That appears to me the most reasonable suggestion which assumes that the Mound Builders came originally from Mexico and Central America. It explains many facts connected with their remains. In the Great Valley their most populous settlements were at the south. Coming from Mexico and Central America, they would begin their settlements on the gulf coast, and afterwards advance gradually up the river to the Ohio valley. It seems evident that they came by this route; and their remains show that their only connection with the coast was at the south. Their settlements did not reach the coast at any other point.
Their constructions were similar in design and arrangement to those found in Mexico and Central America. Like the Mexicans and Central Americans, they had many of the smaller structures known as teocallis, and also large, high mounds, with level summits, reached by great flights of steps. Pyramidal platforms or foundations for important edifices appear in both regions, and are very much alike. In Central America important edifices were built of hewn stone, and can still be examined in their ruins. The Mound Builders, like some of the ancient people of Mexico and Yucatan, used wood, sun-dried brick, or some other material that could not resist decay. There is evidence that they used timber for building purposes. In one of the mounds opened in the Ohio valley two chambers were found with remains of the timber of which the walls were made, and with arched ceilings precisely like those in Central America, even to the overlapping stones. Chambers have been found in some of the Central American and Mexican mounds, but there hewn stones were used for the walls. In both regions the elevated and terraced foundations remain, and can be compared. I have already called attention to the close resemblance between them, but the fact is so important in any endeavor to explain the Mound Builders that I must bring it to view here.
Consider, then, that elevated and terraced foundations for important buildings are peculiar to the ancient Mexicans and Central Americans; that this method of construction, which, with them, was the rule, is found nowhere else, save that terraced elevations, carefully constructed, and precisely like theirs in form and appearance, occupy a chief place among the remaining works of the Mound Builders. The use made of these foundations at Palenque, Uxmal and Chichen-Itza, shows the purpose for which they were constructed in the Mississippi valley. The resemblance is not due to chance. The explanation appears to me very manifest. This method of construction was brought to the Mississippi valley from Mexico and Central America, the ancient inhabitants of that region and the Mound Builders being the same people in race, and also in civilization, when it was brought here.
A very large proportion of the old structures in Ohio and farther south called "mounds," namely, those which are low in proportion to their horizontal extent, are terraced foundations for buildings, and if they were situated in Yucatan, Guatemala, and Mexico, they would never be mistaken for anything else. The high mounds also in the two regions are remarkably alike. In both cases they are pyramidal in shape, and have level summits of considerable extent, which were reached by means of stairways on the outside. The great mound at Chichen-Itza is 75 feet high, and has on its summit a ruined stone edifice; that at Uxmal is 60 feet high, and has a similar ruin on its summit; that at Mayapan is 60 feet high; the edifice placed on its summit has disappeared. The great mound at Miamisburg, Ohio, is 68 feet high; and that at Grave Creek, West Virginia, is 75 feet high. Both had level summits, and stairways on the outside, but no trace of any structure remains on them. All these mounds were constructed for religious uses, and they are, in their way, as much alike as any five Gothic churches.
Could these works of the Mound Builders be restored to the condition in which they were when the country was filled with their busy communities, we should doubtless see great edifices, similar in style to those in Yucatan, standing on the upper terraces of all the low and extended "mounds," and smaller structures on the high mounds, such as those above named. There would seem to be an extension of ancient Mexico and Central America through Texas into the Mississippi and Ohio valleys; and so, if there were no massive stone work in the old ruins of those countries, it might seem that the Mound Builders' works were anciently extended into them by way of Texas.
The fact that the settlements and works of the Mound Builders extended through Texas and across the Rio Grande indicates very plainly their connection with the people of Mexico, and goes far to explain their origin. We have other evidence of intercourse between the two peoples; for the obsidian dug from the mounds, and perhaps the porphyry also, can be explained only by supposing commercial relations between them.
We can not suppose the Mound Builders to have come from any other part of North America, for nowhere else north of the Isthmus was there any other people capable of producing such works as they left in the places where they dwelt. Beyond the relics of the Mound Builders, no traces of the former existence of such a people have been discovered in any part of North America save Mexico, and Central America, and districts immediately connected with them. At the same time it is not unreasonable to suppose the civilized people of these regions extended their settlements through Texas, and also migrated across the gulf into the Mississippi valley. In fact, the connection of settlements by way of Texas appears to have been unbroken from Ohio to Mexico.
This colonizing extension of the old Mexican race must have taken place at a remote period in the past; for what has been said of the antiquity of the Mound Builders shows that a very long period, far more than two thousand years, it may be, must have elapsed since they left the valley of the Ohio. Perhaps they found the country mostly unoccupied, and saw there but little of any other people until an eruption of warlike barbarians came upon them from the northwest. * * * * * *
The supposition that the Toltecs and the Mound Builders were the same people seems to me not improbable. The reasons for it will be stated when we come to a discussion of the antiquities, books, and traditions of Central America. I will only say here that, according to dates given in the Central American books, the Toltecs came from "Huehue-Tlapalan," a distant country in the northeast, long previous to the Christian era. They played a great part and had a long career in Mexico previous to the rise of their successors in power, the Aztecs, who were overthrown by the Spaniards.[[23]]
Bancroft, in a general way, coincides with the views of Mr. Baldwin. Discussing several theories respecting the Mound Builders, he speaks of this as "the most reasonable [hypothesis], and best supported by monumental and traditional evidence. The temple-mounds strongly resemble, in their principal features, the southern pyramids; at least they imply a likeness of religious ideas in the builders. The use of obsidian implements shows a connection, either through origin, war, or commerce, with the Mexican nations, or at least with nations who came in contact with the Nahuas. There are, moreover, several Nahua traditions respecting the arrival on their coasts from the northeast, of civilized strangers."[[24]] He further says: "I am inclined to believe that the most plausible conjecture respecting the origin of the Mound Builders is that which makes them a colony of the ancient Mayas who settled in the north during the continuance of the great Maya empire of Xibalba, in Central America, several centuries before Christ."[[25]]
It will be observed that these views harmonize almost to completeness with the requirements of the Book of Mormon for such evidences. Whether the Jaredites built some of these mounds or not does not so much matter, though I am inclined to think they did. If some of the earlier monuments of Central America, such as Copan, Quirigua and Palenque, represent Jaredite ruins, as I am inclined to believe, then it is most likely that the truncated mounds in the north—which so much resemble the stone-faced pyramids of the south—were also built by them. Undoubtedly, during the two centuries following the advent of Messiah the Nephites also extended their occupancy of the continent into the valleys of the Mississippi and its tributaries, and then during the next two hundred years of troubled warfare, erected the numerous fortifications throughout that land which now are so distinctly recognized and spoken of by the authorities which I have here quoted. In any event it is to be seen that the Book of Mormon requires that the civilization of the Mississippi valley should find its origin in Central America, and the fact that such distinguished authorities recognize Central America as its source, is a strong presumptive evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.
Summary.
I have now presented to the reader all the matter on that part of American antiquities pertaining to the extent and location of the ruined cities and other monuments of ancient American civilization that my space will allow, and I only pause before closing this chapter to summarize the ground covered. Beyond question we have established the following facts:
(1) There existed in ancient times civilized races in both of the American continents.
(2) The monuments of these civilizations are located chiefly through Central America, and in the Mississippi valley—lands occupied by the Jaredites and Nephites respectively; that is to say, the monuments of these ancient civilizations are found where the Book of Mormon requires them to be located.
(3) Successive civilizations have existed in America in ancient times; and the older civilization was the most advanced.
(4) The chief center of this ancient American civilization, and its oldest and most enduring monuments are in Central America, where the Book of Mormon locates its oldest race of people, and where civilization longest prevailed and built its most enduring monuments; and is the center from which civilization, beyond question, extended into the north continent.
In making these claims I am not unmindful of the fact that there are authorities who hold somewhat different views from those whose works I have so extensively quoted; but I do not believe that the conclusions here summarized can be disturbed either by facts or theories of those other authorities. And however divergent the views of authorities may be, this much can be absolutely claimed, that there is nothing in their works which, on the matters so far considered, directly conflicts with the claims of the Book of Mormon; while so much as is here stated is certainly very strong evidence in its favor.