INDIRECT EXTERNAL EVIDENCES--AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES. Continued.
I.
_Antiquity of American Ruins_
We have now before us a subject on which the authorities on American
Antiquities are most divided, and I shall not attempt in this writing
to reconcile them or dispute the position of either class; but after
a few quotations from these authorities shall leave the question of
the antiquity of American ruins found in Central America and elsewhere
as I find it, an open question. "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," says H. H.
Bancroft, in speaking of the cities and other monuments of Yucatan--and
it is a remark which could with equal propriety be made of nearly all
the ruined cities of America. "We may see now, abandoned and uncared
for," he continues, "they may 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." [1] Later, in the same work, our author discusses
the question of the age of Palenque and other ruins in the following
manner:
I 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 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 Anahuac 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. [2]
Following this passage, Mr. Bancroft gives a valuable collection
of opinions in his notes where he represents M. Violett-le-Duc as
expressing the belief that Palenque was built probably some centuries
before Christ by a people in which "yellow blood predominated,
although with some Aryan intermixture; but that the Yucatan cities
owe their foundation to the same people at a later epoch and under a
much stronger influence of the white races." Dupaix he represents as
believing that the buildings were reared by a flatheaded race that has
become extinct, and who, after writing his narrative, made up his mind
that Palenque was antediluvian or at least that a floor had covered
it. Lenoir he represents as saying that, according to all voyagers and
students, the ruins of Palenque are not less than three thousand years
old; while Catlin, a French writer, in a French periodical for March,
1867, he represents as asserting that the ruined cities of Palenque
and Uxmal have within themselves the evidence that the ocean has been
their bed for thousands of years, but the material is soft limestone
and presents no water lines. Foster, the author of _Pre-Historic
Races_ (pp. 398-9), is represented as regarding the ruins of Palenque
as the work of an extinct race, and then he proceeds with a number of
citations for a more modern origin. The valuable notes will be found in
Bancroft's _Native Races_, vol. IV, pp. 262-3.
Prescott, in his treatise on the origin of Mexican civilization, offers
the following reflections on the antiquity of American ruins:
It is impossible to contemplate these mysterious monuments of
a lost civilization, without a strong feeling of curiosity as
to who were their architects, and what is their probable age.
The data on which to rest our conjectures of their age, are not
very substantial; although some find in them a warrant for an
antiquity of thousands of years, coeval with the architecture of
Egypt and Hindostan. But the interpretation of hieroglyphics, and
the apparent duration of trees, are vague and unsatisfactory.
And how far can we derive an argument from the discoloration and
dilapidated condition of the ruins, when we find so many structures
of the Middle Ages dark and mouldering with decay, while the
marbles of the Acropolis, and the gray stone of Paestum, still
shine in their primitive splendor? There are, however, undoubted
proofs of considerable age to be found there. Trees have shot up
in the midst of the buildings, which measure, it is said, more
than nine feet in diameter. A still more striking face is the
accumulation of vegetable mould in one of the courts, to the
depth of nine feet above the pavement. This in our latitude would
be decisive of a very great antiquity. But, in the rich soil of
Yucatan, and under the ardent sun of the tropics, vegetation bursts
forth with irrepressible exuberence, and generations of plants
succeed each other without intermission, leaving an accumulation
of deposits, that would have perished under the northern winter.
Another evidence of their age is afforded by the circumstance,
that, in one of the courts of Uxmal, the granite pavement, on
which the figures of tortoises were raised in relief, is worn
nearly smooth by the feet of the crowds who have passed over it; a
curious fact, suggesting inferences both in regard to the age and
population of the place. Lastly, we have authority for carrying
back the date of many of these ruins to a certain period, since
they were found in a deserted, and probably dilapidated state by
the first Spaniards who entered the country. Their notices, indeed,
are brief and casual, for the old conquerors had little respect for
works of art; and it is fortunate for these structures, that they
had ceased to be the living temples of the gods, since no merit of
architecture, probably, would have availed to save them from the
general doom of the monuments of Mexico. [3]
It is proper, to say, however, that Mr. Prescott declares that some
of the remarks in the above paragraph would have been omitted had he
enjoyed the benefit of Mr. Stephens' researches when it was originally
written. Mr. Stephens, it should be remembered, is among those who
grant no great antiquity to the ruins. On this subject, however, I find
the fairest treatment in the profound reflections of Mr. Baldwin:
The Mexican and Central American ruins make it certain that in
ancient times an important civilization existed in that part of the
continent, which must have begun at a remote period in the past. If
they have any significance, this must be accepted as an ascertained
fact. A large portion of them had been forgotten in the forests,
or became mythical and mysterious, long before the arrival of the
Spaniards.
In 1520, three hundred and fifty years ago, the forest which so
largely covers Yucatan, Guatemala, and Chiapa was growing as it
grows now. * * * * How many additional centuries it had existed no
one can tell. If its age could be told, it would still be necessary
to consider that the ruins hidden in it are much older than the
forest, and that the period of civilization they represent closed
long before it was established.
In the ages previous to the beginning of this immense forest, the
region it covers was the seat of civilization which grew up to a
high degree of development, flourished a long time, and finally
declined, until its cities were deserted, and its cultivated fields
left to the wild influences of nature, it may be safely assumed
that both the forest-covered ruins and the forest itself are far
older than the Aztec period; but who can tell how much older?
Copan, first discovered and described three hundred years ago,
was then as strange to the natives dwelling near it as the old
Chaldean ruins are to the Arabs who wander over the wasted plains
of Lower Mesopotamia. Native tradition had forgotten its history
and become silent in regard to it. How long had ruined Copan been
in this condition? No one can tell. Manifestly it was forgotten,
left buried in the forest without recollection of its history,
long before Montezuma's people, the Aztecs, rose to power; and it
is easily understood that this old city had an important history
previous to that unknown time in the past when war, revolution or
some other agency of destruction, put an end to its career and left
it to become what it is now.
Moreover, these old ruins, in all cases, show us only the cities
last occupied in the period to which they belong. Doubtless others
still older preceded them; and, besides, it can be seen that
some of the ruined cities which can now be traced were several
times renewed by reconstructions. We must consider, also, that
building magnificent cities is not the first work of an original
civilization. The development was necessarily gradual. Its first
period was more or less rude. The art of building and ornamenting
such edifices arose slowly. Many ages must have been required
to develop such admirable skill in masonry and ornamentation.
Therefore the period between the beginning of this mysterious
development of civilized life and the first builders who used
cut stone laid in mortar and cement, and covered their work with
beautifully sculptured ornaments and inscriptions, must have been
very long.
We have no measure of the time, no clew to the old dates, nothing
whatever, beyond such considerations as I have stated, to warrant
even a vague hypothesis. It can be seen clearly that the beginning
of this old civilization was much older than the earliest great
cities, and, also, that these were much more ancient than the
time when any of the later built or reconstructed cities whose
relics still exist, were left to decay. If we suppose Palenque to
have been deserted some six hundred years previous to the Spanish
conquest, this date will carry us back only to the last days of its
history as an inhabited city. Beyond it, in the distant past, is a
vast period in which the civilization represented by Palenque was
developed, made capable of building such cities, and then carried
on through the many ages during which cities became numerous,
flourished, grew old, and gave place to others, until the long
history of Palenque itself began. * * * * * * * *
No well considered theory of these ruins can avoid the conclusion
that most of them are very ancient, and that, to find the origin of
the civilization they represent, we must go far back into the "deep
of antiquity." * * * *
Nevertheless, some of them must be very old. The forest established
since the ruin began, the entire disappearance of every thing
more perishable than stone, the utter oblivion which veiled their
history in the time of Montezuma, and probably long previous to his
time, all these facts bear witness to their great antiquity. In
many of them, as at Quirigua and Kabah, the stone structures have
become masses of debris; and even at Copan, Palenque, and Mitla,
only a few of them are sufficiently well preserved to show us what
they were in the great days of their history. Meanwhile, keep in
mind that the ruined cities did not begin their present condition
until the civilization that created them had declined; and, also,
that if we could determine exactly the date when they were deserted
and left to decay, we should only reach that point in the past
where their history as inhabited cities was brought to a close.
Take Copan, for instance. This city may have become a ruin during
the time of the Toltecs, which began long before the Christian
era and ended some five or six centuries probably before the
country was invaded by Cortez. It was built before their time, for
the style of writing, and many features of the architecture and
ornamentation, show the workmanship of their predecessors, judging
by the historical intimation found in the old books and traditions.
We may suppose it to have been an old city at the time of the
Toltec invasion, although not one of the first cities built by that
more ancient and more cultivated people by whom this old American
civilization was originated. [4]
From the foregoing it will be apparent how unsatisfactory are the
conclusions respecting the age of America's ruined cities and monuments
of antiquity; and since, as Mr. H. H. Bancroft remarks, there is
nothing in the ruins themselves by which their age may be determined,
it is clear that all the authorities are merely dealing in conjecture
concerning them. The value of that conjecture will, of course, depend
upon the general breadth of knowledge and judgment of the individual
expressing it. This much may be safely claimed, so far as the Book
of Mormon is concerned, in the question: there is nothing as to the
age of American ruins that contradicts its statements, nor can I
conceive of the rising of any circumstance in connection with the age
of American ruined cities that would conflict with its claims. If it
should turn out eventually that all the monuments of American ruins
are of comparatively modern origin, that is, suppose they have arisen
within that thousand years preceding the advent of the Spaniards, who
came early in the sixteenth century, it could then be claimed that
they were the monuments of Lamanite civilization merely; and that the
monuments of the Jaredite and Nephite civilization had passed away, or
that the monuments of Lamanite civilization were built in the midst
of the monuments of the earlier civilizations, and so intermingled
as to confuse everything and render classification impossible. If
investigation, however, should finally establish the fact that the
ruined cities of America are the monuments of very ancient and
perhaps of successive civilizations, it would tend in a positive way
to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon more clearly, and I now
proceed to the consideration of that branch of the subject.
II.
_Successive Civilizations._
Scattered over the southern plateaus are heaps of architectural
remains and monumental piles. Furthermore, native traditions,
both orally transmitted and hieroglyphically recorded by means of
legible picture-writings, afford us a tolerably clear view of the
civilized nations during a period of several centuries preceding
the Spanish conquest, together with passing glances, through
momentary clearings in mythologic clouds, at historical epochs much
more remote. Here we have as aids to this analysis--aids almost
wholly wanting among the so-called savage tribes--antiquities,
traditions, history, carrying the student far back into the
mysterious New World past; and hence it is that from its
simultaneous revelation and eclipse, American civilization would
otherwise offer a more limited field for investigation than
American savagism, yet by the introduction of this new element the
field is widely extended.
Nor have we even yet reached the limits of our resources for the
investigation of this New World civilization. In these relics of
architecture and literature, of mythology and tradition, there are
clear indications of an older and higher type of culture than that
brought immediately to the knowledge of the invaders; of a type
that had temporarily deteriorated, perhaps through the influence of
long-continued and bloody conflicts, civil and foreign, by which
the more warlike rather than the more highly cultured nations
had been brought into prominence and power. But this anterior
and superior civilization, resting largely as it does on vague
tradition, and preserved to our knowledge in general allusions
rather than in detail, may, like the native condition since the
conquest, be utilized to the best advantage here as illustrative of
the later and better-known, if somewhat inferior civilization of
the sixteenth century, described by the conqueror, the missionary,
and the Spanish historian. [5]
In addition to the "passing glances" through "momentary clearings" in
the mythological clouds "at historical epochs much more remote" than
those "several centuries preceding the Spanish conquest," there is also
the evidence afforded by the different ages in which the cities of
America now in ruins were built; the difference being so marked in some
instances as to suggest not only different ages for their construction,
but their construction by different races. "That a long time must have
passed between the erection of Copan and Utatlan, [6] the civilization
of the builders meantime undergoing great modification, involving
probably the introduction of new elements from foreign sources, is a
theory supported by a careful study of the two classes of ruins. [7]
* * * Then we have the strong differences noticeable between Uxmal
[8] 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 have long been separated; or by branches, which,
under the influence of foreign tribes, lived under greatly modified
institutions." [9]
Speaking of the ruins at Quiche, Mr. Stephens says:
The point to which we directed our attention was to discover some
resemblance to the ruins of Copan and Quirigua; but we did not
find statues, or carved figures, or hieroglyphics, nor could we
learn that any had ever been found there. If there had been such
evidences we should have considered these ruins the works of the
same race of people, but in the absence of such evidences we
believed that Copan and Quirigua were cities of another race and of
a much older date. [10]
On this point of distinct eras in American civilization, Baldwin says:
It is a point of no little interest that these old constructions
belong to different periods in the past, and represent somewhat
different phases of civilization. Uxmal, which is supposed to have
been partly inhabited when the Spaniards arrived in the country,
is plainly much more modern than Copan or Palenque. This is easily
traced in the ruins. Its edifices were finished in a different
style, and show fewer inscriptions. Round pillars, somewhat in the
Doric style, are found at Uxmal, but none like the square, richly
carved pillars, bearing inscriptions, discovered in some of the
other ruins. Copan and Palenque, and even Kabah, in Yucatan, may
have been very old cities, if not already old ruins, when Uxmal
was built. Accepting the reports of explorers as correct, there
is evidence in the ruins that Quirigua is older than Copan, and
that Copan is older than Palenque. The old monuments in Yucatan
represent several distinct epochs in the ancient history of that
peninsula. Some of them are kindred to those hidden in the great
forest, and reminded us more of Palenque than of Uxmal. Among those
described, the most modern, or most of these, are in Yucatan; they
belong to the time when the kingdom of the Mayas flourished. Many
of the others belong to ages previous to the rise of this kingdom;
and in ages still earlier, ages older than the great forest, there
were other cities, doubtless, whose remains have perished utterly,
or were long ago removed from us in the later constructions.
The evidence of repeated reconstructions in some of the cities
before they were deserted has been pointed out by explorers. I
have quoted what Charnay says of it in his description of Mitla.
At Palenque, as at Mitla, the oldest work is the most artistic and
admirable. Over this feature of the monuments, and the manifest
signs of their difference in age, the attention of investigators
lingered in speculation. They find in them a significance which is
stated as follows by Brasseur de Bourbourg: "Among the edifices
forgotten by time in the forests of Mexico and Central America, we
find architectural characteristics so different from each other,
that it is impossible to attribute them all to the same people as
to believe they were all built at the same epoch." In his view,
"the substruction at Mayapan, some of those at Tulha, and a great
part of those at Palenque, are among the older remains. These are
not the oldest cities whose remains are still visible, but they may
have been built, in part, upon the foundation of cities much more
ancient. No well considered theory of these ruins can avoid the
conclusion that most of them are very ancient, and that, to find
the origin of the civilization they represent, we must go far back
into the 'deeps of antiquity.'" [11]
Further on, in speaking of the Aztecs and their civilization, Mr.
Baldwin says:
They were less advanced in many things than their predecessors.
Their skill in architecture and architectural ornamentation did not
enable them to build such cities as Mitla and Palenque, and their
"picture writing" was a much ruder form of the graphic art than
the phonetic system of the Mayas and Quiches. It does not appear
that they ever went so far in literary improvements as to adopt
this simpler and more complete system for any purpose whatever. If
the country had never, in the previous ages, felt the influence
of a higher culture than that of the Aztecs, it would not have
now, and never could have had, ruined cities like Mitla, Copan and
Palenque. Not only was the system of writing shown by the countless
inscriptions quite beyond the attainments of Aztec art, but also
the abundant sculptures and the whole system of decoration found in
the old ruins. [12]
"Two distinct classes of ruins appear to have been observed in Central
America," says Nadaillac. [13] And then later, "All the Central
American tribes do not seem to have lived in an equally degraded
condition before the period of the Mayas. Ruins of considerable extent
are met with in Guatemala. These consist of undressed stones similar
to those used in the cyclopean buildings of Greece and Syria; but no
tradition refers to their origin. They are, however, attributed with
some reason to a race driven back by conquest, and superior in culture
to the people overcome by the Maya invasion of Central America." [14]
Nor is it alone in the differences that exist between some of these
ancient ruins, proclaiming for them at least erection in different
ages, and perhaps by different races, that the idea of successive
civilizations in Ancient America is established. In the matter of
language no less than in ruins is this fact proclaimed. "Traces are
also supposed to have been met with of a more ancient language than the
Maya, Nahuac or their derivatives," remarks Nadaillac, in a footnote
to page 264 of his _Pre-Historic America_, and cites Humboldt's _Views
of the Cordilleras_ in support of his statement. This, however, is a
subject which is too extensive to be considered here.
Closely connected with the subject of successive civilizations is
also that of ancient migrations, but that is a matter I shall treat
in another chapter, and more especially for another reason than
maintaining successive civilizations, as I esteem what is here set down
as sufficient proof for the existence of successive civilizations in
ancient America.
III.
_Peruvian Antiquities._
It will be observed that thus far, in dealing with American
antiquities, I have said nothing concerning Peru and the monuments of
its civilization. Still, as Book of Mormon peoples inhabited South
America as well as North America, some attention should be paid to the
monuments of Peruvian civilization. For the general description of
South American antiquities I find what Professor Baldwin says to be
most acceptable:
The ruins of Ancient Peru are found chiefly on the elevated
tablelands of the Andes, between Quito and Lake Titicaca; but
they can be traced five hundred miles farther south, to Chili,
and throughout the region connecting these high plateaus with the
Pacific coast. The great district to which they belong extends
north and south about two thousand miles. When the marauding
Spaniards arrived in the country, this whole region was the
seat of a populous and prosperous empire, complete in its civil
organization, supported by an efficient system of industry, and
presenting a very notable development of some of the more important
arts of civilized life. These ruins differ from those in Mexico
and Central America. No inscriptions are found in Peru; there
is no longer a "marvelous abundance of decorations;" nothing is
seen like the monoliths of Copan, or the bas-reliefs of Palenque.
The method of building is different; the Peruvian ruins show us
remains of cities, temples, palaces, other edifices of various
kinds, fortresses, aqueducts (one of them four hundred and fifty
miles long), great roads (extending through the whole length of
the empire), and terraces on the sides of mountains. For all these
constructions the builders used cut stone laid in mortar or cement,
and their work was done admirably, but it is everywhere seen that
the masonry, although sometimes ornamented, was generally plain in
style and always massive. The antiquities in this region have not
been as much explored and described as those north of the isthmus,
but their general character is known, and particular descriptions
of some of them have been published. [15]
The chief thing to be noted with reference to South American monuments
of ancient civilization is the fact that, if the theory of the
first landing of the Nephite colony from Jerusalem was in South
America, and within modern Chili--then they are located along the
line of supposed Nephite movement from thirty degrees south latitude
northward along the western plateau of South America, though it must
be confessed that during their movements northward the Nephites were
not sufficiently numerous nor did they stay sufficiently long in the
southern part of the region now covered with ancient ruins to erect
such permanent monuments of civilization as are now to be found there
in ruins. In their alleged occupancy of the northern section of the
region it is different. There, in the land of Nephi and the land of
Anti-Lehi-Nephi--supposed to embrace say the northern part of Peru and
Ecuador,--we have reason to believe they stayed a sufficient length of
time and were also sufficiently numerous to leave enduring monuments of
their sojourn in that country. For the existence of the more southern
monuments we must suppose one of two things, or perhaps both of them
united, viz.:
First: Lamanites who remained in the far south paid more attention
to civilized pursuits than has usually been accredited to them, and
the remarks of the Book of Mormon concerning the Lamanites being an
idle people, living upon the fruits of the chase, and their marauding
excursions into Nephite lands are to be more especially applied to
those Lamanites more immediately in contact with the Nephites, while
further southward they were pursuing the arts of peace. Or, second:
that after the fall of the Nephites at Cumorah there were strong
colonies of Lamanites that pushed their way through Central America
down into Peru, subdued the inhabitants who had remained there and
established themselves as the ruling class, constituting, in fact, the
invasion of the Incas, under whom arose the monuments of civilization
found in the land by the Spaniards when they invaded it. The difference
between the monuments found in Peru and those found in Mexico and
Central America arises, in my judgment, from the fact that there was
not present in South America the monuments of the great Jaredite
civilization to crop up through and become intermingled with the
Nephite and Lamanite monuments of civilization.
The whole subject of Book of Mormon peoples being the authors of very
ancient Peruvian civilization is full of difficulty.
IV.
_The Mound Builders._
As I have noted South American antiquities, so also I think it
necessary to note the more northern antiquities of North America--the
works of the Mound Builders of the valleys of the Mississippi and its
tributaries. It is matter of common knowledge that throughout the
region of country just named there exists in great number artificial
hillocks of earth, "nearly always constructed," says Nadaillac, "with
a good deal of precision." "They are of various forms, round, oval,
square, very rarely polygonal or triangular. Their height varies from
a few inches to more than ninety feet, and their diameter varies
from three to about a thousand feet." [16] Evidently the mounds
were erected for a variety of purposes, and the author last quoted,
following Mr. Squier [17] and Mr. Short, [18] makes the following
classification: 1, defensive works; 2, sacred enclosures; 3, temples;
4, altar mounds; 5, sepulchral mounds, and 6, mounds representing
animals. Short (_North Americans_, p. 81) gives slightly different
classifications, as follows: I., Enclosures: for defense; for religious
purposes; miscellaneous. II., Mounds of sacrifice: for temple sites; of
sepulchre; of observation." [19]
On the subject of the mounds being erected for purposes of
fortification, Nadaillac says:
The whole of the space separating the Alleghanies from the Rocky
Mountains affords a succession of entrenched camps, fortifications
generally made of earth. There were used ramparts, stockade, and
trenches near many eminences, and nearly every junction of two
large rivers. These works bear witness to the intelligence of the
race, which has so long been looked upon as completely barbarous
and wild, and an actual system of defences in connection with each
other can in some cases be made out with observatories on adjacent
heights, and concentric ridges of earth for the protection of
the entrances. War was evidently an important subject of thought
with the Mound Builders. All the defensive remains occur in the
neighborhood of water courses, and the best proof of the skill
shown in the choice of sites is shown by the number of flourishing
cities, such as Cincinnati, St. Louis, Newark, Portsmouth,
Frankfort, New Madrid, and many others, which have risen in the
same situations in modern times. [20]
Concerning the matter of the Mound Builders in general we are again
in the presence of a subject concerning which there is very great
diversity of opinions on the part of authorities. Learned opinion is
divided as to whether the mounds represent an indigenous or exotic
civilization; whether they were built by the ancestors of the near or
remote Indian tribes of North America, or by a race now extinct, or
by some mysterious process or other, "vanished." Also they differ as
to the antiquity of the mounds, some ascribing to them quite a recent
origin, and others ascribing to them an antiquity of thousands of
years. It must be obvious that I cannot enter into a consideration of
all these questions, and hence content myself with a few quotations
from those whose information and judgment I most esteem. [21]
Upon the subject of Mound Builders, as upon so many subjects in
American antiquities, I find what Mr. Baldwin has said--except wherein
his remarks are against migrations from other continents for very
ancient American peoples--most acceptable: [22]
That appears to me the most reasonable suggestion which assumes
that the Mound Builders came originally from Mexico and Central
America. It explains many facts connected with their remains. In
the Great Valley their most populous settlements were at the south.
Coming from Mexico and Central America, they would begin their
settlements on the gulf coast, and afterwards advance gradually up
the river to the Ohio valley. It seems evident that they came by
this route; and their remains show that their only connection with
the coast was at the south. Their settlements did not reach the
coast at any other point.
Their constructions were similar in design and arrangement to
those found in Mexico and Central America. Like the Mexicans and
Central Americans, they had many of the smaller structures known as
teocallis, and also large, high mounds, with level summits, reached
by great flights of steps. Pyramidal platforms or foundations for
important edifices appear in both regions, and are very much alike.
In Central America important edifices were built of hewn stone, and
can still be examined in their ruins. The Mound Builders, like some
of the ancient people of Mexico and Yucatan, used wood, sun-dried
brick, or some other material that could not resist decay. There
is evidence that they used timber for building purposes. In one of
the mounds opened in the Ohio valley two chambers were found with
remains of the timber of which the walls were made, and with arched
ceilings precisely like those in Central America, even to the
overlapping stones. Chambers have been found in some of the Central
American and Mexican mounds, but there hewn stones were used for
the walls. In both regions the elevated and terraced foundations
remain, and can be compared. I have already called attention to the
close resemblance between them, but the fact is so important in any
endeavor to explain the Mound Builders that I must bring it to view
here.
Consider, then, that elevated and terraced foundations for
important buildings are peculiar to the ancient Mexicans and
Central Americans; that this method of construction, which, with
them, was the rule, is found nowhere else, save that terraced
elevations, carefully constructed, and precisely like theirs in
form and appearance, occupy a chief place among the remaining
works of the Mound Builders. The use made of these foundations at
Palenque, Uxmal and Chichen-Itza, shows the purpose for which they
were constructed in the Mississippi valley. The resemblance is not
due to chance. The explanation appears to me very manifest. This
method of construction was brought to the Mississippi valley from
Mexico and Central America, the ancient inhabitants of that region
and the Mound Builders being the same people in race, and also in
civilization, when it was brought here.
A very large proportion of the old structures in Ohio and farther
south called "mounds," namely, those which are low in proportion to
their horizontal extent, are terraced foundations for buildings,
and if they were situated in Yucatan, Guatemala, and Mexico, they
would never be mistaken for anything else. The high mounds also
in the two regions are remarkably alike. In both cases they are
pyramidal in shape, and have level summits of considerable extent,
which were reached by means of stairways on the outside. The great
mound at Chichen-Itza is 75 feet high, and has on its summit a
ruined stone edifice; that at Uxmal is 60 feet high, and has a
similar ruin on its summit; that at Mayapan is 60 feet high; the
edifice placed on its summit has disappeared. The great mound at
Miamisburg, Ohio, is 68 feet high; and that at Grave Creek, West
Virginia, is 75 feet high. Both had level summits, and stairways
on the outside, but no trace of any structure remains on them. All
these mounds were constructed for religious uses, and they are, in
their way, as much alike as any five Gothic churches.
Could these works of the Mound Builders be restored to the
condition in which they were when the country was filled with their
busy communities, we should doubtless see great edifices, similar
in style to those in Yucatan, standing on the upper terraces of
all the low and extended "mounds," and smaller structures on the
high mounds, such as those above named. There would seem to be an
extension of ancient Mexico and Central America through Texas into
the Mississippi and Ohio valleys; and so, if there were no massive
stone work in the old ruins of those countries, it might seem that
the Mound Builders' works were anciently extended into them by way
of Texas.
The fact that the settlements and works of the Mound Builders
extended through Texas and across the Rio Grande indicates very
plainly their connection with the people of Mexico, and goes far to
explain their origin. We have other evidence of intercourse between
the two peoples; for the obsidian dug from the mounds, and perhaps
the porphyry also, can be explained only by supposing commercial
relations between them.
We can not suppose the Mound Builders to have come from any other
part of North America, for nowhere else north of the Isthmus was
there any other people capable of producing such works as they
left in the places where they dwelt. Beyond the relics of the
Mound Builders, no traces of the former existence of such a people
have been discovered in any part of North America save Mexico, and
Central America, and districts immediately connected with them.
At the same time it is not unreasonable to suppose the civilized
people of these regions extended their settlements through Texas,
and also migrated across the gulf into the Mississippi valley. In
fact, the connection of settlements by way of Texas appears to have
been unbroken from Ohio to Mexico.
This colonizing extension of the old Mexican race must have taken
place at a remote period in the past; for what has been said of the
antiquity of the Mound Builders shows that a very long period, far
more than two thousand years, it may be, must have elapsed since
they left the valley of the Ohio. Perhaps they found the country
mostly unoccupied, and saw there but little of any other people
until an eruption of warlike barbarians came upon them from the
northwest. * * * * * *
The supposition that the Toltecs and the Mound Builders were the
same people seems to me not improbable. The reasons for it will be
stated when we come to a discussion of the antiquities, books, and
traditions of Central America. I will only say here that, according
to dates given in the Central American books, the Toltecs came
from "Huehue-Tlapalan," a distant country in the northeast, long
previous to the Christian era. They played a great part and had a
long career in Mexico previous to the rise of their successors in
power, the Aztecs, who were overthrown by the Spaniards. [23]
Bancroft, in a general way, coincides with the views of Mr. Baldwin.
Discussing several theories respecting the Mound Builders, he speaks
of this as "the most reasonable [hypothesis], and best supported
by monumental and traditional evidence. The temple-mounds strongly
resemble, in their principal features, the southern pyramids; at least
they imply a likeness of religious ideas in the builders. The use of
obsidian implements shows a connection, either through origin, war,
or commerce, with the Mexican nations, or at least with nations who
came in contact with the Nahuas. There are, moreover, several Nahua
traditions respecting the arrival on their coasts from the northeast,
of civilized strangers." [24] He further says: "I am inclined to
believe that the most plausible conjecture respecting the origin of
the Mound Builders is that which makes them a colony of the ancient
Mayas who settled in the north during the continuance of the great
Maya empire of Xibalba, in Central America, several centuries before
Christ." [25]
It will be observed that these views harmonize almost to completeness
with the requirements of the Book of Mormon for such evidences. Whether
the Jaredites built some of these mounds or not does not so much
matter, though I am inclined to think they did. If some of the earlier
monuments of Central America, such as Copan, Quirigua and Palenque,
represent Jaredite ruins, as I am inclined to believe, then it is most
likely that the truncated mounds in the north--which so much resemble
the stone-faced pyramids of the south--were also built by them.
Undoubtedly, during the two centuries following the advent of Messiah
the Nephites also extended their occupancy of the continent into the
valleys of the Mississippi and its tributaries, and then during the
next two hundred years of troubled warfare, erected the numerous
fortifications throughout that land which now are so distinctly
recognized and spoken of by the authorities which I have here quoted.
In any event it is to be seen that the Book of Mormon requires that
the civilization of the Mississippi valley should find its origin in
Central America, and the fact that such distinguished authorities
recognize Central America as its source, is a strong presumptive
evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.
_Summary._
I have now presented to the reader all the matter on that part of
American antiquities pertaining to the extent and location of the
ruined cities and other monuments of ancient American civilization that
my space will allow, and I only pause before closing this chapter to
summarize the ground covered. Beyond question we have established the
following facts:
(1) There existed in ancient times civilized races in both of the
American continents.
(2) The monuments of these civilizations are located chiefly through
Central America, and in the Mississippi valley--lands occupied by the
Jaredites and Nephites respectively; that is to say, the monuments of
these ancient civilizations are found where the Book of Mormon requires
them to be located.
(3) Successive civilizations have existed in America in ancient times;
and the older civilization was the most advanced.
(4) The chief center of this ancient American civilization, and its
oldest and most enduring monuments are in Central America, where
the Book of Mormon locates its oldest race of people, and where
civilization longest prevailed and built its most enduring monuments;
and is the center from which civilization, beyond question, extended
into the north continent.
In making these claims I am not unmindful of the fact that there are
authorities who hold somewhat different views from those whose works I
have so extensively quoted; but I do not believe that the conclusions
here summarized can be disturbed either by facts or theories of those
other authorities. And however divergent the views of authorities may
be, this much can be absolutely claimed, that there is nothing in their
works which, on the matters so far considered, directly conflicts with
the claims of the Book of Mormon; while so much as is here stated is
certainly very strong evidence in its favor.
Footnotes
1. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. IV, p. 285.
2. _Native Races_, vol. IV, pp. 361-2.
3. _Conquest of Mexico_, vol. II, pp. 405, 406.
4. _Ancient America_, J. D. Baldwin, ch. 6.
5. _Native Races_, vol. II, pp. 83, 84.
6. One of the old American cities located in Central Guatemala.
7. _Native Races_, vol. IV, p. 128.
8. One of the old cities of northern Yucatan.
9. _Native Races_, vol. IV, p. 361.
10. _Central America_, vol. II, p. 186.
11. _Ancient America_, pp. 155, 156.
12. _Ancient America_, p. 221.
13. _Pre-Historic America_, p. 156.
14. _Pre-Historic America_, p. 165.
15. _Ancient America_, pp. 222, 223.
16. _Pre-Historic America_, p. 81.
17. _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_.
18. _Footprints of Vanished Races_.
19. _Pre-Historic America_, pp. 87, 88.
20. _Pre-Historic America_, p. 88.
21. Those desiring to enter upon a further inquiry of this subject will
find it somewhat elaborately treated in Allen's _Pre-Historic World or
Vanished Races_, chapter 10; also Nadaillac's _Pre-Historic America_,
chapter 3; _History of America Before Columbus_, P. De Roo, chapter
3; and in _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, by E. George
Squier.
22. Throughout this writing I have often felt the need of some sort
of compendious work to guide me in my researches, and in all the
collection of my works upon the subject I have found Mr. Baldwin's
_Ancient America_ the most useful; and should the readers of these
chapters desire a special work upon the subject of American antiquities
I do not think they could find a single book on the subject which would
be more satisfactory than the little work (293 pages) here referred to;
and since I have quoted so extensively from it, I cite the following
to show in what esteem Mr. Baldwin is held by one who is the author of
the most elaborate work on the subject of American antiquities: "Mr.
Baldwin's most excellent little book on _Ancient America_ is the only
comprehensive work treating of this subject now before the public. As a
popular treatise, compressing within a small duodecimo volume the whole
subject of archaeology, including, besides material relics, tradition,
and speculation concerning origin and history as well, this book cannot
be too highly praised." Bancroft's _Native Races_, vol. IV, 2.
23. _Ancient America_, pp. 20-24. Rev. J. G. Fish speaking of some of
these North American mounds declares that "the summit level of some
of them contains more than twelve acres. At their base they appear
like walls stretching up to heaven and it requires but a stretch of
the imagination to fancy them mouldering bastions and ramparts of some
ancient fortress." _Bible in the Balance_, p. 237.
24. _Native Races_, vol. IV, pp. 788, 789.
25. _Native Races_, vol. V, p. 539.