(copied from another thread)

"This episode, called "Maya Underground" will air March 10 at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, 8:00 p.m. Central, on the History Channel. "Maya Underground" can also be seen on March 11 and on March 15. See local listings for exact time or visit http://www.history.com/minisites/citiesoftheunderworld."


did anyone watch this show besides us? it was pretty cool footage of underground mayan sites.

but....what's up with the host going on and on about bloody, violent, cruel, tortured captured enemies, etc? it sparked quite a discussion by us regarding the societies that were the mayans’ contemporaries at the time (the Romans, for example). i don't believe the whole throwing captives into an arena with a lion or bear are any less cruel or violent (more, even) than the rituals the maya were engaging in. the host seem horrified that the mayans sacrificed (killed) their conquered enemy leaders. Is it me, or was this pretty common practice 1000+ years ago? yet the roman's are revered for their accomplishments, without being portrayed as gruesome, horrid or blood-thirsty, like the mayans sometimes are.

we agreed they get a continued 'bad rap' on these types of shows - it was just a cultural thing. when we discuss the scope of the civilization, its science, engineering, art, and so on, i think the maya are very underrated compared to other societies of the time. our kids tell us they never learn anything about the maya (or inca or aztec, for that matter) in school.

anyone else a little frustrated by these things?

Frustrated by ignorance?? Naah, not a bit . . life's too short!!

party pooper

You can not embrace one part of the culture and ignore the other. Violence was a huge part of the culture, same as ours today. Science was huge . I think that since much of the ritual under ground related to the underworld, related to sacrifice, hence violence, he was not too far off. And, of course, some poetic license

Having just gotten back from Greece and meeting lots of archeologists, they do not even consider the Mayan worth much study compared to the Greek, Roman & Minoan cultures. Too "new"

I like the Picts and the Celts of pre Roman Britain....lots of playing in mud, face painting and home brewing....

Actually, remembering the last soccer game I went to, nothing much has changed!

Personally, I believe the Mayan culture has been far under publiized in the history books in our schools of both North, Centr4al and South America. I would think if our education consisted of more history and less social courses, our children might find out more of our world. The Mayans were fascinating people and if Hollywood would devote a few of their movies to them instead off the Romans or the Spartans, we might hear more.

Actually Pug, do you know why Scotland wasn't called Pictland, as it was mostly inhabited by the Picts? This isn't a trick question and I don't know the answer.

The Kingdom of the Picts (based in Fortriu by the 6th century) was the state which eventually became known as "Alba" or "Scotland". The development of "Pictland", according to the historical model developed by Peter Heather, was a natural response to Roman imperialism.[22] Another view places emphasis on the Battle of Dunnichen, and the reign of Bridei m. Beli (671–693), with another period of consolidation in the reign of Óengus mac Fergusa (732–761).[23] The Kingdom of the Picts as it was in the early 8th century, when Bede was writing, was largely the same as the kingdom of the Scots in the reign of Alexander (1107–1124). However, by the tenth century, the Pictish kingdom was dominated by what we can recognise as Gaelic culture, and had developed an Irish conquest myth around the ancestor of the contemporary royal dynasty.

Tha word Scotia is from the latin for Gael.