7 - Incidents of Travel: Mayan Ruins

Part 7: Incidents of Travel: Conclusion

 

Let the author read this to you by clicking here.




Stelae at Copan
by Frederick Catherwood
 

When John Lloyd Stephens first travelled to Central America and walked among the ruins left by the Maya, he early on realized that the buildings, statues, and carvings were not done by a “savage or primitive race”.  He recognized that the original inhabitants of the Americas were a civilized and sophisticated people.  At his first encounter with the Stelae in Copan, he observed, “The sight of this unexpected monument put at rest at once and forever, in our minds, all uncertainty in regard to the character of American antiquities, and gave us the assurance that the objects we were in search of were interesting, not only as the remains of an unknown people, but as works of art, proving, like newly-discovered historical records, that the people who once occupied the Continent of America were not savages.” [refer to Part 4 of this series]

In 1842, when he returned to Yucatan to further explore the ruins, he reconfirmed his previous conviction, “I am happy thus early in these pages to have an opportunity of recurring to the opinion expressed in my former volumes, in regard to the builders of the ancient American cities.

“The conclusion to which I came was that ‘there are not sufficient grounds for belief in the great antiquity that has been ascribed to these ruins’; ‘that we are not warranted in going back to any ancient nation of the Old World for the builders of these cities; that they are not the works of people who have passed away and whose history is lost, but that there are strong reasons to believe them the creation of the same races who inhabited the country at the time of the Spanish conquest, or of some not very distant progenitors.”

In the final pages of his last book, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, Stephens addressed the arguments

Storming of Teocalis
by Emanuel Leutze

against his opinions on the origins of the Mayan cities.  He was still unaware that the Mayans were the builders, but was convinced that the cities were built by the people that the Spaniards found on their conquest.  Before Stephens, this idea had been rejected for mostly three main arguments.  First, there were no lasting traditions carried on by the locals.  Stephens argued, “… may this be accounted for by the unparalleled circumstances which attended the conquest and subjugation of Spanish America?”  He went on to cite the proclamation by the Pope “entreating and requiring the inhabitants to acknowledge and obey the church as the superior and guide of the universe. … But if you do not comply … I will carry on war against you with the utmost violence.”

The second prevailing argument “that a people possessing the power, art, and skill to erect such cities never could have fallen so low as the miserable Indians who now linger about their ruins” was disputed by Stephens for the same reason.  He argued, “… their present condition is the natural and inevitable consequence of the same ruthless policy which laid the axe at the root of all ancient recollections and cut off forever all traditionary knowledge.”

Finally, the lack of historical accounts or reference to the cities by the conquering Spaniards was refuted by Stephens, “On the contrary, we have the glowing accounts of Cortez and his companions, of soldiers, priests, and civilians, all concurring in representations of existing cities, then in the actual use and occupation of the Indians, with building and temples, in style and character like those presented in these pages.”

He summarized, “These arguments then – the want of tradition, the degeneracy of the people, and the alleged absence of historical accounts – are not sufficient to be entered upon at the conclusion of these pages; but all the light that history sheds upon them is dim and faint, and may be summed up in few words.”

Travels of John Lloyd Stephens

Over time, Stephens’ beliefs proved to be substantially accurate and his popular books contributed to a groundswell of interest in the lost cities of the Maya.

 

-- Courtney Miller

Link to Part 1

5 - Incidents of Travel: Mayan Ruins

Part 5: Accomodations at Copan, 1839 and Now

Terramaya Hotel
Copan

Accomodations at Copan have changed dramatically since John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood visited the ruins in 1839.  Here is an excerpt describing one of the many nice Hotels in the area now, the Terramaya, “Absolutely charming, small boutique hotel. Rooms are spacious and updated/modern while retaining that hacienda charm. Breakfast served on the terrace every morning was delicious with fresh fruit, granola, and a hot plate that varies every morning from scrambled eggs to pancakes to huevos rancheros. The hour long massage in the garden was well worth the $40. … the upstairs rooms facing the back had a nice balcony with a hamock.”

In 1839, however, the ruins were privately owned and part of a large ranch.  Compare Stephen’s account of his accomodations, “… Don Gregario arrived.  He was about fifty, had large black whiskers, and a beard of several day’s growth.  It was easy to see that he was a domestic tyrant.  The glance which he threw at us before dismounting seemed to say to us, “Who are you?" I told him that we had come into that neighbourhood to visit the ruins of Copan, and his manner said, ‘What’s that to me?’ but he answered that they were on the other side of the river.  I asked him whether we could procure a guide, and again he said that the only man who knew anything about them lived on the other side of the river. 

As yet we did not make sufficient allowance for the distracted state of the country;…  but relying on the reputation of the country for hospitality, I was rather slow in coming to the disagreeable conclusion that we were not welcome.  I ordered the muleteer to saddle the mules; but the rascal refused to saddle his beasts again that day.

“Don Gregario was the great man of Copan; the richest man, and the petty tyrant; and it would be most unfortunate to have a rupture with him, or even to let it be known at the village that we were not well received at his house.  Mr. Catherwood took a seat on the piazza.  The don sat on a chair, with our detestable muleteer by his side, and a half-concealed smile of derision on his face, talking of “idols,” and looking at me.  By this time eight or ten men, sons, servants, and laborers had come in from their day’s work.  The women turned away their heads; and the men, taking their cue from the don, looked so insulting, that I told Mr. Catherwood we would tumble our luggage into the road, and curse him for an inhospitable churl; but Mr. Catherwood warned me against it, urging that, if we had an open quarrel with him, after all our trouble we would be prevented seeing the ruins.

“After supper all prepared for sleep.  The don’s house had two sides, an inside and an out.  The don and his family occupied the former, and we the latter; but we had not even this to ourselves.  All along the wall were frames made of sticks about an inch thick, tied together with bark strings, over which the workmen spread an untanned oxhide for a bed.  There were three hammocks besides ours, and I had so little room for mine that my body described an inverted parabola, with my heels as high as my head.

“In the morning Don Gregario was in the same humour.  We made our toilet under the shed with as much respect as possible to the presence of the female members of the family, who were constantly passing.  We had made up our minds to hold on and see the ruins; and fortunately, early in the morning, one of the crusty don’s sons brought over from the village Jose, the guide of whom we stood in need.”

The guide led Stephens and Catherwood to the ruins.  Clearly, Stephens was not disappointed.  Here is his account of his first glimpse of a Mayan ruin, “We came to the bank of a river, and saw directly opposite a stone wall, perhaps a hundred feet high, with a furze growing out of the top, running north and south along the river, in some places fallen, but in other entire.  It had more the character of a structure than any we had ever seen ascribed to the aborigines of America, and formed part of the wall of Copan, an ancient city on whose history books throw but little light.”

 

 

 

-- Courtney Miller

 

Have you seen a Mayan ruin?  Share your impressions.

 

Link to Part 1

 

Link to Part 2

 

Link to Part 3

 

Link to Part 4

 

4 - Incidents of Travel: Mayan Ruins

Part 4: Copan

Stela (Monument) at Copan
by Frederick Catherwood

“The sight of this unexpected monument put at rest at once and forever, in our minds, all uncertainty in regard to the character of American antiquities, and gave us the assurance that the objects we were in search of were interesting, not only as the remains of an unknown people, but as works of art, proving, like newly-discovered historical records, that the people who once occupied the Continent of America were not savages,” wrote John Lloyd Stephens’ when he first found the stelae at Copan. 

When Stephens and his artist friend, Frederick Catherwood, travelled to Central American the first time, they sailed all the way around the Yucatan Peninsula to Belize so that they could begin their exploration of lost cities at Copan, which was one of only three archaeological sites in 1839.  He continued:

“… [our guide] conducted us through the thick forest, among half-buried fragments, to fourteen monuments of the same character and appearance, some with more elegant designs, and some in workmanship equal to the finest monuments of the Egyptians; one displaced from its pedestal by enormous roots; another locked in the close embrace of branches of trees, and almost lifted out of the earth; another hurled to the ground, and bound down by huge vines and creepers; and one standing, with its altar before it, in a grove of trees which grew around it, seemingly to shade and shroud it as a sacred thing; in the solemn stillness of the wood, it seemed a divinity mourning over a fallen people."

Topled Monument
by Frederick Catherwood

In addition to the beautiful and exquisitely carved “monuments”, they found great pyramids.  Again, Stephens’ description:

Pyramid and Stela at Copan
by Frederick Catherwood

“We returned to the base of the pyramidal structure, and ascended by regular stone steps, in some places forced apart by bushes and saplings, and in others thrown down by the growth of large trees, while some remained entire.  They were ornamented with sculptured figures and rows of death’s heads.  Climbing over the ruined top, we reached a terrace overgrown with trees, and, crossing it, descended by stone steps into an area so covered with trees that at first we could not make out its form, but which, on clearing the way with the machete, we ascertained to be a square, and with steps on all the sides almost as perfect as those of the roman amphitheatre.  The steps were ornamented with sculpture, and on the south side, about half way up, forced out of its place by roots, was a colossal head, evidently a portrait.  We ascended these steps, and reached a broad terrace a hundred feet high, overlooking the river, and supported by the wall which we had seen from the opposite bank.

“We sat down on the very edge of the wall, and strove in vain to penetrate the mystery by which we were surrounded.  Who were the people that built this city?  In the ruined cities of Egypt, even in the long-lost Petra, the stranger knows the story of the people whose vestiges are around him.  America, say historians, was peopled by savages; but savages never reared these structures, savages never carved these stones.  We asked the Indians who made them, and their dull answer was “Quien sabe?” “Who knows?”.

Have you been to Copan?  Please share your story.

View videos of the series

Link to Part 1

Link to Part 2

Link to Part 3

-- Courtney Miller

 

 

 

1 - Incidents of Travel: Maya Ruins

Part 1: John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood



John Lloyd Stephens

 On a dark night in October, 1839, a wealthy attorney from New York and an architect from England, set sail on an adventure that they could not have imagined.   The attorney, John Lloyd Stephens, had made his wealth as an author profiting from a trip to Europe for “health reasons”.   He had acquired a “persistent streptococci throat” while politicking for Andrew Jackson.   His doctor recommended a trip to Europe.  While in Europe, he sent articles on “incidents of travel’ back to his friend at the American Monthly magazine which were quite successful.  The influx of immigrants to America flooded all means of transport back home, so Stephens extended his travels to Egypt, Arabia, the Holy Lands, Petra, Turkey, Russia, Poland and eventually England.  While visiting Jerusalem, he met Frederick Catherwood, an English architect trying to make a living drawing the ruins of Rome and sketching the architecture of the Holy Lands.  Stephens purchased a map of the Holy Lands drawn by Catherwood and was so impressed by it that he later looked up Catherwood in England.  They became great friends.
 

Frederick Catherwood
self-portrait

Back in New York, Stephens compiled his notes and “Incidents of Travel in Egypt, Arabia Petraea, and the Holy Land” was published in 1837.  It was wildly successful and was followed up by “Incidents of Travel in Greece, Turkey, Russia, and Poland” setting up Stephens financially.   

Rumors of great cities in Central America were floating about and Stephens enlisted his friend Catherwood, who had relocated to New York, to join him for a trip to Central America.  Stephens described his friend as, “… an experienced traveler and personal friend, who had passed more than ten years of his life in diligently studying the antiquities of the Old World; and whom, as one familiar with the remains of ancient architectural greatness …”

At that time, only three archaeological sites were known in Central America – Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal.  No one connected the cities with any known culture and the name “Maya” was scarcely known.  According to Victor Wolfgang von Hagen, who wrote an introduction for a re-printing of Stephen’s book, “Incidents of Travel in Yucatan”,  “The acceptance of an indigenous ‘civilization’ demanded of an American living in 1839 a complete reorientation; to him an ‘Indian’ was one of those barbaric, half-naked tipi dwellers, a rude subhuman people who hunted with animal stealth.”

Before leaving, his old friend and now president of the United States, Andrew Jackson, appointed Stephens Ambassador to Central America.  He accepted the post hoping it would aid him in his search for “lost civilizations”.  Again from von Hagen, “Landing within the political and social chaos which was Central America, they found that it was far easier to find lost cities than to locate lost governments."

So, in October, 1839, John Lloyd Stephens and Frederick Catherwood set sail for Belize on a momentous journey that would expose, for the first time, the wonders of the lost Mayan civilization to America. 

Stelae in Copan
by Frederick Catherwood

As the pictures at left/right and below show, Frederick Catherwood's drawings were amazingly accurate and provide a true feel for what they discovered in their visits to Central America. The statues are the stelae found at Copan. Below a picture of Uxmal compared with Catherwood's.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Uxmal, by Frederick Catherwood

 

 

 

 

 

Recent picture of Uxmal

Have you travelled to see the Mayan ruins?  I would like to hear your story.  If you are willing to share your story, please submit it by clicking here.  Throughout this series, I will be posting stories from readers and comparing their descriptions of what it is like now to what Stephens and Catherwood experienced in 1839

preview video

 

 



-- Courtney Miller

Inconvenient Arrogance, Part 4 -- The Maya

For all his learning or sophistication, man still instinctively reaches towards that force beyond. Only arrogance can deny its existence, and the denial falters in the face of evidence on every hand. In every tuft of grass, in every bird, in every opening bud, there it is.”

-- Hal Borland

Mayan City of Tikal

The Mayan culture of Central America was arguably one the most advanced civilizations in the world.  The architecture was magnificent; the Mayan calendar is still the most accurate and complex ever invented;  their knowledge of astronomy still astounds us; and their sophisticated written language is still being deciphered today.  There is good evidence that the Maya or their predecessors the Olmec had an advanced understanding of the cosmos and a written language as early as 3000 B.C.  I point to the dates on their monuments that originate from 3113 B.C.

 

But unlike the Moche culture that I described in Part 3 of this series, the Mayan culture did not fail all at once because of a single climatic event.  There are a number of reasons and I shall touch on some of them, but I still see evidence of the devastating role that arrogance played on each of the collapses.

 

Frederick Catherwood lithograph of Tulum, 1844

Unlike the Moche empire, the Maya never unified the many grand empires under a single rule.  Probably the biggest factor was that the terrain forced the different cities to be isolated and were separated by great distances.  The difficulty of agriculture to provide for the huge populations needed to support the massive cities required ever expanding cultivation of land surrounding the cities.  There is evidence of terraced hill slopes to retain soil and moisture, irrigation systems, and complex canal systems to enhance production and extend the fertility of the soil beyond what was possible with slash and burn techniques, but, because of the low protein crops, lack of domesticated animals, high humidity that curtailed storage, and difficulty of transporting crops (again no domesticated animals) a typical farmer could only produce twice what he needed for himself and his family.  A paltry surplus compared to other advanced cultures.

 

It is easy to see the affect that climate change had on the Mayan empires.   The pre-classic rise of El Mirador coincides with the wet climate that prevailed from 250 B.C.  to 125 A.D.  Then El Mirado collapsed during the drought from 125 A.D. to 250 A.D.  The rise of the classic period coincided with the return of a wetter period from 250 A.D. to 500 A.D.  The momentous event that started the collapse of the Moche culture in 536 A.D. also appears to have affected the Maya. This event coincides with the so-called “Mayan Hiatus” in 6th and 7th centuries when no monuments were erected at the well-studied site of Tikal.  There is no doubt that turmoil and confusion gave the cultures reason to pause during the several years when the sun was blocked by acidic particles in the atmosphere (refer to Part 3) and temperatures cooled.  Following the cooling period, the worst drought in the last 7,000 years peaking around 800 A.D. coincides with the collapse of the classic period.  End dates on monuments for clusters of Maya centers fall into three clusters – 810, 860, and 910 which match the severe droughts that occurred around those three dates.

 

Time and time again, the cities would expand and grow during periods of favorable weather until they were vulnerable to periods of drought and failed.  And, as we saw with the Moche, the Kings and nobles who had taken credit for prosperity were blamed for the climate change.  And, like the Moche, cruel ritual ceremonies of human sacrifice developed and increased as each empire went into collapse.

 

As Jared Diamond wrote in his Pullitzer Prize winning book “Collapse”, “In Maya society the king also functioned  as high priest carrying the responsibility  to attend to  astronomical and calendrical rituals, and thereby to bring rain and prosperity, which the king claimed to have the supernatural power to deliver because of his asserted family relationship to the gods.  That is, there was a tacitly understood quid pro quo: the reason why the peasants supported the luxurious lifestyle of the king and his court, fed him corn and venison, and built his palaces was because he had made implicit big promises to the peasants.  … [the] kings got into trouble with their peasants if a drought came, because that was tantamount to the breaking of a royal promise.”

 

Once again, the “inconvenient arrogance” that man can influence or control climate most likely brought down the magnificent Mayan culture as it did the incredible Moche. 

Continue to Part 5

 

-- Courtney Miller