True History of Chocolate?

Sophie and Michael Coe produced an extensive overview of the development of chocolate in The True History of Chocolate, from the very beginnings of its known cultivation through the production of the recognizable modern form of solid chocolate. One of the elements that I thought they were pushing was the primary role of the Olmec and Maya civilizations in the development of chocolate cultivation and culture in the pre-Colonial period. The authors are attempting to restore the stolen agency of the two civilizations, often denied their role in the development and proliferation of chocolate by a distorted emphasis on the Aztecs. This seems to be the primary argument – while Europeans transformed chocolate from its original meanings, it was the Maya and their predecessors who originally cultivated chocolate, who introduced chocolate to Europeans, and who continue to provide a significant part of the world’s chocolate production. A secondary narrative thread is the alienation of chocolate’s usage from its traditional meaning, taste, and finally even its form to become a simple object of pleasure to be indulged by many. This is really the first time that we’ve seen such a collapse in the cultural significance of a product; while sugar was valued, it was not a ritual object that carried both spiritual and temporal power, and that also was used as a medium of exchange. This book raises a question for the class: can something be both Commodity and Currency at the same time?

It is unfortunate that the images used in this book do not work with it to the same standard we observed last week. They generally function merely as illustrations. I do agree with my classmates that the book falls short in several elements. Most obvious is the judgments that the authors are placing on various people and groups in their discussion. While there is a place for judgments of this nature, they seem quite out of place within this text specifically. The only reason they might fit is as part of the transfer of agency towards Mezoamerican civilizations in the development of chocolate, but even that does not excuse the obvious and unnecessary diversions from the subject of chocolate to provide social commentary on various people and cultures – especially when that commentary is not particularly backed up by relevant evidence.

One other thing that irritated me about this text is that the author(s?) repeatedly commented that something would be “discussed later” or that the reader would otherwise see more on a subject later. Does he not trust that the reader will read the complete book? It’s obviously a simple writing habit, the authorial equivalent of a verbal tick, but it is totally unnecessary in conveying the point of the text.