Chapter V: Antiquities of Yucatan (4)

The interior has generally two, often one, and rarely four parallel ranges of rooms, while in a few of the smaller buildings an uninterrupted corridor extends the whole length. Neither rooms nor corridors ever exceed twenty feet in width or height, while the ordinary width is eight to ten feet and the height fifteen to eighteen feet. Sixty feet is the greatest length noted. The walls of each room rise perpendicularly for one half their height, and then approach each other, by the stone blocks overlapping horizontally, to within about one foot, the intervening space being covered with a layer of wide flat stones, and the projecting corners being beveled off to form a straight, or rarely a curved, surface. In a few instances, as at Nohcacab, the sides of the ceiling form an acute angle at the top; and once, at Uxmal, the overlapping stones are inclined instead of lying horizontally, forming a slight, but the nearest, Maya approach to the true arch. This is the only kind of ceiling found in Yucatan, except one at Tuloom which is flat and supported by timbers stretched across from wall to wall. I have followed Stephens and applied the name of 'triangular arch' to this structure of overlapping stones, although the term may by a strict interpretation be liable to some criticism.[V-104]

The tops of the few gateways discovered are constructed by means of the same arch as that employed in the ceilings. One solitary arch unconnected with any other structure has been noted at Kabah; and in the Castle at Chichen two interior arches rest on beams supported by stone columns instead of the usual perpendicular walls. In some of the buildings at Kabah and Chichen the floor of the inner range of rooms is higher than that of the outer, being reached by stone steps. Small round timbers extend from side to side of the ceiling in nearly all rooms, and at Tuloom stone benches are found along the sides and ends.

Rarely do more than two rooms communicate with each other. The doorways are on an average perhaps four feet wide and eight feet high, with square tops formed by zapote beams or stone lintels, which rest on stone jambs composed of two or three pieces, or are built into the regular wall of the building. At Chacchob a doorway is reported wider at the top than at the bottom. Many exterior doorways are wide and divided into two or more entrances by stone pillars supporting the lintels. Stone rings, or hooks, replaced at Tuloom by shells, near the top on the inside, and in a few cases at both top and bottom, are the only traces of the means by which the entrances were originally closed. Wooden lintels are almost exclusively employed at Uxmal, but elsewhere stone is more common; a few both of wood and stone are covered with carved devices, as are also some of the door-posts. Besides the doorways the rooms have no openings whatever, no chimneys, windows, or ventilators being found, if we except the oblong openings in the rear wall of the Castle at Tuloom.[V-105]

Respecting the rooms, aside from their decoration, nothing remains to be noticed except the casas cerradas, or rooms filled with solid masonry, and the interior stairways of unexplained construction at Labphak. Exterior stairways supported by a half arch lead up to the top of such of the buildings as have more than one story, and also to the summit of the few mounds that have perpendicular sides; in one case the entrance to the courtyard is by stairways leading over the roof of one of the enclosing edifices. The only important exceptions to the usual type of Yucatan buildings are the circular structures with conical roofs, at Chichen and Mayapan, and the gigantic walls composing the so-called gymnasiums at Chichen and Uxmal.

It will be noticed that the strength of these structures depended to a great extent on the excellence of the mortar by which the blocks were united, since the latter are not usually laid so as to break joints, although carefully placed so that the plummet line applied to such walls as are uninjured, rarely detects any departure from perfect regularity. A Maya custom of inserting projecting stones, or _katunes_, in the walls of their buildings as a record of time and in commemoration of great events is spoken of by many authors; and by certain stones which he identifies with the katunes, M. Waldeck computes the age of some of the ruins, but I am unable to tell which are the stones meant, unless they be those already mentioned as elephants' trunks.

Besides the columns mentioned in connection with doorways, many others are found whose use in most cases is not understood. They are both round and square, and usually, if not always, composed of several pieces placed one upon another. Among them may be mentioned the row of round columns on the terrace of the Governor's House at Uxmal, sixteen columns at Xul from the ruins of Nohcacab, thirty-six square columns on the summit platform of the pyramid at Aké, three hundred and eighty short pillars, also square, arranged round a square at Chichen, eight round pillars on the terrace of the round house at Mayapan, the reported line of square columns originally supporting a gallery at Mérida, and finally the monoliths of Sijoh, which latter may have been idols.

I now come to the interior and exterior decorations of the Yucatan buildings. In some apartments, particularly at Uxmal, the walls and ceilings present only the plain surface of the hewn blocks of stone. Most, however, are covered with a coating of fine white plaster, and in many this plastered surface is wholly or partially covered with paintings in bright colors. The paintings are much damaged in every case, but seem to have been executed with much care and skill. They are, apparently, never purely ornamental, but represent some definite objects, oftener than otherwise human beings in various attitudes and employments, battles, processions, and dances. In one or two localities, as at Kewick, a single stone is decorated with painting, while the rest of the surface is left plain. Niches in the walls of a room at Chichen, benches along the sides and ends at Tuloom, and a reported inner cornice at Zayi vary the usual interior monotony of the Maya apartments.

Interior sculptured decorations are of comparatively rare occurrence. A few of the lintels and jambs in each of the cities are covered with carvings; the steps leading up to the raised inner room at Kabah, together with the base of the walls at their sides, are sculptured; small circles are cut on the walls of the Casa del Adivino at Uxmal; a tablet of hieroglyphics stretches over the inner doorways of a corridor at Chichen; and a sculptured procession covers the wall and ceiling of a room on the Gymnasium wall at the same city. Hieroglyphic inscriptions are not very numerous, but are apparently identical in character with those we have seen at Copan. The only instance noted of interior decoration in stucco is that of the stucco birds in a room at Kabah, and a few stuccoed columns.

The exterior walls have almost invariably a cornice extending over the doorways round the whole circumference, and another near the roof. Several buildings have one or two additional cornices. Besides the cornices a very few fronts are plain; most are so below the lower cornice, but are decorated in their upper portions, as several are from top to bottom, with a mass of complicated sculptured designs, of which the reader has formed a clear idea by the drawings that have been presented. These ornaments, or the separate parts of each, are carved on the faces of cubical or rectangular blocks which are built into the face of the wall, each carved piece fitting most accurately into its place as part of a most elaborate whole. Some parts of the decoration are also joined to the walls by means of long tenons. In the human faces represented in profile among the ornamental carvings the flattened forehead, or contracted facial angle, is the most important feature noticed, and this is not as strongly marked as in many other regions of America. Excepting the phallus, which is prominent in many of the decorations, and which was probably a religious symbol, no ornaments of an obscene nature are noticed. Instead of stone, stucco is employed at Labphak in exterior decorations, and to a slight extent at Tuloom also. Over the front wall of some buildings, and from the centre of the roof of others, rises a lofty wall, sometimes in peaks, or turrets, apparently intended only as a basis for ornamentation. At Kabah this supplementary wall is plain and resembles from a distance a second story; on the Nunnery at Uxmal the ornamentation is in stone; but in other cases stucco is employed. Only one exterior wall, at Chunhuhu, is plastered; but all the exterior decorations are supposed to have been originally painted, traces of bright colors still remaining in sheltered positions.[V-106]

[Sidenote: MAYA IDOLS.]

The scarcity of idols among the Maya antiquities must be regarded as extraordinary. The double-headed animal and the statue of the Old Woman at Uxmal; the nude figure carved on a long flat stone and the small statue in two pieces, at Nohpat; the idol at Zayi reported as in use for a fountain; the rude unsculptured monoliths of Sijoh; the scattered and vaguely mentioned idols on the plains of Mayapan; and the figures in terra cotta collected by Norman at Campeche, complete the list; and many of these may have been originally merely decorations for buildings. That the inhabitants of Yucatan were idolators there is no possible doubt, and in connection with the magnificent shrines and temples erected by them, stone representatives of their deities carved with all their aboriginal art and rivaling or excelling the grand obelisks of Copan, might naturally be sought for. But in view of the facts it must be concluded that the Maya idols were small, and that such as escaped the destructive hands of the Spanish ecclesiastics, were buried by the natives, as the only means of preventing their desecration. Altars are as rare as idols; indeed, only at Tuloom are such relics definitely reported, and then they are of small size and of simple construction, merely hewn blocks on which copal was burned.

The almost complete lack of pottery, implements, and weapons is no less remarkable. Earthen relics, so abundant over nearly the whole surface of the Pacific States, even in the territory of the wildest tribes, where no ruined edifices are to be seen, are rarely met with in Yucatan and Chiapa, where the grandest ruins indicate the highest civilization. No trace of any metal has been found in Yucatan, although there is some historical evidence that copper implements were used by the Mayas to a slight extent in the sixteenth century, the material for which must have been brought from other parts of the country. Besides spear and arrow heads of flint or obsidian which have been found in small numbers in different parts of the state, and the implements included in the Camacho collection at Campeche already mentioned, there remains to be noticed "a collection of stone implements, gathered by Dr. J. W. Veile, in Yucatan," spoken of by Mr Foster as resembling in many respects similar relics from the Mississippi Valley. "The material employed is porphyry. Some of them are less than two inches in length, and the edges are polished as if from use. At the first glance it would be said that many of these implements were too small for practical purposes, but when we reflect that the material out of which the ancient inhabitants of that region cut their basso-relievos, was a soft coralline limestone, I find, by experiment, that such a tool is almost as effective as one of steel. Some of the implements, however, are cylindrical in shape, with the convex surface brought to an edge, and the opposite side ground out like a gouge."[V-107] There can be little doubt that the Maya sculpture was executed with tools of stone, although with such implements the complicated carvings on hard zapote lintels must have presented great difficulties even to aboriginal patience and skill.

[Sidenote: THE MAYAS AS ARTISTS.]

With respect to the artistic merit of the monuments of Yucatan, and the degree of civilization which they imply on the behalf of their builders, I leave the reader to form his own conclusion from the information which I have collected and presented as clearly as possible in the preceding pages. That they bear, as a whole, no favorable comparison with the works of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Assyrians, and perhaps other old-world peoples must, I believe, be granted. Yet they are most wonderful when considered as the handiwork of a people since lapsed into a condition little above savagism. I append in a note some quotations designed to show the impression these monuments have made on explorers and students.[V-108]

[Sidenote: ANTIQUITY OF THE MAYA MONUMENTS.]

Finally I have to consider the antiquity of the Yucatan monuments. As in the case of all ruined cities and edifices, the questions, when and by whom were they built? are of the most absorbing interest. In Yucatan the latter question presents no difficulties, and the former few, compared with those connected with other American ruins. It was formerly a favorite theory that the great American palaces and temples of ancient times, whose remains have astonished the modern world, were the work of civilized peoples that have become extinct, probably of some old-world people which long centuries ago settled on our coasts and flourished for a long period, but was at last forced to succumb to the native races whose descendants occupied the land at the coming of Europeans in the sixteenth century. The discussion of the origin of the American people and of the American civilization, as well as of the possible agency of old-world elements in the development of the latter, belongs to another part of my work; still it may be appropriately stated here that the theory of extinct civilized races in America, to which our ruined cities may be attributed, rests upon only the very vaguest and most unsubstantial foundation, while so far as the Yucatan cities are concerned it rests on no foundation at all.

The traditional history of the peninsula, which will be given in the following volume, represents Yucatan as constituting the mighty Maya empire, whose rulers, secular and religious, reared magnificent cities, palaces, and temples, and which flourished in great, if not its greatest, power down to within a little more than a century of the Spaniards' coming. Then the empire was more or less broken up by civil wars, an era of dissension and comparative weakness ensued, some of the great cities were abandoned in ruins, but the edifices of most, and especially the temples, were still occupied by the disunited factions of the original empire. In this condition the Spaniards found and conquered the Maya people. They found the immense stone pyramids and buildings of most of the cities still used by the natives for religious services, although not for dwellings, as they had probably never been so used even by their builders. The conquerors established their own towns generally in the immediate vicinity of the aboriginal cities, procuring all the building material they needed from the native structures, destroying so far as possible all the idols, altars, and other paraphernalia of the Maya worship, and forcing the discontinuance of all ceremonies in honor of the heathen gods. A few cities escaped the damning blight of European towns in their vicinity, and kept up their rites in secret for some years later; such were Uxmal, Tuloom, and probably others of the best preserved ruins. All the early voyagers, conquistadores, and writers speak of the wonderful stone edifices found by them in the country, partly abandoned and partly occupied by the natives. To suppose that the buildings they saw and described were not identical with the ruins that have been described in these pages, that every trace of the former has disappeared, and that the latter entirely escaped the notice of the early visitors to Yucatan, is too absurd to deserve a moment's consideration. That the Mayas were found worshiping in the temples of an extinct race is a position almost equally untenable. The Spaniards forced the Mayas to accept a new faith, utterly crushed out their ancient spirit by a long course of oppression, and then together with other Europeans resorted to the theory of an extinct old-world race to account for the wonderful structures which the ancestors of the degraded Mayas could not have reared. The Mayas are not, however, the only illustrations of a deteriorated race to be seen in Yucatan, as will be understood by comparing the present Spanish population of the peninsula with the proud Castilian conquerors of the sixteenth century.

Mr Stephens, to whom many of the Spanish and Maya documents relating to Yucatan history were unknown, sought carefully for proofs in support of his belief that the cities were constructed by "the same races who inhabited the country at the time of the Spanish conquest, or by some not very distant progenitors." He was entirely successful in establishing the truth of his position, which rested on the statements of the historians with whose works he was acquainted, and on the following points, many of them discovered by himself, and whose only weakness is the fact that they were not really needed to justify his conclusions. 1st. The Maya arch in the foundations of the Franciscan convent at Mérida, built in 1547, with the historical statement that Mérida was built on the mounds of ancient Tihoo. 2d. The traditional destruction of Mayapan in 1420. 3d. The custom of the Spaniards to locate their towns near those of the natives, together with the almost uniform location of the ruins, near the modern towns. 4th. The skeletons and skulls dug up at Ticul were pronounced by Dr Morton to belong to the universal American type. 5th. Sr Peon's deed to the Uxmal estate, dated in 1673, states that the natives still worshiped in the stone buildings; that a native then claimed the estate as having belonged to his ancestors; that at that time there were doors in the ruins which were opened and shut; and that water was then drawn from the aguadas. 6th. The sword in the hands of the kneeling sculptured figure at Kabah, which has already been mentioned as almost identical with an aboriginal Maya weapon. 7th. A map dated 1557 was found at Mani, on which Uxmal is designated by a different character from all the other surrounding towns, being the only one that is not surmounted by a cross. 8th. With the map was found a document in the Maya language, also dated 1557, announcing the arrival of certain officials with interpreters at, and their departure from, Uxmal. Now there never was a Spanish town of Uxmal, and the hacienda was not established until one hundred and forty-five years later. 9th. The gymnasiums at Chichen and Uxmal, agreeing with those traditionally described in connection with certain aboriginal games of ball. 10th. Many scattered resemblances to Aztec relics and customs. 11th. The European penknife discovered in a grave with aboriginal relics at Kantunile. 12th. The comparatively fresh appearance of the altars and other relics at Tuloom.[V-109]

It may then be accepted as a fact susceptible of no doubt that the Yucatan structures were built by the Mayas, the direct ancestors of the people found in the peninsula at the conquest and of the present native population. Respecting their age we only know the date of their abandonment--that is the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Nothing in the ruins themselves gives any clue to the date of their construction, and this is not the place to discuss the few vague historical traditions bearing on the subject. The data on which different writers have based their speculations, and claimed for these monuments greater or less antiquity are the following. 1st. The immense trees that are found growing on the ruins, and the accumulation of soil and vegetable matter on the roofs and terrace platforms; but to persons acquainted with the rapid growth of trees in tropical countries, these constitute no evidence of antiquity. 2d. The ignorance of the natives respecting the builders of the monuments; the investigations of Indian character in the preceding volumes of this work, however, show conclusively enough that two generations, to say nothing of three centuries, are amply sufficient to blot from the native mind everything definite concerning the past. 3d. Comparisons of the Yucatan ruins with different old-world remains; the argument being that if an American monument is more dilapidated than an Egyptian one, it must be older. 4th. And on the other hand, against a great antiquity, the destructiveness of the tropical vegetation and tropical rains. 5th. The softness of the building material. 6th. The perfect preservation in many places of wood and paint. 7th. The rapid decay of the ruins between the periods of the earliest and latest visits.

It will be at once noted that the preceding points all bear on the date of abandonment and not at all on the date of construction. Explorers may marvel, according to the view they take of the matter, either that the buildings have resisted for three or four hundred years the destructive agencies to which they have been exposed; or, that three or four short centuries have wrought so great ravages in structures so strongly built; still the fact remains that the buildings were abandoned three or four hundred years ago. M. Waldeck's theory, by which he computes the antiquity of some of the ruins by certain stones peculiarly placed in the walls, or by the small houses--_calli_, or house, being one of the signs of the Aztec calendar--over the doorways of the Nunnery at Uxmal, like Mr Jones' argument that the structures must have been reared before the invention of the arch, is mere idle speculation, utterly unfounded in fact or probability. The history of the Mayas indicates the building of some of the cities at various dates from the third to the tenth centuries. As I have said before, there is nothing in the buildings to indicate the date of their erection,--that they were or were not standing at the commencement of the Christian Era. We may see how, abandoned and uncared for, they have resisted the ravages of the elements for three or four centuries. How many centuries they may have stood guarded and kept in repair by the builders and their descendants we can only conjecture.[V-110]

FOOTNOTES:

[V-1] 'Le sol de l'Yucatan est encore, aujourd'hui, parsemé d'innombrables ruines, dont la magnificence et l'étendue frappent d'étonnement les voyageurs; de toutes parts, ce ne sont que collines pyramidales, surmontées d'édifices superbes, des villes dont la grandeur éblouit l'imagination, tant elles sont multipliées et se touchent de près, sur les chemins publics: enfin on ne saurait faire un pas sans rencontrer des débris qui attestent à la fois l'immensité de la population antique du Maya et la longue prospérité dont cette contrée jouit sous ses rois.' 'Nulle terre au monde ne présente aujourd'hui un champ si fécond aux recherches de l'archéologue et du voyageur.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 20, 24. 'A peine y a-t-il dans l'Yucatan une ville, une bourgade, une maison de campagne qui n'offre dans ses constructions des restes de pierres sculptées qui ont été enlevées d'un ancien édifice. On peut compter plus de douze emplacements couverts de vastes ruines.' _Friederichsthal_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., pp. 300-1. 'Elle est, pour ainsi dire, jonchée de ruines. Partout, dans cette partie de l'Amérique, la poésie des souvenirs parle à l'imagination.' _Larenaudière_, _Mex. et Guat._, p. 320.

[V-2] The earliest modern account of Yucatan Antiquities with which I am acquainted is that written by Sr Lorenzo de Zavala, Ambassador of the Mexican Government in France, and published in _Antiquités Mexicaines_, tom. i., div. ii., pp. 33-5. Sr Zavala visited Uxmal several years before 1834. His communication gives a tolerably good general idea of the ruins, but it is brief, unaccompanied by drawings, and relates only to one city. It is, therefore, of little value when compared with later and more extensive works on the subject, and is mentioned in this note only as being the earliest account extant. Yet long before Zavala's visit, Padre Thomas de Soza, a Franciscan friar of the convent of Mérida, had observed the ruins during his frequent trips through the province, and he gave a slight account of them to Antonio del Rio, who mentioned it in his _Descrip. of an Ancient City_, pp. 6-8.

M. Frédéric de Waldeck, a French artist, visited Uxmal in 1835 during a short tour in the peninsula, and published the result of his labors in his _Voyage Pittoresque et Archéologique dans la Province d'Yucatan_, Paris, 1838, large folio, with 22 steel plates and lithographic illustrations. M. de Waldeck became in some way obnoxious to the Mexican Government, which threw some obstacles in his way, and finally confiscated his drawings, of which he had fortunately made copies. Waldeck in his turn abuses the government and the people, and has consequently been unfavorably criticised. His drawings and descriptions, however, tested by the work of later visitors under better auspices, are remarkable for their accuracy so far as they relate to antiquities. The few errors discoverable in his work may be attributed to the difficulty of exploring alone and unaided ruins enveloped in a dense tropical forest. 'Supplied with pecuniary aid by a munificent and learned Irish peer.' (Lord Kingsborough.) _Foreign Quar. Rev._, vol. xviii., p. 251. 'Waldeck, aumentando ó disminuyendo antojadiza y caprichosamente sus obras, las hace participar, en todos sentidos, de las no muy acreditadas cualidades de verídico, imparcial y concienzudo que aquí le conocieron.' _M. F. P._, in _Registro Yucateco_, tom. i., p. 362.

Mr. John L. Stephens, accompanied by Fred. Catherwood, artist, at the end of an antiquarian expedition through Central America, arrived at Uxmal in 1840, and began the work of surveying the city, but the sickness of Mr Catherwood compelled them to abandon the survey when but little progress had been made and return abruptly to New York. The results of their incomplete work were published in _Stephens' Cent. Amer._, N. Y., 1841, vol. ii.

Mr B. M. Norman, a resident of New Orleans, made a flying visit to Yucatan from December to March, 1841-2, and published as a result _Rambles in Yucatan_, N. Y., 1843, illustrated with cuts and lithographs. According to the _Registro Yucateco_, tom. i., p. 372, this trip was merely a successful speculation on the part of Norman, who collected his material in haste from all available sources, in order to take advantage of the public interest excited by Stephens' travels. However this may be, the work is not without value in connection with the other authorities. 'The result of a hasty visit.' _Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc._, vol. ii., p. 172. The work 'n'est qu'une compilation sans mérite et sans intérêt.' _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., p. 150. 'A valuable work.' _Davis' Antiq. Amer._, p. 12. 'By which the public were again astonished and delighted.' _Frost's Pict. Hist. Mex._, p. 77. Norman's work is very highly spoken of and reviewed at length, with numerous quotations and two plates, in the _Democratic Review_, vol. xi., pp. 529-38.

Mr Stephens arrived in New York on his return from his Central American tour in July, 1840, having left Yucatan in June. 'About a year' after his return he again sailed for Yucatan on October 9th and remained until the following June. This is all the information the author vouchsafes touching the date of his voyage, which was probably in 1841-2, Stephens and Norman being therefore in the country at the same time; the latter states, indeed, that they were only a month apart at Zayi. Stephens' work is called _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_, N. Y., 1843. (?) (Ed. quoted in this work, N. Y., 1858.) The drawings of this and of the previous expedition were published, with a descriptive text by Stephens, under the title of _Catherwood's Views of Ancient Monuments in Central America_, N. Y., 1844, large folio, with 25 colored lithographic plates. Stephens' account was noticed, with quotations, by nearly all the reviews at the time of its appearance, and has been the chief source from which all subsequent writers, including myself, have drawn their information. His collection of movable Yucatan relics was unfortunately destroyed by fire with Mr Catherwood's panorama in New York. Critics are almost unanimous in praise of the work. 'Malgré quelques imperfections, le livre restera toujours un ouvrage de premier ordre pour les voyageurs et les savants.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Esquisses_, p. 7. 'Stephens y Catherwood, por ejemplo, sin separarse de la verdad de los originales, los cópia el uno, y los describe el otro con exactitud, criterio y buena fé,' _M. F. P._, in _Registro Yucateco_, tom. i., p. 362. 'Ce que M. Stephens a montré talent, de science et de modestie dans ses narrations est au-dessus de toute appréciation.' _Dally_, _Races Indig._, p. 14. Jones, _Hist. Anc. Amer._, criticises Stephens' conclusions, and his criticisms will be somewhat noticed in their proper place. See also p. 82, note 14, of this volume.

The Baron von Friederichsthal, an attaché of the Austrian Legation, spent several months in an examination of Yucatan ruins, confining his attention to Chichen Itza and Uxmal. He had with him a daguerreotype apparatus, and with its aid prepared many careful drawings. As to the date of his visit it probably preceded those of Norman and Stephens, since a letter by him, written while on his return to Europe, is dated April 21, 1841. This letter is printed in the _Registro Yucateco_, tom. ii., pp. 437-43, and in the _Dicc. Univ._, tom. x., pp. 290-3. It contains a very slight general account of the ruins, which are spoken of as 'hasta hoy desconocidas,' with much rambling speculation on their origin. On his arrival in Europe Friederichsthal was introduced by Humboldt to the Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, before which society he read a paper on his discoveries on October 1, 1841, which paper was furnished by the author for the _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., pp. 297-314, where it was published under the title of _Les Monuments de l'Yucatan_. The author proceeded to Vienna where he intended to publish a large work with his drawings, a work that so far as I know has never seen the light. 'M. de Friederichsthal a souvent été inquiété dans ses recherches; les ignorants, les superstitieux, les niais les regardaient comme dangereuses au pays.' _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., p. 304.

In 1858 M. Désiré Charnay visited Izamal, Chichen Itza, and Uxmal, taking with him a photographic apparatus. He succeeded in obtaining perfect views of many of the buildings, which were published under the title _Cités et Ruines Américaines_, Paris, 1863, in large folio. The text of the work is in octavo form and includes a long introduction by M. Viollet-le-Duc, French Government Architect, occupied chiefly with speculation and theories rather than descriptions. Charnay's part of the text, although a most interesting journal of travels, is very brief in its descriptions, the author wisely referring the reader to the photographs, which are invaluable as tests of the correctness of drawings made by other artists both in Yucatan and elsewhere.

See also a general notice of the ruins in _Cogolludo_, _Hist. Yuc._, pp. 176-7, and in _Gottfriedt_, _Newe Welt_, p. 611; full account in _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, pp. 125-50, from Stephens; and brief accounts, made up from the modern explorers, in _Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc._, vol. ii., pp. 171-3, with cut of an idol from Catherwood; _Prichard's Researches_, vol. v., pp. 346-8; _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., pp. 147, 191-5, 269-72; _Dally_, _Races Indig._, pp. 14-15; _Warden_, _Recherches_, pp. 68-9; _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1843, tom. xcvii., pp. 36-50, from old Spanish authorities; _Müller_, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, pp. 460, 462; _Mühlenpfordt_, _Mejico_, tom. ii., pt. i., p. 12; _Hassel_, _Mex. Guat._, p. 267; _Wappäus_, _Geog. u. Stat._, pp. 144, 247; _Baril_, _Mexique_, pp. 128-30; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 20-31; _Davis' Antiq. Amer._, pp. 512-30; _Id._, Ed. 1847, p. 31; _Larenaudière_, _Mex. et Guat._, pp. 320-8; _Mex. in 1842_, p. 75; _Sivers_, _Mittelamerika_, pp. 227, 242-7, 303-4.

[V-3] The best map of Yucatan, showing not only the country's geographical features, but the location of all its ruins, is the _Carte du Yucatan et des régions voisines_, compiled by M. Malte-Brun from the works of Owen, Barnett, Lawrence, Kiepert, García y Cubas, Stephens, and Waldeck, and published in _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Palenqué_, Paris, 1866, pl. i., ii.

[V-4] Fray Diego Lopez Cogolludo visited Uxmal at some time before the middle of the seventeenth century, and describes the ruins to some extent in his _Historia de Yucathan_, Mad., 1688, pp. 176-7, 193-4, 197-8. Padre Thomas de Soza, about 1786, reported to Antonio del Rio stone edifices covered with stucco ornaments, known by the natives as Oxmutal, with statues of men beating drums and dancing with palms in their hands, which he had seen in his travels in Yucatan, and which are thought to be perhaps identical with Uxmal, although the monuments are reported as being located twenty leagues south of Mérida and may be quite as reasonably identified with some other group. _Rio's Description_, pp. 6-7. Zavala's visit to Uxmal at some date previous to 1834 has already been spoken of in note 2. His account is called _Notice sur les Monuments d'Ushmal_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., pp. 33-5. M. de Waldeck left Mérida for Uxmal on May 6, 1835, arrived at the ruins on May 12, where he spent some eight days, and was interrupted in his work by the rainy season. _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 67-74, 93-104, and plates. Mr Stephens had Waldeck's work with him at the time of his second visit. He says, _Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 297, 'It will be found that our plans and drawings differ materially from his, but Mr Waldeck was not an architectural draughtsman;' yet the difference is only to be noted in a few plates, and is not so material as Mr Stephens' words would imply. Still, where differences exist, I give Mr Stephens the preference, because, having his predecessor's drawings, his attention would naturally be called to all the points of Waldeck's survey. Mr Stephens says further, 'It is proper to say, moreover, that Mr Waldeck had much greater difficulties to encounter than we, ... besides, he is justly entitled to the full credit of being the first stranger who visited these ruins and brought them to the notice of the public.' Mr Stephens' first visit was in June, 1840, during which he visited the ruins from the hacienda three times, on June 20, 21, and 22, while Mr Catherwood spent one day, the 21st, in making sketches. It was unfortunate that he was forced by Mr Catherwood's illness to leave Uxmal, for at this time the ground had been cleared of the forest and was planted with corn; the occasion was therefore most favorable for a thorough examination. _Stephens' Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., pp. 413-35, with 3 plates. Mr Norman, according to his journal, reached the ruins, where he took up his abode, on February 25, 1842, and remained until March 4, devoting thus seven days or thereabouts to his survey. His account is accompanied by several lithographic illustrations. _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, pp. 154-67. Messrs Stephens and Catherwood arrived on their second visit on November 15, 1841, and remained until January 1, 1842, Mr Stephens meanwhile making two short trips away, one in search of ruins, the other to get rid of fever and ague. It is remarkable that they found no traces of Mr Friederichsthal's visit, (_Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., pp. 306-9,) which was probably in the same year. _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 163-325, vol. ii., pp. 264-73, with many plates and cuts. Padre Carrillo, cura of Ticul, with D. Vicente García Rejon, and D. José María Fajardo, visited the ruins in March, 1845, and an account of the visit, embodying but little information, was published by _L. G._, in _Registro Yuc._, tom. i., pp. 275-9. Another account of a visit in the same year was published by _M. F. P._, in _Id._, pp. 361-70. Mr Carl Bartholomaeus Heller spent two or three days at Uxmal, April 6 to 9, 1847. His account is found in _Heller_, _Reisen_, pp. 256-65. M. Charnay's visit was in 1858, and his efforts to obtain photographic negatives and to fight the insects which finally drove him away, lasted eight days. _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 362-80, pl. xxxv-xlix. M. Brasseur de Bourbourg was at Uxmal in 1865, and made a report, accompanied by a plan, which was published in the _Archives de la Com. Scien. du Mex._, tom. ii., pp. 234, 254, as the author states in his _Palenqué_, Introd., p. 24. See further on Uxmal: Description quoted from Stephens with unlimited criticisms, italics, capitals, and exclamation points, in _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, pp. 86-105, 120; description from Waldeck and Stephens, with remarks on the city's original state, in _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., pp. 21-3, 585; and also slight accounts made up from one or more of the authorities already cited as follows: _Müller_, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, pp. 462, 483; _Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, pp. 99-103, from Waldeck; _Baril_, _Mexique_, pp. 129-30, from Del Rio; _Sivers_, _Mittelamerika_, pp. 237-41; _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., pp. 149-50, 193; _Frost's Great Cities_, pp. 268-81; _Id._, _Pict. Hist. Mex._, p. 80; _Album_, _Mex._, tom. i., pp. 203-4, the last three including a moonlight view of the ruins, from Norman; _Larenaudière_, _Mex. et Guat._, pp. 321-8, with plates from Waldeck; _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, pp. 131-7, with cuts, from Stephens; _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 208, 212-13, 302, 330, 398-9, from Stephens; _Willson's Amer. Hist._, pp. 82-6, with cuts, from Stephens; _Armin_, _Das Heutige Mex._, pp. 91-6, with cuts, from Stephens; _Id._, _Das Alte Mex._, p. 97; _Wappäus_, _Geog. u. Stat._, p. 144; _Mühlenpfordt_, _Mejico_, tom. ii., pt. i., p. 12; _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., p. 51; _Hermosa_, _Enciclopedia_, Paris, 1857, pp. 176-7; _Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., pp. 412-13; _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1843, tom. xcvii., pp. 36-7, 44.

[V-5] Pronounced _ooshmahl_.

[V-6] Cogolludo sometimes writes the name Uxumual. 'Il nous a été impossible de trouver une étymologie raisonnable à ce nom.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 21. 'Le nom d'_Uxmal_ signifie _du temps passé_. Il ne s'applique aux ruines que parce que celles-ci sont situées sur le terrain de la hacienda d'Uxmal.' _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 68; _Sivers_, _Mittelamerika_, p. 237. Possibly derived from _ox_ and _mal_, meaning 'three passages' in Maya. _Heller_, _Reisen_, p. 255. 'It was an existing inhabited aboriginal town' in 1556. _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. ii., p. 272. Called _Oxmutal_ by Soza, in _Rio's Description_, p. 7.

[V-7] Lat. 30° 22´ 86´´ (!), Long. 4´ 33´´ west of Mérida. 'Une couche très mince d'une terre ferrugineuse recouvre le sol, mais disparaît dans les environs où l'on n'aperçoit que du sable.' _Friederichsthal_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., p. 306. 2 miles (German) west of Jalacho, which lies near Maxcanú, on the road from Mérida to Campeche. _Wappäus_, _Geog. u. Stat._, p. 144. 20 leagues from Mérida, occupying an extent of several leagues. _Mühlenpfordt_, _Mejico_, tom. ii., pt. i., p. 12. 'A huit lieues de Mayapan ... dans une plaine légèrement ondulée.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 21. 'Le terrain d'Uxmal est plat dans toute l'étendue du plateau.' 'Sur le plateau d'une haute montagne.' _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 68, 70.

[V-8] 'Sur un diamètre d'une lieue, le sol est couvert de débris, dont quelques-uns recouvrent des intérieurs fort bien conservés.' _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 363.

[V-9] In the plan I have followed Stephens, _Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 165, who determined the position of all the structures by actual measurement, cutting roads through the undergrowth for this express purpose, and the accuracy of whose survey cannot be called in question. His plan is reproduced on a reduced scale in _Willson's Amer. Hist._, p. 83. Plans are also given in _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pl. viii.; _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 155; and _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, introd. by Viollet-le-Duc, p. 62. These all differ very materially both from that of Stephens, and from each other; they are moreover very incomplete, and bear marks of having been carelessly or hastily prepared. 'Disposée en échiquier, où se déployaient, à la suite les uns des autres, les palais et les temples.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 21. Besides the plans, general views of the ruins from nearly the same point (_q_ on the plan looking southward) are given by Stephens, _Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 305, and by Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, phot. 49. Norman, _Rambles in Yuc._, frontispiece, gives a general view of the ruins by moonlight from a point and in a direction impossible to fix, which is copied in the _Album Mex._, tom. i., p. 203, in _Frost's Great Cities_, p. 269, and in _Id._, _Pict. Hist. Mex._, p. 80. It makes a very pretty frontispiece, which is about all that can be said in its favor, except that it might serve equally well to illustrate any other group of American or old-world antiquities.

[V-10] _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, phot. 49.

[V-11] 'No habiendo tradicion alguna que testifique los nombres propios, que en un principio tuvieron los diferentes edificios que denuncian estas ruinas, es preciso creer que los que hoy llevan, son enteramente gratuitos.' _L. G._, in _Registro Yuc._, tom. i., p. 275. Mr Jones is positive this must have been a temple rather than a palace. '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.' _Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 96; Waldeck, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 97, calls it the Temple of Fire.

[V-12] In stating the dimensions of this mound, as I shall generally do in describing Uxmal, I have followed Stephens' text. His plan and both plans and text of all the other visitors vary more or less respecting each dimension. I had prepared tables of dimensions for each building from all the authorities, but upon reflection have thought it not worth while to insert them. Such tables would not enable the reader to ascertain the exact measurements, and moreover differences of a few feet cannot be considered practically important in this and similar cases. All the authorities agree on the general form and extent of this pyramidal mound. Most of them, however, refer only to the eastern front, and no one but Stephens notes the western irregularities. In giving the dimensions of the respective terraces some also refer to their bases, and others probably to their summits. Norman, _Rambles in Yuc._, pp. 156-7, states that the second and third terraces are each thirty feet high, while Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 372-3, makes the same fifteen and ten feet respectively. Waldeck's plan makes the summit platform about 240 feet long.

[V-13] Jones, _Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 120, says there was a stairway in the centre of each side.

[V-14] Norman's dimensions are 36×272 feet; Heller's, 40×320 feet; Friederichsthal's, 38×407 feet; and Waldeck's, about 65×195 feet.

[V-15] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 175, reproduced in _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, p. 132, and _Willson's Amer. Hist._, p. 84. The author speaks of the number of rooms as being 18, although the plan shows 24. He probably does not count the four small rooms corresponding with the recesses on the front and rear, as he also does not include their doors in his count. How he gets rid of the other two does not appear. Norman says 24 rooms, Charnay 21, and Stephens indicates 22 in the plan in _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 428.

[V-16] Friederichsthal, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., p. 309, speaking of the Uxmal structures in general, says the blocks are usually 5×12 inches; Zavala, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 34, pronounces them from 25 to 28 centimètres in length, width, and thickness.

[V-17] This beam was taken to N. Y., where it shared the fate of Stephens' other relics.

[V-18] Stephens favors the former theory, Waldeck and Charnay the latter, insisting that the hammock is consequently an American invention. Norman goes so far as to say that the grooves worn by the hammock-ropes are still to be seen on some of these timbers.

[V-19] Waldeck, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 97, speaks of real or false doors made of a single stone in connection with this building, but his examination of it was very slight. Cogolludo, _Hist. Yuc._, p. 177, speaks of interior decorations as follows: 'Ay vn lienço en lo interior de la fabrica, que (aunque es muy dilatado) à poco mas de medio estado de vn hombre, corre por todo èl vna cornisa de piedra muy tersa, que haze vna esquina delicadissima, igual, y muy perfecta, donde (me acuerdo) avia sacado de la misma piedra, y quedado en ella vn anillo tan delgado, y vistoso, como puede ser vno de oro obrado con todo primor.'

[V-20] From _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 174; also in _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, p. 132. Charnay's photograph 48 shows the opposite or northern end in connection with another building.

[V-21] From Stephens; one of them also in _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._

[V-22] A cut of this hook is also given by Norman, and by Waldeck, who, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 74, attempts to prove its identity with an elephant's trunk, and that it was not molded from a tapir's snout.

[V-23] Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, phot. 46, shows the whole eastern façade. Photograph 47 gives a view on a larger scale of the portion over the principal doorway. Stephens, _Yucatan_, vol. i., frontispiece, represents the same front in a large plate, and in his _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 434, is a plate showing a part of the same. Norman gives a lithograph of the front. _Rambles in Yuc._, p. 158. His enlarged portion of the front from Waldeck does not belong to the Governor's House at all. 'Couvert de bas-reliefs, exécutés avec une rare perfection, formant une suite de méandres et arabesques d'un travail non moins capricieux que bizarre.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 23. Decorated with 'gros serpents entrelacés et d'anneaux en pierre.' _Friederichsthal_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., p. 308. 'Chiefly the meander, or the Grecian square border, used in the embroidery of the mantles and robes of Attica.' _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 98. 'The length of the upper platform (in English feet!!) is seen to correspond nearly with the number of days in the year, and the mysterious emblem of eternity, the serpent, is found extending its portentous length around the building.' _Frost's Great Cities_, p. 271. 'Du haut de ses trois étages de pyramides, il se dresse comme un roi, dans un isolement plein de majestueuse grandeur.' 'L'ornementation se compose d'une guirlande en forme de trapèzes réguliers, de ces énormes têtes déjà décrites, courant du haut en bas de la façade, et servant de ligne enveloppante à des grecques d'un relief très-saillant, reliées entre elles par une ligne de petites pierres en carré diversement sculptées; le tout sur un fond plat de treillis de pierre. Le dessus des ouvertures était enrichi de pièces importantes, que divers voyageurs ont eu le soin d'enlever. Quatre niches, placées régulièrement, contenaient des statues, absentes aujourd'hui.' _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 372-3. 'One solid mass of rich, complicated elaborately sculptured ornaments forming a sort of arabesque.' 'Perhaps it may with propriety be called a species of sculptured mosaic; and I have no doubt that all these ornaments have a symbolical meaning; that each stone is part of a history, allegory, or fable.' _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 166, 173. 'The ornaments were composed of small square pieces of stone, shaped with infinite skill, and inserted between the mortar and stone with the greatest care and precision. About two-thirds of the ornaments are still remaining upon the façade.... The ground-work of the ornaments is chiefly composed of raised lines, running diagonally, forming diamond or lattice-work, over which are rosettes and stars; and, in bold relief, the beautiful Chinese border.' _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, pp. 158-9. 'A travers ces grands méandres formés par l'appareil se montrent, ici encore, la tradition des constructions de bois par empilages, en encorbellement et le treillis. Cette construction est une des plus soignées parmi celles d'Uxmal.' _Viollet-le-Duc_, in _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 70.

[V-23] 'La décoration du parement de cet édifice ne consiste qu'en une imitation de palissade formée de rondins de bois. Sur la frise supérieure, des tortues saillantes rompent seules les lignes horizontales.' _Viollet-le-Duc_, in _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 69. Photograph 48 shows the north front of the Casa de Tortugas. Stephens, _Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 184, gives a plate showing the southern front. Waldeck's plan would make this building's dimensions about 60×185 feet. The column structure will be illustrated by engravings in connection with the ruins of Zayi and others.

[V-24] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 181; _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 156. From this rather meagre information Mr Jones proves, in a manner entirely satisfactory to himself, that the whole platform was surrounded in its original condition by a double row of columns, 230 in number, placed 10 feet apart, each 18 inches in diameter and 12 feet high, with a grand central column, 6 feet in diameter, and 60 feet high. _Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 119.

[V-25] 'A shaft of gray limestone in an inclined position, measuring twelve feet in circumference and eight in height; bearing upon its surface no marks of form or ornament by which it might be distinguished from a natural piece.' _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 156. 'Une espèce de colonne dite _pierre du châtiment_, où les coupables devaient recevoir la punition de leurs fautes.' _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 372. 'Una enorme columna de piedra, cuya forma semicónica le da el aire de un obelisco, aunque de base circular y sin adornos.' _M. F. P._, in _Registro Yuc._, tom. i., p. 364.

[V-26] 'Double-headed cat or lynx,' cut from _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 183; and _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, p. 133. 'Un autel, au centre, soutenait un tigre à deux têtes, dont les corps reliés au ventre figurent une double chimère.' _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 372. 'Rude carving of a tiger with two heads.' _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 156. 'En un mismo cuerpo contiene dos cabezas de tigre de tamaño regular, vueltas hácia fuera: su actitud es la misma que la en que generalmente se representa la esfinge de la fábula; y si su excavacion no fuera tan reciente, probablemente habria corrido la suerte de otras estátuas y objetos preciosos, que à nuestra vista y paciencia han sido sacados del pais para figurar en los museos extranjeros.' _M. F. P._, in _Registro Yuc._, tom. i., pp. 364-5. Mr Heller, _Reisen_, p. 259, confounds this monument with the picote.

[V-27] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i. pp. 229-32. Sr Peon, proprietor of Uxmal, believed that these excavations were originally used as granaries, not deeming the plaster sufficiently hard to resist water. 'Excavations ... with level curbings and smoothly finished inside.' _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 156.

[V-28] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 253-6, with a view in the frontispiece. Although Stephens says the pyramid is only sixty-five feet high, it is noticeable that in Catherwood's drawing it towers high above the roof of the Casa del Gobernador, which is at least sixty-eight feet in height. Norman, _Rambles in Yuc._, p. 157, calls this a pile of loose stones, about two hundred feet square at the base, and one hundred feet high, and covered on the sides and top with débris of edifices. Friederichsthal, _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 1841, tom. xcii., p. 308, says the summit platform is seventy-seven feet square.

[V-29] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., p. 319. A distant view of this pyramid is included in Stephens' general view, p. 305, and in Charnay's photograph 49. Norman, in both plan and text, unites this pyramid at the base with that at E, and makes its height eighty feet. _Rambles in Yuc._, p. 157.

[V-30] _Stephens' Yucatan_, vol. i., pp. 318-19, with view of the Casa de Palomas; cut also in _Id._, _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 426. 'Une muraille dentelée de pignons assez élevés, percés d'une multitude de petites ouvertures, qui donnent à chacun la physionomie d'un colombier.' _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 371-2, phot. 49. 'A wall of two hundred feet remains standing upon a foundation of ten feet. Its width is twenty-five feet; having ranges of rooms in both sides, only parts of which remain. This wall has an acute-angled arch doorway through the centre.... The top of this wall has numerous square apertures through it, which give it the appearance of pigeon-holes; and its edge is formed like the gable-end of a house, uniformly notched.' _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, p. 165, with plate showing one of the peaks of the wall.