I thought this was really good, so I wanted to share. Some of the images were missing, so I did my best to substitute based on the description.
Since the ancient Maya have been added to the Key Stage 2 national curriculum for History (non-European Study), there’s been a ‘mushrooming’ of online resources covering the topic. Most of which are downright awful!
After the recent flawed news story about a teenager finding a Maya site, I thought it an apt moment to let both teachers who are teaching the Maya as well as the general public know what they need to be looking out for to confirm a resource’s unreliability
Beware!
Here are 10 tell-tale signs that expose unknowledgeable sources
1. The term ‘Mayan’ is used instead of ‘Maya’
The term ‘Mayan’ is ubiquitously used by ill-informed sources: ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids’, ‘Mayan civilisation’…
All Maya specialists -and, for that matter, all non-specialists who’ve read a book or two on the ancient Maya- know that the right word is Maya.
Their calendar is called the ‘Maya calendar’, their civilisation is called the ‘Maya civilisation’, their art is called ‘Maya art’…
The only time you should use the adjective ‘Mayan’ is when you are talking about their languages, the ‘Mayan languages’.
So, if you see ‘Mayan people’, ‘Mayan pyramids, ‘Mayan art’, ‘Mayan civilisation’, etc, on a publication (website or magazine), you can be sure the person who wrote the article doesn’t know a thing about the ancient Maya.
2. The image of the Aztec calendar stone is presented as the Maya calendar
Unscrupulous sources will use the ‘Sun Stone’ to illustrate texts about the Maya calendar.
Using the ‘Sun Stone’ to talk about Maya calendar system is like using photos of theElizabeth Tower at Westminster (AKA ‘Big Ben’), which was completed in 1859, to illustrate time keeping in ancient Rome!
And yes I have even seen this image adorning the front cover of books on the Maya! Beware! Which leads nicely onto point 3-
3. The Maya are identified as the Aztecs
This confusion is very common but the truth is the Aztecs were very different to the Maya. They spoke a different language and had a different writing system.
Also the Maya civilisation began at least 1500 before the Aztecs.
Stating the Maya were the same as the Aztecs, is basically saying that all Europeans are the same, having the same language, culture and beliefs…
Would you like to see an image of Stonehenge on the front cover of a book on the French? I think not!
Then we get the Egyptians….
4. Maya pyramids are said to be similar to Egyptian pyramids
I am afraid not!
Firstly, the ancient Maya and ancient Egyptians lived during different time periods. The time of pyramid building in Egypt was around 2000 years earlier than the earliest Maya pyramid.
Secondly, Egyptian pyramids have a different shape and use to those of the Maya.
Maya pyramids are not actually pyramidal! They have a polygonal base, but their four faces do not meet at a common point like Egyptian pyramids. Maya pyramids were flat and often had a small room built on top.
Pyramids in Egypt were used as tombs for the dead rulers, for the Maya, though the pyramids were mainly used for ceremonies carried out on top and watched from below.
5. It is claimed that the Maya mysteriously disappeared in the 10th century AD
Uninformed sources talk about the ‘mysterious’ disappearance of the ancient Maya around the 10th century AD., which mislead people to think that the Maya disappeared forever….
Firstly, the Maya did not disappear. Around 8 million Maya are still living today in various countries of Central America (Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador and Honduras); in fact half of the population of Guatemala is Maya.
Although they do not build pyramids like the ancient Maya did, modern Maya still wear similar dress, follow similar rituals and some use the ancient Maya calendar. I am sure they would all like to assure you that they have definitely not disappeared!
We know now that what is called ‘Classic Maya Collapse’ was actually a slow breakdown, followed by a reconstruction, of a number of political, economical and cultural structures in the Maya society.
Archaeologists see cities being abandoned over the course of the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries, and people travelling north into the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) building new great cities such as Mayapan, which was occupied up until the 15th century.
Secondly, there was nothing mysterious about it! A number of associated factors were at play.
There was a severe drought in the rainforest area that lasted decades, so people moved north where water sources were more easily available. The competition between waring factions and cities for natural resources led to increased warfare. Which, in turn, led to the breakdown of trade networks.
All this was likely exacerbated by political and economical changes in Central Mexico.
So, very much like the French did not disappear after the French Revolution -although they stopped building castles and some big political, economical and cultural changes occurred in the French society- the Maya did not mysteriously disappear around the 10th century.
6. The Maya are portrayed as blood-thirsty sacrifice-loving psychos
The Maya are often portrayed in the media and popular culture as blood-thirsty (see for example Mel Gibson’s 2006 Apocalypto), so the commonly accepted -and oft-repeated- idea is that the Maya carried out lots of sacrifices.
Actually, there is barely any trace of sacrifice in the archaeological record of the Maya area. The rare evidence comes from pictorial representations on ceramics and sculpture.
Warfare amongst the Maya was actually much less bloody than ours and no, they did not use a real skull as a ball in their ballgame! And no the loser was not put to death!
In warfare, they did capture and kill opponents, but it was on a small-scale. Rulers boasted of being “He of five captives” or “He of the three captives”.
The heart sacrifices that were recorded by the Spanish chroniclers were those of the Aztecs.
It is also important to keep in mind that the Spanish Conquistadors had lots of incentives to describe the indigenous people of the Americas as blood-thirsty savages.
It made conquest and enslavement easier to justify (see the Valladolid Debate) so lots of stories were exaggerated.
And who are we to judge when we used to have public spectacles of people being hanged or having their heads chopped off and placed on spikes on London Bridge!
7. The ancient Maya predicted that the world would end on 21 December 2012
The 2012 phenomenon was a range of beliefs that cataclysmic events would trigger then end of our world on December 21st.
This date was regarded as the end-date of a 5,126-year-long cycle in the Maya Long Count calendar and it was said that the ancient Maya had prophesied the event.
This is not true and all Maya people today and Maya specialists know this!
Very much like a century and a millennium ended in the Christian calendar on December 31st 1999, a great cycle of the Maya Long Count -the 13th b’ak’tun– was to end on 21 December 2012.
In Maya time-keeping, a b’ak’tun is a period of roughly 5,125 years.
Only two Maya monuments –Tortuguero Monument 6 and La Corona Hieroglyphic Stairway 12– mention the end of the 13th b’ak’tun. None of them contains any speculation or prophecy as to what would happen at that time.
While the end of the 13th b’ak’tun would perhaps be a cause for celebration, the next day the Maya believed that a new cycle -the 14th b’ak’tun- would begin; much like our New Year’s Eve.
In fact, in the temple of Inscriptions at Palenque, where we find the tomb of King Pakal, it was written that in AD 4772 the people would be celebrating the anniversary of the coronation of their new King Pakal!
8. The Maya are described as primitive people
The Maya created an incredible civilization in the rainforest where it is extremely humid, with lots of bugs and dangerous animals and little water.
There they built spectacular temples, pyramids and palaces without the use of metal tools, the wheel, or any pack animals, such as the donkey, ox or elephant.
The Maya were the only civilization in the whole of the Americas to develop a complete writing system like ours.
They were only one of two cultures in the world to develop the zero in their number system and so were able to make advanced calculations and became great astronomers.
The Maya were extremely advanced in painting and making sculptures, they played the earliest team sport in the world and most importantly, for me anyway, is that we have the ancient Maya to thank for chocolate!
So no, they were definitely not primitive!
The problem with this view of the ancient Maya is that their achievements are then explained by the help of Extra-terrestrial beings or other civilisations.
9. The great achievements of the Maya are in thanks to the Olmecs
This myth of the Olmecs being a ‘mother culture’ to the Maya and other cultures in Mesoamerica had been questioned over 20 years ago and has been long put to rest.
Excavations have shown that they were many other cultures, other than the Olmec living in Mesoamerica before the Maya and that rather than a ‘mother culture’ we should be looking at ‘sister cultures’ all influencing each other.
Furthermore, Maya achievements in hieroglyphic writing and calendrics which no other culture in Mesoamerica had seen or used, indicate that they were much more innovators than adopters.
So, if the resource mentions the above, then it is obvious that they are not specialists and are using redundant information written over 20 years ago.
10. Chichen Itza is used as the quintessential Maya site
Chichen Itza was inhabited quite late during the Maya time period, about 1400 years after the first Maya city and is not purely Maya.
The city was quite cosmopolitan and was greatly influenced by Central Mexico, particularly the Toltecs, who may have lived there.
Therefore, its architecture and art -such as the ‘chacmools‘ or the ‘tzompantli‘ (AKA ‘skull-racks’) actually are Central Mexican, and not Maya, features.
A much better example of a typical Maya city would be Tikal, which was occupied for more than 1500 years.
So, if all you see on a website is about Chichen Itza, chances are this is not a reliable source of information about the ancient Maya and your ‘charlatan alarm-bells’ should go off!
Karolina Żebrowska’s “Beauty Through The Ages” video shows not only on the glamorized versions of women but also the real, middle and lower class women as they lived in the past century.
Reblogging again because this is the ONLY “fashion through time” video that does it right. All the others glamorize/modernize the eras WAY too much, esp. considering they’re claiming historical accuracy. This is the only one that truly nails it.
One of the first women to start her own independent production company.
Earned her way to stardom without sleeping with executives for roles.
Refused to date people for publicity just because 20th Century Fox wanted her to.
Left 20th Century Fox because she refused to let them get away with treating her badly and paying her a tiny wage, just because of her “dumb blonde” image.
Was only paid a fraction of her co-star’s wage even though she was the star of the movies and the biggest box office pull, but still went ahead with the movies because she was so passionate about acting.
Studied method acting at the Actors Studio with Lee Strasberg, who said that she was one of his best students along with Marlon Brando.
Had a personal library of over 500 books and rarely read fiction – she was desperate to learn and educate herself.
Was sexually abused as a child but then went on to encourage the sexual liberation of women in the 1950s.
One of the first people to speak openly about sexual abuse.
One of the first people to openly support gay rights.
Supported many charities such as the Milk Fund, March of Dimes, Arthritis and Rheumatism foundation.
Donated her time and money to these charities.
Visited orphanages and hospitals on her own time to surprise the people there.
Married one of the greatest literary minds of the 20th century
Suffered two miscarriages and one ectopic pregnancy and still put on a brave face for her fans.
Sorry, did you say she wasn’t a role model?
marilyn is my biggest role model so don’t even go there
and let’s not forget this
Ella Fitzgerald was not allowed to play at the popular Mocambo, in Hollywood, because of her race. Marilyn, who loved her music and supported civil rights, called the owner of the Mocambo and told him that if he booked Ella immediately, she would take a front table every night. The owner said yes, and Marilyn was there, front table, every night. After that, Ella never had to play in a small jazz club again.
“She was an unusual woman – a little ahead of her times. And she didn’t know it.” – Ella Fitzgerald about Marilyn Monroe
But what does history remember her for?
She is such a inspiration to me, especially in today’s youth…
Marilyn was absolutely an inspiration. As for the people who think role models have to be perfect? Hi, look around, is your life free of mistakes? No? Welcome to humanity.
During World War II, 600,000 African-American women entered the wartime
workforce. Previously, black women’s work in the United States was
largely limited to domestic service and agricultural work, and wartime
industries meant new and better-paying opportunities – if they made it
through the hiring process, that is. White women were the targets of the
U.S. government’s propaganda efforts, as embodied in the lasting and
lauded image of Rosie the Riveter.Though largely ignored in America’s
popular history of World War II, black women’s important contributions
in World War II factories, which weren’t always so welcoming, are
stunningly captured in these comparably rare snapshots of black Rosie
the Riveters.
She took up acting because the malnutrition she suffered under the nazis permanently damaged her health and prevented her from pursuing her dream to be a ballerina. During the war, she danced to raise money for the resistance – even though she was literally starving, she used what strength she had to make sure more nazis got shot.
She and her mom also denounced their royal heritage because of the Nazis in their family
Also Audrey was a humanitarian until her death, though ill with cancer, she continued her work for UNICEF, travelling to Somalia, Kenya, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, France and the United States.
These are things I literally never would have known about. I’m tired of women being painted as just being pretty.
Happy Pride Month Eleanor Roosevelt was queer, the Little Mermaid is a gay love story, James Dean liked men, Emily Dickinson was a lesbian, Nikola Tesla was asexual, Freddie Mercury was bisexual & British Indian, and black trans women pioneered the gay rights movement.
Florence Nightingale was a lesbian, Leonardo da Vinci was gay, Michelangelo too, Jane Austen liked women, Hatshepsut was not cisgender, and Alexander the Great was a power bottom
Freddie Mercury is well known for his attraction to men but was also linked to several women, including Barbara Valentin whom he lived with shortly before he died. Friends have talked about being invited into their bed and walking in on them having sex (documentary Freddie Mercury: The Great Pretender)
Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera are two of the best-known activists who fought in the Stonewall riots
That is private, personal, highly secret information.
Native religions are appropriated almost every time they let one piece of information slip to outsiders. As a result of being burned over and over and over again, tribes have become even more closed than they were previously.
Not only does it vary by tribe (we had no overreaching religion, so even your limitation of “plains” is far too general to even begin answering), it can vary by family, and it can vary right down to the individual.
Do not ask how we worship. We, collectively, have decided not to open up our worship, because as soon as outsiders are introduced, they steal. They write about things we tell them not to write about. They push beyond our clearly set boundaries.
On top of it, our relationships with our deities are highly personal. You will get as many answers as there are Native individuals.
If you want to show worship in your novels, skim over the barest of details that we have chosen to make public. Ask an individual tribe “what rituals are you comfortable being written about?” Only write about what they are comfortable being written. Let them know how far you plan on spreading the story, as their comfort level might change how large the audience is (ie- “I’m showing my group of friends” vs “I’m going to publish this”)
Do not ask how we worship.
That is not for you to know.
~ Mod Lesya
In relation to this question, what are your thoughts on books such as Kathleen O’Neal Gear and W. Michael Gear’s First North Americans series (People of the Wolf, etc.) Since the series tends to generalize in terms of religion (it covers tens of thousands of years and yet every featured tribe has a more-or-less similar belief system) do you think this series should be considered fantasy or alternate history as opposed to reconstructed history in terms of its portrayal of Native peoples?
I ask because I used to consider this a good model for writing about Native peoples (since both writers are archeologists and well versed in history), but now I’m not so sure.
It depends on a few things. Anthropologists’ accounts and archeologists’ accounts are often more credible, but they’re also not guaranteed to be safe. In fact, they can provide some of the worst violations of privacy for a tribe, or be some of the most colonialist-imposing fields out there. An important note is the archeology is a subset of anthropology, so I’m going to be talking about anthropology as a whole.
Also, I haven’t read the books and am going off the wikipedia summary.
My biggest question is: were the tribes populating the area actually asked for detailed oral histories, or was everything pieced together and the data sampled/ based on trends? A lack of oral history is a huge red flag since Indigenous oral histories around the world are exceptionally accurate. Sampling and trend-based data is another, since it really opens up a can of worms for making a whole bunch of educated assumptions instead of asking about details.
From a quick glance it seems that the data was heavily sampled based on colonizer views from purely archeological data without any oral history in sight, which… makes me question the validity. Because it seems to be our history without us.
I also am tilting my head at the “mystic” terms used, because they are very university-approved-speak. One of anthropology’s dirty little secrets is it’ll take one group’s practices and apply the name to all other groups’ practices because of superficial similarities— shaman, for example, is a Northeast Asian word, likely Tungusic, that described Northeast Asian practices. It has now spread across most if not all Indigenous practices, and sometimes doesn’t reflect accurately. Totem was another word, taken from Ojibwe and spread across anything that involved animal associations.
My impression of the books is basically a bunch of academics trying to make sense of Indigenous peoples based off fossil records, which is actually a huge problem in academia. Instead of treating our oral histories as valid, instead of asking us how our cultures have evolved over time, they’re treating us like we’re already dead and gone. Or that we can’t have any idea where we came from.
Another thing to keep in mind for anthropological records: sometimes they spread out secret rituals far wider than we ever intended. A Quebec Cree person once showed an image of a sacred Cree ritual, and prefaced it with “I am only showing you this because the person who took the image has already violated this man.” The image was supposed to only go to a small group. It ended up internationally published. That image is why I put in a note in the original ask that you need to say how far the story will be spread before asking about comfort levels. Not saying that happened with these books, but I am saying it does happen.
Calling these books “alternate history” discredits them, but “reconstructed history” is inaccurate as well— from the looks of things, they’re not so much alternate history as they are hollow reconstructed history, because it’s taken based on what colonizers know instead of asking us. It’s not Native American history in the purest sense. It’s a colonizer’s view of our history.
This is why I am very much in love with America Unearthed. Oral history is treated as valid, and whenever possible he either talks to the tribe directly, or makes note of their oral history. He’s done it for a possible Hawai’in contact with Mexico, the Aztecs coming from the Mississippian region, and a whole bunch of other groups.
But in general I distrust anything that is our history without us. We’re more than fossil records. Our history doesn’t have to be “reconstructed” in all cases. We know where we came from the vast majority of the time. If you want to know, just ask.
~ Mod Lesya
-Raises hand- If I may add, something else important to note is that there are tribes who will absolutely not discuss this type of thing through technological means. This means anything from a computer to a phone. I don’t know how far this spreads, but at least among the local tribes in my region, talking about culturally sensitive information, practices, the ‘mystic stuff’ through technological means is absolutely not done. I’ve been chastised by more than one elder for even alluding to something via text message. So if you’re finding your information online, be critical.
Yeah, these sorts of restrictions are in place among various tribes. They can also include no photography, no publishing, or other distribution limits.
Many, many, many Natives have pointed out (across various posts) that there’s a far more solid sense of ownership of stories and legends among tribes, so you can’t even distribute something if you were told it unless you have permission to tell it secondhand.
You should be critical of anything found online because of the aforementioned appropriation by new age movements I alluded to in the first post. This is why you should go directly to the tribe in question.
Next time someone brings up “historical accuracy” as an argument for some ridiculous double standards in costume design, don’t forget to bring up this Renaissance fashion curiosity. And how conveniently it is never incorporated into male characters supposedly inspired by the era of codpiece popularity.
Thanks to she5los for tagging us in one of the reblogs to this 🙂
~Ozzie
As a small nitpick, that last one isn’t a codpiece – it’s a chastity belt.
Of course, chastity belts are another fun one for the historical accuracy crowd. While the popular image of the chastity belt involves a medieval knight slapping one on his wife to ensure she didn’t get up to any shenanigans while he was off at war, in fact, there’s no credible evidence for their widespread use prior to the 19th Century. Furthermore, they seem to have been employed in main not to safeguard marital fidelity, but to prevent teenagers from masturbating.
(Amusingly, by all accounts, chastity belts were far more commonly forced upon boys than girls – another little detail that “historically accurate” fantasy media understandably never touches on!)
A reminder
(Chastity belts may have also been used earlier as anti-rape devices, but the evidence for even that is still sketchy)
Weren’t the codpieces for “extra room” because a buncha dudes had syphilis back then too?
For the same reason the safe money says your school, like mine, taught you he was probably a drug addict who hated everybody and had no friends and drank himself to death.
Because by some wacky mix-up, somehow the right to legally execute Poe’s literary estate and therefore the public image he carried following his death was transferred to a dude who openly and without shame hated Edgar Allan Poe.
Due to some legal mumbo-jumbo and trickery, this dude Rufus Wilmot Griswold somehow managed to get the rights of literary executor to Poe’s estate from his aunt (which she didn’t technically have the power to give, that power remained with Poe’s sister), and he and Edgar Allan Poe hated each other SO MUCH in life, that after he died, this asshole published a memoir of Poe’s life in which he was totally demonized.
Rufus Wilmot Griswold is one of the most successful character assassins of all time. Because of him, schoolchildren are taught that Poe was a depraved misanthropic lecher who lusted after his underage cousin, was never sober, and died of drinking too much even though all of those “facts” have been discredited. Poe was a shy and reserved, though generally personable, man who married his cousin so to establish legal guardianship and provide for her financially.
He was also apparently a total lightweight who got tipsy after a few sips of wine, but occasionally drank socially or when feeling particularly down. His doctor insisted there were never traces of opium in his system. Poe’s friends insisted that he was not an alcoholic. At the time of his death, he had quit drinking, and the idea that he was one was heavily promoted by other members of the Temperance movement who claimed his death was a relapse as a cautionary tale. The most commonly accepted theory as to Poe’s death is that he was abducted, drugged, and beaten by political agents who forced him to vote for their candidate, changed his clothes, and then forced him to vote again and again to stuff the ballots.
Anyhow. This is why you should evaluate the validity and agendas of your sources.
That last bit seemed exceedingly peculiar to me and I had difficulty believing it, so I looked it up, and apparently it’s not the most commonly accepted theory at the moment, but it is a legit possibility and a thing that actually happened in the 19th century often enough to be given a name. It was plausible enough for quite a few of his biographers across several decades to agree on that theory, at least. So that’s a thing.
His exact cause of death is mysterious, especially since most of the records have been lost, but the drinking binge theory is unlikely. It’s more plausible that he died of an illness or foul play.
BLESS THIS ENTIRE POST.
The theory I heard that made the most sense to me was that Poe may have had Type 2 diabetes. It fits a lot of his earlier health problems too.
it seems so strange to me that the only people it is socially acceptable to live with (once you reach a certain stage in life) are sexual partners? like why can’t i live with my best friend? why can’t i raise a child with them? why do i need to have sex with someone in order to live with them? why do we put certain relationships on a pedestal? why don’t we value non-sexual relationships enough? why do life partners always have to be sexual partners?
My grandmother and grandfather more or less adopted my grandmother’s best friend back in the 50s. After my grandfather died (before I was born, back in 1968 or so) they continued to keep house together, platonic best friends, and they hung together until they died, a few months apart, in 2007.
It’s quite recently, as far as I can tell, that living arrangements like that have stopped being regarded as normal.
It’s absolutely a new thing to find this stuff weird, and it has a lot to do with media pretending that the nuclear family and marriage are the only reasons to live with other people.
I’ve lived in a 3 adult household my whole life. My parents and their best friend. This was never weird to me, even though everyone my age thought it was because the media never portrayed these kinds of housing arrangements. As far as i was concerned, I just had an extra non-blood parent.
According to my parents, it was very common in the 70′s-80′s to buy houses with your friends, because it was financially smart to do so (so long as you were certain they were close friends who wouldn’t fall out with you and fuck everything up). Houses and house payments are much more manageable when you split the bills 3-4 ways instead of just two.
Millenials aren’t the first to think it’s a great idea to just shack up with friends. That’s housemating without the hastle of living with strangers. It’s still a good idea to shack up with people you’ve known a long time so you know how you’ll get on living together, but still. In the current economy, it’s pretty much now our only option for affording anything.
I think, and I’m not researched on this, but I think conservatives probably tried to suppress images of non-nuclear families because they likely thought it would encourage ideas of polygamy, polyamory, open sexual relationships with or without marriage, as well as other relationship types they thought of as un-christian or unsavoury. I could be wrong, but that shit wouldn’t surprise me.
(And i want to make a note that there’s also a disturbing amount of asexual denial around that makes people go ‘if they’re living together they HAVE to be banging because why wouldn’t they?’ and that shit both creeps me out and annoys me no end. People can be in relationships without sex. People can live together without sex. Sex is not the be-all and end-all and people being taught to think it is really need to stop).
Don’t let the media fool you into believing you can only live with a sexual partner or blood family. Someone somewhere has an agenda for making these seem abnormal, when really it’s just practical.
A lot of people acted like it was super weird when two of my brothers decided to move states with me when I started my postdoc. I got really used to giving a little canned speech about it because it seemed to bewilder people so much. (Their leases happened to be up! We could share rent! They wanted to try somewhere new!)
The notable exception was my grandma, who was just like, “oh, yes, when we were young my sister and I decided to move cross-country together and it was lovely.”
More of this kind of thing for everyone, pls.
The implication that close sibling relationships must also be a warning sign for incest also peeves me off; what kind of society are we living in anyway
Having a multi-adult household unit also just makes a shit-ton of sense, tbh. Much easier to split not only the bills, but also the housework and child-rearing responsibilities. Communal living ftw.
According to Some Theories, this practice has been going on for so long that it’s actually the evolutionary basis for the existance of non-heterosexuals. If society consisted of nothing but procreative binaries (aka nuclear families) we wouldn’t have the resources to care for the pregnant people and children.
tl;dr nuclear families are a myth and literally always have been
Queer Fiction Writer 
