Chapter XIV: Section IV: The Ruins of Uxmal

These monuments of antiquity are situated in Yucatan, the great Peninsula of Mexican America.

"Emerging suddenly from the woods, to my astonishment, we came at once upon a large open field strewed with mounds of ruins, and vast buildings on terraces, and _pyramidal structures_, grand, and in good preservation, richly ornamented, without a bush to obstruct the view; and in picturesque effect, almost equal to the Ruins of Thebes. [Egypt] Such was my report I made to Mr. Catherwood on my return, who, lying in his hammock unwell, and out of spirits, told me I was romancing; but early the next morning we were on the ground, and his comment was, that the _reality exceeded the description_!"

It should be remembered that the above distinguished artist (Catherwood) had visited and copied the Ruins of Thebes and Egypt generally, and consequently his testimony is of more than common authority.

"The place of which I am now speaking (Uxmal) was, beyond all doubt, once a large, populous, and highly _civilized city, and the reader can nowhere find one word of it on any page of history_. Who built it?--why it was located on that spot, away from water, or any of those natural advantages which have determined the sites of cities whose histories are known, what led to its abandonment, no man can tell. The only name by which it is known, is that of the Hacienda [_i. e._ farm-plantation] on which it stands. In the oldest deed, belonging to the Peon family [_i. e._ the owners], which goes back a hundred and forty years, the buildings are referred to in the boundaries of the estate as _Las Casas de Piedra_ [_i. e._ the stone-houses]. This is the only ancient document or record in existence, in which the place is mentioned at all. The Ruins were all exhumed: within the last year the trees had been cut down and burned, and the whole field of Ruins was in view." * * * * "In attempting a description of the Ruins, so vast a work rises up before me, that I am at a loss where to begin." * * * * "Drawn off by mounds of ruins and piles of gigantic buildings, the eye returns, and again fastens upon a lofty structure. It was the first building I entered. _From its front doorway I counted sixteen elevations_ [buildings], _with broken walls and mounds of stones, and vast magnificent edifices_, which at that distance seemed untouched by time and defying ruin. I stood in the doorway when the Sun went down, throwing from the buildings a prodigious breadth of shadow, darkening the terraces on which they stood, and presenting a scene strange enough for a work of enchantment. This building [_i. e._ in which he viewed the scene] is sixty-eight feet long. The elevation on which it stands, is built up solid from the plain, entirely artificial. _Its form is not pyramidal_, but _oblong_, and rounding, being two hundred and forty feet long _at the base_, and one hundred and twenty feet broad, and it is protected all around, _to the very top, by a wall of square stones_."

The terms of the last sentence are in direct opposition to the description,--for the elevation is distinctly _pyramidal_. It does not require a square base only rising from their corners to a central apex, to be essentially pyramidal,--for a _cone_ is pyramidal, or an "oblong" rising and diminishing from a broad base; all walls on _an inclined plane_--no matter at what degree of elevation or declivity, possess the chief essential of a pyramid.

The cone, oblong, and square,--even a triple-sided or octagonal pyramid, would be, one and all, correct phrases in the language of Architecture, to express the character of the pyramid; and are so used in contradistinction to walls (one or more) of a perpendicular description,--and the instant such walls lose the facial of the plumb-line, they become _pyramidal_, from the principle of the wall rising from its base, and falling to a centre, which, we repeat, is the chief essential of the pyramid. The number of sides, or none at all (_i. e._ a cone), has no part in the pyramidal _principle_; as the key-stone is to the Arch, so the apex is to the Pyramid; but if the latter _is only half reared_, yet approaching by the inclined walls _towards an apex_, it is as much a pyramidal structure as if the sides had reached the apex itself. It is to be regretted that Mr. Stephens should have been ignorant of the Fine Arts and their rules--(we make this remark on his own honest confession[2])--because by the confusion of terms he not only often contradicts himself, but misleads the general reader in forming conclusions from his graphic descriptions.

[2] Vide J. L. Stephens's Travels in Egypt.

It will, however, be our duty not to pass any such contradiction, but by the rules of art endeavour to translate the language of the Ruins. Mr. Stephens has, however, a _motive_ in destroying all resemblance between these edifices and those of Egypt, _or their neighbours_. In the next chapter that motive will be unfolded in his own words.

"On the East side of the structure is a _broad range of stone steps_, between eight and nine inches high, and so steep, that the greatest care is required in ascending and descending: of these we counted _one hundred and one in their places_. _Nine were wanting at the top_, and perhaps _twenty_ were covered with rubbish at the bottom. At the _summit_ of the steps is a _stone platform_ four feet and a half wide, running along the rear of the building. There is no door in the centre, but at each end a door opens into an apartment eighteen feet long and nine wide, and between the two is a third apartment of the same width, and thirty-four feet long. _The whole building is of stone; inside the walls are of polished smoothness_; outside, up to the height of the door, the stones are plain and square; above this line there _is a rich cornice or moulding_, and from this to the top of the building, _all the sides are covered with rich and elaborate sculptured ornaments, forming a sort of arabesque_. The style and character of these ornaments were entirely different from those of any we had seen before, either in that country or any other; they bore no resemblance whatever to those of Copan or Palenque, and were quite as unique and peculiar. The designs were strange and incomprehensible, very elaborate, sometimes grotesque, but often simple, tasteful, and beautiful. Among the intelligible subjects, are squares and diamonds (_i. e._ forms), with busts of human beings, heads of leopards, and compositions of leaves and flowers, and the ornaments known every where as _grecques_. The ornaments which succeed each other are all different; the whole form an extraordinary mass of richness and complexity, and the effect is both grand and curious; and the construction of these ornaments is not less peculiar and striking than the general effect. There were no tablets or single stones, each representing separately, or by itself, an entire subject; but every ornament or combination is made up of separate stones, on each of which _part_ of the subject was carved [sculptured], _and was then set in its place in the wall_. (?) Each stone by itself was an unmeaning fractional part; but placed by the side of others helped to make a whole, which, without it would be incomplete. Perhaps it may, with propriety, be called a species of sculptured _mosaic_."

This last sentence cannot be entertained,--for _mosaic_ is an arrangement of COLOURED stones, to represent a _painted floor_, wall, or ceiling,--their shape is not material, but they must be possessed of different colours. Now this does not appear upon the walls of Uxmal [_i. e._ of the edifice now in review], and the absence of _coloured_ stones gives the negative to their being even "a species of mosaic." Nor were the stones _first_ sculptured, "and then set in their places in the wall;" that is entirely a modern custom; but by applying the history of ancient sculpture to the preceding description, the means whereby the accuracy of facial sculpture of the wall was obtained, is at once defined and established. The Greeks placed the stones of their friezes and pediments upon their Temples in their _rough state_,--_they were sculptured afterwards_, and consequently the greatest accuracy in the connecting lines from one stone to another was obtained, and could be by that manner only. The fluting of a column (of one or more blocks of marble) was always sculptured _after_ it had been erected in its rough state. This was the only practice in that branch of art, and without doubt it was (it must have been) so practised upon the beautiful and unique walls of Uxmal.

In perusing the foregone descriptions, the reader may almost ask himself if his perceptive powers are not betraying him?--whether he is reading of an Athenian display of Sculpture, or really of an ancient edifice on the Western Continent! Well might it have appeared to the bewildered traveller as "a work of enchantment." He then proceeds to describe another building of the same character and sculpture: an edifice supposed to have "some reference to the Vestals, who in Mexico were employed to keep burning the sacred fire." It is thus sketched:

"It is situated on an artificial elevation about fifteen feet high. Its form is quadrangular, and one side, according to my measurement, is ninety-five _paces_ in length. It was not possible to pace all around it, from the masses of fallen stones which encumbered it in some places, but it may be safely stated at _two hundred-and-fifty feet square_ [_i. e. one thousand feet_ in the entire measurement!]. It is built entirely of _cut stone_ [like the other buildings] and the whole exterior is filled with the same rich, elaborate, and incomprehensible sculptured ornaments. The principal entrance is by a large doorway into a beautiful _patio_ or courtyard, grass-grown but clear of trees, and the whole of the _inner façade is ornamented more richly and elaborately than the outside_, and in a more perfect state of preservation."

This may be accounted for from the apparent fact, that the interior sculpture was executed _after_ that on the outward walls; for it appears to be far more beautiful and elaborate, and thence more time would be required for its completion, and as a consequence, it could only be finished at a later date; added to this a greater protection from the weather is given to the _inside_ of quadrangular walls than on the outside, and that without any reference to roofs or coverings: for a strong wind striking, for instance, an easterly wall on the outside, the force of the wind is destroyed, and consequently reaches the opposite wall _in the area_ with a greatly diminished power. The same argument would apply to the wind from any quarter, blowing upon unroofed quadrangular structures, and this these builders seem to have completely understood by making the Sculpture more refined and delicate upon the inside.

"On one side the combination [of the Sculpture] was in the form of diamonds, simple, chaste, and tasteful: and at the head of the courtyard _two gigantic serpents_ (with their heads broken and fallen) were winding from opposite directions along the whole façade"--[_i. e._ one thousand feet].

It will be remembered that the Chief Altar at Copan has sculptured on it _two serpents_: in the Analogies we shall endeavour to read these wily hieroglyphics.

"In front and on a line with the door of the preceding edifice, is another building on a lower foundation of the same general character, called _Casa de Tortugas_, from the sculptured _turtles_ over the doorway."

That the reader may not be misled, these "turtles" are not as defined in Scripture (_i. e._ young doves), but the _tortoise_, the well-known shellfish; and in the splendid illustrations of these Ruins in Waldeck's work (folio, 1838) the _tortoise_ is distinctly given, and without doubt is so meant by Mr. Stephens. There are _four of them_ in a group, their heads approaching to a centre, _each tortoise_ is in a square, and in the two external angles of each square is an _Egg_. The _tortoise_ and _the egg_, are both National emblems, and the Nation claiming them will be proved in the Analogies.

"In the front was a broad avenue with a line of ruins on each side, leading beyond the wall to a great mound of ruins: and beyond this a lofty building in the rear. Between the two was a large _patio_, or courtyard, with corridors on each side, and the ground of the courtyard sounded hollow. In one place, the surface was broken, and I descended into _a large excavation, cemented_, which probably had been intended as a granary. [Rather as a _water_ reservoir] At the back of the courtyard, on a high, broken terrace, which it was difficult to climb, was another edifice more ruined than the others, but which from the style of its remains, and its commanding position, overlooking every other building [except the first described] and apparently having been connected with the distant mass of ruins in front, must have been one of the most important in the City, perhaps the principal Temple. The whole presented a scene of barbaric (?) magnificence, utterly confounding all previous notions in regard to the Aboriginal inhabitants of this Country; and calling up emotions which had not been wakened to the same extent by any thing we had yet seen."

"There was one strange circumstance connected with these ruins--viz., no water had ever been discovered, and there was not a single stream, fountain, or well, nearer than the Hacienda, a mile and a half distant. It is supposed that the face of the Country had not changed; and that somewhere under ground must exist great wells, cisterns or reservoirs [perhaps acquaducts] which supplied the former inhabitants of the City with water." * * * * * "While I was making the circuit of these ruins, Mr. Catherwood proceeded to the _Casa del Gobernador_; it indicates the principal building of the old City, or _royal_ house. (?) It _is the grandest in position_, the _most stately in Architecture and proportions, and the most perfect in preservation_ of all the structures remaining at Uxmal."

The same argument brought forward in the last Section, to prove that the chief edifice of Palenque was the _Temple_, and not the Palace, will apply to this supposed "royal house." As to the phrase _"Casa del Gobernador_"--or Governor's house,--it is the name by which it is called in the neighbourhood, and can have no bearing upon the true character of the edifice,--but the very superior preservation of the building would point it to be one held Sacred from any rude assault by the people; while its Architecture, importance of its position, and magnitude, at once justify the name of Temple being given to this edifice, and as such we shall view it. Mr. Stephens appears to be so strict a Spartan Republican, that every large, or magnificent building in the Ruined Cities, he considers to be a _Palace_,--he seems to have thought less of mind, than of matter.

"This edifice [Temple] stands on three ranges of terraces. The first terrace is _six hundred and forty feet long, and five feet_ high. It is walled with _cut stone_, and on the top is a _platform twenty feet broad_, from which rises another terrace _fifteen feet_ high. At the corners this terrace is supported by cut stones, having the faces rounded so as to give a better finish than with sharp angles. The great platform is flat. At the south-east corner of this platform is a row of {ROUND} _pillars eighteen inches in diameter_, and three or four feet high, [_i. e._ broken pillars] extending about one hundred feet along the platform; and these were the _nearest approach to pillars_ or _columns_ (circular) that we saw in all our exploration of ruins of that country."

What "nearer approach" was necessary to prove the existence of circular columns, than his own description? Of this hereafter,--again he writes:

"In the middle of the terrace, along an avenue leading to a range of steps, was a _broken round pillar_, inclined and falling, and with trees growing around it. In the centre of the platform, at a distance of two hundred and five feet from the border in front, is a range of stone steps, more than a hundred feet broad, and thirty-five in number, ascending to a third terrace, fifteen feet above the last, and thirty-five feet from the ground; which being on a naked plain, formed a most commanding position. The erection of these terraces alone was an immense work. _On the third terrace_, with its principal doorway facing the range of steps, stands the noble structure. [Temple] The façade measures _three hundred and twenty feet_. Away from the regions of dreadful rains, and the rank growth which smothers the Ruins of Palenque,--it stands with all its walls erect, and almost as perfect as when deserted by the inhabitants. The _whole building is of stone_, plain up to the moulding that runs along the tops of the doorway, and above filled with the same rich, strange, and elaborate Sculpture; among which is particularly conspicuous, the ornament before referred to, as _la grecque_."

By a reference to the illustrated folio of Waldeck, it is found that this ornament is chiefly the meander, or the Grecian square border, used in the embroidery of the mantles and robes of Attica.

"There is no rudeness or barbarity in the design or proportions; on the contrary, the whole wears an air of Architectural symmetry and grandeur; and as the stranger ascends the steps, and casts a bewildered eye along its open and desolate doors, it is hard to believe, that he sees before him the work of a race in whose epitaph, as written by historians,[3] they are called ignorant of Art, and said to have perished in the rudeness of savage life."

[3] Dr. Robertson and others.

In justice to those historians, it should be stated, that they did not know of these architectural wonders; for if they did, no excuse can be rendered in extenuation of such an "epitaph"--thence has arisen the necessity of a New History of Ancient America; to, at least, the landing of Columbus; and even that will now wear another aspect. Mr. Stephens, in the last sentence quoted, justly reasons upon, and correctly censures the false conclusions of those historians;--yet a few pages before, he, himself, calls the _tout ensemble_ of the Uxmal Ruins, with all the beautiful Sculpture, and Classical ornaments, "a scene of _barbaric_ magnificence!" He seems afraid to combat with even the assertions of those Historians, whose "epitaph" upon an entire people, was written in ignorance of their works of Art. He says, "_it is hard to believe_" that they "perished in the rudeness of savage life,"--why, with such a gorgeous "scene" as that of Uxmal before him, _it was an impossibility_ that they could so have perished, either in the mind, or in history. The Ruins and Temple of Uxmal, he says, present "a scene of _barbaric_ magnificence!" _if they do_,--either to himself or his readers, then were Athens and the Acropolis barbaric, and Pericles and Phidias barbarians!

"But there was one thing which seemed in strange want of conformity with all the rest. I have mentioned that at Ocosingo [Ruins] we saw a _wooden beam_, and at Pelanque, the remains of a wooden pole; at this place [Uxmal] _all the lintels had been of wood, and throughout the ruins, most of them were still in their places over the doors_. The lintels were heavy beams, eight or nine feet long, eighteen or twenty inches wide, and twelve or fourteen thick; the wood like that of Ocosingo, was very hard, and rang under the blow of the machete."

From a further description, it appears that this peculiar wood was brought from a distance of three hundred miles. Waldeck says, that it is more durable than _lignum vitæ_, and is called by the natives _jovillo_. The strength of this wood is thus shewn by Mr. Stephens:

"The position of these lintels was most trying, as they were obliged to support a solid mass of stone wall, _fourteen or sixteen feet high, and three or four feet in thickness_."

From a calculation of the measurements around the base of the principal terrace, or pyramidal elevation, the entire distance is _two thousand five hundred and sixty feet_. The Temple, which stands upon a third terrace, is fronting to the East,--_i. e._ to the rising Sun,--the chief object of Worship.

"In the centre [of the Temple], and opposite the range of steps leading to the terrace, are three principal doorways. The middle one is eight feet six inches wide, and eight feet ten inches high; the others are of the same height, but two feet less in width. The centre door opens into an apartment sixty feet long, and twenty-seven feet deep [wide], which is divided into two corridors by a wall three and a half feet thick, with a door of communication between, of the same size with the door of entrance. The _plan is the same_ as that of the Corridor in front of the Palace (?) of Palenque, except that here the Corridor does not run the whole length of the building, and the back Corridor has no door of egress. The ceiling forms a _triangular Arch_, without the Key-stone, as at Palenque."

The term "triangular _Arch_" cannot be admitted by the language of Architecture; he might as well have written _triangular semicircle_, terms distinctly opposed to each other. It is essential to notice this inaccuracy here, otherwise the reader may be under the erroneous impression, that the _Arch_ does exist in the ancient Ruins in America,--this is not the fact; but _the entire absence of the Arch, or its principle_, enables us to form an Architectural conclusion in reference to their identity; and the fact, _that the Arch does not exist_ in any of the Ruins of Ancient America, cannot be too forcibly impressed upon the reader's mind; for it demonstrates that these buildings were erected _before the Arch was known_, and as a consequence, is a direct proof of their great antiquity. Mr. Stephens has already written in reference to Palenque, and previously quoted, "The builders were evidently ignorant of the principles of the Arch."

"The ceiling, &c.: but, instead of the rough stones overlapping or being covered with stucco, (as at Palenque) the layers of stones are bevilled as they rise, _and present an even and a polished_ surface. Throughout, the laying and the polishing of the stones are as perfect as under the rules of the best modern masonry. In this apartment we determined to take up our abode, and _under a roof, tight_ as when sheltering the heads of its former occupants." * * * * * "We were not buried in the forest as at Palenque. From every part of the terrace we looked over a field of ruins." * * * * "From the centre apartment, the divisions on each wing corresponded exactly in size and finish; and the same uniformity was preserved in the ornaments. Throughout, the roof was tight, and the apartments were dry. In one apartment, the walls were _coated with a very fine plaister of Paris_, (?) equal to the best seen on walls in this country. (United States) The rest were all of _smooth polished stone_. There were no paintings, stucco ornaments, Sculptured tablets, or other decoration whatever."

Mr. Stephens then relates the finding in a ruined Chamber, of "_A beam of wood_, (_i. e._ the jovillo) about ten feet long, and very heavy, which had fallen from its place over the doorway. On the face was a line of characters _carved_ or stamped (?) almost obliterated, but which we made out to be _hieroglyphics_; and so far as we could understand them _similar to those at Copan and Palenque_. I cannot help deploring the misfortune of not being assured of the safety of this beam. _By what feeble light the pages of American History are written_! There are at Uxmal no Idols as at Copan,--not a single stuccoed figure, or carved tablet, as at Palenque. Except this beam of _hieroglyphics_, though searching earnestly, we did not discover any one absolute point of resemblance."

The _hieroglyphics_ of all the ruins bind them together as one People; the difference in the finish of the edifices, and their varied states of preservation, at once point to different ages in which they were erected. A principal ornament at equi-distances in the outward cornice is important, and is thus described by Stephens, and strictly agrees with the folio work by Waldeck.

"It is the face of a death's-head, _with wings expanded_, and rows of teeth projecting, in effect somewhat like the figure of _a death's-head on tombstones with us_. It is two feet across the wings, and has a stone staple about two feet long, by which it was fastened to the wall."

In Waldeck's beautiful illustrations of these ruins, some feet below this winged death's-head, are the cross-bones distinct, and below these, is a human figure (male) in full maturity, and naked, except the shoulders and head, standing with his arms _crossed_ "in sorrow's knot." These Sculptures appear upon, what Waldeck calls the Pyramid of Kingsborough,--so named, as before stated, in compliment to Lord Kingsborough, for his costly work upon the Paintings of Mexico. [7 vols. folio.] Well may Stephens say, there are no "Idols" here as at Copan. _Heathen_ language is not seen in the Sculpture of Uxmal; the _Christian_ language alone can translate the above emblems of the Resurrection! The translation of the above Sculpture seems as easy, as if a DANIEL had already read the handwriting on the wall! as thus--The human figure, in full life and maturity, together with the sex, presents mortality; over the figure the _cross-bones_ are placed, portraying the figure's earthly death; while the skull supported by expanding wings, (and this Sculpture being placed above those of life and death,) presents the immortal Soul ascending on the wings of Time, above all earthly life, or the corruption of the grave! "On tombstones with us" a better design could not have been formed by Art to enforce the belief in the Resurrection. The beauty of this subject has led us into digression, for it belongs to the third volume. Campbell will apologize for us--

"Coming events cast their shadow before."

Mr. Stephens continues:--

"The reader will be able to form some idea of the time, skill, and labour, required for making them [the edifices]; and more than this, to conceive the immense time, skill, and labour required for carving [sculpturing] such a surface of stone; and the wealth, power, and cultivation of the people who could command such skill and labour for the mere decoration of the edifices. Probably all these ornaments have a symbolical meaning; [they certainly have] each stone is part of an _allegory_ or _fable_ (?) hidden from us, inscrutable under the light of the feeble torch we may burn before it, but which, _if ever revealed, will shew that the History of the World yet remains to be written_."

With all humility we have attempted to "reveal" one portion of the Sculpture, (others will follow)--but the emblems of Christianity and the Resurrection, can form no part "of an allegory or fable;" and truly has the History of the World yet to be written, when historians in ignorance of the Ruins, have traced the Aborigines, who built the gorgeous edifices of Palenque and Uxmal, to have lived and perished in a savage life! From the character of the Sculpture, and its devices, Uxmal is placed by us as the last built of all the Ancient Cities as yet discovered on the Western Continent.

Having made sufficient extracts from Mr. Stephens's work on "Central America," in illustration of Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal, the principal Cities of Ruins; the Traveller's reflections upon his explorations will now be given, and his conclusions met and refuted. We desire, before we commence the following Chapter of refutation, to impress the reader's mind with the importance of a complete removal of the conclusions, arrived at by Mr. Stephens in regard to these Ruins;--for if he is right, we are stopped at the very threshold of our History. We confess this with all honesty, and desire thereby to arouse the minute attention of the reader to the several points of refutation,--to analyze them critically, and to yield nothing,--but from conviction of foregone errors and false conclusions.

In conformity with the rule of argument with which this volume was commenced, we presume that the preceding Chapter completely establishes in the mind of the reader, that Ancient Cities and Ruins have been discovered in Mexican America; in this belief, the History will be continued, and the Builders and Architecture identified.