Chapter VI (2)

This temple is paved with large flags, through which is an opening made by Del Rio and noticed by later visitors. From this place Del Rio took a variety of articles which will be mentioned hereafter. On the southern slope of this pyramid Waldeck found two statues, exactly alike, one of which is represented in the cut on the opposite page, from Catherwood's drawings in Stephens' work. They are ten and one half feet high, of which two and a half feet, not shown in the cut, formed the tenon by which they were imbedded in the ground or in a wall. The figure stands on a hieroglyph which perhaps expresses the name of the individual or god represented. These statues are remarkable as being the only ones ever found in connection with the Palenque ruins; and even these are not statues proper, sculptured 'in the round,' since the back is of rough stone and was very likely imbedded originally in a wall. Waldeck believes they were designed to support a platform before the central doorway. One of them was broken in two pieces. After sketching the best preserved of them, Waldeck turned them face downward that they might escape the eye of parties who might have better facilities than he for removing them; but Catherwood afterwards discovered and sketched the one which remained entire. The resemblance of this figure to some Egyptian statues is remarked by all, though Stephens notes in the lower part of the dress "an unfortunate resemblance to modern pantaloons." The space at the western base of the pyramid where various undescribed ruins are indicated on the plan, is described by Stephens as a level esplanade one hundred and ten feet wide and supported by a stone terrace wall which rises sixty feet on the slope from the bank of the stream.[VI-38]

[Sidenote: TEMPLE OF THE SUN.]

[Sidenote: PECULIAR ROOF STRUCTURES]

At the south-western base of the pyramid of the Cross, and almost in contact with it, rises another of smaller base, but nearly as high, with a still smaller companion on the north, respecting which latter no information is given. These pyramids, Nos. 5 and 6 of the plan, are located by Stephens directly south from the Temple of the Cross, as indicated by the dotted lines. The building No. 5, sometimes called, without any sufficient reason, the Temple of the Sun, is one of the best preserved and most remarkable for variety of ornamentation of all the Palenque structures, but is very similar in most respects to its neighbor of the cross, having the same stuccoed piers and roof. Its front elevation is shown in the cut, from Catherwood. Waldeck's plate differs chiefly in representing the stucco ornaments in a more perfect state; but both are confessedly restorations to a certain extent. Here again we have stucco reliefs of human figures on the central, and hieroglyphics of the same material on the lateral piers. The roof bears a superstructure similar to that already described, composed of a frame of hewn stone blocks, supporting complicated decorations in cement, several of which are modeled to represent human figures looking from openings in the lattice-work. The stone frame-work entirely freed from its ornamentation, is shown in the cut from Waldeck, which presents both a front and end view. Brasseur believes that these roof structures were erected by some people that succeeded the original builders of the temples. It will be remembered that in Yucatan similar superimposed structures were found by Stephens and others, and are for the most part the only ones on which traces of stucco work are observable.

The dimensions of this temple are twenty-eight by thirty-eight feet, and its ground plan, identical with the exception of an additional doorway with that of the Temple of the Cross, is shown in the cut. The central enclosure in the rear, as is clearly shown by the plates and description in this case, has a roof of its own. Its interior dimensions are, nine feet long, five feet wide, and eight feet high. It has on the exterior a double cornice and graceful ornaments, now mostly fallen, over the doorways, while at the sides stood two sculptured reliefs representing human figures, which although broken in many fragments, were sketched by Waldeck. The tablets in the village of Santo Domingo were understood by Stephens to have come from this apartment.

Fixed in the rear wall, occupying its whole extent, and receiving light only through the doorway, is the Tablet of the Sun, which measures eight by nine feet and is made of three slabs of stone. In 1842 it was still unbroken and in place, and was considered by Stephens to be the most perfect and interesting monument in Palenque. As in the Tablet of the Cross the sides are covered with squares of hieroglyphics; and in the central portion is an object to which two priests are in the act of making human offerings. This central object is a hideous face, or mask, with protruding tongue, standing on a kind of altar which is supported on the backs of two crouching human figures. Two other stooping men support the priests, who stand on their backs. The name Tablet of the Sun comes from the face with protruding tongue, which was sometimes regarded by the Aztecs as a symbol of the sun;--a very far-fetched derivation for the name.[VI-39]

The stream on whose banks the ruins stand flows for a short distance through an artificial covered stone channel, or aqueduct, about six feet wide, and ten feet high, covered like all the corridors by an arch of overlapping blocks. It extends fifty-seven feet from north to south, and one hundred and sixty feet further south-eastward toward the Temple of the Cross, where the fallen roof blocks up the passage and renders further exploration impracticable. Such is the information obtained from the works of Waldeck and Stephens. The position of this structure is indicated on the plan by the dotted lines numbered 7, although Stephens locates it considerably further north. There is great confusion in the accounts of this so-called aqueduct. Bernasconi included in his report a description and drawing of a vault seven feet wide, twelve feet high, and two hundred and twenty-seven feet long, extending in a curved line from the Palace to the stream. Del Rio speaks of a "subterranean stone aqueduct of great solidity and durability, which passes under the largest building." Dupaix states that a rapid stream, a few paces--Kingsborough's edition has it over a league--west of the ruins, runs through a subterranean aqueduct five and one half feet wide, eleven feet high, and one hundred and sixty-seven feet long, built of stone blocks without mortar. The drawings of this structure, however, in Dupaix and Kingsborough's works do not bear the slightest resemblance to each other, one picturing it as a bridge, and the other as a corridor, or possibly aqueduct, built above the surface of the ground. Galindo tells us that a stream rises two hundred paces east of the Palace and is covered for one hundred paces by a gallery, with traces of buildings, probably baths, extending fifty paces further. Waldeck describes the mouth of a subterranean passage as concealed by a small cataract in the stream. There seems to be little reason to doubt that all these conflicting accounts refer to the same structure. Charnay tells us that the conduit is two mètres high and wide, and that it is covered with immense stones.[VI-40]

Not far from the Temple of the Sun a small building eight feet square was found by Waldeck lifted bodily from the ground by the branches of a large tree.[VI-41] On an eminence north of the Palace, at 9 of the plan, are the foundations of several buildings,--eleven in number, according to Dupaix, in whose time some of the arches were still standing. They extend in a line from east to west, and all front the south.[VI-42] On the summit of a high steep hill, or mountain, the slope of which begins immediately to the east of the Temple of the Cross, are the foundation stones of a building twenty-one feet square, at 8 of the plan. So thick is the forest that from this point none of the ruins below are visible, although the site of the village of Santo Domingo may be seen by climbing a lofty tree.[VI-43]

Two bridges are indefinitely located in the vicinity of Palenque. One of them, said by Dupaix to be north of the Palace, is fifty-six feet long, forty-two feet wide, and eleven feet high, built of large hewn blocks without mortar. The conduit is nine feet wide, having a flat top constructed with a layer of wide blocks, and convex sides, as illustrated in the cut. The second bridge was found on the Tulija River some leagues west of the ruins, and only extends, according to Galindo, partly across the river, which is now about five hundred paces wide at that point.[VI-44] The Abbé Brasseur, during his visit to the ruins in 1871, claims to have discovered an additional temple, that of the Mystic Tree, containing hieroglyphic tablets.[VI-45] Three thousand five hundred paces southward from the last house of Santo Domingo, on a stream supposed to be a branch of the Usumacinta, Waldeck found two pyramids. They are described as having been at the time in a perfect state of preservation, square at the base, pointed at the top, and thirty-one feet high, their sides forming equilateral triangles. Pyramids of this type rarely, if ever, occur in America, and it is unfortunate that the existence of these monuments is not confirmed by other explorers, since without such confirmation it must be considered very doubtful.[VI-46] Seven leagues north from the ruins, Galindo found a circular cistern twenty feet in diameter, two feet high on the outside, and eight feet on the inside, occupied at the time of his visit by alligators.[VI-47] According to Ordoñez, one of Del Rio's companions discovered on the Rio Catasahà, two leagues from Palenque, a subterranean stone structure, which contained large quantities of valuable woods, stored as if for export.[VI-48]

[Sidenote: MISCELLANEOUS RELICS.]

A few miscellaneous relics, found by visitors at different points in connection with the ruins of Palenque, and more or less fully described, remain to be noticed. Del Rio made an excavation under the pavement of the central chamber in the Temple of the Cross, and says: "at about half a yard deep, I found a small round earthen vessel, about one foot in diameter, fitted horizontally with a mixture of lime to another of the same quality and dimensions; these were removed, and the digging being continued, a quarter of a yard beneath, we discovered a circular stone, of rather larger diameter than the first articles, and on removing this from its position, a cylindrical cavity presented itself, about a foot wide and the third of a foot deep, containing a flint lance, two small conical pyramids with the figure of a heart in dark crystallized stone; ... there were also two small earthen jars or ewers with covers containing small stones and a ball of vermilion.... The situation of the subterranean depository coincides with the centre of the oratory, and in each of the inner angles, near the entrance, is a cavity like the one before described," containing two little jars. The same author also speaks of burnt bricks which seem to have been used sparingly.[VI-49] Waldeck, having made a similar excavation in what he calls the temple of the Palace, perhaps the building C, found a gallery containing hewn blocks of stone, and earthen cups and vases with many little earthen balls of different colors. He also speaks of a fine fragment of terra cotta which he found in the court 1 where he also discovered just before leaving Palenque the entrance to other galleries of the pyramid. Waldeck also gives drawings of two images of human form in terra cotta, from Dr Corroy's collection; also a face, or mask, in stucco from the cornice of the Temple of Death, whatever that building may have been.[VI-50] Galindo found stones apparently for grinding maize, similar to the Mexican _metate_; also artificially shaped pebbles, similar, as he says, to those used by the modern Lacandones but smaller. Both Galindo and Dupaix speak of a circular granite stone, like a mill-stone, six feet in diameter and one foot thick, found on the side or at the foot of the Palace pyramid. Dupaix found at a distance of a league westward from the ruins, a square pillar fourteen feet in circumference, and about the same in height, with two short round pillars standing at its eastern foot. He also speaks of finding many small altars probably used originally for burning copal. One of them, four feet in circumference and sixteen inches high, is represented in the preceding cut.[VI-51] At the sale of a collection of antiquities in London, 1859, two of the objects sold are, erroneously in all probability, mentioned as relics from Palenque; one was "a mask, with open mouth, in hard red stone, the concave surface sculptured with a sitting figure of a Mexican chief, surrounded by various emblems," price thirteen pounds; the other, "a Mexican deity, with grotesque human face sculptured out of a very large and massive piece of greenstone," price twenty-five pounds. Mr Davis talks about "an idol of pure gold about six inches long."[VI-52] The two copper or bronze medals which I have already noticed as probably not authentic relics in my account of Guatemalan antiquities, have been considered by various writers, following Ordoñez without any apparent reason, as belonging to Palenque. The speculations to which they have given rise, and their attempted interpretations are splendid specimens of the trash, pure and simple, which has been written in unlimited quantities about primitive America.[VI-53]

[Sidenote: RUINS OF OCOCINGO.]

Some thirty-five or forty miles southward from Palenque, on another of the parallel streams which unite to form a branch of the Usumacinta, is another important group of ruins, which may be called Ococingo, from the name of a modern village, five or six miles distant toward the west. The same traditions that tell us of Votan's great Maya empire, and of Xibalba, allude also somewhat vaguely to another great capital called Tulhá. Juarros, perhaps following Ordoñez, applied this name to the ruins of Ococingo, and most authors have followed him in this respect. I need not say, however, that the only authority for this use of the name is the traditional existence in the shadowy past, of a Tulhá in this region. The natives call the ruins Tonila, which in the Tzendal tongue signifies 'stone houses.' Notwithstanding the importance of the ruins, very little is known of them. Stephens and Catherwood spent about half a day here just before their visit to Palenque; and Dupaix and Castañeda also visited this point. The accounts by these explorers are about all there is extant on the subject, but they are necessarily brief, and unfortunately neither in text nor drawings do they agree at all with each other. Both Waldeck and Brasseur visited Ococingo, but neither gives any description of the monuments.[VI-54]

[Sidenote: RUINS OF OCOCINGO.]

At the village of Ococingo Stephens noticed two sculptured figures brought from the ruins, which he pronounced "somewhat in the same style as those at Copan." Castañeda also saw and sketched here two tablets, which may be the same. One of them measured forty-five by thirty-six by four inches, was of a grayish stone, and contained a single human figure, whose arms were bound behind the back with what resembles a modern rope. The other measuring thirty-six by twenty-seven inches, was of a yellow stone, and contained a standing and a squatting figure, surrounded by a border in which hieroglyphics appear. On the way from the village, Stephens noticed two well-carved figures lying on the ground; while Dupaix found several of them thrown down and broken, two of which were sketched. One of them represents a human bust with arms crossed on the breast, the lower portion of which seems to be a kind of tenon originally fixed in the ground; the other bears a slight resemblance to the only statue found at Palenque. This statue must have been removed by Dupaix, since it was afterwards seen by Waldeck in Vera Cruz. Both statues had lost their heads.[VI-55]

In the possession of some French citizens of Vera Cruz, Waldeck found a collection of seven or eight terra-cottas of very fine workmanship and very curious form, which had been brought from Ococingo. Two of them are shown in the accompanying cuts.[VI-56] The figure shown in the cut was carved in bas-relief on a hard and polished chalchiuite which was found in this vicinity. The design is represented full-sized, and its resemblance to one of the figures on the stone tablet in the Palace at Palenque will be apparent to the reader. Another similar stone bore the hieroglyphics shown in the preceding cut, which was also given in the second volume of this work as an illustration of the Maya system of writing. M. Warden speaks indefinitely of ancient monuments in this vicinity, in connection with which were stone figures representing warriors of great size.[VI-57]

This brings us to the ruins proper. They are situated a little north of east from the village, at a distance of five or six miles. Dupaix describes them as located on the slope of a hill, on the sides of which are some stone steps, and as consisting of five structures. The central building is nearly square, built of hewn stone, and covered with plaster, without exterior decorations. The drawing represents a double cornice, and a sloping roof, very similar to those of the interior Palace buildings at Palenque. There is only one door, on the west, and two square windows appear on each side. A few rods in front of this building, at the sides of the broad stairway leading up to it, and facing each other, are two other buildings of similar construction, but so small that the roof is pointed, its slopes forming four triangular surfaces. In the rear of the central structure, in positions corresponding to those of the buildings in front but at a greater distance, are two conical mounds of masonry covered with cement. Each is sixty feet high and two hundred feet in diameter, being pointed at the top; indeed, the only specimen of pointed stone pyramids seen by Dupaix in his explorations.[VI-58]

Stephens also describes the ruins, or the principal ones at least, as located "on a high elevation," but the elevation is an immense artificial pyramidal structure, built in five terraces. The surface was originally faced with stone and plastered, but was so broken up in places that Stephens was able to ascend to the third terrace on horseback. On the summit of this terraced hill is a pyramid, high and steep, which supports a stone building measuring thirty-five by fifty feet on the ground, built of hewn stone, and covered with stucco. This is perhaps identical with the central building sketched by Dupaix. The only exterior doorway is in the centre of the front, and is ten feet wide. The ground plan is very similar to those of the temples of the Cross and Sun at Palenque, except that the front corridor is divided by partition walls, while the rear corridor is uninterrupted except by an oblong enclosure, which, as at Palenque, seems to have been a kind of sanctuary. The dimensions of this enclosure are eleven by eighteen feet, and over the doorway on the outside is a stucco ornament which arrested Mr Stephens' attention from its resemblance to the 'winged globe' of the Egyptian temples. A portion which was yet in place was sketched by Catherwood; the rest, which had fallen face downward, was too heavy for four men and a boy to overturn. Waldeck, however, either succeeded in raising the fragments, or, what is more likely, copied the standing part and restored the rest from his imagination, producing the drawing, a part of which is copied in the cut. The lintel of this inner doorway is of zapote-wood, and in perfect preservation. The entrance to this sanctuary was much obstructed by fallen fragments, and the natives, who had never dared to penetrate the mysterious recess, believed the passage to lead by a subterranean course to Palenque. Stephens succeeded in entering the room, and found its walls covered with stucco decorations, including two life-sized human figures and a monkey.

From the top of the first building was seen another of similar plan and construction, but in a more damaged condition. It probably stands on the same terraced foundation, although no definite information is given on this point. Two other buildings supported by pyramids were seen. Stephens also speaks of an open table, probably the former site of the city, protected on all sides by the terraced structures which overlook the country far around. There is also a high narrow causeway, partially artificial, extending from the ruins to a mountain range, and bearing on its summit a mound and the foundations of a building, or tower. Of these ruins Mr Stephens says "there was no place we had seen which gave us such an idea of the vastness of the works erected by the aboriginal inhabitants."[VI-59]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: MISCELLANEOUS RUINS.]

I have found no very definite information about the antiquities of Chiapas, except the ruins of Palenque and Ococingo. In a statistical work on Chiapas and Soconusco by Emilio Pineda there are the following brief mentions of scattered monuments: In one of the hills near Comitan is a stone table; and a sun, sculptured in stone, serves as a boundary mark on the frontier. Remains are still visible of the cities which formerly stood in the valleys of Custepeques and Xiquipilas, including remains of giants; also of those at Laguna Mora, five leagues from the left bank of the river Chiapas, between the pueblo of Acalá, and the valley of Custepeques, believed to have been the towns of Tizapetlan and Teotilac, where Cortés hung the Aztec king Guatimozin and others; also those of Copanabastla, where columns are mentioned. There are, besides, some sepulchres of the Tzendal nobles, two of which are especially worthy of note. The first is between the pueblo of Zitalá and the hacienda of Boxtic, twenty-two leagues north-west of San Cristóval. "Its base is a parallelogram formed from a hill cut down on three sides, so that at the entrance one seems to be ascending an inclined plain; but further along is seen an elevation with grades, or terraces, chiefly on the sides which are cut away. On the summit plane is found an enormous cone, built of hewn blocks of slate, whose base is about two hundred varas in circumference. In the centre are the sepulchres, and in some of them human bones. The ascent to them is by steps, and the whole seems like a vast winding stairway, for which reason it is called Bololchun, meaning in the Tzendal tongue a 'coiled snake.' Similar to this, is another at the hacienda of San Gregorio, near the pueblo of Huistan, eight leagues east of the city of San Cristóval; but the latter has no supporting mound, but stands on the level of the ground. Here are two Egyptian pyramids, considering their form and purpose." Walls of masonry are mentioned on the hill of Colmena, four leagues from Ocosucoautla; being nine feet thick, seven feet high, and enclosing a circular space forty-five feet in diameter. There is also a wall on the hill of Petapa, south of Ocosucoautla; but the most notable is that of Santoton, near Teopisca, seven leagues south-west of San Cristóval. Two parallel walls extend a long distance, having at one end a ditch, and at the other a high steep mound; within the walls was a town.[VI-60]

Among the relics found at Huehuetan in Soconusco at the end of the seventeenth century, and publicly destroyed, are said to have been some sculptured stones; and we have a statement that the shapeless ruins of the city itself are still visible on a hill near the Pacific, at the modern town of Tlazoaloyan.[VI-61] The ruins of the aboriginal Tonalá, a town captured by Pedro de Alvarado, are said to be still seen on the banks of a laguna communicating with the sea, near the Tehuantepec frontier. The ancient Ghowel, or Huey Zacatlan, is supposed to have stood on the present site of San Cristóval, where some traces are reported. Dupaix mentions a human head, wearing a kind of helmet, cut from green porphyry. This relic was in the possession of Sr Ordoñez.[VI-62]

Brasseur states that the town of Chiapa de Indios, twelve leagues from San Cristóval, is "full of ruins;" and he thinks that obelisks, on one of which there is a tradition of an old king having inscribed his name, and other ruins like those at Copan and Quirigua will some time be brought to light in the forests about Comitan. Hermosa mentions two stones cut in the form of tongues, nine feet long and two feet wide, at Quixté, the location of which I am unable to find. Galindo speaks of some extraordinary and magnificent ruins in a cave somewhere on the left bank of the Usumacinta near the falls; and somewhat lower down, about three miles from Tenosique, a remarkable monumental stone, with inscribed characters. And finally, among the wonderful pretended discoveries of Leon de Pontelli, were the ruined cities of Ostuta and Copanahuaxtla, southward of Palenque, and in the vicinity of San Bartolomé.[VI-63]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: COMPARISONS.]

I have now presented to the reader all that is known of Palenque, and the few other relics of antiquity that have been found in Chiapas. Since the monuments described are nearly all found in one locality, a general résumé seems less necessary than in the chapter on Yucatan antiquities, where the remains of many cities, with numerous variations in detail, were described. Yet a brief consideration of the leading points of resemblance and contrast between the two groups is important. In Palenque, as in Yucatan, we have low, narrow buildings of stone and mortar, standing on the summit platforms of artificial pyramidal elevations faced with masonry. There are no traces of city walls or other fortifications. Galleries are found within the Palace pyramid, and that of the Beau Relief; they were also found in Yucatan at Maxcanú, reported at Izamal, and may very likely exist in other pyramids. The building-material, stone, mortar, and wood, were apparently the same in both groups of ruins, although at Palenque the wood has disappeared. Respecting the form and dimensions of the hewn blocks, our information is less complete than is desirable, especially in the case of Palenque. I believe, however, that no importance can be attached to Galindo's remark that the blocks at Palenque are only two inches thick, and it is probable that the blocks used in both groups are of varying forms and dimensions, as indeed I am informed by a gentleman residing in San Francisco, who visited the ruins in 1860. Mortar, plaster, or stucco was used in greater profusion at Palenque, but there is no reason to suppose that it differed in composition or excellence; the bright-colored paints also, although better preserved in Yucatan, were, so far as can be known, everywhere the same in the Maya ruins.[VI-64]

Interiors here as before consist for the most part of two narrow parallel corridors, with perpendicular walls for half their height, and covered by triangular arches of overlapping blocks of stone. Both walls and ceilings are covered with plaster, and both painted and stucco decorations occur on their surface. Poles originally stretched across from ceiling to ceiling, the poles themselves remaining in Yucatan, and the holes in which they were placed at Palenque. At the sides of many doorways on the interior are simple contrivances for supporting doors or curtains.[VI-65] The Palace, like those of the Yucatan structures which seem to have been intended partially for the residence of priests or lords, is built about an enclosed courtyard, but at Palenque the building is continuous instead of being composed of four separate structures as at Uxmal; and the court, unlike those in Yucatan, contains other structures. The strongest bond connecting Palenque to Uxmal, Kabah, and their sister cities, together with Copan, is the evident identity of the hieroglyphic characters inscribed on their tablets. Respecting this identity all writers are agreed, but the reader, with the specimens given in the preceding pages, will require no other authority on the subject.[VI-66] Both Palenque and Yucatan are also alike remarkable for the comparative absence of idols, statues, implements, and pottery; and, except in the matter of statues, Copan may be classed with them. The human faces sculptured or molded in profile in Yucatan and Chiapas exhibit the same flattened forehead, although the type is much more strongly marked at Palenque. The absence of all warlike subjects is remarkable in the stucco and sculptured figures at Palenque as in all the more ancient remains of Central America.

Together with the resemblances pointed out and others that will occur to the student of this and the preceding chapters, there are also strongly marked contrasts to be noted. In nearly every city of Yucatan there are one or more pyramids on the summits of which no traces of buildings appear, apparently designed for the performance of religious rites in sight of the assembled people, but possibly having served originally to support wooden structures; while at Palenque each pyramid seems to have borne its edifice of stone. The number of buildings apparently intended as temples, in comparison with those which may have served also as residences for priests or rulers, seems much greater at Palenque. Many of the pyramids in Yucatan had broad terraces on their sides; at Palenque none appear, although a terraced elevation has been noticed at Ococingo. Some of the Yucatan pyramids are built of a concrete of rough stones and mortar; some of those at Palenque are chiefly composed of earth, but our information is not sufficiently full on this point to warrant the conclusion that there is any uniform difference in the structure of the pyramids. The sides of the pyramids have in Chiapas no decorations either in stone or stucco, but such decorations in stucco may have existed and have left no trace. Coming now to the superimposed edifices we note that none are found of more than one story at Palenque, while in Yucatan two or three stories are of common occurrence. The walls at Palenque are much thinner, are built entirely of hewn stone, and lack, so far as the authorities go, the filling of rubble found in Yucatan. While the arch of overlapping stones is constructed in precisely the same manner, yet, as I have said, the projecting corners are beveled in Yucatan, while at Palenque a plain surface is produced by the aid of mortar. Doorways in the ruins of Yucatan have for the most part, except at Uxmal, stone lintels; in those of Palenque there is no very positive evidence of their use. In the former the principal exterior entrances have arched tops; in the latter no such structure appears. In the former the roof seems to have been flat, cemented, and plain; in the latter they were sloping, and decorated with stucco. In Yucatan columns occur occasionally both in doorways and elsewhere, but there are no windows; while in Chiapas small windows appear in most buildings, but no columns. Traces of a phallic worship are apparent in the Yucatan sculptured figures; at Palenque no such traces have been pointed out, and there is not among the many tablets or decorations in stucco, a single figure which would be offensive to the most prudish modesty. It is not necessary to speak of the exterior stairways, the isolated arch, the round buildings, the flat wooden roof, and other peculiar edifices which were found in Yucatan and have no counterpart at Palenque. The most marked contrast is in the use of stone and stucco for exterior ornamentation. No stone sculpture is seen on the outer walls of any Palenque building; while in Yucatan, except in superimposed ornamental roof-structures, stucco very rarely appears.[VI-67]

The resemblances in the different groups of ruins in Chiapas, Yucatan, and Honduras, are more than sufficient to prove intimate connection between the builders and artists. The differences pointed out prove just as conclusively that the edifices were not all erected and decorated by the same people, under the same laws and religious control, at the same epoch.

[Sidenote: ANTIQUITY OF PALENQUE.]

And this brings me to the question of the age of Palenque, the date of its foundation and abandonment. It has already been shown that the Yucatan structures were built by the direct ancestors of the Mayas who occupied the peninsula at the time of the conquest; that they were not abandoned wholly until the coming of the Spaniards, although partially so during the two centuries preceding that event; that the reasons adduced for and against the great antiquity of the ruins by different authors, bear almost exclusively on the date of their abandonment rather than that of their erection; and that the latter date, so far as anything can be known of it, depends chiefly on traditional history, which indicates that the cities were built at different dates from the third to the tenth century. It is chiefly by comparison with the ruined cities of Yucatan that the age of Palenque must be determined, since there is no traditional history that relates definitely to this city, and it was doubtless abandoned before the Spaniards came; for it is hardly possible that a great inhabited city could have remained utterly unknown during the conquest of this part of the country, especially as Cortés is known to have passed within thirty miles of its site. In favor of great antiquity for Palenque, the growth of large trees on the ruins, the accumulation of vegetable mold in the courtyards, and the disappearance of all traces of wood, have been considered strong arguments; but they all bear on the date of abandonment rather than of building, as do the rapid crumbling of the ruins since their discovery, the remains of bright-colored paint, the destructiveness of tropical climate and vegetation, and the comparison with some European ruins of known age. The size of trees and accumulation of earth are known to be very uncertain tests of age in this region; indeed the clearings and excavations of the earlier explorers seem to have left few signs visible to those who came a few years later. The utter disappearance of wooden lintels is, however, a very strong argument that Palenque was abandoned some centuries earlier than the cities of the peninsula, where the lintels were found often in perfect preservation, although it cannot be conclusively shown that the same kind of wood was employed. When we add to this the more advanced state of ruin of the Palenque structures, and the utter silence of all later traditions respecting any great city or religious centre in this region, it seems safe to conclude that Palenque was abandoned, or left without repairs, as early as the twelfth or thirteenth century, and possibly earlier.

[Sidenote: FOUNDATION OF PALENQUE.]

Respecting the date when the city was built, we have the resemblances to Yucatan ruins already noticed, which show beyond doubt that it was built--under different conditions, such as religion and government possibly--by a people of the same race and language, and not by an extinct race as has been sometimes imagined. The present deteriorated condition of the natives, and the flattened foreheads of the sculptured figures have been the strongest reasons for believing in an extinct race; but the former has been shown, I believe, in the three preceding volumes of this work to have no weight, and the peculiar cranial conformation may be much more simply and as satisfactorily explained by supposing that in ancient as in modern times the forehead was artificially flattened. Then we have the strong differences noticeable between Uxmal and Palenque, which lead us to conclude that these cities must have been built either at widely different epochs, or by branches of the Maya race which had long been separated, or by branches, which through the influence of foreign tribes lived under greatly modified institutions. It cannot be accurately determined to what extent the last two conditions prevailed, but from what is known of Maya history, and the uniformity of Maya institutions, I am inclined to attribute most of the architectural and sculptural differences noted to the lapse of time, and to allow a difference of a few centuries between the dates of building. I must confess my inability to judge from the degree of art displayed respectively in the peninsular ruins and those of Palenque, which are the older; I will go further, and while in a confessional mood, confess to a shade of skepticism respecting the ability of other writers to form a well-founded judgment in the matter. Authors are, however, unanimous in the opinion that Palenque was founded before any of the cities of Yucatan, an opinion which is supported to a certain extent by traditional history, which represents Votan's empire in Chiapas and Tabasco as preceding chronologically the allied Maya empire in the peninsula. If the Yucatan cities flourished, as I have conjectured, between the third and tenth centuries, Palenque may be conjecturally referred to a period between the first and eighth centuries. I regard the theory that Palenque was built by the Toltecs after their expulsion from Anáhuac in the tenth century as wholly without foundation; and I believe that it would be equally impossible to prove or disprove that the Palace was standing at the birth of Christ. It must be added that Brasseur and some others regard the stucco decorations and especially the peculiar roof-structures as the work of a later people than the original builders, or at least, of a later epoch and grade of culture.[VI-68]

[Sidenote: OLD WORLD RESEMBLANCES.]

Respecting the vague resemblances in the Palenque monuments to old-world ruins, there is very little to be said. The earlier observers were not permitted by their religious faith to doubt that the builders must be connected with some race of the old world; they were, however, allowed to use their judgment to a certain extent in determining which should have the credit, and most of them discovered the strongest similarities to Egyptian antiquities, although Dupaix could find no likeness in the hieroglyphics. Later authorities are not disposed to admit a marked likeness to the monuments of any particular nation of Europe, Asia, or Africa, although finding vague and perhaps accidental similarities to those of many of the older nations. My acquaintance with old-world antiquities is not sufficiently thorough to give any weight to my individual opinion in the matter, and I have no space for the introduction of descriptive text and illustrative plates. I give in a note the opinions of some writers on the subject.[VI-69]

[Sidenote: ART DISPLAYED AT PALENQUE.]

I close my account of Maya antiquities with the following brief quotations respecting Palenque, and the degree of art exhibited in her ruined monuments. "These sculptured figures are not caricatures, but display an ability on the part of the artists to represent the human form in every posture, and with anatomical fidelity. Nor are the people in humble life here delineated. The figures are royal or priestly; some are engaged in offering up sacrifices, or are in an attitude of devotion; many hold a scepter, or other baton of authority; their apparel is gorgeous; their head-dresses are elaborately arrayed, and decorated with long feathers."[VI-70] "Many of the reliefs exhibit the finest and most beautiful outlines, and the neatest combinations, which remind one of the best Indian works of art."[VI-71] "The ruins of Palenque have been perhaps overrated; these remains are fine, doubtless, in their antique rudeness; they breathe out in the midst of their solitude a certain imposing grandeur; but it must be affirmed, without disputing their architectural importance, that they do not justify in their details the enthusiasm of archæologists. The lines which make up the ornamentation are faulty in rectitude; the designs in symmetry; the sculpture in finish; I except, however, the symbolic tablets, the sculpture of which seemed to me very correct." "I admire the bas-reliefs of Palenque on the façades of her old palaces; they interest me, move me, and fill my imagination; but let them be taken to the Louvre, and I see nothing but rude sketches which leave me cold and indifferent."[VI-72] "The most remarkable remains of an advanced ancient civilization hitherto discovered on our continent." "Their general characteristics are simplicity, gravity, and solidity."[VI-73] "While superior in the execution of the details, the Palenque artist was far inferior to the Egyptian in the number and variety of the objects displayed by him."[VI-74]

FOOTNOTES:

[VI-1] The physical features and natural beauties of this region are perhaps more vividly and eloquently described by the French traveler Morelet than by any other visitor. _Voyage_, tom. i., pp. 245-85; _Travels_, pp. 65-111. M. Morelet visited Palenque from the Laguna de Terminos, passing up the Usumacinta and its branches, while other visitors approached for the most part from the opposite direction. He gives, moreover, much closer attention to nature in its varied aspects than to artificial monuments of the past. 'L'esprit est frappé par le rêve biblique de l'Éden, et l'œil cherche vainement l'Ève et l'Adam de ce jardin des merveilles: nul être humain n'y planta sa tente; sept lieues durant ces perspectives délicieuses se succèdent, sept lieues de ces magnifiques solitudes que bornent de trois côtés les horizons bleus de la Cordillère.' _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 412. 'La nature toujours prodigue de ses dons, dans ce climat enchanteur, lui assurait en profusion, avec une éternelle fertilité, et une salubrité éprouvée durant une longue suite de siècles, tout ce qu'un sol fécond, sous un ciel admirable, peut fournir spontanément de productions nécessaires à l'entretien et au repos de la vie.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 82.

[VI-2] In 1746, while Padre Antonio de Solis was temporarily residing at Santo Domingo, a part of his curacy, the ruins were accidentally found by his nephews; although Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 294, gives a report without naming his authority--probably _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. i., p. v., or _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, p. 18., where the date is given as the middle of the century--which he does not credit, that they were found by a party of Spaniards in 1750. From one of the nephews, Ramon Ordoñez, then a schoolboy at San Cristóval, first heard of the ruins in which he took so deep an interest in later years. In 1773 Ordoñez sent his brother with one Gutierrez de la Torre and others to make explorations, and from their report wrote an account--probably the _Memoria relativa à las ruinas de la Ciudad descubierta en las inmediaciones del pueblo de Palenque_, a MS. in Brasseur's collection, (_Bib. Mex. Guat._, p. 113,) from which these facts were gathered--which was forwarded in 1784 to Estacheria, President of the Guatemalan Audiencia Real. President Estacheria, by an order dated Nov. 28, 1784,--_Expediente sobre el descubrimiento de una gran ciudad, etc._, MS., in the Archives of the Royal Hist. Acad. of Madrid,--instructed José Antonio Calderon, Lieut. Alcalde Mayor of Santo Domingo, to make further explorations. Calderon's report,--_Informe de D. J. A. Calderon, etc._, translated in substance in _Brasseur_, _Palenqué_, Introd., pp. 5-7,--is dated Dec. 15, 1764, so that the survey must have been very actively pushed, to bring to light as was claimed, over 200 ruined edifices in so short a time. Some drawings accompanied this report, but they have never been published. In Jan. 1785 Antonio Bernasconi, royal architect in Guatemala, was ordered to continue the survey, which he did between Feb. 25 and June 13, when he handed in his report, accompanied by drawings never published so far as I know. Bernasconi's report with all those preceding it was sent to Spain, and from the information thus given, J. B. Muñoz, Royal Historiographer, made a report on American antiquities by order of the king.

In accordance with a royal cedula of March 15, 1786, Antonio del Rio was ordered by Estacheria to complete the investigations. With the aid of seventy-nine natives Del Rio proceeded to fall the trees and to clear the site of the ancient city by a general conflagration. His examination lasted from May 18 to June 2, and his report with many drawings was sent to Spain. Copies were, however, retained in Guatemala and Mexico, and one of these copies was in Brasseur's collection under the title of _Descripcion del terreno y poblacion antigua, etc._ Another copy was found, part in Guatemala and the rest in Mexico, by a Dr M'Quy. It was taken to England, translated, and published by Henry Berthoud, together with a commentary by Paul Felix Cabrera, entitled _Teatro Crítico Americano_, all under the general title of _Description of an Ancient City, etc._, London, 1822. The work was illustrated with eighteen lithographic plates, by M. Fréd. Waldeck, ostensibly from Del Rio's drawings; but it is elsewhere stated, _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. i., p. vi., that Del Rio's drawings did not accompany the work at all. If this be true, the published plates must probably have been taken from the Latour-Allard copies of Castañeda's drawings, of which I shall speak presently, and indeed a comparison with Kingsborough's plates shows almost conclusively that such was in some cases at least their origin. Humboldt speaks of the Latour-Allard plate of the cross as differing entirely from that of Del Rio. This difference does not appear in my copies. It is possible that the plates in my copy of Del Rio's work, the only one I have ever seen, are not the ones which originally appeared with the book. A French translation by M. Warden was published by the Société de Géographie, with a part of the plates; and a German translation by J. H. von Minutoli, with an additional commentary by the translator, appeared in Berlin, 1832, as _Beschreibung einer alten Stadt_, etc. This contained the plates, together with many additional ones illustrating Mexican antiquities from various sources. The German editor says that the whole English edition, except two copies of proof-sheets, was destroyed; but this would seem an error, since the work is often referred to by different writers, and the price paid for the copy consulted by me does not indicate great rarity. Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii., p. 296, speaks of this as 'the first notice in Europe of the discovery of these ruins,'--incorrectly, unless we understand _printed_ notice, and even then it must be noticed that Juarros, _Hist. Guat._, 1808-18, pp. 18-19, gave a brief account of Palenque. Del Rio, in Brasseur's opinion, was neither artist nor architect, and his exploration was less complete than those of Calderon and Bernasconi, whose reports he probably saw, notwithstanding the greater force at his disposal. 'Sin embargo de sus distinguidas circunstancias, carecia de noticias historiales para lo que pedia la materia, y de actividad para lograr un perfecto descubrimiento.' _Registro Yuc._, tom. i., p. 320. The original Spanish of Del Rio's report, dated June 24, 1787 (?),--_Informe dado par D. Antonio del Rio al brigadier D. José Estacheria, etc._--was published in 1855, in the _Diccionario Univ. de Geog. etc._, tom. viii., pp. 528-33. See also an extract from the same in _Mosaico Mex._, tom. ii., pp. 330-4. In _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 76, it is stated that Julio Garrido wrote a work on Palenque about 1805, which was not published. That is all I know of it.

From 1805 to 1808 Capt. Guillaume Dupaix, in company with Luciano Castañeda, draughtsman, and a company of Mexican soldiers, by order of Carlos IV., King of Spain, made three expeditions to explore the antiquities of southern Mexico. Dupaix's MS. report, and 145 drawings by Castañeda, were deposited in the Mexican archives to be sent to Spain; but the revolution breaking out soon after, they were for some years forgotten. Copies of most of the drawings were obtained by M. Latour-Allard of Paris, passed through the hands of Humboldt, who did not publish them, and later into English hands. They were engraved in London, 1823, without any accompanying explanation, and M. Warden reproduced a part of them in a memoire to the French Geographical Society. These are certainly the plates in my copy of Del Rio, and I have but little doubt that they are the only ones that ever accompanied his published work. Bullock, _Six Months' Residence in Mex._, p. 330, says he copied Castañeda's drawings in Mexico, 1823, but he published none of them. In 1831, copies of the Latour-Allard copies, made by the artist Aglio, were published by Lord Kingsborough, in vol. iv. of his _Mexican Antiquities_, together with the Spanish text of Dupaix's report, obtained from I know not what source, in vol. v., and a carelessly made English translation of the same in vol. vi. of the same work. In 1828, the original text and drawings were delivered by the Mexican authorities to M. Baradère--at least Sr Icaza, curator of the Mexican Museum, certified them to be the originals; but Sr Gondra, afterwards curator of the same institution, assured Brasseur that these also were only copies,--and were published--the text in Spanish and French--in 1843, in _Antiquités Mexicaines_. The faithfulness with which the descriptions and drawings of Dupaix and Castañeda were made, has never been called in question; but Castañeda was not a very skilful artist, as is admitted by M. Farcy in his introduction to _Antiq. Mex._, and many of his faults of perspective were corrected in the plates of that work. M. Farcy states that all previous copies of the plates were very faulty, including those of Kingsborough, although Humboldt, in a letter to M. Latour-Allard, testifies to the accuracy of the latter. A comparison of the two sets of plates shows much difference in the details of a few of them, and those of the official edition are doubtless superior. The French editors, while criticising Kingsborough's plates more severely, as it seems, than they deserve, say nothing whatever of his text; yet both in the Spanish and translation it varies widely from the other, showing numerous omissions and not a few evident blunders. Stephens, seconded by Brasseur, objects to the slighting tone with which Dupaix's editors speak of Del Rio's report; also to their claim that only by government aid can such explorations be carried on. M. Waldeck says, _Palenqué_, p. vii., that he tried to prevent the publication of the plates in Kingsborough's work on account of their inaccuracy, although how he could at that date pretend to be a judge in the matter does not appear. It is true that Castañeda's drawings are not equal to those of Waldeck and Stephens, but they nevertheless give an excellent idea of the general features of all ruins visited. Morelet says of Dupaix's report: 'Ce document est encore aujourd'hui le plus curieux et le plus intéressant que nous possédons sur les ruines de Palenque.' _Voyage_, tom. i., p. 268; _Travels_, p. 90. It was during the third expedition, begun in December, 1807, that Dupaix visited Palenque with a force of natives. His survey lasted several months. The results may be found as follows: _Dupaix_, _3ème expéd._, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. i., pp. 13-36, tom. iii., pl. xi.-xlvi., with an explanation by M. Lenoir, tom. ii., div. i., pp. 73-81; _Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq._, vol. v., pp. 294-339, vol. vi., pp. 473-83, vol. iv., pl. xii.-xlv. To economize space I shall refer to these works by the simple names of _Dupaix_, and _Kingsborough_, with the number of page or plate; and I shall, moreover, refer directly to Kingsborough only when differences may appear in text or plates.

Dr F. Corroy, a French physician of Tabasco, lived 20 years in the country and made several visits to Palenque, claiming to know more about the ruins than anyone else. An inscription on one of the entrances of the Palace, shown in _Waldeck_, pl. ix., reads 'François Corroy de tercer viage en estas ruinas los dias 25 de Agosto. Unico historiador de hellos. Con su Esposa y Ija.' He furnished some information from 1829 to 1832 to the French Geographical Society, and speaks of 14 drawings and a MS. history in his possession. _Soc. Géog., Bulletin_, tom. ix., No. 60, 1828, p. 198; _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 76. Col. Juan Galindo, at one time connected with the British Central American service, also Governor of Peten, and corresponding member of the London Geographical Society, sent much information, with maps, plans, and sketches to the French Société de Géographie. His letter dated April 27, 1831, describing the Palenque ruins, is printed in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., pp. 67-72, also an English translation in the _Literary Gazette_, No. 769, London, 1831, which was reprinted in the _Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._, vol. iii., pp. 60-2. Lafond, _Voyages_, tom. i., p. 142, states that Nebel visited Palenque, and Müller, _Urreligionen_, p. 459-60, also implies that this traveler explored the ruins; but this is probably erroneous.