Scan barcode
A review by whats_margaret_reading
Jungle of Stone: The Extraordinary Journey of John L. Stephens and Frederick Catherwood, and the Discovery of the Lost Civilization of by William Carlsen
3.0
I mean the correct subtitle should be "rediscovery", and having a more comprehensive discussion about what we know now about the Maya would have greatly improved it.
Update: The author decided to respond! So here's his response and then mine:
Thanks you for your review and stars. I'm very curious about what the first "discovery" of the Maya civilization would be like. My editor and I thought this through carefully and rejected "rediscovery" in the title because: first, there was the period of the civilization, then its demise, then its disappearance as a civilization under the forests and jungles of Mesoamerica -- until finally 44 ruined cities were found (discovered) by Stephens and Catherwood and pieced together as an entire civilization and not isolated ruins. Also, I was extremely careful in the title to refer to the "discovery" of this civilization and hoped the title and attendant book flap description did not lead a reader to think that this was a book about the Maya per se, but its discovery. I did include a long chapter on the ancient Maya. I'm really sorry you were disappointed there was not more, but there are a tremendous amount of such books and I refer to some of the best in my footnotes, I would really appreciate any comments you might have especially on the "rediscovery" issue because I don't really quite understand what that word refers to (it has come up before). Wishing you the best, William Carlsen
My response:
So, my contention is that the Maya have never actually disappeared, which I think would also be the contention of the 6 million Mayan language speakers today. From some light Googling, I couldn't find the exact number of Mayan books destroyed by the Spanish when they arrived, but there are some I think rather telling quotes about the connection between the people in Mesoamerica at the time and the destruction of their cultural material. Bishop Diego de Landa wrote in July 1562:
Additionally, the Toltec used the same calendar and multiple similar glyphs to the Maya (discussed in [b:An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|20588662|An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1395003842s/20588662.jpg|39861426]), which I think is a fair indication that while the cities were not as inhabited as they once had been, the innovations that the Classical Maya era were adopted more widely in the region.
This doesn't fit with the rise, fall, forget paradigm of non-Western civilizations that tends to get perpetuated. For example, in Arizona there are lots of structures that, while not in continuous occupation, have significant cultural relevance to indigenous peoples today and have been in continuous use (e.g. Casa Grande). If there were rumors of pyramids in the jungle before Catherwood and Stephens, this means there was some collective knowledge about what was actually in the jungle. While much of the paper record was destroyed, it's difficult for me to imagine that even after contact, that the people who lived their whole lives in the areas around these sites were 1) not aware of them or 2) not aware of their cultural history.
This is why I take issue with "discovery"--once can't discover something that was never lost. However, it's possible to re-dsicover something if a bulk of one particular type of memory (like books) is destroyed, especially if the people doing the "discovering" are from outside that culture.
As much as I understand this book was not about the Maya themselves but more about the shift in understanding of Western history from the noble savage paradigm to more of a [b:1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus|39020|1491 New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus|Charles C. Mann|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327865228s/39020.jpg|38742] understanding, it would have been neat to have a "Stephens", "Catherwood" and then "18 Rabbit" instead of "The Maya". Not everything can be captured about the Maya (or even the Classical Maya) in a chapter, but it would have been neat to see a classical Mayan king elevated to the same position given Stephens and Catherwood in the history of his city.
Update: The author decided to respond! So here's his response and then mine:
Thanks you for your review and stars. I'm very curious about what the first "discovery" of the Maya civilization would be like. My editor and I thought this through carefully and rejected "rediscovery" in the title because: first, there was the period of the civilization, then its demise, then its disappearance as a civilization under the forests and jungles of Mesoamerica -- until finally 44 ruined cities were found (discovered) by Stephens and Catherwood and pieced together as an entire civilization and not isolated ruins. Also, I was extremely careful in the title to refer to the "discovery" of this civilization and hoped the title and attendant book flap description did not lead a reader to think that this was a book about the Maya per se, but its discovery. I did include a long chapter on the ancient Maya. I'm really sorry you were disappointed there was not more, but there are a tremendous amount of such books and I refer to some of the best in my footnotes, I would really appreciate any comments you might have especially on the "rediscovery" issue because I don't really quite understand what that word refers to (it has come up before). Wishing you the best, William Carlsen
My response:
So, my contention is that the Maya have never actually disappeared, which I think would also be the contention of the 6 million Mayan language speakers today. From some light Googling, I couldn't find the exact number of Mayan books destroyed by the Spanish when they arrived, but there are some I think rather telling quotes about the connection between the people in Mesoamerica at the time and the destruction of their cultural material. Bishop Diego de Landa wrote in July 1562:
We found a large number of books in these characters and, as they contained nothing in which were not to be seen as superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree, and which caused them much affliction.With multiple book burning events, only 4 remained. I think it's fair to say a not small number of written records of Classical Mayan culture survived the end of that period and were preserved and valued after. This also isn't consistent with the idea that the Maya disappeared or were forgotten to history, or at least history as it was remembered by the peoples of Mesoamerica. The disappearance that did happen was a part of a genocidal campaign to destroy the pre-existing cultures in the Americas, rather than some benign fall or petering out of a civilization.
Additionally, the Toltec used the same calendar and multiple similar glyphs to the Maya (discussed in [b:An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|20588662|An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States|Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1395003842s/20588662.jpg|39861426]), which I think is a fair indication that while the cities were not as inhabited as they once had been, the innovations that the Classical Maya era were adopted more widely in the region.
This doesn't fit with the rise, fall, forget paradigm of non-Western civilizations that tends to get perpetuated. For example, in Arizona there are lots of structures that, while not in continuous occupation, have significant cultural relevance to indigenous peoples today and have been in continuous use (e.g. Casa Grande). If there were rumors of pyramids in the jungle before Catherwood and Stephens, this means there was some collective knowledge about what was actually in the jungle. While much of the paper record was destroyed, it's difficult for me to imagine that even after contact, that the people who lived their whole lives in the areas around these sites were 1) not aware of them or 2) not aware of their cultural history.
This is why I take issue with "discovery"--once can't discover something that was never lost. However, it's possible to re-dsicover something if a bulk of one particular type of memory (like books) is destroyed, especially if the people doing the "discovering" are from outside that culture.
As much as I understand this book was not about the Maya themselves but more about the shift in understanding of Western history from the noble savage paradigm to more of a [b:1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus|39020|1491 New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus|Charles C. Mann|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1327865228s/39020.jpg|38742] understanding, it would have been neat to have a "Stephens", "Catherwood" and then "18 Rabbit" instead of "The Maya". Not everything can be captured about the Maya (or even the Classical Maya) in a chapter, but it would have been neat to see a classical Mayan king elevated to the same position given Stephens and Catherwood in the history of his city.