SECTION IV.
THE RUINS OF UXMAL.
These monuments of antiquity are situated in Yucatan, the great Peninsula of Mexican America.
"Emerging suddenly from the woods, to my astonishment, we came at once upon a large open field strewed with mounds of ruins, and vast buildings on terraces, and pyramidal structures, grand, and in good preservation, richly ornamented, without a bush to obstruct the view; and in picturesque effect, almost equal to the Ruins of Thebes. [Egypt] Such was my report I made to Mr. Catherwood on my return, who, lying in his hammock unwell, and out of spirits, told me I was romancing; but early the next morning we were on the ground, and his comment was, that the reality exceeded the description!"
It should be remembered that the above distinguished artist (Catherwood) had visited and copied the Ruins of Thebes and Egypt generally, and consequently his testimony is of more than common authority.
"The place of which I am now speaking (Uxmal) was, beyond all doubt, once a large, populous, and highly civilized city, and the reader can nowhere find one word of it on any page of history. Who built it?—why it was located on that spot, away from water, or any of those natural advantages which have determined the sites of cities whose histories are known, what led to its abandonment, no man can tell. The only name by which it is known, is that of the Hacienda [i. e. farm-plantation] on which it stands. In the oldest deed, belonging to the Peon family [i. e. the owners], which goes back a hundred and forty years, the buildings are referred to in the boundaries of the estate as Las Casas de Piedra [i. e. the stone-houses]. This is the only ancient document or record in existence, in which the place is mentioned at all. The Ruins were all exhumed: within the last year the trees had been cut down and burned, and the whole field of Ruins was in view." * * * * "In attempting a description of the Ruins, so vast a work rises up before me, that I am at a loss where to begin." * * * * "Drawn off by mounds of ruins and piles of gigantic buildings, the eye returns, and again fastens upon a lofty structure. It was the first building I entered. From its front doorway I counted sixteen elevations [buildings], with broken walls and mounds of stones, and vast magnificent edifices, which at that distance seemed untouched by time and defying ruin. I stood in the doorway when the Sun went down, throwing from the buildings a prodigious breadth of shadow, darkening the terraces on which they stood, and presenting a scene strange enough for a work of enchantment. This building [i. e. in which he viewed the scene] is sixty-eight feet long. The elevation on which it stands, is built up solid from the plain, entirely artificial. Its form is not pyramidal, but oblong, and rounding, being two hundred and forty feet long at the base, and one hundred and twenty feet broad, and it is protected all around, to the very top, by a wall of square stones."
The terms of the last sentence are in direct opposition to the description,—for the elevation is distinctly pyramidal. It does not require a square base only rising from their corners to a central apex, to be essentially pyramidal,—for a cone is pyramidal, or an "oblong" rising and diminishing from a broad base; all walls on an inclined plane—no matter at what degree of elevation or declivity, possess the chief essential of a pyramid.
The cone, oblong, and square,—even a triple-sided or octagonal pyramid, would be, one and all, correct phrases in the language of Architecture, to express the character of the pyramid; and are so used in contradistinction to walls (one or more) of a perpendicular description,—and the instant such walls lose the facial of the plumb-line, they become pyramidal, from the principle of the wall rising from its base, and falling to a centre, which, we repeat, is the chief essential of the pyramid. The number of sides, or none at all (i. e. a cone), has no part in the pyramidal principle; as the key-stone is to the Arch, so the apex is to the Pyramid; but if the latter is only half reared, yet approaching by the inclined walls towards an apex, it is as much a pyramidal structure as if the sides had reached the apex itself. It is to be regretted that Mr. Stephens should have been ignorant of the Fine Arts and their rules—(we make this remark on his own honest confession[2])—because by the confusion of terms he not only often contradicts himself, but misleads the general reader in forming conclusions from his graphic descriptions.
It will, however, be our duty not to pass any such contradiction, but by the rules of art endeavour to translate the language of the Ruins. Mr. Stephens has, however, a motive in destroying all resemblance between these edifices and those of Egypt, or their neighbours. In the next chapter that motive will be unfolded in his own words.
"On the East side of the structure is a broad range of stone steps, between eight and nine inches high, and so steep, that the greatest care is required in ascending and descending: of these we counted one hundred and one in their places. Nine were wanting at the top, and perhaps twenty were covered with rubbish at the bottom. At the summit of the steps is a stone platform four feet and a half wide, running along the rear of the building. There is no door in the centre, but at each end a door opens into an apartment eighteen feet long and nine wide, and between the two is a third apartment of the same width, and thirty-four feet long. The whole building is of stone; inside the walls are of polished smoothness; outside, up to the height of the door, the stones are plain and square; above this line there is a rich cornice or moulding, and from this to the top of the building, all the sides are covered with rich and elaborate sculptured ornaments, forming a sort of arabesque. The style and character of these ornaments were entirely different from those of any we had seen before, either in that country or any other; they bore no resemblance whatever to those of Copan or Palenque, and were quite as unique and peculiar. The designs were strange and incomprehensible, very elaborate, sometimes grotesque, but often simple, tasteful, and beautiful. Among the intelligible subjects, are squares and diamonds (i. e. forms), with busts of human beings, heads of leopards, and compositions of leaves and flowers, and the ornaments known every where as grecques. The ornaments which succeed each other are all different; the whole form an extraordinary mass of richness and complexity, and the effect is both grand and curious; and the construction of these ornaments is not less peculiar and striking than the general effect. There were no tablets or single stones, each representing separately, or by itself, an entire subject; but every ornament or combination is made up of separate stones, on each of which part of the subject was carved [sculptured], and was then set in its place in the wall. (?) Each stone by itself was an unmeaning fractional part; but placed by the side of others helped to make a whole, which, without it would be incomplete. Perhaps it may, with propriety, be called a species of sculptured mosaic."
This last sentence cannot be entertained,—for mosaic is an arrangement of COLOURED stones, to represent a painted floor, wall, or ceiling,—their shape is not material, but they must be possessed of different colours. Now this does not appear upon the walls of Uxmal [i. e. of the edifice now in review], and the absence of coloured stones gives the negative to their being even "a species of mosaic." Nor were the stones first sculptured, "and then set in their places in the wall;" that is entirely a modern custom; but by applying the history of ancient sculpture to the preceding description, the means whereby the accuracy of facial sculpture of the wall was obtained, is at once defined and established. The Greeks placed the stones of their friezes and pediments upon their Temples in their rough state,—they were sculptured afterwards, and consequently the greatest accuracy in the connecting lines from one stone to another was obtained, and could be by that manner only. The fluting of a column (of one or more blocks of marble) was always sculptured after it had been erected in its rough state. This was the only practice in that branch of art, and without doubt it was (it must have been) so practised upon the beautiful and unique walls of Uxmal.
In perusing the foregone descriptions, the reader may almost ask himself if his perceptive powers are not betraying him?—whether he is reading of an Athenian display of Sculpture, or really of an ancient edifice on the Western Continent! Well might it have appeared to the bewildered traveller as "a work of enchantment." He then proceeds to describe another building of the same character and sculpture: an edifice supposed to have "some reference to the Vestals, who in Mexico were employed to keep burning the sacred fire." It is thus sketched:
"It is situated on an artificial elevation about fifteen feet high. Its form is quadrangular, and one side, according to my measurement, is ninety-five paces in length. It was not possible to pace all around it, from the masses of fallen stones which encumbered it in some places, but it may be safely stated at two hundred-and-fifty feet square [i. e. one thousand feet in the entire measurement!]. It is built entirely of cut stone [like the other buildings] and the whole exterior is filled with the same rich, elaborate, and incomprehensible sculptured ornaments. The principal entrance is by a large doorway into a beautiful patio or courtyard, grass-grown but clear of trees, and the whole of the inner façade is ornamented more richly and elaborately than the outside, and in a more perfect state of preservation."
This may be accounted for from the apparent fact, that the interior sculpture was executed after that on the outward walls; for it appears to be far more beautiful and elaborate, and thence more time would be required for its completion, and as a consequence, it could only be finished at a later date; added to this a greater protection from the weather is given to the inside of quadrangular walls than on the outside, and that without any reference to roofs or coverings: for a strong wind striking, for instance, an easterly wall on the outside, the force of the wind is destroyed, and consequently reaches the opposite wall in the area with a greatly diminished power. The same argument would apply to the wind from any quarter, blowing upon unroofed quadrangular structures, and this these builders seem to have completely understood by making the Sculpture more refined and delicate upon the inside.
"On one side the combination [of the Sculpture] was in the form of diamonds, simple, chaste, and tasteful: and at the head of the courtyard two gigantic serpents (with their heads broken and fallen) were winding from opposite directions along the whole façade"—[i. e. one thousand feet].
It will be remembered that the Chief Altar at Copan has sculptured on it two serpents: in the Analogies we shall endeavour to read these wily hieroglyphics.
"In front and on a line with the door of the preceding edifice, is another building on a lower foundation of the same general character, called Casa de Tortugas, from the sculptured turtles over the doorway."
That the reader may not be misled, these "turtles" are not as defined in Scripture (i. e. young doves), but the tortoise, the well-known shellfish; and in the splendid illustrations of these Ruins in Waldeck's work (folio, 1838) the tortoise is distinctly given, and without doubt is so meant by Mr. Stephens. There are four of them in a group, their heads approaching to a centre, each tortoise is in a square, and in the two external angles of each square is an Egg. The tortoise and the egg, are both National emblems, and the Nation claiming them will be proved in the Analogies.
"In the front was a broad avenue with a line of ruins on each side, leading beyond the wall to a great mound of ruins: and beyond this a lofty building in the rear. Between the two was a large patio, or courtyard, with corridors on each side, and the ground of the courtyard sounded hollow. In one place, the surface was broken, and I descended into a large excavation, cemented, which probably had been intended as a granary. [Rather as a water reservoir] At the back of the courtyard, on a high, broken terrace, which it was difficult to climb, was another edifice more ruined than the others, but which from the style of its remains, and its commanding position, overlooking every other building [except the first described] and apparently having been connected with the distant mass of ruins in front, must have been one of the most important in the City, perhaps the principal Temple. The whole presented a scene of barbaric (?) magnificence, utterly confounding all previous notions in regard to the Aboriginal inhabitants of this Country; and calling up emotions which had not been wakened to the same extent by any thing we had yet seen."
"There was one strange circumstance connected with these ruins—viz., no water had ever been discovered, and there was not a single stream, fountain, or well, nearer than the Hacienda, a mile and a half distant. It is supposed that the face of the Country had not changed; and that somewhere under ground must exist great wells, cisterns or reservoirs [perhaps acquaducts] which supplied the former inhabitants of the City with water." * * * * * "While I was making the circuit of these ruins, Mr. Catherwood proceeded to the Casa del Gobernador; it indicates the principal building of the old City, or royal house. (?) It is the grandest in position, the most stately in Architecture and proportions, and the most perfect in preservation of all the structures remaining at Uxmal."
The same argument brought forward in the last Section, to prove that the chief edifice of Palenque was the Temple, and not the Palace, will apply to this supposed "royal house." As to the phrase "Casa del Gobernador"—or Governor's house,—it is the name by which it is called in the neighbourhood, and can have no bearing upon the true character of the edifice,—but the very superior preservation of the building would point it to be one held Sacred from any rude assault by the people; while its Architecture, importance of its position, and magnitude, at once justify the name of Temple being given to this edifice, and as such we shall view it. Mr. Stephens appears to be so strict a Spartan Republican, that every large, or magnificent building in the Ruined Cities, he considers to be a Palace,—he seems to have thought less of mind, than of matter.
"This edifice [Temple] stands on three ranges of terraces. The first terrace is six hundred and forty feet long, and five feet high. It is walled with cut stone, and on the top is a platform twenty feet broad, from which rises another terrace fifteen feet high. At the corners this terrace is supported by cut stones, having the faces rounded so as to give a better finish than with sharp angles. The great platform is flat. At the south-east corner of this platform is a row of ROUND pillars eighteen inches in diameter, and three or four feet high, [i. e. broken pillars] extending about one hundred feet along the platform; and these were the nearest approach to pillars or columns (circular) that we saw in all our exploration of ruins of that country."
What "nearer approach" was necessary to prove the existence of circular columns, than his own description? Of this hereafter,—again he writes:
"In the middle of the terrace, along an avenue leading to a range of steps, was a broken round pillar, inclined and falling, and with trees growing around it. In the centre of the platform, at a distance of two hundred and five feet from the border in front, is a range of stone steps, more than a hundred feet broad, and thirty-five in number, ascending to a third terrace, fifteen feet above the last, and thirty-five feet from the ground; which being on a naked plain, formed a most commanding position. The erection of these terraces alone was an immense work. On the third terrace, with its principal doorway facing the range of steps, stands the noble structure. [Temple] The façade measures three hundred and twenty feet. Away from the regions of dreadful rains, and the rank growth which smothers the Ruins of Palenque,—it stands with all its walls erect, and almost as perfect as when deserted by the inhabitants. The whole building is of stone, plain up to the moulding that runs along the tops of the doorway, and above filled with the same rich, strange, and elaborate Sculpture; among which is particularly conspicuous, the ornament before referred to, as la grecque."
By a reference to the illustrated folio of Waldeck, it is found that this ornament is chiefly the meander, or the Grecian square border, used in the embroidery of the mantles and robes of Attica.
"There is no rudeness or barbarity in the design or proportions; on the contrary, the whole wears an air of Architectural symmetry and grandeur; and as the stranger ascends the steps, and casts a bewildered eye along its open and desolate doors, it is hard to believe, that he sees before him the work of a race in whose epitaph, as written by historians,[3] they are called ignorant of Art, and said to have perished in the rudeness of savage life."
In justice to those historians, it should be stated, that they did not know of these architectural wonders; for if they did, no excuse can be rendered in extenuation of such an "epitaph"—thence has arisen the necessity of a New History of Ancient America; to, at least, the landing of Columbus; and even that will now wear another aspect. Mr. Stephens, in the last sentence quoted, justly reasons upon, and correctly censures the false conclusions of those historians;—yet a few pages before, he, himself, calls the tout ensemble of the Uxmal Ruins, with all the beautiful Sculpture, and Classical ornaments, "a scene of barbaric magnificence!" He seems afraid to combat with even the assertions of those Historians, whose "epitaph" upon an entire people, was written in ignorance of their works of Art. He says, "it is hard to believe" that they "perished in the rudeness of savage life,"—why, with such a gorgeous "scene" as that of Uxmal before him, it was an impossibility that they could so have perished, either in the mind, or in history. The Ruins and Temple of Uxmal, he says, present "a scene of barbaric magnificence!" if they do,—either to himself or his readers, then were Athens and the Acropolis barbaric, and Pericles and Phidias barbarians!
"But there was one thing which seemed in strange want of conformity with all the rest. I have mentioned that at Ocosingo [Ruins] we saw a wooden beam, and at Pelanque, the remains of a wooden pole; at this place [Uxmal] all the lintels had been of wood, and throughout the ruins, most of them were still in their places over the doors. The lintels were heavy beams, eight or nine feet long, eighteen or twenty inches wide, and twelve or fourteen thick; the wood like that of Ocosingo, was very hard, and rang under the blow of the machete."
From a further description, it appears that this peculiar wood was brought from a distance of three hundred miles. Waldeck says, that it is more durable than lignum vitæ, and is called by the natives jovillo. The strength of this wood is thus shewn by Mr. Stephens:
"The position of these lintels was most trying, as they were obliged to support a solid mass of stone wall, fourteen or sixteen feet high, and three or four feet in thickness."
From a calculation of the measurements around the base of the principal terrace, or pyramidal elevation, the entire distance is two thousand five hundred and sixty feet. The Temple, which stands upon a third terrace, is fronting to the East,—i. e. to the rising Sun,—the chief object of Worship.
"In the centre [of the Temple], and opposite the range of steps leading to the terrace, are three principal doorways. The middle one is eight feet six inches wide, and eight feet ten inches high; the others are of the same height, but two feet less in width. The centre door opens into an apartment sixty feet long, and twenty-seven feet deep [wide], which is divided into two corridors by a wall three and a half feet thick, with a door of communication between, of the same size with the door of entrance. The plan is the same as that of the Corridor in front of the Palace (?) of Palenque, except that here the Corridor does not run the whole length of the building, and the back Corridor has no door of egress. The ceiling forms a triangular Arch, without the Key-stone, as at Palenque."
The term "triangular Arch" cannot be admitted by the language of Architecture; he might as well have written triangular semicircle, terms distinctly opposed to each other. It is essential to notice this inaccuracy here, otherwise the reader may be under the erroneous impression, that the Arch does exist in the ancient Ruins in America,—this is not the fact; but the entire absence of the Arch, or its principle, enables us to form an Architectural conclusion in reference to their identity; and the fact, that the Arch does not exist in any of the Ruins of Ancient America, cannot be too forcibly impressed upon the reader's mind; for it demonstrates that these buildings were erected before the Arch was known, and as a consequence, is a direct proof of their great antiquity. Mr. Stephens has already written in reference to Palenque, and previously quoted, "The builders were evidently ignorant of the principles of the Arch."
"The ceiling, &c.: but, instead of the rough stones overlapping or being covered with stucco, (as at Palenque) the layers of stones are bevilled as they rise, and present an even and a polished surface. Throughout, the laying and the polishing of the stones are as perfect as under the rules of the best modern masonry. In this apartment we determined to take up our abode, and under a roof, tight as when sheltering the heads of its former occupants." * * * * * "We were not buried in the forest as at Palenque. From every part of the terrace we looked over a field of ruins." * * * * "From the centre apartment, the divisions on each wing corresponded exactly in size and finish; and the same uniformity was preserved in the ornaments. Throughout, the roof was tight, and the apartments were dry. In one apartment, the walls were coated with a very fine plaister of Paris, (?) equal to the best seen on walls in this country. (United States) The rest were all of smooth polished stone. There were no paintings, stucco ornaments, Sculptured tablets, or other decoration whatever."
Mr. Stephens then relates the finding in a ruined Chamber, of "A beam of wood, (i. e. the jovillo) about ten feet long, and very heavy, which had fallen from its place over the doorway. On the face was a line of characters carved or stamped (?) almost obliterated, but which we made out to be hieroglyphics; and so far as we could understand them similar to those at Copan and Palenque. I cannot help deploring the misfortune of not being assured of the safety of this beam. By what feeble light the pages of American History are written! There are at Uxmal no Idols as at Copan,—not a single stuccoed figure, or carved tablet, as at Palenque. Except this beam of hieroglyphics, though searching earnestly, we did not discover any one absolute point of resemblance."
The hieroglyphics of all the ruins bind them together as one People; the difference in the finish of the edifices, and their varied states of preservation, at once point to different ages in which they were erected. A principal ornament at equi-distances in the outward cornice is important, and is thus described by Stephens, and strictly agrees with the folio work by Waldeck.
"It is the face of a death's-head, with wings expanded, and rows of teeth projecting, in effect somewhat like the figure of a death's-head on tombstones with us. It is two feet across the wings, and has a stone staple about two feet long, by which it was fastened to the wall."
In Waldeck's beautiful illustrations of these ruins, some feet below this winged death's-head, are the cross-bones distinct, and below these, is a human figure (male) in full maturity, and naked, except the shoulders and head, standing with his arms crossed "in sorrow's knot." These Sculptures appear upon, what Waldeck calls the Pyramid of Kingsborough,—so named, as before stated, in compliment to Lord Kingsborough, for his costly work upon the Paintings of Mexico. [7 vols. folio.] Well may Stephens say, there are no "Idols" here as at Copan. Heathen language is not seen in the Sculpture of Uxmal; the Christian language alone can translate the above emblems of the Resurrection! The translation of the above Sculpture seems as easy, as if a Daniel had already read the handwriting on the wall! as thus—The human figure, in full life and maturity, together with the sex, presents mortality; over the figure the cross-bones are placed, portraying the figure's earthly death; while the skull supported by expanding wings, (and this Sculpture being placed above those of life and death,) presents the immortal Soul ascending on the wings of Time, above all earthly life, or the corruption of the grave! "On tombstones with us" a better design could not have been formed by Art to enforce the belief in the Resurrection. The beauty of this subject has led us into digression, for it belongs to the third volume. Campbell will apologize for us—
"Coming events cast their shadow before."
Mr. Stephens continues:—
"The reader will be able to form some idea of the time, skill, and labour, required for making them [the edifices]; and more than this, to conceive the immense time, skill, and labour required for carving [sculpturing] such a surface of stone; and the wealth, power, and cultivation of the people who could command such skill and labour for the mere decoration of the edifices. Probably all these ornaments have a symbolical meaning; [they certainly have] each stone is part of an allegory or fable (?) hidden from us, inscrutable under the light of the feeble torch we may burn before it, but which, if ever revealed, will shew that the History of the World yet remains to be written."
With all humility we have attempted to "reveal" one portion of the Sculpture, (others will follow)—but the emblems of Christianity and the Resurrection, can form no part "of an allegory or fable;" and truly has the History of the World yet to be written, when historians in ignorance of the Ruins, have traced the Aborigines, who built the gorgeous edifices of Palenque and Uxmal, to have lived and perished in a savage life! From the character of the Sculpture, and its devices, Uxmal is placed by us as the last built of all the Ancient Cities as yet discovered on the Western Continent.
Having made sufficient extracts from Mr. Stephens's work on "Central America," in illustration of Copan, Palenque, and Uxmal, the principal Cities of Ruins; the Traveller's reflections upon his explorations will now be given, and his conclusions met and refuted. We desire, before we commence the following Chapter of refutation, to impress the reader's mind with the importance of a complete removal of the conclusions, arrived at by Mr. Stephens in regard to these Ruins;—for if he is right, we are stopped at the very threshold of our History. We confess this with all honesty, and desire thereby to arouse the minute attention of the reader to the several points of refutation,—to analyze them critically, and to yield nothing,—but from conviction of foregone errors and false conclusions.
In conformity with the rule of argument with which this volume was commenced, we presume that the preceding Chapter completely establishes in the mind of the reader, that Ancient Cities and Ruins have been discovered in Mexican America; in this belief, the History will be continued, and the Builders and Architecture identified.