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.
