The Development of the Three-Age System
The initial effort toward creating order out of the chaotic nature of prehistoric antiquity came from Danish antiquarian Christian Jorgensen Thomsen. In 1806, the Danish government established a commission, of which Thomsen was secretary, to assess the geology and natural history of the area. In 1816, the Danish crown established a national museum, and Thomsen was selected as its first curator. The collection in the museum included a large and eclectic array of ancient tools, hunting weapons, and other artifacts. Thomsen surveyed the collection of weapons and tools and made the logical decision to display the artifacts based on the materials from which they were made. He separated the artifacts into three types of material: stone, bronze, and iron. With the tools and weapons divided into these three divisions, Thomsen then determined that the three categories represented consecutive time periods for the ordered sequence of the technological development of a culture. Thus the three-age system of nomenclature was established. The Thomsen “three ages” concept was adopted in 19th-century Germany. The three age concept became widely used by scholars, museums, and the discipline of archaeology.
In 1865, John Labboch published what was considered to be one of the finest archaeology theses on pre-historic times, a seminal book that further advances the three-age concept by subdividing the Stone Age into a Paleolithic phase and Neolithic phase. Paul Reinescke (1872–1958) further embedded the three ages into archaeological theory when he developed a sequence for the Bronze Age and the Iron Age of Central Europe. The concept of the three ages became incorporated into archaeology theory, while subdivisions of the three ages into successive stages have remained the standard for classification of cultures.
The three-age system is either too vague or not applicable for the classification of a complex civilization. Although the three ages of stone, bronze, and iron made sense to the emerging discipline of archaeology in the early 19th century, the classification system was based on insufficient data. It measured only material artifacts and did not consider socio-political, artistic, architectural, scientific, and economic aspects of a society. The concept is Eurocentric and is difficult to apply outside of Europe and the Mediterranean. It totally fails when assessing a civilization without access to metal ores. Furthermore, the three-age system of civilization relative to the progress of their technology can be misinterpreted. The Stone Age of European cultures from 12,000 BC was not concurrent with African or American cultures. Moreover, some societies skipped the Bronze Age and went directly from Stone Age technology into the Iron Age.
Since Thomsen formulated the three-age concept, archaeology has adopted numerous scientific methodologies for researching the age and origin of a culture and its artifacts, including amino acid dating, radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence, magnetic dating, and DNA analysis in the fields of paleo-botany, paleo-climatology, archaeo-astronomy, paleo-ecology, paleo-entomology, and paleo-ethnology. However, archaeology has not advanced a comprehensive methodology for classifying the technology of cultures based on their overall intellectual and societal development.
Unfortunately, archaeology has inadvertently misled the public in defining relative technological levels of our ancient past. This is the public who constitutes the clientele and market for archaeology. The credo of science is “stick to the facts.” Archaeology can’t draw an accurate picture of the capabilities of a culture from a bare minimum of facts. The public has been left with the impression that stone tools and the Stone Age appellation represent the total extent of Maya technology. The lack of an advanced system of nomenclature may be because the majority of ancient civilizations had been discovered and studies of their development had been well advanced before the rediscovery of the Maya civilization was introduced to the world in 1842.
The market for archaeology has grown into a multibillion-dollar business. The tourist business attracting visitors to archaeological sites has become the premier financial source in many countries. For the older traveler, few experiences can match the pleasure of archaeological sites set in exotic places with strange-sounding names. The younger traveler is attracted to archaeological sites located in ecologically protected environments. The hospitality business in these areas is booming and creating employment for thousands of local workers. The film industry has capitalized on the glamour and thrills attached to romantic adventures and discoveries of lost civilizations.
However, little of the funds from tourists interested in archaeology are directed to the bank accounts of dirt archaeologists. These devoted individuals survive by university teaching part of the year and spend the remainder of the year excavating archaeological sites. This dichotomy is part of the reason that research necessary for establishing a clear, concise, and logical set of archaeological guidelines for defining levels of civilization has not progressed. The guidelines would be based on intellectual and scientific achievements, societal advancement, technological accomplishment, and division of labor. The nomenclature for a culture should not be based on the materials they used for tools and weapons.
The Stone Age Mindset of Maya Archaeologists
When Stephens and Catherwood stumbled on the power centers of the Classic Maya, 170 years ago, they had indeed found a lost civilization, but one that was “lost” only in the eyes of the beholders. Exploration and investigation of this brilliant civilization was slow to start, and then it was retarded by professional arrogance.
By the end of the 19th century, scientific archaeologists such as Alfred Maudslay, Joseph Goodman, and Herbert J. Spenden had analyzed the Maya mathematical system and published seminal works. The correlation between the Maya calendar and the Gregorian calendar was verified and completed in 1927. Maya archaeologists had explored many of the great Maya cities, and views of their art and architecture were published and recognized to be unlike any styles in the world. Maya mathematics and astronomical systems were becoming recognized as brilliant representations of an advanced society.
However, fathers of Maya archaeology were confined by the three-age system and its Eurocentric attitudes toward levels of civilization. Sylvanus Griswold Morley, one of the most sensitive of the early Maya archaeologists, in his publication Guidebook to the Ruins of Quirigua, established the groundwork for a negative archaeological attitude and represents the prevailing view of the Maya at that time. In this volume he stated:
When the material achievements of the ancient Maya in architecture, sculpture, ceramics, the lapidary arts...are added to their abstract intellectual achievements—invention of positional mathematics with its concomitant development of the zero, construction of an elaborate chronology with a fixed starting point, use of a time count as accurate as our own calendar, knowledge of astronomy superior to that of Egyptians and Babylonians—and the whole is judged in the light of their known cultural limitations were on a par with those of the early Neolithic age in the Old World. We may acclaim them, without fear of successful contradiction, the most brilliant aboriginal people on the planet.
Morley has high praise for their intellectual and scientific achievements. However, he considered the Maya civilization to be Neolithic and aboriginal. These terms conjure up images of cave men living off insects and using stone axes to bash heads rather than the reality of a scientific, intellectual society living in large cities with high-rise structures that would not be replicated for another millennium. The use of these terms relegates the Maya civilization to the lowest rung on the civilization ladder. Morley did not observe metal tools, therefore the Maya were classified as Neolithic. Actually, using the three-age system, the status of Neolithic was high praise. He could have called them Mesolithic or just plain old Stone Age.
In Morley’s book The Ancient Maya, published in 1946 and still in print as a basic textbook for archaeology updated by Robert Sharer, he continues to refer to the Maya as a Stone Age people. He viewed Maya technology as Stone Age technology. It was obvious that archaeologists did not uncover metal objects or a practical use
of the wheel. To Morley’s astonishment, the Maya were able to create elevated levels of science, art, and architecture of a harmonic aesthetic that surpassed Old World civilizations. After decades of discovery and study, Morley continued to reference the Maya civilization as “primitive.”
Eric Thompson, a giant in Maya archaeology, was Morley’s contemporary. Thompson, who is discussed in Chapter 2, controlled the process of decipherment of the Maya script and is considered to have repressed the advancement of decipherment for nearly a half century. Eric Thompson is the author or two seminal works: Maya Hieroglyphic Writing and A Catalogue of Mayan Hieroglyphics. Thompson wrote from his ivory tower at the Carnegie Institution. His disdain for the achievements of the Maya was apparent. He considered the Maya to be a culture of idiot savants. He could not envision how or why the Maya created esoteric astronomical calculations, higher mathematics, or a concise calendar. He considered their sciences to be an obsession, but could not envision the purpose for their work. He did grasp the concept of the Maya cosmic philosophy. Thompson judged the Maya’s accomplishments by the measure of European Renaissance civilization.
The use of the three-age system continues today. If an archaeologist does not encounter metal artifacts in his studies of a culture, then by the rule of the trinity of the three ages, the culture must be Stone Age. What other alternative does the researcher have as a reference for a cultural technology? The multitude of works published by the new generation of Mayanists praise the sciences and philosophy that constitute the knowledge of the Maya, but prejudice the general public and archaeology by referring to the Maya as a Stone Age people. Change in archaeology is slow. The three-age system is in effect, and no archaeologist wishes to have academic criticism come crashing down on him or her for publishing revisionist nomenclature for classifying a culture. A classification that reflects a civilization’s achievements in abstract intellectual attainment, sciences, technology, mathematics, calendrics, astronomy, writing systems, divisions of labor, management systems, and the sensitivity of its art and architecture, is needed, and one such classification exists.
Morley and Thompson, as well as other leaders in the archaeological field, never missed a chance to defame the Maya for their known “cultural limitations,” including the lack of metallurgy and the practical use of the wheel for transport. As it has been pointed out, the karstic limestone geology of the Maya zone did not include ore from which iron can be extracted. The closest deposits of iron ore are 1,500 miles to the north. The Maya overcame this shortfall of Mother Nature by exploiting the unique materials that are products of the subduction zone of tectonic plates. These materials were harder than iron and sharper than steel. To recognize these technical achievements of the Maya, an active imagination and a rich engineering background are required. An archaeological education has not equipped the practioner to recognize these technological breakthroughs that bypass the technology of the Iron Age and venture into an advanced level of science and technology.
The Definition of a Civilization
Archaeology has had its opportunities to develop a logical and comprehensive system of nomenclature for the level of civilization in a culture. Vere Gordon Childe may be the world’s most renowned archaeological theorist and a popularizer of archaeology with the public. His many publications presented a synthesis of archaeological knowledge in this vast and complex field in an authoritative and unique manner. Childe was a professor of archaeology at the University of Edinburgh and later the director of the Institute of Archaeology at the University of London. Childe coined the term urban revolution to define the change in a civilization from village-based societies to a science-based civilization living in large cities with a complex economic structure and social organization. He was one of the greatest archaeological synthesizers, attempting to place his archaeological observations on a wider world scale. Childe did not include the three ages in his definition of advanced civilization. He referenced bronze and iron metallurgy, but only as a measure of scientific progress rather than the standard that defined the level of achievement of a civilization. Childe’s studies of ancient civilization included the Maya. Childe described the urban population of a city as the result of a progressive stage in the economic structure and social organization of communities. For Childe, it was the invention of writing, not the material of the tools of a civilization, that was the defining index of a civilization. He contended that the invention of writing coincided with a dramatic threshold in the economic and demographic structure of a civilization. Further, population growth and the development of sciences evolved into the growth of urban places with an advanced socio-political organization. Childe used the term civilization to define the critical turning point in a culture. He believed that the features that comprised a civilization evolved in a “revolutionary” fashion and is present in a culture that has reached a critical mass of complexity.
Childe believed that the development of an urban civilization was the result of the evolution of a society based on progressive change in the economic structure and social organization of a culture. He established guidelines that identify a civilization based on its level of technical advancement, its sciences, its cities, and urbanism:
1. Large urban centers.
2. Monumental architecture.
3. Ruling class that is exempt from manual labor.
4. Sophisticated styles of art.
5. Craft workers, merchants, officials, priests, supported by surplus food produced by farmers.
6. Systems for recording information (writing).
7. The development of exact sciences.
8. Long-range trade with the importation of materials both as luxury (prestige) goods and as raw materials.
9. Resident specialist craft workers politically and economically under the control of political officials.
10. Permanent and dominant state organizations.
11. Social solidarity of the community as represented by the preeminence of temples.
12. Primary producers paying surplus to a deity or a divine ruler (central authority).
The Maya civilization meets or exceeds the criteria for a civilization as defined by Childe. It is apparent that the use of the anachronistic and misplaced three-age system is not a measure for the civilization level of a culture. The lack of iron ore within the Maya zone was one of Mother Nature’s practical jokes. Without iron ore you cannot make iron tools, but the Maya bypassed the Bronze and Iron Ages by their use of jadeite as a material for the fabrication of their tools. Archaeologists should consider the adoption of the Gordon Childe definition of civilization, which elevates the Maya to the top of the civilization scale, but if they insist on using the three-age system, they should consider classifying the Maya as “technolithic,” a technologically advanced culture that did not have metal tools.
5
Building a Civilization
The artistic legacy of the Maya is one of the richest in the world. Their architecture, sculpture, and applied arts reached an extraordinary level of refinement and splendor during the Classic Period. The accumulated cultural wealth of centuries was expressed in the elaborate art styles of the monuments, sculpture, and refined architectural details of their cityscapes. Archaeologists, architects, and art historians have long been astonished by the sophistication of the artwork encountered in the high-rise cities of the Maya, as well as the sensitivity of their artistic work. The execution and integration of their graphic arts into the architecture of monumental buildings is unparalleled. The quality of Maya artistic skills in art and architecture rival the artistry produced by ancient civilizations of the Old World, and their accomplishments have established a stylistic framework that continues to inspire contemporary artists (Figure C-3).
Architecture as a Sculptural Art Form
The architectural design of the facades and the sculptural detailing of structural elements of the monumental buildings of the Maya were expressed as a cultural art form. Maya monumental structures were d
esigned for practical applications and served as functional spaces, but were conceived as the symbolic representation of authority and economic power. Maya architects displayed a cultural uniformity in the functional space planning of their buildings. However, the most powerful and influential cities and regions developed distinct artistic styles that reflected localized concepts of philosophical symbology. As a result, art and architecture styles expressed regional differentiations, although the primary spatial design and structural elements of a specific building type remained somewhat similar throughout the Maya world. Trademark elements of regional style were reflected in the design of building facades, geometrical architectural patterns, pyramid massing, temple roof comb configurations, articulated stairways, column detailing, door lintels, stele, and carved pavement stones.
The monumental buildings are wonders of art and architecture; facades were lavishly decorated with finely carved sculpture that reflected the design style of that region and the artist’s ability in composition and execution of detail. Facades in certain regions displayed sophisticated sculptural designs that depicted elaborately detailed supernatural monsters and dragon masks whose open jaws framed the entrance to the building. Other facade styles were resplendent with three-dimensional repetitions of effigies of gods, carved niches, stone columnettes, or complex geometrical latticework intertwined with three-dimensional representations of supernatural deities and bas-relief carvings of historical figures. Door lintels, constructed of stone or timber, were carved with stylistic depictions of gorgeously attired personages surrounded by script, scrollwork, serpents, jaguars, and other figures symbolizing the power of the rulers (Figure C-4).
The Lost Secrets of Maya Technology Page 9
