Salt Lake Community College
ANTH 1030, World Prehistory
Fall 2018
ANTH 1030, World Prehistory
Fall 2018
I am currently taking a severe weather course, and I have been able to see connections between it and this anthropology course such as reading about the climate impacts in this anthropology class, I have a much broader understanding of the subject after studying climate in my weather class.
For example Otzi, where the weather events would have had to have been very particular to cause him to be naturally preserved the way that he was. He would have been covered in snow immediately after his death, and then overtime Otzi would have had an accumulation of snow cover him and eventually that snow would have turned into a glacier. The boulders that surrounded Otzi had protected his body from the weight of the glacier from smashing his body.
For connections in weather class, I had noticed that some communities respond to hazardous weather differently than other populations. For example, people in Oklahoma tend to heed tornado warnings whereas people in Missouri distrust tornado warnings. I learned that the practices and beliefs in some communities have real-world consequences such as the catastrophic effects resulting from the 2011 Joplin tornado.
For example Otzi, where the weather events would have had to have been very particular to cause him to be naturally preserved the way that he was. He would have been covered in snow immediately after his death, and then overtime Otzi would have had an accumulation of snow cover him and eventually that snow would have turned into a glacier. The boulders that surrounded Otzi had protected his body from the weight of the glacier from smashing his body.
For connections in weather class, I had noticed that some communities respond to hazardous weather differently than other populations. For example, people in Oklahoma tend to heed tornado warnings whereas people in Missouri distrust tornado warnings. I learned that the practices and beliefs in some communities have real-world consequences such as the catastrophic effects resulting from the 2011 Joplin tornado.
I chose to post all three controversy papers. Because I learned a lot from each one, and I am proud of them all.
Controversy paper 1: The meaning of “Venus” figurines
The meaning of "Venus" figurines
Nichole Green
Venus figurines are ancient sculptures made by pre-modern people and are the oldest types of representational art in the archeological record. They are found at different sites throughout western, central, and eastern Europe.
These objects range from about walnut size to football size. Many of them, especially the oldest appear to show the pregnant female form, with extremely large breasts, swollen bellies, and wide hips, but their feet, hands, and head are often tiny or missing entirely and have very little detail. However, some of them, especially the newest ones, do have realistic features and faces carved on them and can range from standing, sitting, or squatting positions. Their purpose in Paleolithic people’s lives are mysterious and have been the cause of controversial debate.
Some people originally thought that they are a ritual object used in goddess worship and so they named them the “Venuses” after the Roman goddess of fertility. In some cases, it is suggested that they were some form of early erotica. Others now argue that they are more complicated. They could be self-portraits, represent gender roles, teaching tools to show the different stages of pregnancy or womanhood. (Scarre 2013)
One interesting question is the relationship between the sculptor and the subject. Was the artist sculpting themselves, another, or describing an idea from their imagination.
If the objects were self-portraits, then they might convey ideas that the person had about themselves. It might also explain the strangeness of the tiny hands, feet, and heads of some of the figures because of a visual illusion that all artists struggle with called foreshortening. Foreshortening is the way that when you look at something that is close to you compared to something that is far from you, the object that is closest will appear to be much larger than the object that is far away. When viewed from a certain angle, the figurines may be extremely realistic copies of what they saw. When you look at the figure from the profile, it looks strange with its bizarre appearance, but if you look at her from an aerial perspective, she is very accurate.
In his article Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines, LeRoy McDermott’s study “challenges the assumption that images of the human figure were first created from the point of view of other human beings and argues instead that the art of representing the human body originated with visual information derived primarily from the physical point of view of "self." (McDermott 1996:227)
The possibilities about what the figures could mean changes if you think about the possibility that the figures are a sculpture of someone else instead of a self-representation, for example, they were made from a second-person perspective, or a third-person perspective.
If a figurine represents somebody that the artist was looking at, for example, a male carving an image of his mate, then that might suggest that he was imparting his views about what he thought the figure was or thought she should be in idealized form.
For example, if the sculptor was another person, then the exaggerated breasts and hips might be symbolic of what the artist thought breasts and hips represented, or what they thought they should be in idealized (Goddess) form. Perhaps the lack of feet and face could suggest that the artist for whatever reason did not think that female movement(no feet) or identity (no face) was nearly as important as their torso (reproductive system).
In her article Figurines, Fertility; and the Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus,
Diane Bolger goes so far as to say that these figurines could even be political or social commentary.
Bolger’s writing suggests that because gender status and roles have changed over the centuries, the figurines may be an expression of that concept. She says that, “When viewed in a gendered light, the figurines, far from representing vague, immutable notions of "fertility," serve as clear signposts for the emergence of the patriarchal family, and they graphically document some of the profound changes that resulted in the relationships between women and men—changes that remain fundamentally embedded in the fabric of state-level society today.” (Bolger 1996:371,372)
I’m not really sure what I think the Venus figurines represent. I think that perhaps the figurines could have aspects of both arguments. While I agree with McDermott that some of the figurines look like self-portraits when they are viewed from very specific angles, not all of the figurines look this way, especially the newest figurines which have very elaborate decoration and stylization and look more in proportion from multiple angles. And though I agree with Bolger that gender roles in ancient times were changing and that would have influenced the makers of the objects and that many of their features could be symbolic, when I look at the figurines I don’t see any obvious social commentary on patriarchal society.
Perhaps the roles of the figurines were not fixed in time but changed just as their makers changed. Maybe the oldest objects were early self-portraits, and the others grew to be more symbolic. Either way, they remain very mysterious and complicated. I don’t think that we will ever truly the know the full story of the Venus figurines.
References
Bolger, Diane
1996 Figurines, Fertility; and the Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2:265-373. http://content.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=9603282476&S=R&D=sch&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHr7ESeqLE40dvuOLCmr1Cep7FSsKe4SrWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOGqrkyyrq5IuePfgeyx43zx accessed September 22, 2018.
McDermott, LeRoy
1996 Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2:227-271.http://content.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=9603282457&S=R&D=sch&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeqLA40dvuOLCmr1Cep7BSr6i4SK%2BWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOGqrkyyrq5IuePfgeyx43zx, accessed September 22, 2018.
Scarre, Chris
2013 The human past world prehistory and development of Human Societies.
3rd edition. Pages 162-163. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London.
Nichole Green
Venus figurines are ancient sculptures made by pre-modern people and are the oldest types of representational art in the archeological record. They are found at different sites throughout western, central, and eastern Europe.
These objects range from about walnut size to football size. Many of them, especially the oldest appear to show the pregnant female form, with extremely large breasts, swollen bellies, and wide hips, but their feet, hands, and head are often tiny or missing entirely and have very little detail. However, some of them, especially the newest ones, do have realistic features and faces carved on them and can range from standing, sitting, or squatting positions. Their purpose in Paleolithic people’s lives are mysterious and have been the cause of controversial debate.
Some people originally thought that they are a ritual object used in goddess worship and so they named them the “Venuses” after the Roman goddess of fertility. In some cases, it is suggested that they were some form of early erotica. Others now argue that they are more complicated. They could be self-portraits, represent gender roles, teaching tools to show the different stages of pregnancy or womanhood. (Scarre 2013)
One interesting question is the relationship between the sculptor and the subject. Was the artist sculpting themselves, another, or describing an idea from their imagination.
If the objects were self-portraits, then they might convey ideas that the person had about themselves. It might also explain the strangeness of the tiny hands, feet, and heads of some of the figures because of a visual illusion that all artists struggle with called foreshortening. Foreshortening is the way that when you look at something that is close to you compared to something that is far from you, the object that is closest will appear to be much larger than the object that is far away. When viewed from a certain angle, the figurines may be extremely realistic copies of what they saw. When you look at the figure from the profile, it looks strange with its bizarre appearance, but if you look at her from an aerial perspective, she is very accurate.
In his article Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines, LeRoy McDermott’s study “challenges the assumption that images of the human figure were first created from the point of view of other human beings and argues instead that the art of representing the human body originated with visual information derived primarily from the physical point of view of "self." (McDermott 1996:227)
The possibilities about what the figures could mean changes if you think about the possibility that the figures are a sculpture of someone else instead of a self-representation, for example, they were made from a second-person perspective, or a third-person perspective.
If a figurine represents somebody that the artist was looking at, for example, a male carving an image of his mate, then that might suggest that he was imparting his views about what he thought the figure was or thought she should be in idealized form.
For example, if the sculptor was another person, then the exaggerated breasts and hips might be symbolic of what the artist thought breasts and hips represented, or what they thought they should be in idealized (Goddess) form. Perhaps the lack of feet and face could suggest that the artist for whatever reason did not think that female movement(no feet) or identity (no face) was nearly as important as their torso (reproductive system).
In her article Figurines, Fertility; and the Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus,
Diane Bolger goes so far as to say that these figurines could even be political or social commentary.
Bolger’s writing suggests that because gender status and roles have changed over the centuries, the figurines may be an expression of that concept. She says that, “When viewed in a gendered light, the figurines, far from representing vague, immutable notions of "fertility," serve as clear signposts for the emergence of the patriarchal family, and they graphically document some of the profound changes that resulted in the relationships between women and men—changes that remain fundamentally embedded in the fabric of state-level society today.” (Bolger 1996:371,372)
I’m not really sure what I think the Venus figurines represent. I think that perhaps the figurines could have aspects of both arguments. While I agree with McDermott that some of the figurines look like self-portraits when they are viewed from very specific angles, not all of the figurines look this way, especially the newest figurines which have very elaborate decoration and stylization and look more in proportion from multiple angles. And though I agree with Bolger that gender roles in ancient times were changing and that would have influenced the makers of the objects and that many of their features could be symbolic, when I look at the figurines I don’t see any obvious social commentary on patriarchal society.
Perhaps the roles of the figurines were not fixed in time but changed just as their makers changed. Maybe the oldest objects were early self-portraits, and the others grew to be more symbolic. Either way, they remain very mysterious and complicated. I don’t think that we will ever truly the know the full story of the Venus figurines.
References
Bolger, Diane
1996 Figurines, Fertility; and the Emergence of Complex Society in Prehistoric Cyprus.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2:265-373. http://content.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=9603282476&S=R&D=sch&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHr7ESeqLE40dvuOLCmr1Cep7FSsKe4SrWWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOGqrkyyrq5IuePfgeyx43zx accessed September 22, 2018.
McDermott, LeRoy
1996 Self-Representation in Upper Paleolithic Female Figurines.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 37, Number 2:227-271.http://content.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=9603282457&S=R&D=sch&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeqLA40dvuOLCmr1Cep7BSr6i4SK%2BWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOGqrkyyrq5IuePfgeyx43zx, accessed September 22, 2018.
Scarre, Chris
2013 The human past world prehistory and development of Human Societies.
3rd edition. Pages 162-163. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London.
Controversy paper 2: The domestication of maize
The domestication of maize
Nichole Green
Nichole Green
The domestication of maize is a hot controversial topic. It was domesticated from the plant “Teosinte” in southern Mexico. The plant that it had originated from used to be a controversy as well, but with genetics scientists were able to scientifically determine that yes it did indeed come from the plant teosinte.
So now instead of debating what plant Maize came from, the controversy changed to questions like, what was the purpose for the cultivation of the plant? What part of the plant were they wanting, the stem or the actual kernels? Were the people domesticating the plant without sedentary villages? Was the hybrid of teosinte passed on, or did different people independently domesticate Maize?
In the article “The Paleobiolinguistics of Maize”, Brown and his associates suggested that there were five different species of Zea (wild grasses with seeds). There was “maize-term reconstructions” before there was village domestication of the crop, which would suggest that there might have been other uses for the crop other than for just food. However with all the different “proto-languages” words for maize they can determine how and when the crop had migrated out of southwestern Mexico and into other parts of the Americas. The oldest word for maize “Proto-Otomanguean” originated from southwestern Mexico. They also suggest that they might have been cultivating the crop even before they had sedentary lifestyles. (Brown, et al. 2014)
“Much of maize’s dispersal occurred well before it developed as a staple crop between 3000 and 2000 BP (Blake 2006; Piperno 2011), suggesting that it was only a minor crop, perhaps having uses other than general consumption.” (Brown, et al. 2014.56)
In the article Maize: Origin, Domestication, and Its Role in the Development of Culture, maize was once debated as to if it had a wild maize ancestor that is now extinct, was it domesticated once or multiple times or did it evolve from the plant teosinte. With the use of phylogeny Matsuka and his colleagues have proven that maize was indeed domesticated only once and came from western Mexico from an annual plant called Balsas teosinte. However, archaeologist Duccio Bonavia and geneticist Alexander Grobman bring back the wild maize domestication hypothesis.(Hart 2014)
Here is that hypothesis:
“(1) Wild Maize and teosinte diverged from a common ancestor, possibly in Mexico or northern Mesoamerica, as early as 23,000 years ago. (2) Wild maize and teosinte were not sympatric. (3) Wild maize plants and ears resembled maize, not Balsas teosinte. Traits of this early maize included small ears that shattered to disperse their small, hard seeds. (4) The domestication of maize was gradual, not saltational as some variants of the teosinte domestication hypothesis require. (5) Wild maize populations went extinct as a result of crossing with domesticated maize. (6) Maize seeds were carried to Central and South America where maize evolved into landraces distinct from those in Mexico. This transport occurred as early as 7000 B.P. based on archaeological evidence. (7) As maize spread some populations came in contact with annual teosintes in Mesoamerica resulting in gene flow primarily from teosinte to maize, explaining some of the maize’s diversity”. (Hart 2014:348)
I am not really sure of what I think now after reading so many different articles. I think it was difficult to find answers mainly because there is not a lot of evidence besides the DNA evidence explaining that maize did come from the annual plant teosinte.
I am now asking myself questions that were never brought up in any of the articles that I had read. Questions like, Did agriculture even originate with a sedentary lifestyle? Did warfare lead to a sedentary lifestyle? And, if it was warfare that caused sedentary lives I can’t imagine people leaving women and children behind to tend to the crops to risk being stolen by raiders. But instead, it would likely have been the male warriors that would have had to stay behind to guard the crops. And also, what do prehistoric people do when they have to just stay put in one place all the time and stare at a field of teosinte? With so much time on their hands, they must have tinkered and invented new ways of life to pass the time.
I do want to learn more about maize since this is a such major food crop and so important both in prehistoric times, and in our lives today. I am frustrated that we are lacking major evidence to show as to what was the original reason we started harvesting it in the first place.
Sources
Brown CH, Clement CR, Epps P, Luedeling E, Wichmann S.
2014 The Paleobiolinguistics of Maize Volume: 5:52‐64 ©2014 Society of Ethnobiology. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=9879e0f1-3bff-4707-a06e-eb109da7ebfd%40sessionmgr4009 accessed on November 1, 2018.
Hart JP.
2014 Maize: Origin, Domestication, and Its Role in the Development of Culture. Canadian Journal of Archaeology. 2014;38(1):346-348. http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=98323010&S=R&D=asn&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeprE4zOX0OLCmr1Cep7NSsK24TbaWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOGqrkyyrq5IuePfgeyx43zx Accessed November 3, 2018.
So now instead of debating what plant Maize came from, the controversy changed to questions like, what was the purpose for the cultivation of the plant? What part of the plant were they wanting, the stem or the actual kernels? Were the people domesticating the plant without sedentary villages? Was the hybrid of teosinte passed on, or did different people independently domesticate Maize?
In the article “The Paleobiolinguistics of Maize”, Brown and his associates suggested that there were five different species of Zea (wild grasses with seeds). There was “maize-term reconstructions” before there was village domestication of the crop, which would suggest that there might have been other uses for the crop other than for just food. However with all the different “proto-languages” words for maize they can determine how and when the crop had migrated out of southwestern Mexico and into other parts of the Americas. The oldest word for maize “Proto-Otomanguean” originated from southwestern Mexico. They also suggest that they might have been cultivating the crop even before they had sedentary lifestyles. (Brown, et al. 2014)
“Much of maize’s dispersal occurred well before it developed as a staple crop between 3000 and 2000 BP (Blake 2006; Piperno 2011), suggesting that it was only a minor crop, perhaps having uses other than general consumption.” (Brown, et al. 2014.56)
In the article Maize: Origin, Domestication, and Its Role in the Development of Culture, maize was once debated as to if it had a wild maize ancestor that is now extinct, was it domesticated once or multiple times or did it evolve from the plant teosinte. With the use of phylogeny Matsuka and his colleagues have proven that maize was indeed domesticated only once and came from western Mexico from an annual plant called Balsas teosinte. However, archaeologist Duccio Bonavia and geneticist Alexander Grobman bring back the wild maize domestication hypothesis.(Hart 2014)
Here is that hypothesis:
“(1) Wild Maize and teosinte diverged from a common ancestor, possibly in Mexico or northern Mesoamerica, as early as 23,000 years ago. (2) Wild maize and teosinte were not sympatric. (3) Wild maize plants and ears resembled maize, not Balsas teosinte. Traits of this early maize included small ears that shattered to disperse their small, hard seeds. (4) The domestication of maize was gradual, not saltational as some variants of the teosinte domestication hypothesis require. (5) Wild maize populations went extinct as a result of crossing with domesticated maize. (6) Maize seeds were carried to Central and South America where maize evolved into landraces distinct from those in Mexico. This transport occurred as early as 7000 B.P. based on archaeological evidence. (7) As maize spread some populations came in contact with annual teosintes in Mesoamerica resulting in gene flow primarily from teosinte to maize, explaining some of the maize’s diversity”. (Hart 2014:348)
I am not really sure of what I think now after reading so many different articles. I think it was difficult to find answers mainly because there is not a lot of evidence besides the DNA evidence explaining that maize did come from the annual plant teosinte.
I am now asking myself questions that were never brought up in any of the articles that I had read. Questions like, Did agriculture even originate with a sedentary lifestyle? Did warfare lead to a sedentary lifestyle? And, if it was warfare that caused sedentary lives I can’t imagine people leaving women and children behind to tend to the crops to risk being stolen by raiders. But instead, it would likely have been the male warriors that would have had to stay behind to guard the crops. And also, what do prehistoric people do when they have to just stay put in one place all the time and stare at a field of teosinte? With so much time on their hands, they must have tinkered and invented new ways of life to pass the time.
I do want to learn more about maize since this is a such major food crop and so important both in prehistoric times, and in our lives today. I am frustrated that we are lacking major evidence to show as to what was the original reason we started harvesting it in the first place.
Sources
Brown CH, Clement CR, Epps P, Luedeling E, Wichmann S.
2014 The Paleobiolinguistics of Maize Volume: 5:52‐64 ©2014 Society of Ethnobiology. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.libprox1.slcc.edu:2048/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=9879e0f1-3bff-4707-a06e-eb109da7ebfd%40sessionmgr4009 accessed on November 1, 2018.
Hart JP.
2014 Maize: Origin, Domestication, and Its Role in the Development of Culture. Canadian Journal of Archaeology. 2014;38(1):346-348. http://content.ebscohost.com/ContentServer.asp?T=P&P=AN&K=98323010&S=R&D=asn&EbscoContent=dGJyMNHX8kSeprE4zOX0OLCmr1Cep7NSsK24TbaWxWXS&ContentCustomer=dGJyMOGqrkyyrq5IuePfgeyx43zx Accessed November 3, 2018.
Controversy paper 3: The collapse of Maya civilization
The collapse of Maya civilization
Nichole Green
Nichole Green
For this assignment, I chose the “key controversy” topic “The collapse of Maya civilization” in which anthropologists debate over why the Maya cities were abandoned. The collapse was not sudden, and not all of the cities collapsed at the same time but instead was drawn out over hundreds of years. This issue has caused debates among anthropologists as to whether the abandonment was because of climate change or from multiple factors that each put stress on the Maya. (Scarre. 2013)
The article Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization, suggests that climate change played a significant part in the demise of the Maya civilization. With scientific measurements from ice cores, tree rings, and sediments they were able to determine that the Maya civilization went through multiple periods of drought. In response, the Maya created complex irrigation systems to store water. However, even with the advanced irrigation systems they had in place, the Mayans still may not have had enough water to support all the people and water their crops. The irrigation systems in the major cities depended solely on the collection of rainwater. The cities that held the most people would have collapsed first and then they would have been followed by the smaller cities that did not rely solely on rainwater preserves because the smaller cities had access to underground water natural resources. (Haug, et al. 2003)
According to the article Why Did the Pre-Columbian Maya Civilization Collapse? The Maya civilization went through five different stages of stress that all contributed to the collapse of the Maya, increased population, the spread of disease, the over-extension of their resources, the growing upper-class, and the trade network causing internal and external stress.
Increased population led to the need for more advanced and more complex agriculture systems. They had to clear, expand and terrace more land so that they could grow more food to feed more people.
As the population continued to climb, the spread of disease became more extensive in the civilization. The “Chagas disease” increased infant deaths and also made the adults much weaker.
The priests felt that they had to display and show off their wealth and elite status to all of their rivals. It meant the Maya had to devote most of their resources and labor into the building of the grandest and most extravagant ceremonial centers so that they could outdo their competitors.
The difference in wealth between the upper-class and the common people grew and caused social pressure on the society.
With the demands for more lavish as well as common goods, the Maya civilization had to trade with outside communities sometimes putting themselves into trade arrangements with hostile people. The collapse of the Maya’s during this time could have been because of multiple internal and external stresses on the people. (Willey, et al. 1971)
When I first chose this topic, I had presumed that climate change was the reason that the Maya had abandoned their great cities. However, after doing additional research, I now think that both theories are probably correct. In addition to the five stress points I discussed previously, climate change could also be a significant stress point, and all of these factors working together could have put too much overall pressure on the society and caused the Mayan people to choose to abandon city life to try other lifestyles instead.
Sources
Haug GH, Günther D, Peterson LC, Sigman DM, Hughen KA, Aeschlimann B.
2003 Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization.
Science, 299(5613): 1731-1735. https://libprox1.slcc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=9389100&site=eds-live. Accessed December 2, 2018.
Scarre, Chris
2013 The human past world prehistory and development of Human Societies. 3rd edition. Pages 630-631. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London.
Willey, G., & Shimkin, D.
1971 Why Did the Pre-Columbian Maya Civilization Collapse?
Science, 173(3997): 656-658. http://www.jstor.org.libprox1.slcc.edu:2048/stable/1731741 accessed on December 2, 2018.
The article Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization, suggests that climate change played a significant part in the demise of the Maya civilization. With scientific measurements from ice cores, tree rings, and sediments they were able to determine that the Maya civilization went through multiple periods of drought. In response, the Maya created complex irrigation systems to store water. However, even with the advanced irrigation systems they had in place, the Mayans still may not have had enough water to support all the people and water their crops. The irrigation systems in the major cities depended solely on the collection of rainwater. The cities that held the most people would have collapsed first and then they would have been followed by the smaller cities that did not rely solely on rainwater preserves because the smaller cities had access to underground water natural resources. (Haug, et al. 2003)
According to the article Why Did the Pre-Columbian Maya Civilization Collapse? The Maya civilization went through five different stages of stress that all contributed to the collapse of the Maya, increased population, the spread of disease, the over-extension of their resources, the growing upper-class, and the trade network causing internal and external stress.
Increased population led to the need for more advanced and more complex agriculture systems. They had to clear, expand and terrace more land so that they could grow more food to feed more people.
As the population continued to climb, the spread of disease became more extensive in the civilization. The “Chagas disease” increased infant deaths and also made the adults much weaker.
The priests felt that they had to display and show off their wealth and elite status to all of their rivals. It meant the Maya had to devote most of their resources and labor into the building of the grandest and most extravagant ceremonial centers so that they could outdo their competitors.
The difference in wealth between the upper-class and the common people grew and caused social pressure on the society.
With the demands for more lavish as well as common goods, the Maya civilization had to trade with outside communities sometimes putting themselves into trade arrangements with hostile people. The collapse of the Maya’s during this time could have been because of multiple internal and external stresses on the people. (Willey, et al. 1971)
When I first chose this topic, I had presumed that climate change was the reason that the Maya had abandoned their great cities. However, after doing additional research, I now think that both theories are probably correct. In addition to the five stress points I discussed previously, climate change could also be a significant stress point, and all of these factors working together could have put too much overall pressure on the society and caused the Mayan people to choose to abandon city life to try other lifestyles instead.
Sources
Haug GH, Günther D, Peterson LC, Sigman DM, Hughen KA, Aeschlimann B.
2003 Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization.
Science, 299(5613): 1731-1735. https://libprox1.slcc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=9389100&site=eds-live. Accessed December 2, 2018.
Scarre, Chris
2013 The human past world prehistory and development of Human Societies. 3rd edition. Pages 630-631. Thames and Hudson Ltd, London.
Willey, G., & Shimkin, D.
1971 Why Did the Pre-Columbian Maya Civilization Collapse?
Science, 173(3997): 656-658. http://www.jstor.org.libprox1.slcc.edu:2048/stable/1731741 accessed on December 2, 2018.