discussion

Please do it in MLA
REPLY 1#
The Mayan civilization emerged during the Mesoamerica era in the sixteenth century. Possessing the locales of Central America and Mexico, the Mayans strongly affected the world with militaristic and impact from the development of advancements. The fall of the Mayan Empire was a mystery. It was one of the most exceptional and created civic establishments of its timeframe. There were numerous purposes behind the breakdown of the Mayan civilization. A lot of these reasons are ecological harms/overpopulation, cataclysmic events, and fighting. “In a time of unprecedented population density, this combination of factors was likely catastrophic. Crops failed, especially because the droughts occurred disproportionately during the summer growing season.” Out of these, the reason behind their breakdown was warfare. Inside this war, there were likewise the fights that were going on within the empire, the contributions that they made to their gods and the war to oppose the Spanish conquest. “The Mayans religion and political system were based on the belief that rulers were in direct communication with the gods. When these divine connections failed to produce rainfall and good harvests, tensions likely developed.” The Mayans were believed to be a serene civilization. It was likewise an uncommon event when they got into a fight with another clan. The Mayans were exceptionally thought to be tough individuals. The Mayans felt that war was significant in light of the fact that it gave them glory when they took over neighboring city-states and caught detainees to either oppress or make them as a sacrifice to their gods.

REPLY 2#
Stromberg’s and Mott’s explanations for the collapse of the Mayan empire have numerous similarities. At the highest level, they both are about how a changing climate felled the Mayan empire, which was overly reliant on favorable weather patterns and bountiful harvests. Their common theory is that drought led to dwindling harvests that could no longer support the empire’s 19 million people. Both articles cite a study in Geophysical Research Letters which indicates deforestation would have reduced rain by 5-15% and significantly worsened drought conditions in the region. Both articles also seem to agree that the population and trade shifted towards the coast in response to hardships inland and that tensions between the laypeople and elites accelerated the decline. Still, such similarities are in the context of an obvious difference between the articles. Stromberg’s article focuses exclusively on how the Mayans themselves probably contributed to their demise while Mott’s article takes a more balanced approach and also mentions natural contributions. In particular, Mott cites a study by Douglas Kennett that suggests that the ascent of the Maya was incubated by exceptional rainfall from 440 to 660; when these conditions were followed by centuries of drought, the Mayans could not cope. Another difference is that Mott’s article is more conservative in the applicability of the fall of the Mayans to modern society. Stromberg quotes ASU professor B.L Turner as saying that the Mayans collapsed when they had “developed a sophisticated understanding of their environment” and that they’d “withstood at least two long-term episodes of arity.” He uses this as a transition to Robert Oglesby, who indicates that “reshaping the environment can often have unintended consequences”; he then draws a parallel between the Mayans and Guatemala. In contrast, Mott also quotes Turner but instead quotes him as saying “the Mayan situation is not applicable today” and that modern society is “radically different.” Most of these differences are likely due to the authors making a conscious decision as to what they’d like to focus on, though perhaps there’s also some mild quote-mining going on to support their pre-existing ideas.