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.
On April 12, 1832, M. Fréderic de Waldeck, the most indefatigable and
successful explorer of Palenque, arrived at the ruined city,
illustrative plates of which he had engraved ten years before for Del
Rio's work. This veteran artist--64 years of age at that time,
according to Brasseur's statement, _Palenqué_, p. vi., but 67 if we
may credit the current report in the newspapers that he celebrated his
109th birthday in Paris on Dec. 7, 1874, being still hale and
hearty--built a cabin among the ruins and spent two whole years in
their examination,--Brasseur, _Palenqué_, p. vi., incorrectly says
_three_ years. 'Deux ans de séjour sur les lieux,' _Waldeck_, _Voy.
Pitt._, p. 68, translated 'in a sojourn of twelve years,' _Bradford's
Amer. Antiq._, p. 86,--his expenses being paid by a subscription which
was headed by the Mexican Government. More than 200 drawings in water
and oil colors were the result of his labors, and these drawings, more
fortunate than those made the next year in Yucatan--see p. 145 of this
volume--escaped confiscation, although Stephens erroneously states the
contrary, and were brought to France. _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, p. vi.
For various reasons Waldeck was unable to publish his proposed work,
and over 30 years elapsed before the result of his labors was made
public, except through communications dated Aug. 28, and Nov. 1, 1832,
sent to the Geographical Society at Paris. _Lafond_, _Voyages_, tom.
i., p. 142. I shall speak again of his work. Mr Friederichsthal
visited Palenque in his Central American travels before 1841, but
neither his text nor plates, so far as I know, have ever been
published. _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Palenqué_, introd., p. 14. See
pp. 146-7 of this vol.
In 1840, Messrs Stephens and Catherwood, after their exploration of
the antiquities of Honduras and Guatemala, reached Palenque on May 9,
remaining until June 4. Such are the dates given by Brasseur,--the
only antiquarian except myself who has ever had the hardihood to
explore Stephens' writings for dates,--but the actual examination of
the ruins lasted only from May 11 to June 1. The results are found in
_Stephens' Yuc._, vol. ii., pp. 280-365, with 31 plates and cuts from
Catherwood's drawings; and in _Catherwood's Views of Anc. Mon._, N.
York, 1844, 25 colored lithographs, with text by Mr Stephens. A French
translation of Stephens' description of Palenque is given in _Brasseur
de Bourbourg_, _Palenqué_, pp. 14-27. Respecting the ability of these
explorers, and the faithfulness of their text and drawings, there can
be but one opinion. Their work in Chiapas is excelled only by that of
the same gentlemen in Yucatan.--See p. 146 of this vol.--Without aid
from any government, they accomplished in 20 days, at the height of
the rainy season, the most unfavorable for such work, more
satisfactory results, as Stephens justly claims, _Cent. Amer._, vol.
ii., p. 299, than any of their predecessors--except Waldeck, whose
drawings had not then been published.
An anonymous account of the ruins appeared in 1845 in the _Registro
Yucateco_, tom. i., pp. 318-22. M. Morelet, of whom I have already
spoken, spent a fortnight here in 1846. _Voyages_, tom. i., pp.
264-84; _Travels_, pp. 64-111, with cuts from other sources. In 1858,
M. Désiré Charnay, 'Chargé d'une mission par le ministre d'État, à
l'effet d'explorer les ruines américaines,' visited Palenque; but his
photographic efforts were less successful here than elsewhere, and of
the four views published in his Atlas, only one, that of the tablet of
the cross, is of great value in testing the accuracy of preceding
artists. His description, however, is interesting and valuable as
showing the effects of time on the ruins since Stephens' visit.
_Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, Paris, 1863, pp. 411-41, phot. 19-22;
Remarks by M. Viollet-le-Duc, pp. 72-3.
In 1860, a commission appointed by the French government examined and
reported upon Waldeck's collection, which was found to contain
ninety-one drawings relating exclusively to Palenque, and ninety-seven
representing objects from other localities. The Palenque drawings were
reported to be far superior to any others in existence, a somewhat too
decided _penchant aux restaurations_ being the only defect;--a defect,
however, which is to a greater or less extent observable in the works
of all antiquarians, several of Catherwood's plates being confessedly
restorations. In accordance with the report of the commission, the
whole collection was purchased, and a sub-commission appointed to
select a portion of the plates for publication. It was decided,
however, to substitute for M. Waldeck's proposed text some
introductory matter to be written by the Abbé Brasseur, a man
eminently qualified for the task, although at the time he had never
personally visited Palenque. He afterwards, however, passed a part of
the month of January, 1871, among the ruins. The work finally appeared
in 1866, under the general title _Monuments Anciens du Mexique_, in
large folio, with complicated sub-titles. It is made up as
follows:--I. _Avant Propos_, pp. i.-xxiii., containing a brief notice
of some of the writers on American Antiquities, and a complete account
of the circumstances which led to the publication of this work; II.
_Introduction aux Ruines de Palenqué_, pp. 1-27, a historical sketch
of explorations, with translations of different reports, including
that of Stephens nearly in full; III. _Recherches sur les Ruines,
etc._, pp. 29-83, being for the most part speculations on the origin
of American civilization, with which I have nothing to do at present;
IV. _Description des Ruines, etc._, by M. Waldeck, pp. i.-viii; V.
Fifty-six large lithographic plates, of which Nos. i., v.-xlii., and
l., relate to Palenque, including a fine map of Yucatan and Chiapas. I
shall refer to the plates simply by the name _Waldeck_ and the number
of the plate. By the preceding list of contents it will be seen that
this is by far the most important and complete work on the subject
ever published. The publishers probably acted wisely in rejecting
Waldeck's text as a whole, since his archæological speculations are
always more or less absurd; but it would have been better to give his
descriptive matter more in full; and fault may be justly found with
the confused arrangement of the matter, the constant references to
numbers not found in the plates, and with the absence of scales of
measurement; the latter, although generally useless in the
illustrations of an octavo volume, are always valuable in larger
plates. In addition to the preceding standard authorities on Palenque,
there are brief accounts, made up from one or more of those mentioned,
and which I shall have little or no occasion to refer to in my
description, as follows: _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, pp. 104-11; _Priest's
Amer. Antiq._, pp. 246-7; _Conder's Mex. Guat._, vol. ii., pp. 157-69;
_McCulloh's Researches in Amer._, pp. 294-303; _Klemm_,
_Cultur-Geschichte_, tom. v., pp. 160-3; _Armin_, _Das Heutige Mex._,
pp. 73, 85-91; _Wappäus_, _Geog. u. Stat._, p. 148; _Nott and
Gliddon's Indig. Races_, pp. 184-5; _D'Orbigny_, _Voyage_, pp. 354,
356, plate, restoration from Dupaix; _Fossey_, _Mexique_, pp. 373,
564-6; same account in _Escalera_ and _Llana_, _Mej. Hist. Descrip._,
pp. 332-6; _Lafond_, _Voyages_, tom. i., pp. 139-44; _Bradford's Amer.
Antiq._, pp. 86-9; _Democratic Review_, vol. i., p. 38; _Brasseur de
Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 82-94; _Davis' Anc.
Amer._, pp. 4-8; _Malte-Brun_, _Précis de la Géog._, tom. vi., pp.
464-5; _Frost's Pict. Hist._, pp. 71-7; _Willson's Amer. Hist._, pp.
74-6; _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, pp. 69-86, 127; _Müller_,
_Amerikanische Urreligionen_, pp. 462, 498; _Mosaico Mex._, tom. ii.,
p. 330, cut, restoration from Dupaix; _Mühlenpfordt_, _Mejico_, tom.
ii., p. 21; _Revista Mex._, tom. i., p. 498; _Buschmann_, _Ortsnamen_,
pp. 117-20, 181; _Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc._, vol. ii., p. 180, cut,
erroneously said to be a Yucatan altar; _Littera_, _Taschenbuch der
Deutschen_, in _Russland_, pp. 54-5; _Foreign Quar. Review_, vol.
xviii., pp. 250-51; _Larenaudière_, _Mex. Guat._, pp. 308-20, with
plates from Stephens; _Norman's Rambles in Yuc._, pp. 284-92.
[VI-3] 'Une enceinte de bois et de pallisades.' _Brasseur de
Bourbourg_, _Palenqué_, p. 32; see also the Spanish dictionaries. 'Tal
vez es corrupcion de la palabra (aztec) _palanqui_, cosa podrida,'
_Orozco y Berra_, _Geografía_, p. 84. 'Means lists for fighting.'
_Davis' Anc. Amer._, p. 5. I remember also to have seen it stated
somewhere that palenque is the name applied to the poles by which
boatmen propel their boats on the waters of the tierra caliente.
[VI-4] _Humboldt_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, tom. xxxv., p.
327; _Fossey_, _Mexique_, p. 373; _Malte-Brun_, _Précis de la Géog._,
tom. vi., p. 464; _Juarros_, _Hist. Guat._, p. 19; _D'Orbigny_,
_Voyage_, p. 354; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i.,
p. 69. Brasseur, however, changed his mind about the name in later
works. _Palenqué_, p. 32. Domenech, _Deserts_, vol. i., p. 18, calls
the name Pachan, probably by a typographical error.
[VI-5] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 111;
_Id._, _Popol Vuh_, and _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, passim.
[VI-6] 'Je prouve, en effet, dans mon ouvrage sur ces célèbres ruines,
que ce sont les débris de la ville d'Ototiun.' _Waldeck_, _Voy.
Pitt._, p. 111. 'Otolum, c'est à dire Terre des pierres qui
s'écroulent. C'est le nom de la petite rivière qui traverse les
ruines. M. Waldeck, lisant ce nom de travers, en fait Ototiun, qui ne
signifie rien.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i.,
p. 69. 'I have restored to them the true name of Otolum, which is yet
the name of the stream running through the ruins.' _Raffinesque_,
quoted in _Priest's Amer. Antiq._, p. 246.
[VI-7] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Palenqué_, p. 32; _Baril_, _Mexique_,
p. 27.
[VI-8] Calderon gives a list of 206 buildings more or less in ruins.
Bernasconi gives the city a circumference of 6 leagues and 1000 varas.
Del Rio, _Descrip._, p. 4, gives the ruins an extent of 7 or 8 leagues
from east to west, along the foot of a mountain range, but speaks of
only 14 buildings in which traces of rooms were yet visible. According
to Galindo the city extends 20 miles on the summit of the chain.
_Lond. Geog. Soc._, vol. iii., p. 60. Waldeck, p. iii., says that the
area is less than one square league. Mr Stephens, vol. ii., p. 355,
pronounces the site not larger than the Park in New York city.
[VI-9] _Descrip._, p. 3.
[VI-10] Stephens says eight miles, vol. ii., p. 287; Dupaix, a little
over two leagues, p. 14; Morelet, _Voyage_, tom. i., p. 245, two and a
half leagues--_Travels_, p. 64, two leagues; Charnay, p. 416, twelve
kilometres. The maps represent the distance as somewhat less than
eight miles.
[VI-11] 'Built on the slope of the hills at the entrance of the steep
mountains of the chain of Tumbala,' on the Otolum, which flows into
the Michol, and that into the Catasahà, or Chacamal, and that into the
Usumacinta three or four leagues from Las Playas, which was formerly
the shore of the great lake that covered the plain. 'Les rues
suivaient irrégulièrement le cours des ruisseaux qui en descendant,
fournissaient en abondance de l'eau à toutes les habitations.'
_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp. 82-84. 'Mide
al suroeste del pueblo dos leguas largas de extension.' _Dupaix_, p.
14, translated in _Kingsborough_, vol. vi., p. 473, 'occupied a space
of ground seven miles and a half in extent.' 'Au nord-ouest du village
indien de Santo Domingo de Palenqué, dans la ci-devant province de
Tzendales.' _Humboldt_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, tom. xxxv.,
pp. 327-8. Galindo, _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 69, describes
the location as on the summit of the range, and reached by stairways
from the valley below. On a plain eight leagues long, which extends
along the foot of the highest mountain chain. _Mühlenpfordt_,
_Mejico_, tom. ii., p. 21. Petrifactions of marine shells from the
ruins preserved in the Mexican Museum. _Gondra_, in _Prescott_, _Hist.
Conq. Mex._, tom. iii., p. 6.
[VI-12] _Waldeck_, pl. vi. Stephens' plan, vol. ii., p. 337, agrees in
the main with this but is much less complete. Dupaix, p. 18, found
only confused and scattered ruins, and declared it impossible to make
a correct plan.
[VI-13] 'Tous les monuments de Palenqué sont orientés aux quatre
points cardinaux, avec une variation de 12°.' _Waldeck_, p. iii.
'Orienté comme toutes les ruines que nous avons visitées.' _Charnay_,
_Ruines Amér._, p. 424. Others, without having made any accurate
observations, speak of them as facing the cardinal points. See
_Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., p. 276, etc., for the experience of that
traveler in getting lost near the ruins.
[VI-14] Dimensions from _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 310. It is not likely
that they are to be regarded as anything more than approximations to
the original extent; the state of the pyramid rendering strictly
accurate measurements impracticable. The authorities differ
considerably. 273 feet long, 60 feet high. _Waldeck_, p. ii. 1080 feet
in circumference, 60 feet high. _Dupaix_, p. 14. 20 yards high. _Del
Rio_, _Descrip._, p. 4. 100×70 mètres and not over 15 feet high.
_Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 424. Circumference 1080 feet, height 60
feet, steps one foot high. _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,
tom. i., p. 85. 20 mètres high, area 3840 sq. mètres. _Morelet_,
_Voyage_, tom. i., p. 267; 20 _feet_ high. _Id._ _Travels_, p. 88.
Over 340 mètres long. _Lafond_, _Voyages_, tom. i., pp. 143-4.
Waldeck, p. iii., is the only one who found traces of a northern
stairway, and none of the general views show such traces. Charnay, p.
425, thought the eastern stairway was double, being divided by a
perpendicular wall. Brasseur, _Palenqué_, p. 17, in a note to his
translation of Stephens, says that author represents a stairway in his
plate but does not speak of it in his text--an error, as may be seen
on the following page of the translation or on p. 312 of the original.
The translation 'qui y montent _de_ la térasse' for 'leading up to it
_on_ the terrace' may account for the error.
[VI-15] _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 316; _Waldeck_, p. vi.; _Charnay_, p.
425, phot. 22. Dupaix's plate xiii., fig. 20, showing a section of the
whole, indicates that the interior may be filled with earth and small
stones.
[VI-16] _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 310, except the height, which he
gives at 25 feet. 144×240×36 feet. _Dupaix_, p. 15. 324 varas in
circumference and 30 varas high. _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 296.
145×240×36 feet. _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i.,
p. 86.
[VI-17] Waldeck thinks, on the contrary, that the principal entrance
was originally on the north. General views are found in _Stephens_,
vol. ii., p. 309; _Dupaix_, pl. xii., fig. 19; _Kingsborough_, pl.
xii.; _Waldeck_, pl. viii.; _Charnay_, phot. 22. All but the last two
are, more or less, restorations, but not--except Castañeda's in a few
respects--calculated to mislead. Stephens says that this cut is less
accurate than others in his work, and Charnay calls his photograph a
failure, although I have already made important use of the latter.
Concerning the lintels, see _Charnay_, p. 427, and _Del Rio_,
_Descrip._, pp. 9-11. Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 86,
says the outside doors are 6 feet high. Doorways 4½ to 12 ft high, 1½
to 15 ft wide. _Dupaix_, p. 15.
[VI-18] Descriptions and drawings of the bas-reliefs. _Dupaix_, pp.
20, 37, 75-6, pl. xix-xxii. Kingsborough, vol. iv., pl. xxvi., shows
one damaged group not given in _Antiq. Mex._; _Del Rio_, _Descrip._,
pp. 9-11, pl. viii., x., xi., xv., xvi. (as they are arranged in my
copy--they are not numbered); _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 311, 316-17;
_Waldeck_, p. v., pl. xii., xiii. See _Charnay_, p. 426, and this
vol., p. 246. Morelet, _Voyage_, tom. i., pp. 274, 282, implies that
all the stucco work had disappeared at the time of his visit; and he
mentions a shell-fish common in the region which furnishes good lime
and was probably used by the ancients. Waldeck concludes that the
supposed elephant's head may be that of a tapir, 'quoiqu'il existe
parmi ces mêmes ruines des figures de tapir bien plus ressemblantes.'
_Voy. Pitt._, p. 37.
[VI-19] The plan is reduced from _Waldeck_, pl. vii. Ground plans are
also given in _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 310, copied in _Willson's Amer.
Hist._, p. 75; _Dupaix_, pl. xi.; _Kingsborough_, vol. iv., pl. xiii.;
and in _Del Rio_, _Descrip._, the latter being only a rough imperfect
sketch. It is understood that a large portion of the outer and
southern walls have fallen, so that the visitors differ somewhat in
their location of doorways and some other unimportant details.
Stephens' plan makes the whole number of exterior doorways 50 instead
of 40, and many doorways in the fallen walls he does not attempt to
locate. I give the preference to Waldeck simply on account of his
superior facilities.
[VI-20] Plates illustrating the corridors may be found as follows:
_Waldeck_, pl. ix., view of doorway _c_ from _b_, showing two of the
medallions, one of which is filled up with a portrait in stucco, and
is probably a restoration; the view extends through the doorways _c_
and _d_, across the court to the building C. The same plate gives also
a view of the outer corridor lengthwise looking northward. Pl. x.
gives an elevation of the east side of the inner corridor, and a
section of both corridors. Pl. xi., fig. 1, shows the details of one
of the "T" shaped niches. _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 313--sketch
corresponding to Waldeck's pl. ix., copied in _Morelet's Travels_, and
taken from the latter for my work. _Dupaix_, pl. xviii., fig. 25,
shows the different forms of niches and windows found in the Palace,
all of which are given in my cut. 'A double gallery of eighty yards in
length, sustained by massive pillars, opened before us.' _Morelet_,
_Voyage_, tom. i., pp. 265-6; _Travels_, p. 87. The square niches with
their cylinders are spoken of by Waldeck, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 71-2, as
'gonds de pierre.' 'Quant aux ouvertures servant de fenêtres, elles
sont petites et généralement d'une forme capricieuse, environnées, à
l'intérieur des édifices, d'arabesques et de dessins en bas-relief,
parfois fort gracieux.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,
tom. i., p. 92. Principal walls 4 feet thick, others less. _Dupaix_,
p. 15.
[VI-21] Paint the same as at Uxmal. Some was taken for analysis, but
lost. Probably a mixture in equal parts of carmine and vermilion.
Probably extracted from a fungus found on dead trees in this region,
and which gives the same color. _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 100-1.
[VI-22] Waldeck is the only authority for this narrow stairway, and
his plan for the northern broad stairway.
[VI-23] Dupaix, p. 21, says that the stone is granite, the figures 11
feet high, and the sculpture in high relief. 'Peuplée de simulacres
gigantesques à demi voilés par la végétation sauvage.' _Morelet_,
_Voyage_, tom. i., p. 266. These figures, with the eastern side of the
court, are represented in _Dupaix_, pl. xxiii-iv., fig. 29; _Waldeck_,
pl. xiv-xvi. (according to a seated native on the steps, each step is
at least 2 feet high); _Stephens_, pp. 314-15; _Charnay_, phot. xix.,
xx. My cut is a reduction from Waldeck.
[VI-24] _Waldeck_, pl. xiv-v.; _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 314-15. One
of the small sculptured pilasters in _Dupaix_, pl. xxv., fig. 32.
[VI-25] The only plate that shows any portion of the court 2, is
_Waldeck_, pl. xviii., a view from the point _n_ looking
south-eastward. Two of the reliefs are shown, representing each a
human figure sitting cross-legged on a low stool.
[VI-26] Del Rio, p. 11, calls the height 16 yards in four stories,
also plate in frontispiece. Galindo, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div.
ii., p. 70, says it is somewhat fallen, but still 100 feet high.
_Id._, in _Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._, vol. iii., p. 61. Dupaix, p. 16,
says 75 feet in four stories, and his pl. xv-vi., fig. 22, make it 93
feet in three stories. Kingsborough's text mentions no height, but his
plates xvii-xviii., fig. 24, make it 108 feet in four stories. The
other authorities mention no height, but from their plates the height
would seem not far from 50 feet. See _Waldeck_, pl. xviii-xix., and
all the general views of the Palace. Waldeck, p. iii., severely
criticises Dupaix's drawings. 'Une tour de huit étages, dont
l'escalier, en plusieurs endroits est soutenu sur des voûtes
cintrées.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., pp.
86-7. 'En el pátio occidental está la torre de tres cuerpos y medio:
en el primero tiene cuatro puertas cerradas, y una que se abrió cuando
el desmonte del capitan Rio, y se halló ser un retrete de poco mas de
tres cuartas y lumbreras que se abrieron entónces.' _Registro
Yucateco_, tom. i., pp. 319-20. 'Dominée par une tour quadrangulaire,
dont il subsistait trois étages, separés l'un de l'autre par autant
de corniches.' _Morelet_, _Voy._, tom. i., p. 266. 'It would seem to
have been used as a modern oriental minaret, from which the priests
summoned the people to prayer.' _Jones_, p. 83.
[VI-27] _Waldeck_, p. iii. One of the figures in pl. xi. purports to
be a cornice of this room, but may probably belong to the outer walls,
since no other author speaks of interior cornices. _Stephens_, vol.
ii., p. 315.
[VI-28] _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 316; _Waldeck_, pl. xv., fig. 2, a
cross-section of this building, showing a "T" shaped niche in the end
wall.
[VI-29] View of the building from the south-west, representing it as a
detached structure, in _Dupaix_, pl. xiv., fig. 21. This author speaks
of a peculiar method of construction in this building: 'Su
construccion varia algo del primero, pues el miembro que llamaremos
arquitrabe es de una hechura muy particular, se forma de unas lajas
grandísimas de un grueso proporcionado é inclinadas, formando con la
muralla un angulo agudo.' The plate indicates a high steep roof, or
rather second story. It also shows a "T" shaped window and
two steps on this side. For plates and descriptions of the tablet see
_Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 318; _Waldeck_, pp. iv., vi., pl. xvii.;
_Dupaix_, pp. 16, 23, pl. xviii., fig. 26, pl. xxvi., fig. 33; _Del
Rio_, p. 13, pl. xv.-xvii.; _Galindo_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div.
ii., p. 70. Waldeck's pl. xvi., fig. 3, is a ground plan showing more
detail than the general plan; and pl. xi., fig. 3, is a study of the
cornices (?) in the interior. The sculptured tablet probably
represents Cuculkan, or Quetzalcoatl. _Morelet's Travels_, p. 97. No
doubt the medallion represented a sun, and the table beneath was an
altar to the sun. _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 83.
[VI-30] _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 319; _Dupaix_, pl. xxvii., fig. 34;
_Del Rio_, pl. iv.
[VI-31] _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 316, 318-19. Plan of galleries in
_Dupaix_, pl. xvii., fig. 24. Stucco ornaments, pl. xxv., fig. 30, 31.
Hieroglyphic tablet, pl. xxxix., fig. 41. Description, p. 28. Niche in
the wall of the gallery, _Waldeck_, p. iv., pl. xi., fig. 2.
Decoration over doorway (copied above), _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, p.
105, pl. xxii.; also in _Del Rio_, pl. xiv.
[VI-32] Cut from _Armin_, _Das Heutige Mex._, p. 73.
[VI-33] _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 339-43, with the cuts which I have
given, and also plates of the four stucco reliefs, and the
hieroglyphic tablets. _Waldeck_, pl. xxxiii.-xl., illustrating the
same subjects as Catherwood's plates, and giving also a transverse
section of the building in pl. xxiii., fig. 4. Waldeck's ground plan
represents the building as fronting the north. _Dupaix_, pp. 24-5, pl.
xxviii.-xxxii., including view of north front, ground plan, and the
stucco reliefs, which latter M. Lenoir, _Antiq. Mex._, tom. ii., div.
i., p. 78, incorrectly states to be sculptured in stone. Castañeda did
not attempt to sketch the hieroglyphics, through want of ability and
patience, as Stephens suggests. See _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 424;
_Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 89; _Baldwin_,
_Anc. Amer._, p. 107; _Del Rio_, _Descrip._, p. 16; _Galindo_, in
_Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 71. It is to be noticed that
Stephens' plan locates this temple nearer the Palace than the one I
have copied. Dupaix states the distance to be 200 paces.
[VI-34] _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 355, giving view, section, ground
plan, and what remained of the Beau Relief. _Waldeck_, p. iii., pl.
xli.-ii., with ground plans, sections, and Beau Relief as given above,
and which the artist pronounces 'digne d'être comparée aux plus beaux
ouvrages du siécle d'Auguste.' Drawings of the relief also in
_Dupaix_, pl. xxxiii., fig. 37; _Del Rio_, _Descrip._, pl. ii.;
_Kingsborough_, pl. xxxvi., fig. 37.
[VI-35] Del Rio, _Descrip._, p. 17, says this pyramid is one of three
which form a triangle, each supporting a square building 11×18
yards. Charnay locates this temple 300 mètres to the right of the
Palace. _Ruines Amér._, p. 417. _Waldeck_, pl. xx., is a fine view of
this temple and its pyramid as seen from the main entrance of the
Palace. But according to this plate the structure on the roof is at
least 10 feet wide instead of 2 feet 10 inches as Stephens gives it,
and narrows slightly towards the top. This plate also shows two
"T" shaped windows in the west end. _Stephens_, vol. ii.,
pp. 344-8, elevation and ground plan as given in my text from
_Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, p. 106, and some rough sketches of parts of
the interior. _Dupaix_, pl. xxxv., fig. 39, exterior view and ground
plan. The view omits altogether the superstructure and locates the
temple on a natural rocky cliff. Galindo, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i.,
div. ii., p. 71, speaks of the top walls as 80 feet from the ground
and pierced with square openings.
[VI-36] _Waldeck_, p. vii., pl. xxiii-iv.; _Stephens_, vol. ii., p.
352; _Dupaix_, pp. 24-5, pl. xxxvii-viii.; _Galindo_, in _Antiq.
Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 71.
[VI-37] _Dupaix_, pp. 25-6, pl. xxxvi., fig. 40; _Waldeck_, p. vii.,
pl. xxi.-ii.; _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 345-7; _Charnay_, p. 419,
phot. xxi., showing only the central stone. 'Upon the top of the cross
is seated a sacred bird, which has two strings of beads around its
neck, from which is suspended something in the shape of a hand,
probably intended to denote the manitas. This curious flower was the
production of the tree called by the Mexicans macphalxochitl, or
"flower of the hand."' _Bradford's Amer. Antiq._, p. 89. 'Une grande
croix latine, surmontée d'un coq, et portant au milieu une croix plus
petite, dont les trois branches supérieures sont ornées d'une fleur de
lotus.' _Baril_, _Mex._, pp. 28-9. 'Un examen approfondi de cette
question m'a conduit à penser avec certitude que la croix n'était,
chez les Palenquéens, qu'un signe astronomique.' _Waldeck_, _Voy.
Pitt._, p. 24.
[VI-38] _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 344, 349; _Waldeck_, pl. xxv. 'From
the engraving, Egypt, or her Tyrian neighbour, would instantly claim
it.' _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 127. Copy of the statue from
Stephens, in _Squier's Nicaragua_, (Ed. 1856,) vol. ii., p. 337.
[VI-39] Waldeck's plate xx. shows the pyramid No. 6 and indicates that
his location of it on the plan is correct. Charnay, _Ruines Amér._,
pp. 420-1, places No. 5 'à quelque distance de ce premier (Palace)
édifice, presque sur la même ligne.' _Waldeck_, pl. xxvi., front
elevation; pl. xxvii., elevation of central chamber; pl. xxviii.,
central wall, roof structure (as given above), ground plan, sections;
pl. xxix-xxx, Tablet of the Sun; pl. xxxi-ii, lateral stone tablets.
Stephens, vol. ii., pp. 351-4, and frontispiece, gives elevation and
ground plan as above, and also elevation of central chamber, a view of
a corridor, and the Tablet of the Sun. Dupaix, p. 25, pl. xxxiv., fig.
38, describes a two storied building 10 by 19 varas, 12 varas high,
standing on a low pyramid, which may probably be identical with this
temple.
[VI-40] _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 321; _Waldeck_, p. ii.; _Brasseur de
Bourbourg_, _Palenqué_, introd., p. 7; _Del Rio_, _Descrip._, p. 5;
_Dupaix_, p. 29, pl. xlvi., fig. 48; _Kingsborough_, vol. v., p. 310,
pl. xlv., fig. 45; _Galindo_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p.
71; _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 429.
[VI-41] _Waldeck_, p. ii.
[VI-42] _Dupaix_, p. 18; _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. 424.
[VI-43] _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 320-1; _Waldeck_, p. iii. Plate xx.
also gives a view of the mountain from the Palace. A 'monument qui
paraîtrait avoir servi de temple et de citadelle, et dont les
constructions altières commandaient au loin la contrée jusqu'aux
rivages de l'Atlantique.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,
tom. i., p. 84.
[VI-44] _Dupaix_, p. 28, pl. xliv., fig. 46; _Kingsborough_, p. 310,
pl. xliv., fig. 43. The latter plate does not show any curve in the
sides. _Galindo_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 68; _Id._,
in _Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._, vol. iii., p. 64.
[VI-45] _Bibliothèque Mexico-Guatémalienne_, p. xxvii.
[VI-46] _Waldeck_, p. ii.
[VI-47] _Galindo_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 68.
[VI-48] _Ordoñez_, _MS._, in _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat.
Civ._, tom. i., p. 92.
[VI-49] _Del Rio_, _Descrip._, pp. 18-20.
[VI-50] _Waldeck_, _Palenqué_, p. iv., pl. l.; _Id._, _Voy. Pitt._, p.
104, pl. xviii., fig. 3.
[VI-51] _Galindo_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., pp. 70-2;
_Dupaix_, pp. 28-9, pl. xlii-iii., xlv., fig. 44-5, 47.
[VI-52] _Hist. Mag._, vol. iii., p. 100, quoted from _Athenæum_;
_Davis' Anc. Amer._, p. 5.
[VI-53] See this vol. p. 118; _Melgar_, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_,
2da época, tom. iii., pp. 109-18.
[VI-54] _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 255-61; _Dupaix_, pp. 10-13, pl.
viii.-x.; _Kingsborough_, vol. v., pp. 291-4, vol. vi., pp. 470-2,
vol. iv., pl. ix.-x.; _Lenoir_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii.,
pp. 23, 72-3; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 46-7, 104, pl. xix.-xxi.;
_Id._, _Palenqué_, p. viii., pl. liv.; _Brasseur_, _Palenqué_,
introd., pp. 2, 14, 15--he writes the name Toninà. _Juarros_, _Hist.
Guat._, pp. 18-19, mere mention. Other authorities, containing no
original information, are as follows: _Mühlenpfordt_, _Mejico_, tom.
ii., p. 21; _Malte-Brun_, _Précis de la Géog._, tom. vi., p. 465;
_Baril_, _Mexique_, p. 27; _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., p. 20;
_Wappäus_, _Mex. Guat._, p. 147; _Müller_, _Amerikanische
Urreligionen_, p. 461; _Larenaudière_, _Mex. Guat._, p. 320;
_Morelet's Trav._, pp. 97-8; _Warden_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. ii., p.
71.
[VI-55] _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 256, 258; _Dupaix_, pp. 10-12, pl.
viii.-ix., fig. 13-16; _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 46-7.
[VI-56] _Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 46, 104, pl. xix-xxi. 'Les
figures de terre cuite qu'on trouve de temps à autre dans les champs
voisins de ces ruines, sont bien modelées, et d'un style qui révèle un
sentiment artistique assez élevé.'
[VI-57] _Morelet's Travels_, pp. 97-8, cuts probably from Catherwood's
drawings. _Warden_, in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. ii., p. 71.
[VI-58] _Dupaix_, pp. 12-13, pl. x., fig. 17.
[VI-59] _Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 258-62. Elevation, section, and
ground plan, with fragment of the stucco ornament. The latter copied
in _Brasseur_, _Palenqué_, introd., pp. 14-15. _Waldeck_, _Palenqué_,
p. viii., pl. liv. 'Dans l'intérieur de ses monuments, un caractère
d'architecture assez semblable à celui des doubles galeries de
Palenqué; seulement, j'ai remarqué que les combles étaient coniques et
à angles saillants, comme des assises renversées.' _Id._, _Voy.
Pitt._, p. 46. Shows higher degree of art than Palenque. _Brasseur de
Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 88.
[VI-60] _Pineda_, _Descrip. Geog._, in _Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin_,
tom. iii., pp. 346, 406-7.
[VI-61] _Pineda_, ubi sup.; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat.
Civ._, tom. i., p. 74; _Domenech's Deserts_, vol. i., p. 21.
[VI-62] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. iv., p. 633,
tom. i., p. 75; _Wappäus_, _Mex. Guat._, p. 147; _Mühlenpfordt_,
_Mejico_, tom. ii., p. 20; _Dupaix_, 3d Exped., p. 8, pl. vii.
[VI-63] _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 96;
_Id._, _Palenqué_, p. 33; _Hermosa_, _Manual Geog._, pp. 88-9;
_Galindo_, in _Lond. Geog. Soc., Jour._, vol. iii., p. 60; _Id._, in
_Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 68; _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._,
1857, tom. clv., pp. 221-2.
[VI-64] _Galindo_, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact._, vol. ii., p.
549. The stones that cover the arches in the Palace corridors, are
three feet long; those of the court stairways are one and a half feet
high and wide. Oxide of iron is mixed with the mortar. 'No es decible
la excelencia de este yeso que yo llamo estuco natural, pues no se
indaga visiblemente en su composicion ó masa, arena ó mármol molido. A
mas de su dureza y finura tiene un blanco hermoso.' Quarries were seen
one and a half leagues west of ruins. _Dupaix_, pp. 15-17, 20. Red,
blue, yellow, black, and white, the colors used. _Stephens_, vol. ii.,
p. 311.
[VI-65] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 87,
following Castañeda, speaks of regular semi-circular arches at
Palenque, and states that he has himself seen several such arches in
other American ruins. It is very certain that no such arches exist at
Palenque. Indeed, Dupaix himself, notwithstanding Castañeda's
drawings, says, p. 17, that semi-circular arches were not used, and
Lenoir, _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i., div. ii., p. 74, repeats the
statement; although the latter on the same page speaks of the 'voûtes
cintrées' as appearing among the ruins. Brasseur's statement about
arches in other ruins would be more satisfactory if he had seen fit to
give further particulars. 'This original mode of construction, which
discloses the principle of the arch, was not wanting in grandeur or
boldness of design, although the architects did not understand the
science of curves, and stopped short, so to speak, on the verge of the
discovery.' _Morelet's Travels_, p. 88; _Id._, _Voyage_, tom. i., pp.
265-6.
[VI-66] Hieroglyphics at Palenque are the same as those at Copan and
Quirigua, although the intermediate country is now occupied by races
of many different languages. _Stephens_, vol. ii., p. 343; but, as
Brasseur says, _Palenqué_, introd., p. 22, 'Toutes les langues qui se
parlent dans les régions existant entre Copan et Palenqué ont la même
origine; ... à l'aide du maya et du quiché, je crois qu'on les
entendrait toutes, avec quelque travail.' _Id._, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,
tom. i., p. 89; _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 102. See also this work,
vol. ii., chap, xxiv., vol. iii., Languages, chap. xi.
[VI-67] 'Il serait facile de démontrer, par une comparaison raisonnée
des ruines du Yucatan et de celles de Palenque, que les monuments dont
elles perpétuent le souvenir avaient un même caractère architectonique;
qu'ils étaient ordonnés selon les mêmes principes et construits
d'après les mêmes règles de l'art.' _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., p.
270. Brasseur, _Palenqué_, introd., pp. 20, 24, notes a striking
similarity between the arrangement of buildings at Palenque and
Yucatan. He also speaks of a remarkable inferiority in the ruins of
Palenque, compared to Chichen, Zayi, and Uxmal. _Hist. Nat. Civ._,
tom. i., p. 88. Viollet-le-Duc, in _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, pp.
72-3, says the ruins do not resemble those of Yucatan, either in plan,
construction, or decoration; and that the face of the priest in the
Temple of the Cross is of a different race from the sculptured heads
in Yucatan. 'La sculpture ... indique un art plus savant qu'au
Yucatan; si les proportions du corps humain sont observées avec plus
de soin et d'exactitude, on s'aperçoit que le _faire_ est mou, rond,
et qu'il accuse plutôt une période de décadence que l'âpreté des
premiers temps d'un art.' _Id._, p. 74, 'Le caractère de la sculpture
à Palenqué est loin d'avoir l'énergie de celle que nous voyons dans
des édifices de l'Yucatan.' _Id._, p. 97. 'A pesar de tanta desnudez,
no hemos reparado una postura, un gesto, ó algunas de aquellas del
cuerpo, al descubierto que el pudor procura ocultar,' _Dupaix_, p. 21.
Waldeck, _Voy. Pitt._, p. 72, thinks the tau-shaped figures may have
been symbols of the phallic worship. Friederichsthal, in _Nouvelles
Annales des Voy._, tom. xcii., pp. 300-3, says of the Yucatan ruins
that 'elles portent indubitablement des traces d'une identité
d'origine avec les ruines de Palenqué,' but remarks a difference in
the sculptured and molded heads. Sivers, _Mittelamerika_, p. 238, says
that the stone reliefs of Uxmal belong to a ruder primitive art; and
that stucco was used at Palenque for want of suitable stone, and for
the same reason greater attention was paid to the stone tablets at the
latter ruins. See also _Reichardt_, _Centro-Amerika_, pp. 26-9;
_Prichard's Researches_, vol. v., pp. 345-6; _Foster's Pre-Hist.
Races_, p. 197.
[VI-68] M. Viollet-le-Duc, judging from the nature and degree of art
displayed in the ruins, concludes that the civilized nations of
America were of a mixed race, Turanian or yellow from the north-west,
and Aryan or white from the north-east, the former being the larger
and the earlier element. Stucco work implies a predominance of
Turanian blood in the artists; traces of wooden structures in
architecture belong rather to the white races. Therefore he believes
that Palenque was built during the continuance of the Empire of
Xibalba, 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. In
_Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 32, 45, 97, 103, etc. 'Here were the
remains of a cultivated, polished, and peculiar people, who had passed
through all the stages incident to the rise and fall of nations;
reached their golden age, and perished, entirely unknown. The links
which connected them with the human family were severed and lost, and
these were the only memorials of their footsteps upon earth.'
Arguments against an extinct race and Egyptian resemblances.
_Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 356-7, 436-57. Dupaix believes in a
flat-headed race that has become extinct, p. 29. After writing his
narrative he made up his mind that Palenque was antediluvian, or at
least that a flood had covered it. _Lenoir_, p. 76. M. Lenoir says
that according to all voyagers and students the ruins are not less
than 3000 years old. _Id._, p. 73. 'Catlin, _Revue des Deux Mondes_,
March, 1867, p. 154, asserts that the ruined cities of Palenque and
Uxmal have within themselves the evidences that the ocean has been
their bed for thousands of years,' but the material is soft limestone
and presents no water lines. _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 398-9.
The work of an extinct race. _Escalera_ and _Llana_, _Méj. Hist.
Descrip._, p. 333; _Valois_, _Mexique_, p. 197; _Wappäus_, _Mex.
Guat._, p. 247. Judging by decay since discovery, bright paint,
comparison with German ruins, etc., they cannot date back of the
Conquest. _Sivers_, _Mittelamerika_, pp. 237-47. 'All of them were the
Work of the same People, or of Nations of the same Race, dating from a
high antiquity, and in blood and language precisely the same Race, ...
that was found in Occupation of the Country by the Spaniards, and who
still constitute the great Bulk of the Population.' _Squier_, in
_Palacio_, _Carta_, pp. 9-10. Copan and Quirigua preceded Palenque and
Ococingo as the latter preceded the cities of Yucatan. _Ib._ 'The
sculptures and temples of Central America are the work of the
ancestors of the present Indians,' _Tylor's Researches_, pp. 189, 184.
In age the ruins rank as follows: Copan, Utatlan, Uxmal, Mitla,
Palenque. _Edinburgh Review_, July, 1867. 'Una antiguedad no ménos que
antediluviana.' _Registro Yuc._, tom. i., p. 322, 'Approximative
calculations, amounting to all but certainty ... would carry its
origin as far back as twenty centuries at least.' _Dem. Review_, vol.
i., p. 38. 'Ces ruines étaient déjà fort anciennes avant même que les
Toltèques songeassent à quitter Tula.' _Fossey_, _Mexique_, p. 566.
Founded by the Toltecs after they left Anahuac in the 11th century.
They afterwards went to Yucatan. _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., pp.
269-70. Palenque much older than Yucatan according to the Katunes.
_Waldeck_, _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 22-3, 103. Waldeck found a tree whose
rings indicated an age of nearly 2000 years. _Id._, _Palenqué_, p. v.
'Il est probable qu'elles appartiennent à la première période de la
civilization américaine.' _Brasseur de Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._,
tom. i., pp. 85, 87, 89. Copan built first, Palenque second, and Uxmal
third. _Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer._, pp. 80, 72, 76. Humboldt, _Vues_,
tom. ii., p. 284, thinks it improbable that the foundation of Palenque
dates back further than the 13th or 14th century; but he never saw the
ruins and does not pretend to have any means of accurately determining
their age.
[VI-69] 'Palenqué, dans quelques bas-reliefs, a des intentions
assyriennes.' _Charnay_, _Ruines Amér._, p. iii. 'The writing of the
inscriptions ... has no more relatedness to the Phœnician than to
the Chinese writing;' nor is there any resemblance in the
architecture. _Baldwin's Anc. Amer._, p. 174. Long arguments against
any resemblance of the Central American cities to Egyptian monuments.
_Stephens_, vol. ii., pp. 436-57; which Jones, _Hist. Anc. Amer._, pp.
106-37, labors to refute. No resemblance to Egyptian pyramids, except
in being used as sepulchres. _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 186-7.
'The Palenque architecture has little to remind us of the Egyptian, or
of the Oriental. It is, indeed, more conformable, in the perpendicular
elevation of the walls, the moderate size of the stones, and the
general arrangement of the parts, to the European. It must be
admitted, however, to have a character of originality peculiar to
itself.' _Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., pp. 407-8. 'Un bas-relief
représentant un enfant consacré à une croix, les têtes singulières à
grands nez et à fronts rejetés en arrière, les bottines ou _caligulæ_
à la romaine servant de chaussure; la ressemblance frappante des
figures avec les divinités indiennes assises, les jambes croisées, et
ces figures un peu roides, mais dessinées dans des proportions
exactes, doivent inspirer un vif intérêt à quiconque s'occupe de
l'histoire primitive du genre humain.' _Humboldt_, in _Nouvelles
Annales des Voy._, tom. xxxv., p. 328. See also _Juarros_, _Hist.
Guat._, p. 19; _Dupaix_, p. 32, and elsewhere; _Larenaudière_, _Mex.
Guat._, pp. 326-9; _Scherzer_, _Quiriguá_, p. 11.
[VI-70] _Foster's Pre-Hist. Races_, pp. 338-9, 302.
[VI-71] _Klemm_, _Cultur-Geschichte_, tom. v., pp. 161-3.
[VI-72] _Morelet_, _Voyage_, tom. i., pp. 273, 264.
[VI-73] _Mayer's Mex. Aztec, etc._, vol. ii., p. 172; _Brasseur de
Bourbourg_, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i., p. 85.
[VI-74] _Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., pp. 408-9.