- This topic has 3 voices and 3 replies.
-
Posts
-
I just watched this movie last night. My sentiments echo yours. Not a great movie, but interesting. The story basically took the main figure from his home to the Mayan city back home again. The story itself was so-so, although the visuals were pretty impressive. It gave an interesting picture of actual Mayan civilization. One thing that occurred to me was that the depiction had to have differed from reality – or so one would think. A civilization does not just produce grand works of architecture if it is just full of blood-loving barbarians. Having visited the archaeological site at Tikal, Guatemala, some years ago, I do know that these structures are impressive and it seems to me that they would have required some significant engineering knowledge in order to complete. True, they aren't as great as structures built by the ancient Romans or Greeks, but they are still pretty nice. Also, the Maya had to deal with climate conditions which were less favorable compared to what their European counterparts faced.
Harsh climatic conditions? I consider the Inuit and many northernmost tribes to be amazing for their ability to survive in snow. Trust me, central America (including Yucatan and Chiapas) is easy. Well, except for poisonous animals, but big bears are dangerous, too.I visited the Olmec-Mayan temple in the southwesternmost corner of Mexico, near the Guatemalan border. It was sort of a transition to Mayan style, and only a few meters high. Quite a contrast to Coban, Tikal, Chichen-Itza, or Palenque. The largest pyramid in volume, in the world, is in Mexico (the name escapes me, but near the VW factory), and is made of dirt primarily. The Mayas had zero long before Europe did, and their calendars were better.I probably won't get to see Mel Gibson's movie. I'm still haunted by the massacre of Acteal (12/22/1997), and by the mural on the regional museum wall in Tapachula, Chiapas. It depicts two prepubertal Mayan children dressed in jaguar robes and smiling as they have been selected to be the sacrifice for the Mayan God.
I watched it last night and it disturbed me greatly by how bloodthirsty and savage Gibson portrayed Mayan culture. Do we really know that much about them? I really am not an expert in their history so I can't really discern where Gibson went over the top and where he was historically accurate.
Fit, thanks for posting on this forum…your ideas add nicely to our discussions.When I went to Tikal and other parts of Guatemala I went directly from Texas, so it's not as if I was completely unaccustomed to the heat. Tikal was rather hot and humid and located in some dense jungle terrain which must have been difficult to maneuver in. True, I don't think it would have been as difficult to live in the jungle as it would be to survive in a frozen climate, but I don't think it's an easy task, either. I don't think that they would have a break from the heat, the mosquitoes, and the other creatures of features of the land…..their neighbors in the continental U.S., however, had it better as they had a balance of seasons.Donnie I'm not quite sure how much was accurate in the movie but I do think that he tried to make it pretty accurate. We are probably all familiar with the stories of the Aztecs who would sacrifice thousands of people to their god(s). That said, I agree that a civilization such as that wouldn't likely be completely bloodthirsty as evidence of their temples and other works suggests a more advanced, thoughtful people.
