The search for Site Q

Ever since Victorian times, when books such as H Rider Haggard's She (1887) were popular, the idea of a lost civilisation waiting to be discovered by European explorers has exerted a fascination for would-be adventurers bored by daily routine (see Other lost cities).

And, although the Maya civilisation of Central America has been extensively studied, the dream of finding a lost city deep in the jungle is still alive.

Seek the snake

An exhibition by a New York antiquities dealer in 1965, which included an ancient carved limestone panel showing two Maya ballplayers, provided the first clue that there might be such a lost Mayan city – what came to be known as 'Site Q'.

The inscription on the panel, which is now in the Art Institute of Chicago, said that one of the ballplayers was called 'Red Turkey' and that the panel originated in a city-state known today only by the hieroglyph of a snake's head.

For the past 30 years, the exact site of this snake's-head city has been a mystery. Some archaeologists say it is impossible to find; others claim that, if you can find the building from which the limestone panel came, the identity of the mystery city will be revealed.

Dead-end quests

The quest for Site Q began in earnest in the late 1970s, when Peter Mathews, a Yale university graduate student, noticed that the snake's-head glyph occurred on a number of panels that were displayed in various Western museums or were owned by private collectors. He compiled a catalogue of them.

When Ian Graham of Harvard's Peabody Museum discovered the Maya site of El Peru in the Petén region of Guatemala in 1972, he suggested that these monuments may have come from there. But although the snake's-head emblem does occur at El Peru, experts have decided that, because of the syntax of the inscriptions, a foreign place was meant and thus Site Q could not be El Peru.

In 1989, Calakmul – a site in southern Campeche on Mexico's Yucatan peninsula – became a candidate because of its huge extent and the richness of its architecture. Other archaeologists have even suggested that Site Q may not be a single place, but rather a series of different locations – in which case the quest would be self-defeating.

Despite such caveats, two main theories are now being advanced to locate Site Q.

Hellmuth's hunch

American archaeologist Dr Nicholas Hellmuth believes that Site Q lies along the Usumacinta River, which forms part of the border between Guatemala and Mexico. He points out that, in 1965, when the ballgame panels were sold on the art market, they were listed as having come from this area.

Sure enough, along the Usumacinta River, he has found many remains of stone sculptures that have the same texture and the same artistic detail as the panels. Although heavily looted, the sites still retain many structures that may have originally been decorated with the carvings.

Stuart's search

Another Maya expert, Dr David Stuart of Harvard University, believes that Site Q lies in northern Guatemala – that it is, in fact, a Mayan city called La Corona. This was discovered in 1996 by a local inhabitant and was explored by archaeologists after a NASA satellite photograph revealed a raised causeway. The site was named La Corona because some of its ruined buildings were laid out like a crown.

Stuart suggested that samples of rock from La Corona's sculptures could be brought back and analysed in a laboratory to see if they match the stone of the museum panels.

It is to carry out this sampling (with the permission of the Guatemalan government) that Neil Brodie, Simone Clifford-Jaeger and Bernie Mittelstaedt have embarked on their quest.

Lost and looted

The problem with La Corona is not only that it is well hidden in the deepest jungle and is therefore exceptionally difficult to explore, but also that its ruins have been comprehensively looted. Where once stood ornate tombs, there are now only rough pits. Sculptures have been hacked off buildings; ceremonial staircases have been dismantled and removed. (See Looting treasures for details of the extent to which Guatemala's heritage has been stolen.)

Looking over these overgrown and wrecked sites, Brodie, Clifford-Jaeger and Mittelstaedt find some evidence of remains that look similar to the museum panels, and they take samples from these stone blocks. They also travel down the Usumacinta River to examine likely sites where the Site Q panels may have originated.

Top