Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects(sciencenews.org)
sciencenews.org
Some Maya rulers may have taken generations to attract subjects
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/maya-rulers-attract-subjects-guatemala-tamarindito
5 comments
My guess is whoever paid attention to the stars/sky and deciphered solstices could get enough knowledge to start being seen as a holy man. You are able to predict seasons and plan agriculture, etc. Add some secrecy in the mix and you have multi-generational power structures.
> plan agriculture
this is the big one; the reason shaman/priests were at the top of the hierarchy in all post-agrarian cultures is because knowing when to plant seeds was the most crucial societal role in changing from hunter-gatherer to domestic agricultural, fueling population density and allowing even more specialized roles.
this is the big one; the reason shaman/priests were at the top of the hierarchy in all post-agrarian cultures is because knowing when to plant seeds was the most crucial societal role in changing from hunter-gatherer to domestic agricultural, fueling population density and allowing even more specialized roles.
>My guess is whoever paid attention to the stars/sky and deciphered solstices could get enough knowledge to start being seen as a holy man
Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes.
Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes.
> Persian astologer-priests were literally the magi from which the word magic is derived, so yes.
True. [Well, they were actually Medes, Iranian astrologer-priests is more accurate.]
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/Magi
The Magi were one of the tribes of Medes and the designated priestly tribe (think Levi). And likely from exposure of Medes (possibly Kurds of today) to Mesopotamian cultural centers, specially Babylon, the Iranian tribes got into astrology and astronomy. The Iranians started out as nomadic herding tribes (Abel) before settling (Cain) and adopting urbanism in what is now called The Iranian Plateau.
So we Iranians (Medes or Persians) did not invent astrology - we almost certainly got that from Babylon and to this day our calendar is the Zodiac, of four season with 3 months each, commencing on Spring Equinox. For example Khordad (3rd month of spring) is Gemini.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac
"Around the end of the 5th century BC, Babylonian astronomers divided the ecliptic into 12 equal "signs", by analogy to 12 schematic months of 30 days each."
This, imo, is where the 12 sons of Jacob (tribes of Israel) and the 12 Imams of Shia come from. All this numerology fascination is Babylonian in origin (though possibly they themselves got it from Egypt).
True. [Well, they were actually Medes, Iranian astrologer-priests is more accurate.]
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/Magi
The Magi were one of the tribes of Medes and the designated priestly tribe (think Levi). And likely from exposure of Medes (possibly Kurds of today) to Mesopotamian cultural centers, specially Babylon, the Iranian tribes got into astrology and astronomy. The Iranians started out as nomadic herding tribes (Abel) before settling (Cain) and adopting urbanism in what is now called The Iranian Plateau.
So we Iranians (Medes or Persians) did not invent astrology - we almost certainly got that from Babylon and to this day our calendar is the Zodiac, of four season with 3 months each, commencing on Spring Equinox. For example Khordad (3rd month of spring) is Gemini.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac
"Around the end of the 5th century BC, Babylonian astronomers divided the ecliptic into 12 equal "signs", by analogy to 12 schematic months of 30 days each."
This, imo, is where the 12 sons of Jacob (tribes of Israel) and the 12 Imams of Shia come from. All this numerology fascination is Babylonian in origin (though possibly they themselves got it from Egypt).
I never cease to marvel at how ancient cultures are still leaving their mark on us. My own favorite is how the cult of Isis morphed into the cult of the virgin Mary [0], and that the ancient Egyptian tradition (think ~4000+ years ago) of carrying statues of gods around on floats is still very much alive in most (all?) predominantly catholic countries.
[0] https://thedailybeagle.net/2013/04/05/373/
[0] https://thedailybeagle.net/2013/04/05/373/
The thing with Isis is a rather fringe theory though. The cults don't really overlap, and iconography is only superficially similar. Both are mothers of important figures ... and that's where the similarities come from.
Same with the floats. How else would you carry statues around?
In general terms, if you look long enough into enough cultures, you start seeing patterns everywhere. But that doesn't necessarily mean that connections exist, or that they are more than superficial. Good example would be various pan-nationalist projects of the 20th century.
Same with the floats. How else would you carry statues around?
In general terms, if you look long enough into enough cultures, you start seeing patterns everywhere. But that doesn't necessarily mean that connections exist, or that they are more than superficial. Good example would be various pan-nationalist projects of the 20th century.
Many scholars believe there is at least a link, that's not fringe at all. But I agree that seeing patterns has always been a judgement call with a lot of biases playing into it, and different people with different backgrounds make different calls on the extent of such connections and influences.
The sum of all judgement calls in this case is however tainted by vehement opposition to the notion from devout Catholics (or even culturally loyal Catholics), who naturally can not bear to think that the Virgin Mary is connected to heathen gods whatsoever. So there is that.
From my point of view it is only natural that iconography and traditions are transferred from one religion to another as the different geographic regions historically have moved from one religion to another. Many times such transferal has even been a conscious tactic as a way of increasing the acceptance for the new beliefs.
The sum of all judgement calls in this case is however tainted by vehement opposition to the notion from devout Catholics (or even culturally loyal Catholics), who naturally can not bear to think that the Virgin Mary is connected to heathen gods whatsoever. So there is that.
From my point of view it is only natural that iconography and traditions are transferred from one religion to another as the different geographic regions historically have moved from one religion to another. Many times such transferal has even been a conscious tactic as a way of increasing the acceptance for the new beliefs.
PS: > How else would you carry statues around?
Many (most?) cultures that are not connected to the Mediterranean traditions don't carry statues of gods around at all.
Many (most?) cultures that are not connected to the Mediterranean traditions don't carry statues of gods around at all.
Hindus do that. With carts and everything, and their connection to mediterrenean is pretty sparse. During Lunar new year people carry dragon effigy.
So that covers two other major civilization centers on this planet. What does that leave us with? Maybe some cultures in sub-saharan africa? But there's definitely some connection there. So Americas?
TLDR: Opposite is true, carrying symbols of your religion, either by hand or in a vehicle, is extremely widespread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_dance
So that covers two other major civilization centers on this planet. What does that leave us with? Maybe some cultures in sub-saharan africa? But there's definitely some connection there. So Americas?
TLDR: Opposite is true, carrying symbols of your religion, either by hand or in a vehicle, is extremely widespread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_dance
> Both are mothers of important figures ... and that's where the similarities come from.
But not where they end.
Using a Jungian (or gnostic/mystic) analytical framework, Isis and Mary represent the 'pure ground of emergence', and their son, 'the redeemer/the chosen'. This then is an inherent 'constellation' of human 'collective unconscious' that cyclically re-emerges as epochs change, taking on the garb reflecting the new cultural matrix.
The mystic/spiritual idea expressed is this: by purifying one's mind (Mary the chaste) there emerges a new center of conscious mind (the Son) who is 'guided and chosen' by God (i.e the Universal Mind). This 'son' is "persecuted" and "killed" but resurrects (Jesus and Osiris).
But not where they end.
Using a Jungian (or gnostic/mystic) analytical framework, Isis and Mary represent the 'pure ground of emergence', and their son, 'the redeemer/the chosen'. This then is an inherent 'constellation' of human 'collective unconscious' that cyclically re-emerges as epochs change, taking on the garb reflecting the new cultural matrix.
The mystic/spiritual idea expressed is this: by purifying one's mind (Mary the chaste) there emerges a new center of conscious mind (the Son) who is 'guided and chosen' by God (i.e the Universal Mind). This 'son' is "persecuted" and "killed" but resurrects (Jesus and Osiris).
> "attract subjects"
that's an interesting little phraseology/unsubstantiated theory of state, especially coming from a science publication. typically, you "subject" subjects, hence the word.
alternatively, if the redundancy bothers you, you can subject populaces instead.
that's an interesting little phraseology/unsubstantiated theory of state, especially coming from a science publication. typically, you "subject" subjects, hence the word.
alternatively, if the redundancy bothers you, you can subject populaces instead.
The article is specifically about the leadership in question willingly attracting people to rule over rather than forcibly subjecting them to rulership.
yes, that is the premise, but the article specifically does not present any evidence of that being the case, just a bunch of weasel words.
"...aerial laser maps reported by Estrada-Belli and colleagues have revealed large, interconnected Maya cities now obscured by forests in other parts of northern Guatemala (SN: 9/27/18). The next step, Estrada-Belli says, is to assemble an aerial laser map of at least 100 square kilometers around Tamarindito to see if it was built in relative isolation."
if they don't even know whether it was built in isolation, how could they possibly be in a position to make these kind of conclusions about how it came about?
hence, "theory."
"...aerial laser maps reported by Estrada-Belli and colleagues have revealed large, interconnected Maya cities now obscured by forests in other parts of northern Guatemala (SN: 9/27/18). The next step, Estrada-Belli says, is to assemble an aerial laser map of at least 100 square kilometers around Tamarindito to see if it was built in relative isolation."
if they don't even know whether it was built in isolation, how could they possibly be in a position to make these kind of conclusions about how it came about?
hence, "theory."
Terms which were coined in Norman feudalism will need some stretching to adapt to different cultures and political systems. The judges in the Book of Judges aren't anything like a judge in our sense, for example.
It's a pretty universal fact of history that civilizations come about through violence and subjugation, not by "the law of attraction," or whatever this article is proposing.
> typically, you "subject" subjects, hence the word.
That seems like an appeal to linguistic authority.
I have a hard time imagining building a hierarchy without an attraction phase. There are many real world examples: Jim Jones, Uber, the French Revolution, etc.
That seems like an appeal to linguistic authority.
I have a hard time imagining building a hierarchy without an attraction phase. There are many real world examples: Jim Jones, Uber, the French Revolution, etc.
Would this be like how Jesus amassed followers? A few dozen in 30 AD, maybe 5000 70 years later, but then 2 million 150 years after that?
The Byzantine emperor Constantine made it go viral around 300AD. He had a lot of attacks from external tribes on the leftovers of the Roman empire and a religion that teaches you to turn the other cheek was very helpful to adopt as a national religion. Then around 1050AD Catholicism split from Orthodoxy and if you were a ruler you got to pick between being in the same club under the influence of the Pope (with his perks and manipulations) or being Tsar with a patriarch underneath you. Some Eastern European countries tried both ways and settled on Orthodoxy. Western Europe rulers intermarried instead, and fought between each-other with the occasional help of the Pope club. They all wanted to claim some shred of grander legitimacy as descendent of the Holy Roman empire and absorb others, but it didn’t work out.
Why is it "Maya rulers" rather than "Mayan rulers"?
Dalewyn(1)
Generally, Maya refers to the people and culture, while Mayan is the language.
He is Maya. They are Maya. Maya ruins. Maya clothing.
Mayan languages (30 odd ancient, plus one currently spoken in the Yucatan region).
He is Maya. They are Maya. Maya ruins. Maya clothing.
Mayan languages (30 odd ancient, plus one currently spoken in the Yucatan region).
“Generally” as in “scholars specifically”.
eh? If we are now saying he is Maya vs Mayan, well news to me.
He is America. America clothing. America buildings.
Ooooh trying to find perfect rules in English, wait let me make enough popcorn to share. And please go on - now do England and English. Switzerland and Swiss, Iceland and Icelandics, etc, etc, etc.
I disapprove. It should be changed to match the adjective form of other countries or regions like Singapore/Singaporean, Mexico, Mexican.
Perhaps it is fitting that the same rival people/nation that oppressed them suffer from the same ambiguity: Spanish vs. Spaniard.
I know everyone likes to hate on Europeans, but the Mexican government has a more substantial history of oppressing the Maya than the Spaniards.
And if the separatist movement had succeeded, we’d be talking about the Yucatán government, sure.
Uhh, you sure about that? Also, what did the Mexican government come from?
Hint: the best kind of Mexican to be, used to be Peninsular.
Also, if you want to deflect from the Spanish, try looking at Guatemala. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide
Hint: the best kind of Mexican to be, used to be Peninsular.
Also, if you want to deflect from the Spanish, try looking at Guatemala. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide
Could you use those in sentences to indicate where you think the ambiguity is?
While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway. It also frequently gets into further confusion with related identities such as Hispanic, Latino, etc.
> While it is not incorrect to refer to the people as the Spanish, the proper demonym is Spaniard. But people often use the former to refer to the people/nationality anyway.
Well, as you note, referring to the people of Spain in general as "the Spanish" is correct. This is an example of a fairly common construction in English: we equally refer to the French, the rich, the wealthy, the poor, the uneducated, the needy....
You appear to believe that referring to the people of Spain as "the Spaniards" would be even more correct, which suggests you're not a native speaker of English. That is not correct; if you say "the Spaniards", the only response you'll get will be "which Spaniards?", unless a particular set of Spaniards is suggested by context, in which case you'll be referring to them without including the rest of Spain.
Well, as you note, referring to the people of Spain in general as "the Spanish" is correct. This is an example of a fairly common construction in English: we equally refer to the French, the rich, the wealthy, the poor, the uneducated, the needy....
You appear to believe that referring to the people of Spain as "the Spaniards" would be even more correct, which suggests you're not a native speaker of English. That is not correct; if you say "the Spaniards", the only response you'll get will be "which Spaniards?", unless a particular set of Spaniards is suggested by context, in which case you'll be referring to them without including the rest of Spain.
[deleted]
I am willing to concede that I might be overthinking situations where "Spaniards" should be used instead of "the Spanish." Perhaps I was premature in citing a half-remembered verbal tic without having an actual example handy.
But there is neither need to be presumptuous nor offensive, nor officious, in your attempts to grasp at my meaning.
Amusingly enough, in the process of trying to find an erroneous misuse of the terms, and striving in vain, I stumbled upon this article, which is about the complexity of "Spanish" as a transatlantic identity, when it conflates Latin American hispanics with actual immigrant Spaniards:
> The most common adaptation my interviewees reported to deal with the automatic association of Spain with Latin America was for them to disassociate from using the term Spanish as their primary identifier with Anglo-Americans. Rather as Susana, a 25-year-old ESL student, quite vividly noted they had to actively try to reinforce their geographic connection to Europe:
> Susana:
>“I’m not Spanish, I’m from Spain.” I always say that. In fact, I say “I’m from Es-pain” because I cannot say the [English] “s.” And they say “Olé” and laugh.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23326492187663...
Though that, of course, is a different issue altogether!
Edit: After having a think, I'd say that there have been instances where in actual conversation I've heard individual Spanish people referred to as "a Spanish" rather than "a Spaniard." Which, of course, is wrong. It does feel like the word Spaniard has a rather historical, almost literary, sheen, so you don't hear it used in everyday conversation often. And so colloquially speaking, people are more likely to default to incorrect uses of Spanish as a noun. But that might be a misconception I've picked up, I freely admit.
But there is neither need to be presumptuous nor offensive, nor officious, in your attempts to grasp at my meaning.
Amusingly enough, in the process of trying to find an erroneous misuse of the terms, and striving in vain, I stumbled upon this article, which is about the complexity of "Spanish" as a transatlantic identity, when it conflates Latin American hispanics with actual immigrant Spaniards:
> The most common adaptation my interviewees reported to deal with the automatic association of Spain with Latin America was for them to disassociate from using the term Spanish as their primary identifier with Anglo-Americans. Rather as Susana, a 25-year-old ESL student, quite vividly noted they had to actively try to reinforce their geographic connection to Europe:
> Susana:
>“I’m not Spanish, I’m from Spain.” I always say that. In fact, I say “I’m from Es-pain” because I cannot say the [English] “s.” And they say “Olé” and laugh.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/23326492187663...
Though that, of course, is a different issue altogether!
Edit: After having a think, I'd say that there have been instances where in actual conversation I've heard individual Spanish people referred to as "a Spanish" rather than "a Spaniard." Which, of course, is wrong. It does feel like the word Spaniard has a rather historical, almost literary, sheen, so you don't hear it used in everyday conversation often. And so colloquially speaking, people are more likely to default to incorrect uses of Spanish as a noun. But that might be a misconception I've picked up, I freely admit.
My assumption from your initial comment was also that you were not a native English speaker.
'twas merely an act
[deleted]
There is zero ambiguity there. What were you trying to say?
Ambiguity about ambiguities, delicious.
You do not appear to know what the word "ambiguity" means.
Which makes it even more amusing!
[deleted]
Neither "Maya" nor "Mayan" (in this context) refers to any place name.
[deleted]