[8] The value of the Tula tradition is best gauged by a

comparison of the dates given by authorities. Thus Sahagun (_Historia de

la Nueva España_) places its destruction in 319 B.C.; Ixtlilxochitl

(_Historia Chichemeca_, iii. cap. 4) brings it down to 969 A.D.; the

_Codex Ramirez_ gives it as 1168 A.D.; and so on. There is an equally

amazing variation about the date of its founding.

[9] Ixtlilxochitl, in his _Relaciones Historicas_, says

Topiltzin was the last king of Tula; that Toltec sovereignty extended a

thousand leagues from north to south, and eight hundred from east to

west; and that in the wars that attended its downfall 5,600,000 persons

were slain!

[10] According to Dr. Brinton, the name Nahuatl, which of late

years scholars have agreed to use in the place of Aztec, does not belong

to the latter people. It is an Aztec word meaning--first, to speak

clearly; second, to order or command; third, to speak as one with

authority. Hence it gained the sense of "astute," "superior," and

Nahuatlaca were the Superior People. Dr. Brinton thinks it was another

name given by the Aztecs to the dispossessed Mayans, and that as the

years passed and the legends of the two races became hopelessly

confused, the Aztecs adopted the name themselves.

[11] Of Mexican traditions Dr. Brinton (_A Review of the Data

for the Study of the Prehistoric Chronology of America_: 1887) says: "It

is extremely doubtful if their earliest reminiscences refer to any event

outside the narrow valley parcelled out between the petty states of

Tenochtitlan, Tezcuco and Tlacopan.... The chronicles of Mexico proper

contain no fixed date prior to that of the founding of Tenochtitlan in

the year 1325 of our era."

CHAPTER XVI

WHO WERE AMERICA'S FIRST ARCHITECTS?

The proposition that the Mayans were taught to build by foreign visitors

involves three postulates.

1. Such foreign visitors came from a land where the knowledge of

architecture had reached a considerable degree of perfection.

2. They landed in Central America well within historic times.

3. They belonged to none of the so-called White Races.

These postulates very materially narrow the area of the globe in which

we can profitably look for their home; and a task which at first sight

appears to rival the proverbial one of looking for a needle in a

haystack becomes, if approached by the light of common sense,

comparatively simple.

Common sense cannot be said to have distinguished most of those who have

striven heretofore to crack this architectural nut. Broadly speaking,

there have been two contending bands of theorists: those who were

determined at all costs to claim the architecture of Central America as

home-grown; and those who, figuratively speaking, shut their eyes and

with a map of the world before them and bodkin in hand, pricked some

spot, opened their eyes, and triumphantly declared "There's the place."

As for the first, we have done our best in the last chapter to show that

they have not a leg to stand on. As for the second, they have defeated

their efforts by their own vagueness. They have wandered over the

earth's surface and chosen in turn any and every country which at any

period of its history has been known to possess an architecture of its

own. Thus have the Egyptians, the Scandinavians, the Phoenicians, the

Chinese, the Japanese, the Tatars, the Polynesians, all in turn been

suggested as the originators of America's native architecture; east,

west, south, north, races in nearly every continent have been

commandeered to act either as the parents of the whole Mayan people or

as their foreign tutors in the art of building.

The most remarkable of all theories was that advanced by Dr. Le

Plongeon, who invited the world to believe that the Mayans--or Mayax, as

he insisted upon calling them--were the first of all races in the world

to become architects, and that they taught the art to the ancient

Egyptians and everybody else. In pursuance of this perfectly lunatic

suggestion, he dated the civilisation of Central America 11,500 years

back. This preposterous proposition was received with the Homeric

laughter it so richly deserved. But really there was something to be

said for the poor doctor's point of view. He belonged to the class of

theorists who at all hazards wish to give America the glory of having

produced the very remarkable building skill shown to have existed in her

central territories. The only difference between him and his

fellow-theorists was that he had the courage of his convictions, and

they had not. A few thousand years were trifles to a man who could

theorise so bravely as Le Plongeon; and courage is always admirable. The

good doctor was at least no craven, no timorous,

afraid-of-his-own-shadow type of theorist; he was a Titan among the

theorising minnows, a genius in the art; for he possessed the genius of

enthusiasm.

The others of the "indigenous" school have proved halfhearted and vague.

If you insist upon their coming to the point and saying whence the

builders really came, they try to parry your insistence by asking a

question in their turn--"Whence came the African Negroes?" To this the

correct reply, according to Professor E. Morse, is "From Africa, of

course." "Originally?" "Yes, originally: they constitute the African or

Negro sub-species of Man." This is a mode of arguing which is

fundamentally unsound for the excellent reason that the cases of the

African and American races are not analogous. For even if the aboriginal

peoples of America could be assumed to be as strictly indigenous in

their habitat as the negroid peoples are generally held to be in theirs,

you have still to explain an isolated outburst of civilisation in

Central America marking off an extraordinarily restricted area,

comparatively speaking, from the vast continental expanses north and

south. But the ethnical problems of the Negro and the American are not

even so far analogous; for, as all the world knows, the generally

accepted theory as to the American race is that it must be ultimately

referred to the Mongoloid division of mankind, and that the New World

was in prehistoric times peopled from Asia.

But if this view, supported as it is by a physical resemblance in some

cases so remarkable as to quite stultify the suggestion of coincidence,

were upset, you would still be confronted with the unanswerable

question: If American architecture is of home-growth, why was it

restricted to one very small area? For the proposition that it is

indigenous almost demands the postulate that it evolved at such an early

date in some form or other as to allow time for it to spread far into

the north and south of the New World. If any deduction is possible from

its singular localisation, it is surely that it was introduced from

outside and at so comparatively recent a date before the arrival of the

White race in the Americas as not to have permitted time for it to

spread far.[12]

Everything then points to the exotic nature of American architecture.

Whence came its originators? Our postulates enable us to narrow the

inquiry to Egypt, Japan, China, India, Ceylon, and the Malay Peninsula.

Let us take these possibilities in this order.

Egypt has been a great temptation to many, and in truth it is difficult,

when you are first face to face with such very Egyptian-looking statues

as the Atlantean figures which we found at Chichen, and which are

described on p. 98, to resist the thought that there must be some

connection between the stone marvels of the Nile Valley and the palaces

of Yucatan. But putting aside the extraordinary difficulties in the way

of mapping a possible route by which the connection between the two

peoples could be effected, all available evidence is against you. The

buildings of the two races are unlike in structure and design, in

ornamentation and decoration; and if this dissimilarity could be

explained away, and an attempt made to link the two ethnically, there is

not a shred of evidence, physically, mythologically, philologically, or

such as might be derived from a community of manners and customs, to

help out the effort.

With Egypt gone, we have to deal with the different parts of Asia

mentioned. Asia has been popular with many theorisers. Lured on by the

recollection that the greatest ethnologists agree that America was

peopled from Asia via the Behring Straits, they see no difficulty in the

Mayan architects coming that way too. Indeed these Straits are a very

tempting spot: the narrow neck of land where the two continents almost

join. It is less than 36 miles across between East Cape, Asia, and

Prince of Wales's Cape, America; and on those rare days when the

atmosphere permits (it is almost always foggy thereabouts), one can see

across with the naked eye. Between the two capes are three small (now

uninhabited) islands, and the deepest part of the channel is but 30

fathoms (180 feet). Before Behring's expedition to this region in 1728

it was thought that the continents did actually join; for Deschnev, the

Russian who is said to have sailed these waters in 1648, was regarded as

an inventor of fables when he stated that a passage existed.

The affinity of the Eskimos to the Japanese has long been a favourite

theme of ethnologists, and Dr. Torrell, who devoted much time and study

to this question, thinks he has proved past all dispute that the two

peoples are kinsmen. But be this as it may, and whether one accepts or

not the peopling of the Americas from Asia via the Behring Straits, it

is as good as impossible to maintain that the builders came into America

by this route. Were this so, we should most certainly find traces of

their march south to the chief field of their activities. The most

fanatical of the theorists must surely admit that the fact that we do

not is an insuperable objection to their theory. That a migrating race

of architects passed through the whole length of North America and kept

their art a profound secret till they reached the centre of the New

World, is literally unthinkable.

No; if America was peopled from Asia, it was in times so remote that the

inhabitants of Asia did not themselves know the art of building. The age

of American Man has been a keenly debated question. Nothing has yet been

found which can be reckoned a proof that he existed previous to the

present geological epoch. Dr. Lund, who has devoted much time to the

problem, states that he found but one trace of man among those of the

extinct mammalia, and this was dubious, for there were signs that the

strata where they were discovered had been disturbed within some recent

period during which the human remains had possibly been buried. But

American Man must at least be prehistoric; and being so, he is all too

early, if he was to bring the knowledge of building with him. And if it

is urged that the mysterious architects came in well within historic

times, after the New World was already peopled by their kinsmen, the

lack of traces of them and their art is more than ever a full answer.

That the builders came from Asia we are convinced; but they came direct

to Central America by sea.

Taking Japan as first of the Asiatic countries from which the builders

may have come, there is much made of the close similarity of the objects

found in the shell-heaps of North America and the upper Amazon on the

one hand, and on the other those of North and South Japan, especially

those of Omori. The pottery is much alike: you have the crenellated

fillet and the cord markings. But these features of prehistoric pottery

have been shown to exist among many peoples. Again, there is a close

resemblance in the stone implements found; but Sir John Evans in his

_Ancient Stone Implements of Great Britain_ points out that stone

implements are identical in most lands. He instances those of the Nile

Valley, which are so precisely like those found in the Kentish oolite

that the most experienced archæologist could not tell them apart. But if

there is nothing in this positive evidence, there is much in the

negative evidence available. The architecture of Japan is derived from

the Chinese, and is of a comparatively recent date. It is in all ways

dissimilar to that of Central America. Further, that the Japanese early

possessed the potter's wheel is proved by their ancient mortuary

vessels. There was not a potter's wheel in America. Again, the Japanese

ritual of the third and fourth centuries, as contained in the Kojiki and

Nihonji, have no analogy with Mexican ritual. Again, in Japan and Korea

we find bronze mirrors and bells unknown in America, and an early

knowledge of tempering steel in Japan is quite lacking in the land of

the Mayans.

What about China? Here there are vague resemblances between the

buildings of the two peoples; but at most they are those features in

which one might trace a similarity between the productions of any two

building races. As in Japan, ritual and customs are all distinct from

those found among the Mayans. Those who would have us believe that

Central American civilisation was of Chinese origin have been much

influenced by that fable promulgated by the Chinese historian Li Yen,

who lived in the seventh century. He states the existence of a country

which he calls the "Land of the Fusang," and which he declared lay

40,000 li eastward of China. Li Yen had the tale from a Buddhist priest

Hwui Shan; but the curious point is that the latter described himself as

a priest coming from the "Land of the Fusang," and says nothing as to

how he got there, or how he became a Buddhist in this unknown country.

In an article in vol. lv. of _New Annals of Voyages_ entitled

"Researches regarding the Country of the Fusang," H. J. von Klaproth

points out that this could not have been Mexico because of the horses

and carts mentioned, and these were of course unknown in Mexico in

pre-Conquest times. He says Japan was the place, and this he supports by

showing that it was early called Fusang (beautiful). The distance as

given by Li Yen is, according to Klaproth, no difficulty, as the "li"

was a very variable measure, quite apart from the fact that the priest

would have no accurate means of measuring. His 40,000 li may be on a par

with the mulberry trees thousands of feet high and the silkworms 7 feet

long which form part of his fairy tale, as Professor E. Morse points out

in his pamphlet _Was Middle America peopled from Asia?_

In a problem like this small proofs are often most valuable, and if all

else were lacking, the absence in Central America of the glazed

roofing-tile so common in China from 2000 B.C. is very significant

seeing that pottery-glazing had been brought to a high point of

perfection there. Again, in China the potter's wheel and the plough were

in common use from the earliest times, but there is no trace of either

in Central America. Indeed, no one has been able to produce a piece of

real evidence for the theory that the Chinese endowed the Mayans with

their art of building.

But if in Egypt, Japan, and China we have not been even "warm" as

children's forfeit-games have it, when we turn to India and the Malay

Peninsula we are growing distinctly "burning." In such a problem the

evidence most valuable is perhaps afforded by the opinions of those who

have not worked in the special field of archæology, and are thus

untrammelled by theories. Let us start with one or two such opinions,

and then we will pass from this general to the particular evidence which

to our minds proves that America obtained her architecture from this

part of Asia.

Mr. R. Spence Hardy in his book _Eastern Monachism_ (London, 1850),

after seeing drawings of the monuments of Yucatan, on p. 22 writes, "The

ancient edifices of Chichen in Central America bear a striking

resemblance to the topes of India. The shape of one of the domes, the

apparent size, the small tower on the summit, the trees growing on the

sides, the appearance of masonry here and there, the style of

ornamentation, and the small doorways at the base, are so exactly

similar to what I have seen at Anuradhapura that when my eyes first fell

upon the engravings of the remarkable ruins, I supposed that they were

represented in illustration of the dagobas of Ceylon."

Writing in _The Edinburgh Review_ for April, 1867, another author says,

"The great temple at Palenque so closely corresponds in its principal

details with that of Boro Budor, in the province of Kedu (Java) ... as

to place beyond all reasonable debate the common purpose and origin of

both. Both were elevated on a series of graduated platforms or terraces;

and are reached by successive flights of steps, facing the cardinal

points. The chambers in both are disproportionately small, with no

apertures, except the doorways, for the admission of air and light;

their curved ceilings, formed of stones overlapping each other,

triangular-wise and constituting what is known as the cyclopean arch,

are precisely alike."

Other authors might be quoted to show that the general appearance of the

two sets of ruins is so similar as to attract the attention of the

casual visitor; but we will now pass to our particular evidence. As will

have been seen from many of our illustrations, the buildings of Central

America were, with but a few exceptions, built on pyramids. Now it is a

fact that wherever Buddhism prevailed in ancient times we find the

truncated pyramid, either of the square or round form. As at the temple

of Boro Budor, these pyramids generally had buildings on the top. They

were built of earth and rubble covered with a layer of bricks or hewn

stone, the whole then plastered over with stucco which, according to

Spence Hardy, is composed of lime, cocoanut water, and the juice of the

paragua. The ruins of Chichen, Uxmal, Kabah, Sayil, Labna and all the

others we visited were built in the same way. The pyramids are

invariably built of earth and rubble covered over with a layer of hewn

stone slabs of various sizes. The walls of buildings, as in the Tennis

Court at Chichen, often had a section in the centre filled up with

rubble. And in most cases the whole had been stuccoed over.

Now let us take that most characteristic of all features of Mayan

architecture, the so-called Mayan arch. In the strict sense it is not an

arch at all. It never reached the stage of being curved, but was a

series of inverted steps rising to the roof and crowned with a slab, as

will be plainly seen in our illustration. Sometimes the steps were hewn

off so as to give an even surface on which plaster was smeared. Now this

peculiar arch is found in ancient Buddhist structures and nowhere else

in the world. John Crawfurd in his _History of the Indian Archipelago_

(3 vols.: Edinburgh, 1820), in vol. ii. p. 200, when speaking of the

interior of the buildings there, writes: "The stones overlap each other

within so as to present to the eye the appearance of inverted steps of a

stair.... The builders of Bramhanan had possessed the art of turning the

elliptical arch and vault, for the entrances and doorways are all arched

and the roofs vaulted. A circular vault or arch, however, is nowhere to

be found among the ruins; and the principle of turning an arch is

nowhere carried to such a length as to convey the impression of grandeur

or magnificence." This might as appropriately have been written of the

Mayan buildings. Where in the very few instances the arch was continued

along more than one side of the building, as in the Castillo of Chichen,

it does not make a circular turn, but comes to a corner and then goes

off at right angles. The only circular turning arch we saw was the

continuously rounded one in the Caracol at Chichen.

[Illustration: DIAGRAM OF MAYAN ARCH.]

Next, let us take the interior wall paintings of the buildings of both

countries. Most of the inner walls of the buildings in Central America

bear traces of paints on the plaster. The biggest room at Chichen, that

on the south side of the Nunnery, 47 feet by 9, was once covered with

paintings from the floor to the apex of the roof. So were the smaller

rooms. But owing to vandalism and natural decay of the plaster, they

cannot now be properly traced. There is, however, enough to show that

they represented the inhabitants of the city. Again, in the House of the

Tigers, standing up gaunt and majestic on the wall of the Tennis Court,

the everyday life of the builders is depicted by the artist in blues,

greens, yellows, and a reddish brown.

Now turn to the ancient Buddhist edifices. Spence Hardy (_Eastern

Monachism_, p. 230) says: "The whole interior, whether rock, wall, or

statue, is painted in brilliant colours, but yellow much predominates.

In one place the artist has attempted to depict part of the early

history of the island, beginning with the voyage of Wijaya, which is

represented by a ship with only the lower mast, and without sails;

alongside are fishes as large as the vessel. In representing the

buildings of the great dagobas of Anuradhapura, the proportions are no

better preserved and these artificial mountains appear to be little

larger than the persons employed in finishing them.... The ornamental

paintings, where proportion was not of paramount importance, are very

neat, and all the colours appear to be permanent and bright." This lack

of proportion in the human figures is very noticeable at Chichen, the

figures often entirely dwarfing the huts in which they are supposed to

be standing.

Next, let us take the isolated example of decoration, about which there

has been much controversy, the Red Hand. We have before spoken of this

strange mark on the walls of Mayan buildings. It looks like a hand that

has been dipped in a reddish-brown pigment, almost blood-colour, and

then pressed upon the wall. This in many cases it undoubtedly is, for

the actual lines of the hand can be discerned. Now Le Plongeon, in his

_Vestiges of the Mayans_, was the first, we believe, to call attention

to the fact that _The New York Herald_ of April 12th, 1879, in

describing General Ulysses S. Grant's visit to Ram Singh, Maharajah of

Jeypoor, says, "We passed small temples, some of them ruined, some

others with offerings of grains or fruits or flowers, some with priests

and people at worship. On the walls of some of the temples we saw the

marks of the human hand as though it had been steeped in blood and

pressed against the white wall. We were told that it was the custom,

when seeking from the gods some benison, to note the vow by putting the

hand into a liquid and printing it on the wall. This was to remind the

gods of the vow and prayer, and if it came to pass in the shape of rain,

or food, or health, or children, the joyous devotee returned to the

temple and made offerings."

Stephens, in the appendix of vol. ii. of _Incidents of Travel in

Yucatan_, gives a communication from Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, who writes:

"The figure of the human hand is used by the North American Indians to

denote supplication to the Deity or Great Spirit.... In the course of

many years' residence on the frontiers, including various journeyings

among the tribes, I have had frequent occasion to remark the use of the

hand alone as a symbol, but it has generally been a symbol applied to

the naked body after its preparation and decoration for sacred or

festive dances. And the fact deserves further consideration from these

preparations being generally made in the arcanum of the medicine or

secret lodge or some other private place, and with the skill of the

priest's, or medicine man's, or juggler's art. The mode of applying it

in these cases is by smearing the hand of the operator with white or

coloured clay, and impressing it on the breast, the shoulder, or other

part of the body. The idea is thus conveyed that a secret influence, a

charm, a mystic power, is given to the dancer, arising from his sanctity

or his proficiency in the occult arts. This use of the hand is not

confined to a single tribe of people. I have noticed it alike, among the

Dacotahs, the Winnebagoes, and other Western tribes, as among the

numerous branches of the Red Race still located east of the Mississippi

River above the latitude of 42 degrees who speak dialects of the

Algonquin languages."

There is thus no doubt that the "red hand" of the Mayans had its analogy

among the tribes of North America; and thus by itself it is of little

moment in the present argument. But we have made a singular and most

important discovery. On the friezes of the Stupa of Bharahat in India,

found in 1873 by Sir Alexander Cunningham--the date of the building of

which is accepted as approximately 200 B.C.--are rows of hands carved.

These hands are precisely similar in shape to those we discovered in

great numbers on the ruins in the island of Cozumel, and to those we

saw on other Mayan ruins. There can be no doubt as to the identity of

this symbolic decoration, and we believe that here exists a most

important link in the chain of evidence connecting America and the East.

There are those who will at once declare that the very fact that the

symbol can be shown to have had a wide use in North America forbids the

idea that it came from the East. This is clearly not so. If the date

which we shall suggest as the likely one for the arrival of the Eastern

immigrants in Central America be even approximately accurate, there

would be ample time for the symbol to spread sufficiently into the north

for Schoolcraft in the middle of the nineteenth century to find it

broadcast among very distant tribes. Among such a proverbially

superstitious race as the American Indians, such a symbol would rapidly

"catch on," and the fact that a very extended trade existed between the

natives of Yucatan and the tribes around the Gulf of Mexico from early

times makes its introduction a very easily explained fact.

Next, let us make a brief examination of the architectural ornamentation

of the ancient buildings of the Buddhist East and those of Central

America, and see if there exist any similarities which are of a nature

to help the proof of the connection. Much has been made of that peculiar

feature of Mayan decorative art, the "snouted mask" or "elephant trunk,"

common on the buildings of Palenque, Chichen and Uxmal, and many other

cities. This is shown in many of our illustrations. It is a trunk-like

projection which is used as an ornamentation on the cornices. In this

some have eagerly found a reminiscence of India's elephant. There would

not seem to be the least reason for these zoological speculations. An

examination of the ornament reveals a rudely carved face on the wall

behind; and if we turn to the _Codex Cortesianus_ we find recurring

therein the figure of a deity with a peculiarly elongated nose, an exact

miniature of this much discussed architectural ornamentation. Thus there

can be little doubt that the "snouted mask" was the symbol of a deity,

possibly the Tapir-god, who is always represented with a snout which is

a parody of that of the real animal.

But if there is nothing in the elephant theory of the so-called "snouted

mask," there is a very curious type of ornamentation in some of the

Mayan buildings which may prove of great import in this connection. At

Labna, at Copan and elsewhere, are found, as the finish of cornices,

alligators' heads--the one we saw at Labna having a half-curled

"elephant trunk,"--with jaws agape, from within them a grotesque face

peering out. This is so peculiar a design that it must be admitted that

a parallel to it in any land would be at least suggestive. We have found

an exact parallel where we should most have hoped to find it. Heads of

the alligator's congener, the crocodile, exist in large numbers at Boro

Budor and in the ruined Buddhist cities of Ceylon. In his _Cambodge et

Java_ (1896) M. Albert Tissandier gives illustrations of the gargoyles

decorating the terraces of Boro Budor, showing them to be the fantastic

heads of crocodiles, surmounted by a half-curled elephant trunk. He

writes (we translate): "This type of crocodile, ornamented with the

trunk of an elephant, appears to be of Singhalese origin. I have

remarked numerous examples at Anuradhapura in Ceylon, the building of

which is much more ancient than Boro Budor, and also at Polonnaruwa....

The arcades (at Boro Budor) end at the base in a head of a crocodile

like the gargoyles I have described above. From out the open jaws of

these monsters peers in each case a little demon with grinning face." It

is difficult indeed to believe that so singular a design and detail of

decoration should have been evolved at once in ancient Buddhist India

and among the American Indians of Yucatan and Guatemala.

An exhaustive comparison of the ornamentation of Mayan and Eastern

buildings would doubtless yield valuable data; but when we state that

there are many hundreds of patterns of decoration employed on the

buildings of Yucatan, it will be seen that this would need a volume to

itself. Broadly speaking, the decorations of the two types of

architecture are dissimilar; and if one reflects, this is really no more

than one would expect. As we have said, the Eastern introducers of

building could not bring with them much knowledge of detailed

ornamentation. The actual decorative designs on Mayan structures might

be reasonably expected to be developed in the country. Only in spots

where the invaders had their actual settlements should we find any

characteristic designs. And this is exactly what we do find at Copan and

Quirigua, which we shall presently try to show were among the very

earliest, if not _the_ earliest, of their locations. At these two places

the ruins consist chiefly of stelae and altars, and the decorations of

these are un-American and Oriental in character.

[Illustration: THE NUNNERY, UXMAL.]

But if there is little similarity between the minuter architectural

details of the Mayan and Buddhist buildings, we believe that, carefully

studied, the former, and particularly, as we should have expected, those

at Copan and Quirigua, exhibit distinct survivals of Buddhist influence.

Mr. Maudslay, in his superb series of photographs of stelae (_Biologia

Centrali-Americana_), shows clearly in the hands of nearly every figure

what he calls a "manikin staff"--a short stick surmounted by a human

figure issuing from feathers or leaves. He cannot explain it, but we

believe that it may be nothing less than a much corrupted survival of

the sacred lotus held by Buddhist images. In photographs of carvings at

Bharahat and also at Boro Budor, the Buddhas and their attendants appear

to hold just such short staves, really the rubbery stem, surmounted by

the lotus-flower, out of which seems to issue in some instances a kind

of face. There appear, too, in the grasp of many figures on the friezes

at Bharahat short sticks surmounted by manikins seated on bannerets. The

"manikin staves" at Copan may be a blended memory of these two

Buddhistic symbols.

Again, Mr. Maudslay noticed a detail of Mayan decoration which has

escaped other students. He points out that at Palenque and elsewhere is

represented a plant which he calls a water plant because fish are seen

feeding on the flowers. "The leaves and flower-buds," he writes, "are

very clearly drawn, and have somewhat the appearance of those of a water

lily." He is probably right: it is a water lily--the Buddhist

lotus--which figures, often with fish swimming round, in almost every

carving at Boro Budor and the ruined Buddhist cities. The drawing he

gives of the Palenque carving is so exact a copy of the Buddhist lotus

as to be quite amazing.

The figures on the stelae at Copan and Quirigua, in many instances have

across their breasts what looks like a broad band. We believe this to be

another Buddhist survival--viz. the ola or palm-leaf book which Buddha

is nearly always shown holding, and which appears in the famous rock

statue of King Parakrama in the ruins of Polonnaruwa (see H. W. Cave,

_Ruined Cities of Ceylon_), exactly as portrayed in Guatemala.

The headdresses of the stelae statues are most reminiscent of the triple

tiara of Buddhist images. The large square or round ear-ornaments at

Quirigua are precisely like those in the sculptures of Boro Budor and in

the island of Madura, a report on the ruins of which latter was

published in 1904 by the Dutch Government (_Archaeologisch Onderzoek op

Java en Madura_). A plate in the latter work represents stelae found in

Madura in feature and decoration so amazingly like those of Quirigua

that one might be forgiven for thinking one was looking at one of Mr.

Maudslay's superb photographs. The latter noted at Copan curious

forehead marks which suggest to us the sacred Buddha markings. On the

north face of the gigantic monolithic turtle at Quirigua is a

cross-legged figure which in Mr. Maudslay's plate exhibits in the

fullest manner many Buddhist survivals.

At Palenque, again, there are the very peculiar Temples of the Cross and

the Foliated Cross, which appear to have no parallels in other Mayan

ruins. We suggest that here too is a Buddhist survival, namely that the

"Crosses" (it is more obvious in the foliated one) are crude

representations of the Sacred Tree of Buddhism, the "Tree of Wisdom,"

traditionally a pippul-tree, beneath which Gotama attained Buddha-hood,

and which occurs again and again on the Boro Budor friezes and on all

the ancient Buddhist carvings, and around which figures are grouped in

adoration as are those in the Palenque reliefs. As the Palenque tablets

suggest that the "Cross" is the direct object of worship, it may be

worth while here to mention that in the oldest Buddhist sculptures

Buddha himself is never represented directly, but always under a symbol;

either the sacred footprints--Buddha-pats--or the tree beneath which his

meditations led him to divine knowledge.

But the faces of the statues will take us a step further: for they seem

to be representations of those human types peculiar to Cambodia, Siam,

and the Malay Peninsula, as will be seen from the illustrations. They

have the elongated, somewhat oblique eye of those peoples; they have not

the American, but the Siamese nose. They are beardless (for this reason

some have declared them to be women), and they wear an Oriental

headdress such as is found in none of the admittedly Mayan ruins, and

which we believe we have identified as the ancient Indian turban shown

clearly in the carvings at Bharahat.

But we must revert directly to the all-important evidences afforded by a

study of Copan. Here, following up our argument that the peculiar

characteristics of the invading builders would tend to weaken as they

mixed more with the Indians, or as their lessons, perhaps after their

deaths, were adapted to purely native ideas and designs, we find an

illustration in point in Piedras Negras, a ruined city on the Usumacinta

discovered by Herr Teobert Maler. Here, some way from their first

settlement, the distinctly Oriental influence is on the wane, but it is

still strong. A carving there unearthed by Herr Maler is so reminiscent

of Buddhist monuments that it must appeal to the most undiscerning. The

figure of the seated god is, in truth, the best the sculptor could do

from memory.

Again, at Palenque the influence of the East is fading still more from

the work; yet is there some remaining. The figures have the

characteristic features of the Americans, and the native headgear; but

the attitude is the typical Buddhist one, and there is moreover one

figure which takes us back to the purer orientalism of Copan. "The

principal figure," says Stephens, "sits cross-legged on a couch

ornamented with two leopard's heads; the attitude is easy, the

physiognomy the same as that of the other personages, the expression

calm and benevolent.... The headdress differs from most of the others at

Palenque in that it wants the plume of feathers" (_Central America,

Chiapas and Yucatan_, vol. ii., p. 318). In the Buddhist carvings Buddha

is often represented seated on a couch carved in the form of a tiger or

lion, or really two, for the body is double-headed. This seat is spoken

of in the Sanskrit as _Simhasana_, literally "the seat of lions," so

called from the crouching animals, which, however, appear in all

carvings as only two. Too much must not be made of this singular

circumstance, perhaps, because such animal seats have been found at

Persepolis, and again in the island of Cyprus, and the Greeks got the

idea from Assyria. Stephens found one of these animal couches at Uxmal,

but on this there was no figure. There may not be anything in the

occurrence of these seats in America; but we think it at least

suggestive.

At Palenque in the Cross Tablets we have the chief figures standing on

dwarf crouching human forms. At Tikal, north-east of Lake Peten, a carved

wooden lintel discovered by Mr. Maudslay depicts two figures standing on

two crouching bodies which he believed to represent prisoners. Elsewhere

in Mayan ruins the design prevails. Now in the Indian, Cambodian, and

Javanese ruins recur again and again these crouching figures, acting as

footstools for the chief personages of the sculpture. Sometimes they are

human, sometimes apes or demons. They are the equivalents--it is

believed--of the Hindu Garudas, who took in Hindu myth many forms; and

we suggest that the Mayan fondness for this queer design was another

heritage from their architectural tutors.

In our description of Palenque we have mentioned one of the most curious

of all the reliefs--that representing, according to Stephens, women with

children in their arms. The Oriental survivals would seem to be

specially strong at Palenque, and it would not surprise us if in these

women-figures there is hidden a cogent proof of the origin of America's

first architects. In _Buddhist Art in India_, Professor A. Grünwedel

writes: "At Sikri, Yusufzai, excavated by Major H. A. Deane in 1888, was

found a statue of a woman accompanied by three children, one of which

sits astride of her right hip in true Indian fashion, and which she is

about to suckle. Among sculptures at Lahore Museum is a statue of a

woman completely draped and holding on her left arm a child. It is

suggested that these are forms of Haritri--'Mother of the Demons.' She

was the mother of five hundred demons or yakshas, to feed whom she daily

stole a child. Buddha rebuked and converted her. An image of her was

found sitting in the porch or in a corner of the dining-halls of Indian

monasteries holding a babe in her arms." Why should not the Palenque

figure be a representation of the Hindu goddess Haritri?

A still more remarkable similarity is illustrated by a tower-like

building at Yaxchilan into which is let at about the middle a huge human

face. This queer edifice has probably replicas as yet undiscovered in

the forests of Guatemala. If it could be shown to have a counterpart in

the Malay Peninsula, that would be a connecting-link between the two

civilisations which would need some explaining away, would it not? Well,

we have traced such a counterpart just where it ought to occur, if our

theory is to hold good, viz. in the forests of Cambodia. At Angkor there

are several such structures built of large blocks of hewn stone. Of

these extraordinary towers M. L. Fournereau in _Des Ruines d' Angkor_

(Paris, 1890) gives some excellent photographs. It would need a bold man

to say that the fact of these Cambodian towers having such a striking

replica at a spot near the earliest settlements of our supposititious

Oriental architects is due to coincidence.

Then there are the curious figures carved on the walls of the Nunnery at

both Chichen and Uxmal and on other Mayan ruins. They sit cross-legged

in Buddhistic fashion in niches in the walls surrounded by an

oval-shaped ornamentation. These are like the images in the niches of

the temples of all great Buddhist buildings; the oval-shaped

ornamentation may easily be, it really looks exactly like, the aureole

which invariably surrounds the figure of the Buddha at Boro Budor and

elsewhere. Moreover these figures in Yucatan have a nimbus too, just

like the Buddhas. We are not of course endeavouring to show that the

Yucatecan figures represent Buddha; but we are suggesting that the

Oriental pattern and designs for religious statuary had sunk deep into

the Mayan mind.

Though the sculptures of the two civilisations are not, as has been

said, strikingly alike in detail, they are similar in subjects. They

represent, for the most part, when not strictly religious, processions,

battle-scenes, and pictures of the daily life of the people. There are,

too, bas-reliefs showing the conquered submitting to the conqueror, the

details being much like those of the famous carving on the rock at

Behistun. There is not much in such similarities, as the carvings of any

race would tend to be stereotyped in a common form. Where valuable

evidence would be looked for is in the fields of religion and mythology.

So far, wherever we have been able to show similarities between the

architectures of America and the East, Buddhism has been the prevailing

religion of the part of the latter in question. Do we then find any

likeness between the religion of the Mayans and Buddhism?

In entering upon this part of our inquiry, we must remember that the

religion of a mere handful of invaders, as we must presume the Oriental

builders to have been, would not appeal to the natives so much as would

their arts. When you have admitted the conservative tendencies of all

peoples in matters religious, it gives an added weight to any genuine

parallels which are traceable between two religions in such an argument

as the present. We believe we can show such genuine parallels; but first

we must refer once more to the suggestion that the elephant was sacred

to the Mayans. We have shown that no reliance can be placed on the

zoological deductions made from the so-called elephant-trunk ornaments

on the Mayan buildings. But on the general question, the fact that the

elephant has apparently never been indigenous to America would seem to

settle the matter. No race has ever been shown to have worshipped an

animal they have never actually seen. Some writers have tried to prove

that the elephant or its congener, the mammoth, existed in America

contemporaneously with man. Professor Newberry, in an article "The

Ancient Lakes of Western America" (_U.S. Geological Survey Report_,

Washington, 1871), writes: "The elephant and mastodon continued to

inhabit the interior of our continent long after the glaciers had

retreated beyond the upper lakes, and when the minutest details of

surface topography were the same as now.... It is even claimed here as

on the European continent that man was a contemporary of the mammoth and

that here, as there, he contributed largely to its final extinction."

For this view there would seem little real evidence. The so-called

elephant figures dug up during the excavation of mounds in Wisconsin and

Iowa in 1880, although declared by their finders to be miniature

representations of elephants, have no tusks and are far more like the

tapir of Central America. This is the American animal nearest

approaching in form the elephant of Asia. That the tapir was worshipped

by the Mayans there is no doubt: ample proof exists. It is certainly

possible enough that this was an indigenous cult, and cannot be held to

be reminiscent of an earlier worship of the elephant. What would seem to

militate against such an explanation is the nature of the tapir.

Animal-worship undoubtedly arose in the majority of cases from one of

two motives: fear or gratitude for utility. The former motive is

illustrated in the adoration of the larger carnivora; while the worship

of the whale, the horse, and the cow are examples of the latter. But the

tapir is neither feared (he is very shy, has no tusks or other means of

offence, and lives entirely in the swampy woods, never willingly meeting

man); nor is he of the least use, though it is possible his flesh has on

occasions been eaten. With this, we will finally leave the elephant-cult

question, with the suggestion that the tapir being the nearest approach

to the elephant in the New World, may have been adopted as its successor

by the invaders and afterwards became a deity of the Mayans.

Now let us see what are the parallels between Buddhism and the Mayan

religion, whether in legend, doctrine, or ritual.

The Buddhist priests lived during certain parts of the year in

monasteries. They had no food but what they received from the people;

were not allowed to marry; fasted on certain days; and spent their time

in meditation, writing up their religious records, and teaching the

people. This is almost the precise life led by the Mayan priests. They

lived apart from the people in separate houses, and, most noteworthy of

all, Acosta in his _Historia de los Indios_ says that they lived

entirely by begging, or rather from the voluntary contributions of the

people.

Of the Buddhist monks, Sir Monier Williams in his _Buddhism_, p. 312,

describing their daily life, writes: "Arranging themselves in line, they

set out with the abbot at their head to receive their food. Silently

they move on through the streets, fixing their eyes steadily on the

ground six feet before them, meditating on the vanity and mutability of

things, and only halting when a layman emerges from some door to pour

his contribution of rice or fruit or vegetable into their alms bowls."

The Mayan priests were not only bound to celibacy, but they were never

allowed to come into contact with women. This was the Buddhist rule,

though slowly to be much relaxed. Sir Monier Williams, p. 152, says,

"There is evidence that among certain monkish communities in Northern

countries the law against marriage was soon relaxed. It is well known

that at the present day Lamaseries in Sikkim and Thibet swarm with

children of monks, though called their nephews and nieces." A further

curious parallel is that women took part in the ritual of both Mayans

and Buddhists. Gautama had an early order by which women were admitted

to nunneries under the same rules as men. Among the Mayans, women were

ministrants in the temples, as at Isla de Mujeres, while at Chichen,

Uxmal and other cities, there were large nuns' houses.

Sir Monier Williams on p. 83 says, "The eating at midday the one meal

and at no other time" was the custom of the Buddhist priests, and they

"fasted on prescribed days." H. Bancroft, in his _Native Races of the

Pacific States_ (1875-6, New York), says that among the priests of

Mexico "fasting was observed as an atonement for sin, as well as a

preparation for solemn festivals. An ordinary fast consisted of

abstaining from meat for a period of one to ten days, and taking one

meal at noon; and at no other hour could so much as a drop of water be

touched." Sir Monier Williams (p. 313) says, "When the midday meal is

over, all return to work. Some undertake the teaching of the boy

scholars. Others read the texts of the Tripitaka with their

commentaries, or superintend the writers who are copying manuscripts.

Some of the older members sink into deep meditation." Father

Torquemada, a leading historian of Mexico, tells us that the priests

"passed much of their time in contemplation and in writing the annals of

the country." It may be here worth mention that the Zapotecan (Mayan)

priests obtained their inspiration by a species of auto-suggestion

terminating in an ecstatic trance. This would certainly seem to be a

parallel to the Buddhist trance.

Sir M. Williams on p. 506 says, "Everywhere throughout the Buddhist

countries the supposed impressions of the Buddha's feet are as much

honoured as those of the god Vishnu by Vaishnavas.... No true Vaishnava

will leave his house in the morning without marking his forehead with

the symbol of Vishnu's feet." The Jains worship the footprint on Mount

Parasnath in Bengal; while there are sacred footprints of Buddha at

Bharahat, Sanchi, Amaravati, and the famous Adam's Peak in Ceylon and at

Phra Bat in Siam, the latter two supposed to represent the right and

left feet respectively as he stepped in one stride from Ceylon to Siam.

Now it is a very strange fact that there is this legend of sacred

footprints in America, and more curiously still, the legend associates

itself with the East. In his _Hero Myths_, p. 220, D. G. Brinton says,

speaking of the arts of the Muycas of New Granada, "The knowledge of

these various arts they attributed to the instruction of a wise stranger

who dwelt among them many cycles before the arrival of the Spaniards. He

came from the East.... In the province of Ubaque his footprints on the

solid rock were reverently pointed out long after the Conquest." A

second footprint was found by Dupaix at Zachilla, the ancient capital of

the Zapotecs, a Mayan tribe; while a third which Brinton examined in

Nicaragua, an account of which is given in his _The Ancient Footprints

in Nicaragua_, was simply the footprint of an ordinary man impressed on

volcanic rock before the lava hardened. Brinton points out that the foot

which made the mark was sandalled, showing that it was done by a native.

But that these legendary marks had very commonplace origins does not

affect the curious community of legend which thus appears to have

existed between Central America and Buddhist lands.

Many minor habits and customs might be cited to show how strangely alike

the Mayans were, and still are, to some Buddhist peoples. Thus all Mayan

mothers carry their babies sitting a-straddle of their hips, though

other American Indian women carry the little ones Apache-fashion in a

cradle-board, or in a bundle like the Mexican Aztecs, slung on their

backs; and this carrying on the hip, peculiar to the Mayans, is the

invariable manner of carrying the child in India, Burma and Siam to-day.

Another point is that the manuscripts in both countries are folded

peculiarly, namely in a zigzag way. Dr. Brinton says in his _Maya

Chronicles_ (1882), "The Maya MSS. consisted of one long sheet of a kind

of paper made by macerating and beating together the leaves of the

maguey and afterwards sizing the surface with a durable white varnish.

The sheet was folded like a screen (_i.e._ zigzag) forming pages about 9

× 5 inches. Both sides were covered with figures and characters painted

in various brilliant colours. On the outer pages boards were fastened

for protection." This might be an account of the Buddhist olas as they

exist to-day and as doubtless they have always existed.

Again, the system of Castes--peculiar to the East and unknown to the

North American Red Indians--existed among the Mayans, as we have

described in Chapter XIV. The ancient Mayans, too, had two

languages--one for use in addressing superiors and one for inferiors,

and this was the case in Cambodia and Java.

Many minutest customs of the two peoples show parallels which are hard

to explain except as the result of intercourse. Thus baby-girls in Java

wore a string round the waist, from which hung a shell, the removal of

which during maidenhood and until the marriage night was regarded as

sinful. This had its exact replica among the Mayans, whose girl-children

often still wear the shell. The Mayan carvings of priests' figures

always show a carved medallion of jade or stone worn hanging by a chain

round the neck. Almost without exception this badge-like ornament hangs

round the neck of the ancient Buddhist figures sculptured in the East,

and is said to be still worn by the priests in Siam and Burma to-day. In

the East, as in Mexico, the points of the compass were represented by

colours, though it is not proved they followed the same sequence. In

Buddhist countries a piece of green jade is sometimes buried with the

dead, and this has been proved to have been a Mayan custom, the stone

being thought to have magic properties in speeding the deceased to

another world. Such minute similarity of custom and belief as is shown

by these examples cannot be mere coincidence. Taken separately, there is

not one that would prove the affinity between the East and America; but

when taken together, they certainly form striking evidence.

But there is one thing yet lacking, a missing link in the chain of

evidence binding together the Buddhist East and Tropical America.

Professor E. Morse, in his paper _Was Middle America Peopled from Asia?_

has justly pointed out that "to go straight across the ocean (Pacific)

is one matter, but to go from latitude 30° on one side of the Pacific

almost to the Arctic Ocean and down on the other side nearly to the

Equator is quite another exploit." Most truly said, for such a voyage is

possible, but most improbable. Those who would have us believe that

Middle America was peopled from Asia have agreed in assuming that it was

via the Behring Straits or the Aleutian Islands. We agree with Professor

E. Morse (if we have read his pamphlet correctly) that if some means of

getting Eastern invaders across the Pacific and not round it were shown,

it would go far to prove the Asiatic origin of Central American

civilisation.

The Japan Current (Kuro Siwa) has been the route accepted by all who

believe that Central American civilisation hails from Japan and China.

It runs swiftly along the coast of China and Japan towards the Behring

Straits, and there bifurcates, one part running into the Arctic Ocean

and the other turning down and running parallel with the coast of

America. This current has proved irresistibly attractive, for it is

certain that those swept on by it would have land in sight the whole

way, and Charles Waldcott Brooks has shown in his report to the

California Academy of Science on the _Japanese Vessels wrecked in the

North Pacific Ocean_, that ships from Asia could easily reach the Oregon

and Californian coasts by drifting, as he has proved in the case of

several derelicts.

This Japan Current is such a simple solution of the thorny transit

problem for those who favour the Asiatic theory, that they have all

agreed to adopt it, and have never been able to tear themselves away

from it for a moment and look elsewhere. What if there were other

currents? What if there was a direct current communication between the

Malaysian portion of Asia and Central America? We take no credit for

discovering currents. We have simply looked to see whether, if our

theory is otherwise good, the invading architects would have an

advantage of a current in their long voyage. And we _have_ found one.

The prevailing winds blow six months of the year west to east, and the

currents would seem at first to be coast currents. But all are not so.

There is the great Equatorial Current rising on the Peruvian coast

(where it is known as the Peru Current) between south latitude 30° and

40°. For a time it keeps by the coast, running in a N.N.W. direction

until it reaches the Equator, where it turns and runs in an almost

direct line across the Pacific between the Equator and 10° south

latitude. This powerful current will not, of course, serve the purpose

of our argument, as it goes in the wrong direction. But there is another

current known as the Counter Current, running north of the Equator east

to west. It is first noticeable among the many small island currents in

the Indian Archipelago, and then takes a course to the E.S.E. of Borneo

and south of the Philippines and out into the Pacific. On its course it

runs through the Caroline Islands and the Marshall Group. At between

160° and 170° longitude west Greenwich it is reinforced by a branch of

the southern Equatorial Current which runs swiftly round Christmas and

Fanning Islands and turns on a backward course. On an average its rate

for the whole distance is about two knots per hour, or nearly as fast as

the Japan Current. It spends itself on the coast of Central America

between the Equator and 10° north latitude, part of it turning south

until it is swallowed up again by the Equatorial currents, the other

half turning north and eventually merging into the Mexican Current

coming down from the north. This current fulfils all the requirements of

our argument. It would naturally land emigrants from Malaysia on the

coast of Central America between 10° and 14° north latitude.

The most ambitious of Sea Migrations in early times are perhaps those of

the Polynesians. Starting, it is assumed from their own traditions, from

Samoa, their present distribution over the Southern Pacific shows that

they did not hesitate to make immense sea journeys under circumstances

which to our modern minds seem almost impossible. For the Polynesians

had no boats but the open canoe or dug-out still used by the islanders

to-day. These Polynesian migrations are fact, not theory; and thus when

we come to reflect upon the problem of a migration from, say, Java to

Central America, we begin to see how really practicable it all is. For

the ships in the East were not dug-outs, but were actually built of

planks. The Chinese traded with India and the Malaysian islands during

the fifth and sixth centuries, and used decked boats for the trade. They

knew of the compass from the earliest times, and actually used it for

navigation from the third and fourth centuries onward. From them the

peoples of India and Malaysia learnt shipbuilding, if they had not

already developed it. Thus our migrating architects would, in all

probability, have quite decent-sized vessels in which they could make

the voyage to America.

But it may be asked what impulse to migration these peoples could have

had. If our dates are accurate, the case is a fairly clear one. Buddhism

started, as every one knows, in India. During the fourth and fifth

centuries the persecution of the Buddhists began, and ended finally in

their being driven out of India. As an early result of the movement

which was bringing about their expulsion, they established themselves in

Burma. Buddhism was acknowledged in China, as the third religion of the

Empire, as early as 65 A.D. The religion spread into the Indian

Archipelago soon after it reached Burma and the Malay Peninsula, and the

building of the Buddhist Temple at Boro Budor in Java was begun between

600 and 700 A.D., though, owing to wars and invasions, it was not

finished until about 1430.

But the course of Buddhism did not run smooth in Java. The Buddhist

settlers were involved in wars with neighbouring Malay peoples, and the

building of the great temple was, it is certain, much interrupted. The

disturbed condition of their tenure would tend to drive some of the

settlers into fresh migration. Probably about the eighth century a band

of these undertook a voyage in search of a new home. There is ample

evidence to show that the disturbed state of Malaysia was such at this

time as to cause constant kaleidoscopic changes of population. On the

mainland in Cambodia, Angkor Vhat, which, as we have shown, resembles

the ruins of Central America, was probably at that time inhabited. The

Khmers who built it have never been properly traced. They were possibly

swallowed up in the great racial cataclysm which was then taking place

thereabouts. Some of them may have been driven into the islands, and

were possibly the designers of Boro Budor. Perhaps the band of

immigrants who reached America were Khmers; but this, of course, must

remain mere surmise. Our theory involves the assumption that some

Eastern people professing Buddhism, and skilled in the type of

architecture associated with early Buddhist buildings, did reach Central

America.

We have tried to show that such a voyage was possible, and now let us

follow their route. Taking Java as their starting-point, we have shown

how the currents cross the Pacific to the Caroline Islands. This group,

lying directly in the course of a migrating people, would be certain to

be a resting-place on their journey. They might, perhaps, stay some

weeks, perhaps months there, possibly leaving some of their number

behind them when they finally started out again. Here, then, one would

expect to find some trace of their culture, and that is exactly what we

do find. There are architectural remains in the Carolines, though these

have never yet been properly studied. But there is evidence that they

are just such relics as we should expect of the men who were to be the

tutors of the Mayans. F. W. Christian, in his book _The Caroline

Islands_ (London, 1899), says on p. 80, speaking of the ruins on the

east coast of Ponape, "Somewhat similar in character would be the

semi-Indian ruins of Java and the Cyclopean structures of Aké and

Chichen Itza in Yucatan. A series of huge rude steps brings us into a

spacious courtyard, strewn with fragments of fallen pillars, encircling

a second terraced enclosure with a projecting frieze or cornice of

somewhat Japanese type." The tradition of the Ponapeans in regard to

these ruins is, Mr. Christian tells us, "Two brothers, _Ani-Aramach_,

Godmen or Heroes, named _Olo-chipa_ and _Olo-chopa_, coming from the

direction of Chokach, built the breakwater of _Nan-Moluchai_ and the

island city it shuts in. By their magic spells one by one the great

masses of stone flew through the air like birds, settling down into

their appointed place."

From the photographs reproduced by Mr. Christian it would seem that the

ruins were distinctive of no special type of architecture, but were such

as one would expect to be put up by those who had only made the islands

their home for a very short period, or, as is far more likely, did not

even stop to build but imparted a slight knowledge to the natives, whose

subsequent productions would be thus uncouth. Their next halting-place

would be the Marshall Islands, but whether there are any ruins there we

do not know. It is almost next to certain that intelligent search would

reveal such.

The distance between Java and the coast of Central America at the point

which we wish to indicate as the likely landingplace is about 9,000

miles. The Caroline Islands are about 700 miles from the south-east

corner of the Philippines, the last sight of land a people migrating

from Java by the route we adopt would get. The Carolines would be in

their route for 1,500 miles, as this archipelago is a specially

widespread one. From the Carolines to the Marshall Islands is about 450

miles; and then on to the American coast is about 6,000 miles, with the

smaller unnamed islands lying north of Christmas Island between

longitude 160° and 175° west of Greenwich intervening for about 1,000

miles of their course. Between this point and the American coast would

be the longest stretch of open sea the migrators would have to face.

We do not suggest that they would come over in great numbers. They

followed the course of the current to America, and would be thrown on

the coast where it struck in its greatest force. The Pacific Counter

Current turns off into two branches on nearing the coast at about 10°

north latitude, part going to the south and part north. If they took the

southern branch they would come in contact with the Equatorial Current

coming up from Peru, and inevitably be carried out to sea again. On the

other hand, if they took the northern branch, they would be carried for

some miles along the coast until about latitude 13°, where the current

runs in closest, and there would be the most probable spot for them to

land.

FOOTNOTES:

[12] The argument of localisation is not upset by the existence

of ruins in Peru. Native traditions claim no great age for the things

there, which are acknowledged to be of a very crude type. Garcillaso de

Vega (_Comentarios reales de los Incas_) says that, according to Indian

tradition, the first Inca King, Manco Capac, established his empire only

four centuries before the Conquest. The Peruvian ruins probably date

from the later years of the fifteenth century.

CHAPTER XVII

THE AGE OF THE RUINS

The very natural temptation to assign a romantically great age to the

ruins of Central America has proved too much for most writers and

students of the subject. We, too, would like to think that these Mayan

buildings rival in antiquity those of Egypt; but we have been unable to

blind ourselves to certain facts, which are as commonplace as they are

convincing. The proper way to judge the age of a building is not to

stand in front of it in an attitude of reverence like a pre-Raphaelite

before an Old Master, but to look at it with the critical eye of a

mason, if you can. If you are not a mason, or know nothing about

masonry, then you should take an expert with you. If the many students

of Mayan edifices had taken the trouble to put them to this very simple

test, noting how they were built, and then making due allowance for the

friability of the material and so on, we should have heard less of the

fairy tales which have gained undeserved currency in past years.

If the theory which we have put forward in our last chapter is as sound

as we believe it to be, it would seem satisfactorily to fix a maximum

date for Central American buildings. But we cannot too emphatically

point out that our view as to the age of the ruins has not been evolved

to suit our theory as to who were America's first architects, but is

based upon entirely practical tests which are by their nature final.

We have imagined that the architects reached the coast of Central

America at about 13° north latitude. It is probable that they would not

begin to build directly they landed, but would first look for a suitable

site on which they might found a settlement. They possibly numbered two

or three hundred; more than this is most unlikely. In such small numbers

they could not possess themselves of any likely spot irrespective of the

American tribes already inhabiting the country. The chance is that it

was some little while before they finally founded a city. But somewhere

within reasonable distance of the portion of the coast where they would

be most likely to land, we ought to find ruins having all the chief

characteristics of their architecture, with figures for the most part

typical of their race in face and feature, in costume and ornament, and

such ruins should be very distinctly differentiated from those deeper in

the country, and erected after the invaders had been some time in

contact with the natives, whose own mode of living and disposition would

modify the orientalism of the designs.

And this is precisely what we do find. We find that Copan is well within

150 miles of the site of their probable landing. Here, as we pointed out

on p. 268, are carvings so strikingly Oriental that one cannot doubt

their origin. The faces of the figures on the stelae are the faces one

can see to-day in Cambodia and Siam. The dress, the ornamentation, the

turban-shaped headdress (found on no other carvings but these) are all

purely ancient Indo-Chinese. Couple all this with the fact that nowhere

else have the counterparts of the peculiar monuments of Copan been found

in Central America except at Quirigua, which, but a few miles distant,

was probably almost synchronous in its building, and it must be admitted

that there is much in our suggestion; and that here we are able to

locate one of their earliest, if not actually their earliest,

settlement.

The traditions of the Mayans all agree that Copan was built by the

Itzas, the tribe inhabiting Chichen, who had temporarily migrated

thence. If this tradition is true, then why do we not find the same

characteristic monuments in both places? As far as architectural

ornamentation and monuments are concerned, no two sets of ruins could be

further apart. At Copan we find a uniform type in costume and feature.

There is not a single sign of a warrior or the feathered headdress

common in all the monuments of Yucatan. The battle scenes characteristic

of Mayan carvings are entirely lacking. But what of Chichen? In all the

carvings there you do not find one that resembles in the least those at

Copan. The features are the features of another race; and there is not a

suggestion of the Copan headdress, but all the figures wear the

befeathered American-Indian type. The scenes in the bas-reliefs and

paintings invariably depict warriors in battle array.

[Illustration: STELAE AT COPAN, GUATEMALA.]

In regard to the monuments themselves, a peculiar feature of the ruins

of Angkor are the gigantic heads without bodies which stand in the

woods, and which have their counterparts in the heads found at Copan,

one of which, according to Stephens, measures about six feet in height.

The carvings at Copan reached a height of elaboration and nicety of

execution such as has obviously never been reached elsewhere in Central

America. Wonderful as the carvings at Chichen, and Palenque even, are,

they are not nearly so artistically wonderful as those at Copan. Yet if

we are to believe tradition, Chichen of to-day was built on the return

of the Itzas after they had founded Copan. To our mind the only way to

explain the peculiar and intricate art of Copan is to assume that it was

the first settlement or one of the first settlements of the invading

builders, and thus that it is where we have their art in its purest and

most unadulterated form. There is sound reason to think that most of the

carvings in the ruins of Central America were done by the hands of

American Indians. There is no room for such a belief as to Copan and

Quirigua. No American Indians could have carved the stelae there, if

their general work is to be taken as a standard of the excellence they

attained. No; the invaders carved and built Copan themselves, and

probably they were watched at their work by the neighbouring Indians who

crowded in to see the new wonder and learn the art.

What the shapes of the buildings at Copan and Quirigua were it is

impossible to say. But the ground plan of the former at least can be

fairly accurately traced, and it affords valuable evidence of our

theory. According to Stephens, the main ruins consist of an oblong

enclosure 624 feet long and some 500 feet broad. The river wall of sixty

to ninety feet in height is of cut stones. The other three sides of this

enclosure consist of ranges of steps and pyramidal structures. Near the

south-west corner he found a recess once occupied by a colossal figure

and beyond traces of a principal gateway, while other gateways existed

on the other sides. Of the Buddhist ruins of Brambanan, Java, Crawfurd

(_Hist. Indian Archipelago_, p. 196) writes: "They occupy an area, which

is an oblong square, of 600 English feet long and 550 broad. They

consist of four rows of small temples, enclosing in the centre a greater

one, whose height is 60 feet. The temples are pyramidal buildings, all

of the same character, covered by a profusion of sculpture and

consisting of large blocks of hewn stone. To the whole group of temples

there are four entrances facing the cardinal points of the compass, and

each guarded by two gigantic figures." Such an identity of ground plan

is surely most suggestive.

It is but in perfect consonance with the age which we have assigned to

Copan and Quirigua that their edifices should have fallen to pieces.

That they had fallen at the time of the Conquest is clear from the

letter of Diego Garcia de Palacio, a member of the Audiencia de

Guatemala, addressed to Philip II. of Spain on March 8, 1576. It runs:

"On the road to the city of San Pedro, in the first town within the

province of Honduras, called Copan, are certain ruins and vestiges of a

great population and of superb edifices of splendour as it would appear

they never could have been built by the natives of that province." From

this it would seem that not a building was intact at Copan in the

sixteenth century. To-day the remains are crumbling heaps of pyramids and

terraces overgrown by luxuriant vegetation. All that remains intact are

the monolithic stelae and altars which will last for ever, though their

carvings will yield to time.

Wherever other cities have been spoken of by historians, they lead us to

infer that at the time of the Conquest the buildings were still intact.

It is a truism to say that the most recently built are the best

preserved; but students of Mayan archæology have betrayed an

extraordinary gift for overlooking the obvious. Chichen, for instance,

is still in a good state of preservation, perhaps the best of all

Yucatecan cities, for the simple reason that it was one of the most

recently built, and for no other reason whatever. Mr. A. P. Maudslay,

who has spent more time than any one else on a study of Copan and

Quirigua, assigns to them the position of the earliest of all ruined

cities of Central America. This judgment he no doubt based upon their

decayed condition. But neither Mr. Maudslay nor any one else has

explained why the art of carving had reached such a high stage at such

an early date; and all have overlooked, or shut their eyes to, the

undoubted fact that the carvings of the finest of the well-preserved

cities, such as Chichen, are in merit behind and not in advance of those

of Copan and Quirigua. To us it appears there is but one explanation of

this fact, and that is the one which we have suggested.

For these reasons we venture to urge that Copan and Quirigua were

practically contemporaneous with the advent of the builders from

Indo-China and Java, namely, some time during the eighth century. How

the art of building spread from Copan and Quirigua it is of course

impossible to say. It can never be known whether the Eastern immigrants,

after building these two cities and possibly others undiscovered near at

hand, advanced further into the country, teaching the natives their arts

and crafts, and perhaps indoctrinating them with some of their religious

tenets and ritual; or whether they were visited by interested Mayan

chiefs who learnt something of building on the spot. Possibly, too, they

may have been attacked and some of them captured and taken captive to

Mayan cities, and forced to superintend building operations there. But

it is most probable that they did advance further into the country. Once

they had learnt something of the language, there would be few or no

difficulties for them in making friends with the Mayan peoples around.

If our theory is right, we ought to find a chain of towns marking their

progress, or the progress of their art, over the country. This is just

what we do find in the group of ruins on the Usumacinta River of which

we have already given a short account. The first of these is the city of

Piedras Negras, the nearest large city to Copan. Here the characteristic

Orientalism is already on the wane. The carvings of the buildings are

not so strikingly characteristic of the East as are those at Copan.

These have given place to carvings more in keeping with native ideas. It

is no longer the city of the "builders," but a city the building of

which is superintended by them. Yet one would expect some Oriental

features to creep in; and this expectation is fulfilled. The figure

found there by Herr Teobert Maler, and already mentioned by us on p.

271, is as near a replica of the Buddhist statues of the East as one

could expect a people to remember after they had spent several years in

a new country. Its costume, its posture, its features, and its whole

attitude take one to the East. Indeed the only way of explaining the

statue is to believe that its sculptors came from Buddhist lands. Close

at hand, at the neighbouring ruins of Yaxchilan, is the structure which

we have described on p. 272, and which in the same way can only be

explained by looking towards the East for its artificers. This tower

with the great staring face built into it is almost a replica of the

towers of Angkor, solid pieces of masonry with faces carved upon them.

The only difference between them and that of Yaxchilan is that they are

cut from solid stone while that of the latter is stucco. Whether it is

carved in stone under the stucco we cannot say. We believe that this

monument found at Yaxchilan is the only one of its kind so far

discovered in Central America.

Following the imaginary line of advance of the Eastern builders, we find

the proofs of our theory accumulating. At Menché we have another city,

to which M. Charnay attempted to give the name of "Lorillard." Here he

and Mr. Maudslay (who was the discoverer of the place) appear to have

found little which could be regarded as a trace of the Copan builders.

Possibly the explanation is that, not attempting to trace the building

civilisation from Copan as a starting place, they overlooked much

valuable evidence; or possibly Menché was built at a much later date

when the Oriental ideas had almost entirely vanished in favour of native

design.

But at Palenque, the next big city, we again find traces of the East.

While the smaller buildings are strikingly like those in ruins at

Préa-Khane and elsewhere in Cambodia, the so-called "Palace" has often

been said, as we mentioned in our last chapter, to be almost a replica

in arrangement and design of Boro Budor. It may very well be that some

of the very men who had assisted in the earlier building operations of

Boro Budor were the architects of the building at Palenque. Such

differences as occur between the two are easily explained. In the

seventh century the statues of Buddha which now adorn the terraces of

this Javanese Mecca did not exist. Only the roughest plan of the present

Boro Budor was laid down and worked on in those early days, and thus the

Palenque Palace is a reproduction of what Boro Budor was centuries

before its final completion.

But even with these distinctions the two ruins are closely akin. The

two-storeyed tower on the roof of Boro Budor has its exact counterpart

in the Palenque tower save that the former has a dome-shaped roof while

the latter is flat. But it may not always have been so. In describing

it, we called attention to the curious fact that the tower has a

stairway which ends abruptly against this flat roof. Is it not possible

that the stairway once led into a dome-shaped roof which either fell or

was actually demolished and replaced by the flat one, which renders the

stairway so futile?[13] At Palenque, too, we first find what looks like

a reproduction of the "lion seat" which is so characteristic of many of

the early Buddhist statues. In one of the temples at Palenque is the

carving of a couch which is almost a replica of those found in Buddhist

temples. Another noteworthy feature is the ornamental disc or amulet

hanging on the breast of the deity which would appear to be exactly like

that on the ancient Buddhist figures and the priestly badge of office

worn in Siam and Burma to-day. It is a curious fact that according to P.

Schellhas (Bureau of American Ethnology, _Bulletin 28_: Washington,

1904) this badge never figures in the Mexican manuscripts, and thus may

be presumed to have never been adopted by the Aztecs but to have been in

vogue only among the Mayans who came into direct contact with the

Oriental invaders.

Probably Piedras Negras, Yaxchilan and Palenque represent, together with

some undiscovered ruins, a period of about half a century immediately

succeeding the founding of Copan and Quirigua. During this period it may

be taken for granted that many of the older immigrants had died and the

remnant would be old men. It is very doubtful if in half a century the

strangers would have penetrated far into Yucatan or reached the plateau

of Mexico. Their activities would have been centred around the Palenque

district, and the decayed condition of this latter city and the

neighbouring ruins of Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras would without doubt

seem to definitely place them in this period. Palenque, we would

suggest, was the last large city built or designed by these peoples.

Thus far we have the most marked traces of Orientalism. Copan was

probably an exact counterpart of the early cities of Cambodia and

Ceylon, as Palenque would seem to be a replica of seventh-century Boro

Budor. With the practical extinction of the foreign builders the art

would take upon itself, in the matter of decoration, a purely native

character. Many ornamental ideas would, however, recommend themselves to

the caciques, as, for instance, the lion seat, which, changed to

represent the Central American jaguar, an animal probably held in

veneration, would figure in the carvings. It is easy to imagine how the

building art spread from Palenque. There would probably be two lines of

advance: one through Chiapas into the Zapotec country and so on to the

tableland of Mexico; and one up to Honduras and so to Yucatan. By the

ninth century it would have reached Chichen Itza on the one hand and

possibly spread as far north as the city of Tula in Mexico.

From the earliest times Chichen must have been one of the most populous

centres in Yucatan. The water problem is even to-day the greatest social

and economic factor in the Peninsula; and the existence of two huge

natural reservoirs such as the cenotes at Chichen must have meant an

importance for the spot from the remotest times. When building was

introduced into the country the cacique of Chichen probably ranked high

among the chiefs, and he would be sure to hear early of the marvellous

buildings of stone that were being erected at Copan. Probably he might

make a journey thither, while the builders of Copan were still living.

Possibly he might invite some of them to Chichen to instruct his people

in the art.

Be this as it may, there would seem to be at least two distinct ages

represented in the ruins of Chichen. The buildings still standing belong

to a later period than those which crowned the now ruined mounds to the

east and the south-east of the Castillo. These latter represent the old

Chichen, built probably within a century of the arrival of the builders.

They show signs of having gone to pieces through natural decay rather

than having been demolished by man, as in war. On excavation of the

mounds, the walls and pillars of these buildings prove to be in fair

preservation. With scarcely an exception, it would seem that the fall of

the roof has been the real cause of the destruction of each edifice. The

roofs in Mayan buildings are always the weakest spot. Buildings which

have been destroyed by a conquering people generally bear ample traces

of such destruction. In the same way, buildings which have fallen

through a natural process of decay demonstrate this fact by the state of

their ruin. The buildings that stood on the mounds at Chichen have

fallen before the hand of Time. If a conquering tribe had taken Chichen

from the Itzas they would not have destroyed their buildings, but would

have used them as did the Spaniards under Montejo. It was no case of

modern artillery, when the buildings would naturally fall or be damaged

in the conflict. The most destructive weapon the Indians had was the

spear of hardened wood or tipped with flint, and to attempt to destroy

buildings as solid as those of Chichen with such implements would be

about as great a task as an attempt to cut a full-sized croquet lawn

with a pair of nail scissors. For these reasons we venture to date the

oldest buildings at Chichen about the ninth century, and we believe that

our estimate would be corroborated by any expert architect.

The later buildings are of far more recent date; but perhaps here it

would be well to describe the mode of building and thus explain our

reasons for modernising Chichen. To be technical, the first part to

examine in a building is its foundations. The ruins of Yucatan appear to

lack nothing of solidity in this matter. Usually they are founded on

truncated pyramids which when intact would appear to be cut from solid

rock. They are however not built, like the pyramids of Egypt, of solid

blocks of stone, but are simply faced with stone slabs only a few inches

thick. Beneath these the pyramid is formed of loose building rubble and

earth. The Chichen Castillo is a good example of Mayan building methods.

The limestone slabs forming the face of the pyramid are less than a foot

thick. Beneath them is loose rubble. Thus should one of these facing

slabs work out of place, when the wet season came the rain would get in

behind the slabs and quickly move the ones below out of their positions.

The earth and rubble would be washed away in the wet season and crumbled

away in the hot season, until in a few years there would be a perfect

avalanche of these slabs from the top, falling, for lack of support,

like a pack of cards. The stairway at the Castillo is formed of blocks

of stone let but a short way into the pyramids. The consequence is that

not one of the four stairways as built by the Indians could be ascended

to-day unless you were an Alpine climber willing to risk broken limbs.

All the other buildings at Chichen illustrate the same careless methods

of construction.

The Nunnery was built, as we have stated on page 101, at different

periods or else the original design was added to. On the north side is a

hole that has been made in the structure by a former owner of the

Chichen hacienda. This hole shows that the building is of the same

material as the Castillo, but built in a different way. Being

perpendicular it was impossible to face it, as was the Castillo, after

the rubble had been put in position. The walls must have been built

first and the inside filled in afterwards. That this was the case is

shown by the fact that the wall is separate and not faced on to the

rubble in any way. The fallen south-west corner in like manner shows how

the addition to the building was made. A wall was built out the desired

distance from the main structure and the space between the two filled up

with rubble and earth. It will be obvious to every reader that this

mode of building was a weak one. The heavy weight of loose rubble and

earth enclosed in a wall between two and three feet thick was not a very

substantial foundation for a heavy building. Naturally the tendency

would be for the walls to bulge and crack, spelling ruin to the whole

building.

But now let us turn from the foundations to the buildings themselves.

Mr. Henry C. Mercer, in his book _Hill Caves of Yucatan_ (Philadelphia,

1896), is very outspoken on this subject. On p. 95 he says, "The more we

examined the walls the more we wondered not so much at their antiquity

as at the fact that they had not already crumbled to the ground.... A

facing of blocks shaped like the letter V pushed mosaic-fashion into a

central pudding-like concrete of stone and mortar was a weak form of

construction. Neither were the face stones interlocked systematically so

as to bind the joints. Everything was slipping out of place. No wonder

there were fresh cracks in the walls, that whole façades tumbled, and

that overseers (of haciendas) had spoken of structures that had lost

their identity in twenty years." Mr. Mercer is right. When one considers

the hopelessly slipshod manner of their building, one is obliged to

admit that the wonder is that all the Mayan palaces and temples have not

already crumbled to the ground.

There was only one method of building in Yucatan, and it is difficult to

say how this was carried out. The walls average about two feet three

inches in thickness and were made up as follows. Ten inches of stone on

the outside, about seven to eight on the inside, and the space

intervening between these two surfaces is filled with a mixture of

mortar and rubble. The outer surface wall was generally formed of solid

square or oblong stones of various sizes. No care was taken to "bind"

them one with the other as in the Egyptian and modern buildings. We

often noticed the joins of the stones coming directly one above the

other for as many as three or four layers, the result generally being a

large gaping crack where the wall had bulged at this weak spot.

Another weak point in these outer walls is the fact that the crevices

between the two layers of stone are often filled up with stone chips. As

often as not these were wedge-shaped and had been driven into the mortar

between the layer and then smoothed off level with the face of the

building. As the mortar dried and the building "settled," these chip

wedges tended to loosen, and after a series of rainy seasons ended by

falling out altogether. Some of the better-placed ones are still in

position, though these may have been added only a few years before the

coming of the Spaniards, and, as the buildings had then quite "settled,"

have retained their position to the present day. But such a method is

obviously a weak spot in building.

Weaker still is the method employed in the building of the inner wall.

Most of the stones are pyramidal or V-shaped, as Mr. Mercer calls them.

They are in fact wedge-shaped pieces of stone as seen in the cut on p.

264, embedded in the mortar and rubble of the interior of the wall, the

thick end of the wedge forming a flat surface for the wall. Here again,

as the wall subsided after the building was finished, these were pushed

out of place or loosened by the weight above them. Once this took place

there was no hope for any building. A block that had been pushed out

generally meant the loosening of the stones around, and in time the

whole façade would fall. But often over the face of the stones was put a

thick layer of plaster which is in many cases still in position,

speaking well for its durability. This plaster, as often as not two or

three inches thick, kept the stone in position. The same slipshod

methods are seen in the ornamentation of the building. The small

colonnade at Labna is an example in point. The columns were not embedded

in the wall at the top or bottom, but, half rounded, were stuck on to

this concrete interior without the least solid stone masonry as support.

The common type of roof is flat, the only exceptions being those which

have superstructures rising in the centre or front for purely ornamental

purpose. The cut on p. 264 gives a section in which the roof is

portrayed. The outer wall is carried up with its usual average thickness

to the top of the building. The interior is the regular type of arch,

also shown in the illustration, formed by blocks of stones placed one

above the other in such a way as to appear like about ten inverted

steps. To add a better finish to the interior after these were in

position, they were trimmed off evenly, making a flat sloping surface

which was afterwards plastered and painted. The arch did not come to a

point. Instead, across its top a slab was laid, as our illustration

shows. Between the outer side of this arch and the inner side of the

perpendicular outer wall of the building the space was filled up with

the same concrete rubble as was used between the walls, making a level

roof which in some cities we found had been cemented over. The result

of this weight of loose stone pressing on the sides of the arch was that

as soon as the inner wall of the arch became weak the whole roof fell in

and filled up the building. This is what has happened in the ruins of

old Chichen. The walls are found amid the débris of fallen roofs. This

is what is happening to-day in the other buildings in Chichen and

elsewhere in the Peninsula; and this is what will happen until all these

ancient structures have become roofless ruins. And that time is not far

off. Old Chichen has fallen. The Chichen standing to-day is fast falling

to pieces. Uxmal has no great lease of life before it, and the buildings

of Labna, Kabah, and Sayil are tottering.

Lastly, we would say something of the building of doorways in these

cities. The lintels of the doors are almost invariably formed of the

wood of the Central American sapota tree (_Achras sapota_). The wood is

very hard, durable, and heavy, and in a dry climate would last

practically for ever. But the climate of Yucatan can scarcely be termed

dry; for the wet season averages five months. Despite this fact we find

those sapota beams at Chichen, which have not been exposed to the

weather, in fairly good preservation. The decay of one which was exposed

has caused the falling of a room in the Castillo on the north side; and

this has also taken place in the room on the west side of the House of

Tigers. Possibly this was the cause of the falling of the front of the

temple at the north end of the Tennis Court. Chichen stands on high

ground compared with Uxmal, where scarcely a lintel can be found in

position to-day, though Uxmal is not older than Chichen. At Labna and

Kabah again are lintels still in good preservation, owing to those

cities being built on the sierras. This question of the condition of the

lintels, even in the most favourable situations, is very suggestive in

regard to the dates to be assigned to the majority of the ruins. If the

thousand odd years ascribed to them by enthusiasts really represented

their age, there would not be a single lintel found anywhere.

When to the slipshod methods of building one must add the fact that the

climate is a trying one for any style of architecture and that the

friability of the limestone used is excessive, one realises that no very

great date can be assigned to the ruins still standing. To date even

approximately each city is almost impossible. The ruins of many of them

point to several dates for each. Some buildings are intact; others are

falling; while some are mere crumbling heaps. No doubt none of the

larger cities were built all at once. They represented years of labour.

For example the Palace at Sayil might have taken a score of years. In

most cities the first building attempted was probably a temple. Possibly

a century might have elapsed before a second temple or a palace was put

up, and thus to-day you naturally have mere heaps of stone close to

buildings still intact.

In most places we were able to determine the relative ages of the

buildings. On many sites there were traces of the earliest erections

marked by fallen mounds. There was often a middle period between these

and that represented by the buildings still standing. At Chichen there

were, as we have said, two distinct periods, but these were obviously

far apart in date. Those of the first period were probably in building

within a century of the arrival of the foreign architects; and fell

probably at or about the time the second set of buildings were put up.

Structures built in the manner of those standing at Chichen to-day could

not by any possibility remain intact in a climate like Yucatan's, if

indeed anywhere, for a period longer than about six hundred years. Thus,

if they were built about the eighth or ninth century they would be far

advanced in ruin at the Conquest.

After a most careful survey, we think that the ruins of Chichen standing

to-day were built at or about the fall of Mayapan (1426 or 1462). There

was no doubt a great recrudescence of building throughout Yucatan after

this event. History affords many examples of the fact that a great

victory is celebrated by the conquerors, on their return to their

centres, setting up temples and palaces commemorative of their success.

The dissensions and intrigues leading up to the overthrow of the

powerful cacique of Mayapan had probably for some years before that

event checked building enterprise throughout the Peninsula. At the

conclusion of the war an impulse to city-beautifying was experienced.

Probably the next greatest chief of Yucatan, after the vanquished lord

of Mayapan, was the cacique of the Itzas of Chichen, and on the success

of the confederation, of which it may be presumed he was an important

member, he built himself a new city on the site of his already decaying

one. At about the same time the group of cities of the south, Uxmal,

Kabah, Labna and Sayil, were restored or rebuilt. The building zeal

during the century previous to the Conquest seems to have reached a high

pitch. The outlying ruins in Yucatan such as El Meco, Tuloom, those on

Isla de Mujeres, and those which we discovered on the islands of Cozumel

and Cancun, represented an outer ring of Mayan civilisation. Their

builders had evidently never learnt the art of the finest carving. The

ruins are peculiarly devoid of ornamentation, and the whole style is

uncouth and suggests crudity. In a like manner a rough knowledge of

building spread far into the south. Thus to-day, between big ruined

centres such as Copan, Piedras Negras, and Palenque, we find smaller

towns some of the buildings of which are still intact.

What happened in Mexico? The knowledge of building had spread over the

whole of the plateau within the few centuries succeeding the founding of

Copan. There would only be the one period, the one wave of building

which would wash into Mexico before news of the wonderful art reached

the ears of the ever-warlike Aztecs, to whom such accounts would suggest

much wealth and a country worth pillaging. They may have found the

wealth of Mexico in its then undeveloped state disappointing, but they

evidently quickly grasped the advantage stone houses had over skin

wigwams always needing repair and always draughty. Conquering the Mayans

and christening them Toltecs, they set them to work to build cities.

Aztec deities were, for the most part, substituted for the Mayan gods.

Such blood-loving gods as Huitzilopochtli, in whose honour the

historians assert tens of thousands of human beings were sacrificed,

were purely of Aztec origin. The serpent-worship so dear to the Aztecs'

forefathers, the Shoshonees, was much more in evidence than it had ever

been among the Mayans. Very speedily the influence of the warlike Aztecs

spread over the country southward until, as some historians say, they

reached Mayapan in Yucatan. Certainty they must have reached Honduras,

where Dr. Gann, British Commissioner at Corosal, told us he had found

distinct traces of Aztec culture. But this was at a period not many

years before the coming of the Spaniards. It may even have been so late

that Cortes, who was destined to be the conqueror of these conquering

upstarts, the Aztecs, had already heard of wonderful Yucatan, which had

been termed "Isla Rica," and which, a few years later, formed the

stepping-stone to his complete, if inglorious, conquest of Mexico.

Summarising, then, the arguments of this chapter, we would venture to

say that the building civilisation of Central America flourished between

the eighth century and the coming of the Spaniards in 1517. The sequence

of cities, as near as can be judged, would be as follows:

1. Copan and Quirigua, the first, or among the first, erected during the

eighth century.

2. Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan, with possibly some undiscovered, follow

closely in date.

3. The ruins of Palenque, probably contemporaneous with the

last-mentioned groups, was a city from the earliest building period, but

its palace was restored or rebuilt at a much later date.

4. The mounds of fallen débris found throughout Yucatan represent the

first buildings in that country, and date from about the ninth to the

eleventh century.

5. Those buildings that have more recently fallen represent the middle

age of the building civilisation, dating from the twelfth to the

fourteenth centuries.

6. Those buildings standing to-day belong to the latter day period, and

date from the beginning of the fifteenth century until the coming of the

Spaniards in 1517.

FOOTNOTES:

[13] It might be worth while here to note that Stephens

declared he found at Copan the remains of two circular towers with

stairs.

CHAPTER XVIII

HIEROGLYPHICS AND PAINTINGS

Throughout that part of Central America which from time immemorial has

been inhabited by the Mayans, in their ruined cities, on the stelae, on

the door-posts, on the wooden and stone lintels, on altar-slabs, and on

special tablets are hieroglyphics. Wherever the Mayan Linguistic Stock

is found, in Yucatan, in Guatemala, in Chiapas, in Tabasco, and in

Honduras we find them, the only exception being among the Huastecas, the

Mayan tribe living on the Panuco River, Mexico. Considering the extent

of the Mayan ruins, these hieroglyphics are few in number; but the

Spanish vandals are known to have burnt countless manuscripts written on

bark[14] and leaf. And thus, if the carved inscriptions are sparse,

there is good ground for believing that the art of writing was practised

for some centuries before the Conquest. Four manuscripts only survive,

and these we describe later. The hieroglyphics, whether carved or

written, and no matter what their position or what the material upon

which they are inscribed, are invariably of the same nature, though it

is noticeable that those on some monuments are finer cut, more

intricate, and display a higher art than others.

In Mexico writing never reached such a high degree of perfection as in

Yucatan and the other southern territories of the Mayan tribes. Thus it

would seem that at the time of the Aztec invasion the Mayans of the

Mexican plateau were only acquainted with the merest outline of the art

which their kinsmen of the south had so far perfected. This is entirely

consonant with the theories we have earlier advanced as to the

comparatively crude stage of civilisation to which the Mexican Mayans,

the Toltecs of the Aztec traditions, had attained at the coming of the

warlike northern tribes. In most cases the Mexican writings are

pictographic rather than hieroglyphic, though Mayan glyphs do occur. The

best collection of these pictographs is that made by Alexander von

Humboldt and presented by him to the Royal Library of Berlin in January,

1806. Some of these are described in his _Vues des Cordillères et

Monuments des Peuples indigènes de l'Amérique_; while others are

reproduced in Lord Kingsborough's _Antiquities of Mexico_. Up to the

present all efforts to find an undeniable "key" to the decipherment of

the Mayan hieroglyphics have failed. The most resolute and intelligent

work has been done by Americans and Germans. Among the former the most

famous are Professor Cyrus W. Thomas, T. Goodman, S. Holden, and in past

years the late Dr. D. G. Brinton. Among the latter those most prominent

are Professors E. Forstemann, Eduard Seler, and Paul Schellhas. France

has been represented by Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, Professor Leon de

Rosny, Count de Charencey, and M. A. Pousse; while England, alas! has

been practically unrepresented in this important work, for Mr. A. P.

Maudslay, the only British student in this field, has chiefly devoted

himself to photographing rather than attempting to decipher the glyphs.

Much might reasonably have been expected from the labours of all these

scholars, but practically nothing has resulted but a series of theories,

over the exact value and application of which there is endless

bickering. Attempts have been made from time to time to compose an

alphabet by which the glyphs could be read phonetically. The first great

stir in this direction was made by Abbé de Bourbourg in 1864, when he

announced that he had discovered a year before in Madrid a manuscript

entitled, _Relación de las Cosas de Yucatan_, by Diego de Landa, Bishop

of Merida from 1573 to 1579. In this manuscript was included an alphabet

of the Mayan glyphs with their equivalents in Spanish. For the moment

this "find" was regarded as a Central American "Rosetta Stone," and

every one believed the glyphs would offer no further difficulties. But

the archæological world was doomed to disappointment, for on an attempt

being made to use the alphabet, it broke down and was declared by all to

be an invention of Landa. But the Abbé did not give it up; and, assisted

by Leon de Rosny, he defined twenty-nine letters with numerous

variants, and published his report in 1869 in the introduction to the

_Codex Troano_; while the result of de Rosny's labours were printed in

his _Essai sur le Déchiffrement de l'Écriture hiératique de l'Amérique

Centrale_ in 1876.

The next "alphabet" was that propounded in _The Scientific American_ for

January, 1885, by Dr. Le Plongeon, who, in an article entitled "Ancient

Maya Hieratic Alphabet according to Mural Inscription," declared it to

contain twenty-three letters with the usual numerous variants. But this,

like Landa's, was strangled almost at its birth by remorseless scholars.

Next came forward Dr. Hilborne T. Cresson, who at meetings of the

American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1892 and 1894,

advanced the theory that the characters were purely phonetic; but his

untimely death cut short his researches. Professor Cyrus W. Thomas, in a

paper in _The American Anthropologist_ for July, 1893, entitled "Are the

Maya Hieroglyphics Phonetic?" rather follows Cresson, but in recent

years has reconsidered this view and now would seem to hold that some,

at least, are ideographs.

Thus there may be said to be the two schools of decipherers: those who

believe the Mayan writing to be phonetic and those who hold it to be

ideographic. For the latter stand the German school (Forstemann, Seler

and Schellhas); for the former the Abbé, de Rosny and de Charencey. The

American students have been for the most part willing to follow the lead

of Cyrus Thomas and declare it to be a mixture of phonetics and

ideographs. After years of careful study of the glyphs Professor

Forstemann has come to the general conclusion that they are largely

composed of numerals made up of astronomical ideographs. He was the

first to discover what are now generally accepted as the various numeral

signs. His first achievement was his alleged identification of one of

the glyphs with our nought in April, 1885. From this start he went

slowly up the numeral scale until he asserted he had deciphered the

signs for the numbers up to twenty. These are now generally accepted as

correct and are composed as shown on opposite page. Thus it would seem,

if Professor Forstemann is right, that the highest number to which they

counted by means of these dots and dashes was 19. No greater number than

this has ever been found in any of the codices or on the monuments.

Assuming this as true, it is obvious that the number 20 must be looked

for in a new form.

[Illustration]

Professor Forstemann's idea is that the 20 glyph changed according to

its meaning and surroundings. In some cases it was represented [Symbol];

while in others [Symbol] or its variant [Symbol]. He holds that 20 was

the highest number in use among the Mayans. This he tries to show was

natural enough, for, writing in _The Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin 28_, p. 499, he says: "Nature suggested this ... because these

they could count on their fingers and toes, in four divisions of five

each." From the early historians we learn that the Mayan month consisted

of twenty days (_kin_), which was known as one _chuen_ (month). Any

number over twenty was thus known as one _chuen_ so many _kin_, or one

month so many days. The Mayan year was composed of eighteen months,

forming a period of 360 days known as an _ahau_. The month-names were

(1) _Pop_, (2) _Uo_, (3) _Zip_, (4) _Zes_, (5) _Zeec_, (6) _Xul_, (7)

_Zo-yaxkin_, (8) _Mol_, (9) _Chen_, (10) _Yaax_, (11) _Zac_, (12) _Ceh_,

(13) _Mac_, (14) _Kankin_, (15) _Moan_, (16) _Pax_, (17) _Kayab_, (18)

_Cunku_. The numbering of the years, too, was never carried beyond

twenty, when it became known as a _katun_.[15] Thus the following table

of time has been worked out:

20 kin (days) = 1 chuen (month).

18 chuen.. = 1 ahau (year) 360 days.

20 ahaus.. = 1 katun (20 years or 7,200 days).

20 katuns.. = 1 cycle (400 years or 144,000 days).

13 cycles.. = 1 great cycle (5,200 years or 1,872,000

days).

73 great cycles = 1 era.

It will be noticed that the Mayan year fell short of the Solar Year by

five days five hours 48 minutes 49·7 seconds. This was made up by adding

five days to the completion of each year, and these are known as

"intercalary" days, thus making a year of 365 days, which the Mayans

called _haar_. But although the Mayans knew how to count up to twenty,

they did not always use this as a time-count. The year was divided up

into weeks of 13 days, which were arranged irrespective of the twenty

day-names, which were as follows: (1) _Kan_, (2) _Chicchan_, (3) _Cimi_,

(4) _Manik_, (5) _Lamat_, (6) _Muluc_, (7) _Oc_, (8) _Chuen_, (9) _Eb_,

(10) _Ben_, (11) _Ix_, (12) _Min_, (13) _Cib_, (14) _Caban_, (15)

_Ezenab_, (16) _Cauac_, (17) _Ahau_, (18) _Imix_, (19) _Ik_, (20)

_Akbal_. Thus it would seem that if the week began with _Kan_, it would

finish with the 13th day _Cib_, and a new week would start with the 14th

month-day _Caban_ as the first day. This cutting up of the year,

irrespective of the months, into "weeks" of thirteen days involved

further difficulties at the end of the year. At the end of an _ahau_

(360 days) there would have been twenty-seven of these 13-day weeks with

an odd nine days. Again, after the "interlacery" days had been added and

the solar year was complete, there would be twenty-eight 13-day weeks

and one odd day.

To further complicate matters these Mayan time-counts disclose yet

another week of five days; but this works in with the 20-day months, the

_ahau_ (360 days), and the solar year accurately, so that it is easier

to understand. From these generally accepted statements we draw up the

following table, showing the days and months as they would appear to

make up the solar year.

+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+

|Names |P |U |Z |Z |Z |X |Y |M |C |Y |Z |C |M |K |M |P |K |C |N o|

|of |o |o |i |e |e |u |a |o |h |a |a |e |a |a |o |a |a |u |u f|

|Months. |p |. |p |s |e |l |x |l |e |x |c |h |c |n |a |x |y |n |m |

| | | |. |s |c |. |k |. |n |. |. |. |. |k |n |. |a |k |b D|

| | | | |. |. | |i | |. | | | | |i |. | |b |u |e a|

| | | | | | | |n | | | | | | |n | | |. |. |r y|

| | | | | | | |. | | | | | | |. | | | | | s|

+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+

|Number of| 1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9|10|11|12|13|14|15|16|17|18| |

|Months. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+

|NAMES | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|OF DAYS. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

|Kan | 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3| 1|

|Chicchan | 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4| 2|

|Cimi | 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5| 3|

|Manik | 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6| 4|

|Lamat | 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 5|

|Muluc | 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 6|

|Oc.. | 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 7|

|Chuen | 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 8|

|Eb.. | 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 9|

|Ben |10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 10|

|Ix.. |11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 11|

|Men |12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 12|

|Cib.. |13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 13|

|Caban | 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3| 14|

|Ezenab | 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4| 15|

|Cauac | 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5| 16|

|Ahau | 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6| 17|

|Ymix | 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 18|

|Ik.. | 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 19|

|Akbal | 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 3|10| 4|11| 5|12| 6|13| 7| 1| 8| 2| 9| 20|

+---------+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+---+

| |Intercala- |Kan.... |10| 1|

| |ted Days to |Chicchan.. |11| 2|

| |complete |Cimi.... |12| 3|

| |the year |Manik.... |13| 4|

| |of 365 days. |Lamat.... |1 | 5|

+---------------------------------+--------------+-----------+--+---+

We have followed the generally accepted view and begun the year with the

day _Kan_, though some students follow Mr. J. T. Goodman in his belief

that _Ik_ represents the first day. Whoever is right, it is certain that

the year can begin with its first day-name only once every four years.

If a year begins with _Kan_, it must, as shown in our table, inevitably

finish with the day _Lamat_. Thus the following day, the first in the

New Year, would be _Muluc_. In the same way the second year will finish

with _Ben_ and the third year will commence with _Ix_. This will finish

with _Ezenab_ and the new one would commence with _Cauac_ and finish

with _Akbal_, when _Kan_ would again begin the year. In Goodman's theory

these days would change. The beginning days would be _Ik_, _Manik_,

_Eb_, and _Caban_; while the last days of the year would be respectively

_Cimi_, _Chuen_, _Cib_, and _Imix_.

One of the things that the Mexicans seem to have adopted from the Mayans

was the twenty-day period. The double meaning of the days of the two

countries often is seen in the Zapotec country, where it would seem the

knowledge of the Maya Calendar had not entirely died out through the

invasion of the Aztec, "unless," says Dr. Seler, "we ought to accept the

theory that the Zapotecs or their kindred were those among whom the

calendar was invented, and by whom the knowledge of it was originally

communicated to both the Mexicans and the Mayas" (_Bureau of American

Ethnology Report, Bulletin_ 28, p. 274).

DAY SIGNS

[Illustration]

1st. [Illustration] _Kan._ D. G. Brinton says this was the word in Maya

to denote polished stone, shell pendant, or bead. It was their medium

for bartering. Seler says it represents an eye, Brasseur de Bourbourg a

tooth, and Schellhas a grain of Indian corn.

2nd.

[Illustration]

_Chicchan._ Brinton thinks this day was called after the Maya _chich

kuck_, "twisted thread," whilst Brasseur thought it to represent a woven

petticoat and Seler a "serpent's skin."

3rd. [Illustration] _Cimi._ Supposed to have its root in _cimil_,

"closed in death."

4th. [Illustration] _Manik._ "A hand in the act of grasping," now spoken

of in Maya as _mach_.

5th. [Illustration]

_Lamat._ Generally supposed to have had its origin in _lamal kin_,

"sun-setting."

6th. [Illustration] _Muluc._ Having same root as month _Mol_, probably

_molay ik_, "the winds united."

7th. [Illustration]

_Oc._ Brinton says it means "footprints," but Brasseur says the Maya

word _oc_ means "dog."

8th. [Illustration] _Chuen._ Brinton says it was derived from _chi_,

"with fangs," or _chu_, a calabash. Brasseur and Seler say it is a

monkey, Schellhas "a snake." We would say this came from _chi_, "mouth,"

and is to represent a snake's mouth.

9th. [Illustration] _Eb._ In Maya means "ladder," but the glyph is

supposed to represent "an old man."

10th. [Illustration] _Ben._ Brinton suggests the lines across the glyph

to represent a "wooden bridge," Maya _be che_, Seler a mat or straw

roof, and Brasseur "a path," _be_.

11th. [Illustration]

_Ix._ Seler has seen in this the "spotted skin of a jaguar," while

Brinton derives it from _xiix_, "scattered grain-husks."

12th. [Illustration] _Men._

13th. [Illustration] _Cib._

14th. [Illustration] _Caban._ Said by Brinton to mean the "cork-screw

curl" of women.

15th. [Illustration] _Ezenab._ Probably represents the flint sacrificial

knife known by the same name.

16th. [Illustration]

_Canac._ Seler thinks this the sign of the _Moan_ bird.

17th. [Illustration]

_Ahau._ Supposed to be the "conventional drawing of the full face."

18th. [Illustration] _Imix._

19th. [Illustration] _Ik._ Meaning air, breath, soul, or life.