His description of the valley of Mexico, and its cities, fields and orchards, when first beheld by the invading Spaniards under Cortez, is as follows:
Stretching far away at their feet, were seen noble forests of oak, sycamore, and cedar, and beyond, yellow fields of maize and the towering maguey, intermingled with orchards and blooming gardens; for flowers, in such demand for their religious festivals, were even more abundant in this populous valley than in other parts of Anahuac. In the center of the great basin were beheld the lakes, occupying then a much larger portion of its surface than at present; their borders thickly studded with towns and hamlets, and, in the midst—like some Indian empress with her coronal of pearls—the fair City of Mexico, with her white towers and pyramidal temples, reposing, as it were, on the bosom of the waters—the far-famed "Venice of the Aztecs." High over all rose the royal hill of Chapoltepec, the residence of the Mexican monarchs, crowned with the same grove of gigantic cypresses, which at this day fling their broad shadows over the land. In the distance beyond the blue waters of the lake, and nearly screened by intervening foliage, was seen a shining speck, the rival capital of Tezcuco, and, still further on, the dark belt of porphyry, girdling the valley around, like a rich setting which nature had devised for the fairest of her jewels.[[16]]
From the statements of Bernal Diaz we are also justified in believing that a somewhat similar state of civilization obtained in Yucatan and other parts of Central America. While the well-known works of Squier,[[17]] Baldwin, Rivero and Tschudi,[[18]] and the very excellent and popular volumes of Prescott on Peru, justify us in the belief that while differing somewhat in its character, the civilization of Peru was equal and even superior in some respects—to that of Mexico at the time of the conquest; and the empire of the Incas was even more extensive than that of the Montezumas.
The civilization in America upon the advent of the Spaniards—since there is no substantial historical evidence of foreign migrations in which it could have had its origin—must have arisen, as already suggested, from among the Lamanites after the fall of the Nephites at Cumorah—it was Lamanite civilization. I would not have the reader form too exalted an opinion of that civilization, however. It found its chief expression, where it attained its highest development, in the existence of numerous cities, palaces, and temples; in the existence of regular pursuits of industry, of agriculture, and manufactures; in a settled order of society, a regular order of government, and a fixed establishment of religion. So far as these conditions make for civilization, Mexico, some parts of Central America, and Peru, can be said to be civilized. But after this is said it must be claimed that much was lacking in the conditions existing in those parts of America in order to make them conform to the generally accepted idea of civilization. The governments were cruel despotisms; the industrial system reduced the masses to conditions scarcely removed from abject slavery; the religion of Mexico and Central America, at least, was the darkest, the most sanguinary, and repulsive described in the annals of human history; while the revolting practice of refined cannibalism was more widespread and horrible than among any other people whatsoever. These and many other considerations, too numerous to mention in detail, must forbid our entertaining exalted notions of this Lamanite civilization. We shall see as we proceed with the unfoldment of our evidences, that these horrible conditions were but the natural outgrowth of Lamanite tendencies through all the course of their history.
V.
Of the Writers on American Antiquities.
Still another remark is necessary in these preliminary observations. The authorities upon which we have to depend for our knowledge of American antiquities are widely conflicting. There is not one that may be followed unreservedly, and it is impossible to say with any degree of exactness what is even the concensus of opinion of authorities upon very many subjects, so widely divergent and conflicting are their views. This conflict of opinion extends to such important subjects as the following: Who were the first inhabitants of America? Were they indigenous races, or is their presence in America due to migration? If due to migration, from what lands did they come? Was there one or several migrations? What was the course of their migration? Are they of one or a number of distinct races? Are the monuments of civilization found in America ancient or comparatively modern? Do they represent the civilization of vanished races, or are they the work of the not very remote ancestors of the Indians? Is the civilization represented by these monuments really of a very high order, or was it but a step or two removed from savagery? In support of any one of these conflicting opinions about America's ancient inhabitants and their civilization one need not be at a loss to find respectable authorities. One may support with honored names in this field of research the Lost Tribes of Israel theory of the origin of the American Indians; the Malay theory of origin; the Phoenician theory; the Egyptian, the Atlantic, and a number of other minor theories.[[19]] One can array a formidable list of authors in favor of the indigenous theory of origin for ancient American civilization; and perhaps a still longer and equally learned list of authorities in favor of an exotic origin. All of which makes it evident that writers upon the subject are to be weighed as well as counted; and also warns us that in the presence of such a diversity of opinions many things pertaining to American antiquities must remain open questions. It must be remembered that as yet, so far as man's researches are concerned, but little is really known about ancient America. "That," as a Frenchman remarks, "has yet to be discovered." True, many of her ancient monuments have been located, but they seem to tell a different story to each explorer who looks upon them. There are not wanting stone tablets of hieroglyphics, and ancient documents written on skins and paper;[[20]] but up to the present time they are sealed books even to the learned. Meantime no Rosetta Stone is discovered[[21]] to furnish the key to their decipherment, and no learned American Champollion as yet[[22]] comes forward to reveal their mystery.
In considering authorities upon American antiquities, one thing should be especially observed: one should be upon his guard against the credulity and bias of the early writers; and equally upon his guard against the skepticism and bias of the more modern ones. The former, living in an age of superstition and credulity, and having special interests to serve, would have us believe too much; the latter, living in an age super-critical and doubting, would have us believe too little. There is no doubt but what the Spanish writers connected with the conquest of America colored their narratives to give importance in the eyes of their countrymen in Europe to the events with which they were associated; and they likely exaggerated whatever had such a tendency. Hence greater empires, more formidable armies, and more imposing civilizations than really existed in America at the time of the conquest, were described. So with the missionaries who accompanied the first European expeditions and those who immediately followed them. They sometimes very likely saw analogies between the Christian faith and some of the traditions and superstitions of the natives where none existed. So closely did some of the native traditions and ceremonies resemble Catholic Christian dogma and rites that the over-zealous priests came to the conclusion that the "devil" had in America counterfeited some parts of the Christian religion and intermixed it with the native paganism, the better to encompass the damnation of the natives and hinder the progress of the Christian religion. This led to the destruction of many Aztec manuscripts which were regarded by some of the priests as works on magic, and in other ways were supposed to uphold the idolatry of the natives. This idea strongly impressed the first archbishop of Mexico, Don Juan de Zumarraga,[[23]] who from a number of cities caused large quantities of the native manuscripts to be collected and destroyed. The collection from Tezcuco was especially large, since—as Prescott describes it—Tezcuco was "the great depository of the national archives." The archbishop caused these collected manuscripts "to be piled up in a 'mountainlike heap,'—as it is called by the Spanish writers themselves—in the market place at Tlateloco and reduced them all to ashes. * * * The unlettered soldiery were not slow in imitating the example of their prelate. Every chart and volume which fell into their hands was wantonly destroyed: so that when the scholars of a later and more enlightened age anxiously sought to recover some of these memorials of civilization, nearly all had perished, and the few surviving were jealously hidden by the natives."[[24]] And thus was destroyed materials which might have gone far towards solving the mystery that enshrouds the people and civilization of ancient America.
These native records were more numerous than they are generally thought to be. Baldwin, in speaking of the people of Central America and Mexico, says: "The ruins show that they had the art of writing, and that at the south this art was more developed, more like a phonetic system of writing, than we find in use among the Aztecs. The inscriptions of Palenque, and the characters used in some of the manuscript books that have been preserved, are not the same as the Mexican picture writing. It is known that books of manuscript writings were abundant among them in the ages previous to the Aztec period. * * * Las Casas wrote on this point as follows: 'It should be known that in all the commonwealths of these countries, in the kingdoms of New Spain and elsewhere, among other professions duly filled by suitable persons, was that of chronicler and historian. These chroniclers had knowledge of the origin of the kingdoms, and of whatever relates to religion and the gods, as well as to the founders of towns and cities. They recorded the history of kings, and of the modes of their election and succession; of their labors, actions, wars, and memorable deeds, good and bad; of the virtuous men or heroes of former days, their great deeds, the wars they had waged, and how they had distinguished themselves; who had been the earliest settlers, what had been their ancient customs, their triumphs and defeats. They knew, in fact whatever pertained to history, and were able to give an account of all past events. * * * Our priests have seen those books, and I myself have seen them likewise, though many were burned at the instigation of the monks, who were afraid they might impede the work of conversion.' Books such as those here described by Las Casas must have contained important historical information. The older books, belonging to the ages of Copan and Palenque, went to decay doubtless long previous to his time, in the wars and revolutions of the Toltec period, or by the wear of time. The later books, not otherwise lost, were destroyed by Aztec and Spanish vandalism."[[25]]
Respecting native writers following the conquest, they were men who acquired the Spanish language and wrote on the history of their people either in Spanish, or, if in their own language they employed the Spanish alphabet—of them it is said, and one may readily admit the reasonableness of the statement—"most of them were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of their converters, and their writings as a class are subject to the same criticism."[[26]]