Forgotten Mayan city: Is it just an old cornfield?
independent.co.uk
independent.co.uk
(B) a lot of these cities discovered in the jungle is not because it was naturally not jungle before. Instead, it was jungle that the Maya deforested and cultivated the land. The amount of deforestation by the ancient Maya was similar (though smaller scale) to that of the Europeans.
This point in particular is critical in breaking the myth of the Maya as a super environmental people on harmony with nature. It makes them an overly simplistic "native people". The reality is they might have caused their own demise through environmental destruction (or at least the classical cities, the post classical are a different story)
I am immensely skeptical. Do you have sources for this?
Some text: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Maya/
and some maps speculating about the extend and climate change: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77060
My money is on the fact that Mayans were pretty similar.
Also, I think it is incorrect to think that people who burn down forests aren't in harmony with nature. You can use nature and be in harmony with it at the same time. That is what I learned from ancient Hindu beliefs.
Evidence: https://www.amazon.com/1491-Second-Revelations-Americas-Colu...
Today you see a similar pattern among the poor, indigenous Guatemalans, though on smaller scales. As I drive through the country, I'm always astounded at how many corn fields are in the middle of a forest or on a seemingly inaccessible hillside. The majority of these rural poor are still cultivating corn by hand using techniques inherited from their ancestors. As corn was domesticated there, they have found ways to cultivate it that are very different from the industrial farms on flatland in Iowa.
>The word is also used for a small field, especially in Mexico or Central America, that is cleared from the jungle, cropped for a few seasons, and then abandoned for a fresh clearing.
EDIT: Flores is even closer, at 72 miles.
Instead, it is so entirely overgrown with a thousand years of vegetation, that it is difficult to spot the difference between a hill and a temple.
I was in tikal recently (drove from Flores, as you pointed out), and it was astounding to compare the parts they have excavated and restored to the rest. You would see hundreds of small hills and know that under each is an undiscovered building! Had it not been for the escavated parts, I wouldn't have even realized the hills were anything else.
As a parallel, under parts of Guatemala city (far to the south in the highlands) there are the remains of a Mayan city from pre-classical to early classical. The center of which is under a high end shopping mall. There are similar hills there covered in grass in a nice lark. I have laid on hills like this throughout the city without really realizing there were ancient buildings underneath.
Thus, there is a good rule in the capital. If there is a big, grassy hill, it is probably because there are ruins underneath. The government prevents people from developing that land, but no one has the money to excavate. Thus they stay entombed, waiting for future grad students and funding.
How many people who don't wear a uniform use a 100ft rope to enter or exit a jungle canopy if they aren't in immediate fear for their life? You're underplaying the logistical difficulty.