apocalypto
quote:Haven't you noticed that Apocalypto is basically a novelization of the Maya part of Jared Diamond's Collapse?
also:
quote:Diamond pushes this simplified version of Maya history as an allegory for U.S. ecological hubris.
Gibson apparently has taken the same tale and made it -- like his other movies -- into a morality play about individual liberty and defense of family. He's less into ecological hubris, and more into the dangers of unrestrained power. That's probably a good idea, since films about ecological hubris are generally very dull.
On the other hand, films about abuse of power generally paint with a very broad brush. And when the premise (as in Collapse) is that the abusive power is used stupidly, the morality play can reach absurd proportions.
In any event, if you're looking for the social zeitgeist behind this Apocalypto phenomenon, it would seem to derive from these widespread assumptions about Maya ecology and political structures that Diamond has helped to popularize. Collapse itself already simplifies vastly to make his point about ecologies and social regulation. The entire book is a case of "imposing an accessible scheme on a faraway time and place."
I liked Diamond's Collapse, but GGS was far better. Collapse wasn't deep enough and over-generalised - at least to me it did.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Pine
flint knapper
Username: Pine
Post Number: 1327
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 4:48 am: | |
ethanological narratives? Are those narratives produced under the influence of Holy Brew?
Cohen's Law: 'Unless you fail at more than 10% of the things you try, you aren't trying enough things.' |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 6:59 am: | |
LOL Pine. I swear I wasn't taste testing the Holy Brew when I made that post! But I have been trying to put up a Xmas tree with a three year old! 
It should read: ethnological narratives!
Thanks for the heads up! 
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 448
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, December 10, 2006 - 7:40 pm: | |
Scott and all:
The Hawks blog did indeed make the claim that Apocalypto was a "novelization" of Diamond's Collapse re the Maya. But the reviews of the film have been decidedly "mixed", with some archaeologists weighing in that the film is a rather inaccurate portrayal of that civilization(they didn't say anything about Diamod's book). And then there are other angles. You might be interested in this:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061218/shorris
The author seems to know the Yucatan Peninsula people well, whatever one might think of his views.
Anne G |
Themusediva
bear cub
Username: Themusediva
Post Number: 11
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 7:37 am: | |
Pine, your my kind of friend
hehe |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1163
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:43 am: | |
Ok, by reading that I've already decided it's not worth my watch. Central Mexican and Oaxacan indigenious people are definitely not Maya in appearance. Heck, Yucatecan Mayans don't look like Chiapas Mayans, or Guatemaltecan Mayans. I know that if you've never seen the difference, that you don't know. And there's not even one Maya, nor is it a historical Maya. The Maya spoken closest to the classical period is the Lacondon Maya.
As for the Mayan cyclical ending in 2012 and linking it to a Christian linear concept of end of the world is just absurd. Cyclical endings come and go all the time, and convey an expectation that the world will return in its pure state, that gods will redress the drawing lines, with or without the help of humans. Humans are the bystanders in this, and can't affect it, much like a Hindu caste can't do much about it. Nor is anything absolute at stake. Gods made humans and the world several times, learning from the mistakes. There were wood people, mud people, etc... In the last "known" creation people were made of mais.
The Christian apocalyptic thinking is linear, in that first God created the universe, and only this universe, and one day he'll end it for good, forever.
The historical Mayans weren't nice peaceful guys, but to suppose they will go back to ripping people's heart out, is like expecting that present day pagans sacrifice humans.
As for how the end date in 2012 came to be... It's not that the Mayans projected an ending of time, but they calculated a beginning of time for the present state, about 14,000 years ago. And the long count calender is only so long as it is, hence there be an ending when they have to restart the count of the long count calender.
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.ht ml
quote:What is the Long Count?
The Long Count is really a mixed base-20/base-18 representation of a number, representing the number of days since the start of the Mayan era. It is thus akin to the Julian Day Number.
The basic unit is the kin (day), which is the last component of the Long Count. Going from right to left the remaining components are:
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
uinal (1 uinal = 20 kin = 20 days)
tun (1 tun = 18 uinal = 360 days = approx. 1 year)
katun (1 katun = 20 tun = 7,200 days = approx. 20 years)
baktun (1 baktun = 20 katun = 144,000 days = approx. 394 years)
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
The kin, tun, and katun are numbered from 0 to 19.
The uinal are numbered from 0 to 17.
The baktun are numbered from 1 to 13.
Although they are not part of the Long Count, the Mayas had names for larger time spans. The following names are sometimes quoted, although they are not ancient Maya terms: 1 pictun = 20 baktun = 2,880,000 days = approx. 7885 years
1 calabtun = 20 pictun = 57,600,000 days = approx. 158,000 years
1 kinchiltun = 20 calabtun = 1,152,000,000 days = approx. 3 million years
1 alautun = 20 kinchiltun = 23,040,000,000 days = approx. 63 million years
The alautun is probably the longest named period in any calendar.
When did the Long Count Start?
Logically, the first date in the Long Count should be 0.0.0.0.0, but as the baktun (the first component) are numbered from 1 to 13 rather than 0 to 12, this first date is actually written 13.0.0.0.0.
The authorities disagree on what 13.0.0.0.0 corresponds to in our calendar. I have come across three possible equivalences:
13.0.0.0.0 = 8 Sep 3114 BC (Julian) = 13 Aug 3114 BC (Gregorian)
13.0.0.0.0 = 6 Sep 3114 BC (Julian) = 11 Aug 3114 BC (Gregorian)
13.0.0.0.0 = 11 Nov 3374 BC (Julian) = 15 Oct 3374 BC (Gregorian)
Assuming one of the first two equivalences, the Long Count will again reach 13.0.0.0.0 on 21 or 23 December AD 2012 - a not too distant future.
The date 13.0.0.0.0 may have been the Mayas' idea of the date of the creation of the world.
It's important to note that the Haab and Tzolkin calendar was not a Mayan invention, but an earlier Olmec one. The Mayans invented the long count though.
Basically the Haab is 365 days long, with 18 times a month of 20 days and an extra 5 day (unlucky) period. And the portrayal of a Haab day would be ismilar to us saying January 1, January 2, etc, only that they start with something akin to January 0 and end with January 19. The day afterward would be akin to February 0, etc.
Then there is the Tzolkin calendar. This one has 260 days, where a week has 13 days (day 1, day 2, day3, ...) and there being 20 such weeks, and each week having a name (turtle week, dog week, ...) And thus you'd have a combination of day 1 in turtle week... We would say it a bit differently: Monday (our days have the names) in the 9th week (and our weeks have a number).
Of course the problem is that the Haab (the counting of months) does not fit exactly with the Tzolkin. We fitted months, weeks and number of days in a week to one and the same cycle of 365 days.
The meso-Americans didn't. Instead they combined the two calenders. So you'd have January 0 day 1 Turtle week. But the next year day 1 Turtle week wouldn't be on January 0, but another day of the Haab count. It would take 52 Haab years before day 1 Turtle week would fall on January 0 again. These 52 years made a century. And yup the Mayans fell victim to a fin-de-siecle suspicion as well. On that change of century they would question whether the pleiades would appear at the sky or not. And if they did, everything was alright. Since we haven't come across evidence yet of a surge every 52 years in ripping hearts out of bodies over the last Western centuries, I don't see why we should expect it to happen in 2012.
Of course the problem they had with the 52 year cycle was that after a while you couldn't distinguish one date from another date 52 years before that. The cycle just started anew. And so they needed a measurement so you'd know the difference. Just like at some point it wasn't enough to simply point out the day of the week and which month for us when it came to referring to a historical date. The big difference here is the linear and cyclical thinking. We just add or detract a number of centuries, and we'll never go back to a 1st century BCE. The Mayans did have a cyclical thinking, and for them you could have a new 5th century after starting to count. Of course such a count would need to take long enough centuries. The counting base for the Mayans is 20 (as many toes and fingers you have), and the cyclical return is the moon. So, 18 times 20. I put how you can compare these Mayan long coutn terms to our way of thinking and naming periods.
1 day = 1 Kin
20 days = 20 Kin = 1 Winal (long count month)
360 days = 18 Winal = 1 Tun (long count year)
7200 days = 20 Tun = Katun (long count century)
144000 days = 20 Katun = Baktun (long count millenium)
And instead of there being an indefinite amount of Baktuns there can only be 13 Baktuns (comparale to us saying there could only be 13 millenia): 144,000 days x 13 = 1,872,000 days = 5128 solar years.
The starting date of the Mayan long count calender 13.0.0.0.0 would be our 3114 BCE September 6 (Julian) or 3114 BCE August 11 (Gregorian). And on December 21, 2012 we'll have a new 13.0.0.0.0, so it's not as much an end as a restart of the long count calendar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar
quote:The end of the 13th b'ak'tun is conjectured to have been of great significance to the Maya, but does not necessarily mark the end of the world according to their beliefs, but a new beginning or time of re-birth. According to the Popol Vuh, a book compiling details of creation accounts known to the Quiché Maya of the colonial-era highlands, we are living in the fifth world. The Popol Vuh describes the first four creations that the gods failed in making and the creation of the successful fifth world where men were placed. The Maya believed that the fifth world would end in catastrophe and the sixth and final world would be created that would signal the end of mankind.
The last creation ended on a long count of 13.0.0.0.0. Another 13.0.0.0.0 will occur on December 21, 2012, and it has been discussed in many New Age articles and books that this will be the end of this creation, the next pole shift or something else entirely. However, the Maya abbreviated their long counts to just the last five vigesimal places. There were an infinite number of larger units that were usually not shown. When the larger units were shown (notably on a monument from Coba), the end of the last creation is expressed as 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13 .13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0, where the units are obviously supposed to be 13s twenty places larger than that b'ak'tun. In this age we are only approaching 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13 .13.13.1.13.0.0.0.0, and the larger places would all need to similarly roll over to 13 again to match the date of the new creation.[6]
This is confirmed by a date from Palenque, which projects forward in time to 1.0.0.0.0.0, which will occur on October 13, 4772 (a Friday). The Classic Period Maya likely did not believe that the end of this age would occur in 2012. According to the Maya, there will be a baktun ending in 2012, a significant event being the end of a 13th 400 year period, but not the end of the world.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1164
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 11:58 am: | |
For a mythological interpretation on what 21 December 2012 might have had as a significance for the Mayan, I'd advize reading this link.
http://www.levity.com/eschaton/Why2012.html
Basically it comes down to this... For people to reach the heavens they had to find the path to it. The path was symbolically depcted as a tree, and more abstractly as a cross. Now we tend to think of this as an imaterial way, but like people thought there was a heaven outside the hemisphere, behind star firmament in the middle ages, it's quite possible the Mayans thought that people had to travel from star to star in order to reach heaven (and yup the Mayans do have a heaven and underworld concept). And on 21 December there's supposed to be an eclycptic crossing of the Milky Way equator,because of precession. And such a crossing could have been expected by the Mayans as a road opening into Xibalba (underworld) where kings have to fight the lords of the underworld, before going to heaven, like the Mayan creation gods did in Popul Voh.
If this mythical interpretation is correct, I'd expect a flurry of feasts for the death, a goodbye hailing and wishes for succes, rather than an apocaliptical murder mayhem.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 12:20 pm: | |
Perhaps I've made an interpretation mistake... Is Mel Gibson trying to show the decline of the Mayan civilisation in the 9th to 10th century? Or has it to do with the 2012 present date?
If it's the former, then the ripping a heart out seems an inaccurate ritual with the time. Before the arrival of the Toltecs (who did rip out the hearts), Mayans sacrificed people by throwing them in wells for the rain god, or speared prisoners of war in the belly, or beheaded the ballplayers (the winner or the losers is still a point of discussion). The Toltecs moved into the Yucatan a century after the classic collapse, and brought with them the cutting the heart out ritual. The kind of sacrifice ritual shows the veneration of a specific god. Rain god means drowning in wells. Sun god means ripping the heart out. Ancestral ok of your kinghood means piercing your finger, tongue and penis with a stingray spike.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 449
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 12, 2006 - 10:57 pm: | |
Sweetsunray:
There appear to be a lot of decidedly inaccurate things in Apocalypto. I, for one, amo not going to waste my money on this seeming travesty, even though I know almost nothing about the Mayan culture and civilzation. A number of archaeologists and others have come to much the same conclusions about Apocalypto.
If you are at all interested in this, you can go to:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com
There is an interview with an archaeologist about the film on that site(sorry guys, I thought I had saved the site to cut and paste, but I evidently didn't. Ugh).
Anne G |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:03 am: | |
Still need to watch the comments. But thanks for the link... cruised through the pcitures of new found sea life... my favourite is the yeti crab!
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1167
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 12:11 am: | |
Ok, I've read enough... I'll never want to see that one, not even if they paid me for it.
I once watched the JTR movie with Johny Depp. For anyone who knows zilch about JTR it must have been pretty entertaining. But I've written articles on research regarding JTR's victims for research magazines. It was horribly annoying from the first 5 mins onward to watch it.
My tourleading specialty is the Maya territory. I can't "guide" it of course, since I have no certificate of being trained as one (a tourleader is the person who accompanies little groups, organizes the stuff, tries to get people to do stuff they never tried before - like buying food for the picnic at the local Mexican market). But I divulge about as much as I can about Mayans, contemporary as historically for years now. It would be just plain torture to watch Mel's movie to me.
Heck, I nearly had a fit when an author inserted some detail in his manuscript he wanted us to review. The detail - an archeological find of a heart from an Aztec sacrifice... Rolleyes.
Ok, so people want to write or film fiction. But I hate it when they use a historical setting that's just plain incorrect.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 4:56 am: | |
Well there are a lot of things inaccurate in Auel's books too. It is an interpretation and an allegory according to Gibson himself. That being said I am shocked that he didn't use Mayan actors at least for a few of the more prominent characters. Again, there is precedent for this. Last year's Memoirs of a Geisha used Chinese actresses for the three lead characters! Eeek! But they pulled it off. Gibson did not use a young man from Galillee to produce his rather bloody depiction of Christ. This is not a documentary - it is entertainment.
SSR it is set in the Yucatan just before Spanish contact (1519) during the final decline of the Maya (Post Classic Collapse period). It is a fictitious view of the Mayan Civilisation, an interpretation if you will.
JTR SSR?
Anne, what did you think of the movie Rapa Nui?
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Themusediva
bear cub
Username: Themusediva
Post Number: 18
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 13, 2006 - 10:55 am: | |
I am a little puzzled over the flap. Isn't it just a movie? Its not meant to be a docudrama is it?
Why are you reading this drivel? Hurry up and go look at my digital art portfolio at http://the-muse-diva.deviantart.com or grab some nerve, curl up your knucklebone and trade me some writing so I can get a critique partner. |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 450
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 6:50 am: | |
Themusediva:
This is not "drivel" to critique, or even criticize, a film that claims to be a portrayal of Mayan history. Furthermore, as Scott pointed out, though this film is supposed to be about the Maya, there were no Maya actors in prominent parts. The actors who wereprominent, didn't even look like Mayans. Yes, it's "just a movie", but there will be lots of people who will think it's an accurate portrayal of pre-Columbian Maya society. And, at least according to several sources I've read, it isn't.
Anne G |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 11:19 am: | |
JTR = Jack The Ripper (sorry, that abbrevation is automatic for me, because it was a real drag to have to write Jack The Ripper all the time during debate with other researchers)
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Ted
hunter
Username: Ted
Post Number: 533
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 11:33 am: | |
Learn to touch type, and typing jack the ripper is faster than jtr which you have to think about.
Somehow the brain can type ordinary words faster than acronyms, which by logic should be faster, but in practical terms are not.
Ted
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Benjamin Disraeli: "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." |
Sweetsunray
storyteller
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 1169
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 4:06 pm: | |
Thanks for the advice, Ted, but I touch type since I'm 10 (learned it on a typewriter).
JTR is still faster to type than Jack the Ripper, and it ain't the type of guy you're likely to call Jack (too sympathic sounding). Of course that's because I don't need to think about writing JTR since in such debate posts the name comes up about at least twice with every paragraph. So, several years of debate on the subject, several posts a day on the subject, at least a minimum of 10 JTRs per post (and you know I can get long winded at times), and you can figure out how automatic it has become to type the abbreviation faster than "Jack the Ripper". I can type JTR as fast as JTR was able to cut a throat. 
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Ted
hunter
Username: Ted
Post Number: 534
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, December 14, 2006 - 7:55 pm: | |
Fair enough.
Once it becomes a word itself, used all the time, just like "but" or "the", it would be faster to type.
Ted
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light
Benjamin Disraeli: "The Jews are a nervous people. Nineteen centuries of Christian love have taken a toll." |
Scott
flint knapper
Username: Scott
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 15, 2006 - 7:17 am: | |
Thanks SSR. I just couldn't figure it out - acronyms are not my fort? in any case.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
|
People, Places, Cultures and Resources