Only 4 Texts Remain from the Maya Civilization After Thousands Were Destroyed
Despite the fact that we are not very far removed from their heyday, we know very little about Maya civilization.
And it’s not because the Maya weren’t into recording their history.
The Maya were prolific writers and actually evolved from using scrolls to a form of folded paper called the codex right around the same time as the Romans, though each appears to be independent of the other.
[...]
Maya glyphs and the records of the Spanish conquistadors themselves attest to thousands of these codices existing by the time the two cultures met in the 16th century.
But, due to their being destroyed by priests, conquistadors, ship raiders, and even time and mold, only about 22 codices, of which only four have Maya origin, exist today.
None of them are complete, and none have their original covers.
[...]
And you might have noticed that the oldest one only goes back to 200-300 years before the Spanish conquest.
We know that the codices went back at least 800 years prior to that, so we’re essentially looking at the tip of a fingernail and trying to guess what the hand looked like.
And that’s how the soul of a culture gets erased from history…
See also: Burning the Maya Books: The 1562 Tragedy at Mani
The last codices destroyed were those of Nojpetén, Guatemala in 1697, the last city conquered in the Americas. (Wikipedia)
So wait does this mean all the human sacrifice scawy dark ritual stuff could literally be made up?
I haven't done a deep dive on it but from my understanding:
It has been greatly exaggerated
It is framed in a very propagandistic way and it could just as easily be said that during the Spanish Inquisition there was the widespread superstitious practice of ritually torturing and executing people as human sacrifices to their God, if you wanted to use that same sort of framing
Like always, this is used to divert attention away from the brutality of the settler-colonists and as a justification ("Well they were doing it too!!"/"We had to be brutal or otherwise they would have slaughtered us all!!") This trope inevitably gets brought up with regards to native American peoples participating in slavery or scalping or acts of retribution and so on.
I mean from the theological standpoint this is exactly what it was, killing so that the god may perform its divine function. In case of Aztec gods it might be making the Sun go up and the world working as intended* which was their job, and in case of christian god it was cleansing the heaviest sins by suffering and death thus reaching salvation, which is his job. They were just aware that putting it like that would be pretty controversial, so on one hand they spread the human sacrifice propaganda about pretty much every other religion they plausibly could and on the other distanced themselves as much as they could from christian sacrifices by "secular arm" and politics (which was greatly helped by large numbers of inquisitional trials being actually political).
*Fun fact about Aztec mythology - contrary to most other ones, where the world is in iron age after previously experiencing golden and silver ages, Aztecs had it otherwise, previous worlds were failures populated by failed experiments (the mythological giants for example had problems with remaining alive over any longer periods for no reason except being badly designed) and were destroyed by cataclysms, and the current world is the best yet with current humans being most successful creation and so it's worth keeping.
I'm very much in favour of problematising the hypocritical narratives in the west when colonised people are discussed vs how the west is discussed because imo there's a direct throughline from how the west discusses history and how it currently portrays "authoritarian" countries and how it discusses itself with regards to things like "officer-involved shootings". If the series of mysterious deaths of BLM leaders happened in Belarus or Iran, the western media would have drilled it into our heads until it became a trope but since it happened in the US it's barely a footnote, even in radical circles. If the USSR stationed armed commissars in every soviet school where they would assault children and drag them off to prison for wrongthink or for the crime of having a darker skin tone, we would never hear the end of it how it exemplified the authoritain police state nature of the Soviets yet in the US they have "resource officers" and it's all about protecting safety and freedom and democracy.
On tiktok when there was the violent suppression of protests against the Palestinian genocide, I was telling people that the government is gonna pull a Kent State 2.0 and there was a shocking number of people who were radical left that hadn't even heard of the Kent State Massacre until I mentioned it but I can bet you that most people in the west have at least a vague knowledge of the Moscow Theatre Hostage Crisis and the Tiananmen Square Protests.
I recently saw a video where an American liberal was confronted on the street by someone who was at least radical-ish and the topic of political prisoners got brought up. The liberal was like "Who are the American political prisoners? Where are they??" and radical responded that the US government had killed them all and I cringed because a radical should be able to list Leonard Peltier, Mumia Abu-Jamal, George Jackson (!!), Assata Shakur, Julian Assange (!), Lorenzo Kom'boa Ervin (not a fan but that's beside the point), not to mention Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and the global network of CIA blacksites.
It's a product of cultural hegemony that Americans simply don't know about the Battle of Blair Mountain or the MOVE bombings or violent suppression of the Bonus Army but they'll be able to tell you all sorts of tall stories about the Gulags and the Stasi and whatever fairytale Yeonmi Park has concocted about the DPRK this week.
If you want to really run with it, what function does the TSA perform in airports? Not a single terrorist attack has been thwarted since their inception. People often call the TSA security theatre, which is a good start, but from an anthropological perspective they are there to conduct rituals that instill a sense of surveillance and to enforce compliance from the people who pass through airports. And I mean that completely unironically.
If you can historicise how this "a few bad apples" narrative is applied to the west, or how it gets a pass because it tries to do the right thing but sometimes it makes mistakes on the way, while the colonized and the adversary countries/peoples are vilified and demonised by exaggeration and distortion, you start to see how they're still working to the exact same playbook but with minor adjustments in the words they use.
Fully agree.
I'm literally going to print your comment and glue it somewhere close to me
Edit: done
Oh shoot, I'm legit not prepared to get this degree of praise lol. If I knew someone was going to print that comment out I would have put more effort into writing it 😖
That also completely checks out to me.
I mean no, the human sacrifice stuff is very well documented in both extant Mayan art on surviving buildings, various Mayan poems that have survived into the modern era, and detailed in the Madrid codex, one of the four surviving codices mentioned in this post.
I'm not too surprised tbh I think it would be weird if any (technically feudal?) historical human civilization didn't have any sus stuff going on
Yeah I think there is something to be said on the emphasis around human sacrifice and the "evils" of the Aztecs vs the "pious" Spanish who had just finished a brutal genocide of the Taíno people in the Caribbean. Like slavery (the British in particular used "abolition" as justification for many African colonies, despite like decades earlier being the chief purveyor of the slave trade lol), human sacrifice is often used to ipso facto justify colonisation.
"their atrocities justify our atrocities"
It is guilt. When they attacks killed people it was part of a grand tradion to honor the gods and protect the earth. When the Spanish killed people it is because they wanted silver so they could make fun of the French about it. So it feels cheap in comparison
Not really. Accounts from people who actually lived the first years of the arrival of Spanish to central America, such as that of Bernal Díaz del Castillo, portray in detail the executions and sacrifices. Remember that when the Spanish got there, there was more or less a system with a central empire (the Mexica) oppressing the surrounding nation (the Tlaxcala) through very brutal means, the latter having to supply vast amounts of humans for sacrifice rituals and for cannibalistic practices. It was brutal to the point that the Tlaxcala took the arrival of the Spanish as a prophecy, and joined the rather few (1000 at its peak) Spanish soldiers in a fight against the Mexica. When they ended up conquering the capital of the Mexica (Tenochtitlan, modern Mexico City), the Tlaxcala were so bloodthirsty against the Mexica that they carried out a large massacre that the Spanish unsuccessfully (given their few numbers) tried to stop (according to Bernal Díaz del Castillo).
For reference, in Mesoamerica there were monuments (whose name is Latinised to tzompantli) showing the skulls of human sacrifices or war captives, with the biggest monument's showcasing tens of thousands of skulls.
Edit: none of this should be used to excuse the erasure of culture and the atrocities commited by the Spanish on the different native American cultures over the following centuries