To the right of this mound is another pyramid, having several stories like the Castillo at Chichen, and similar monuments at Palenque; it was crowned by a beautiful temple, now in a very ruined condition. Still to the right, but more in front, is the curious building known as “Casa de las Palomas,” Pigeon House, owing to immense peaks terminating the decorative wall, pierced by large openings arranged in horizontal rows, which may well have served as a pigeon-house. It should be added that at Uxmal the decorative wall is only found in the most dilapidated monuments deficient of any stucco mouldings, showing an earlier epoch.
GENERAL VIEW OF THE RUINS OF UXMAL.
Fronting these buildings, on the second plan, are more ruins; the most conspicuous being the Tlachtli or Tennis-court, and the south side of the Nunnery with its main entrance, which gives access to the inner court, where traces of pavement are still visible.
An official document given by Stephens will confirm our views respecting these monuments. Stephens found it among the papers of the Peon family, in a petition from Don Lorenzo Evia to the King of Spain (1673), praying a grant of four leagues of land from the buildings of Uxmal, “since,” he says, “no injury could result to any third person, but on the contrary very great service to God our Lord, because with that establishment it would prevent the Indians in those places from worshipping the devil in the ancient buildings which are there, having in them their idols, to which they burn copal and perform other detestable sacrifices, as they are doing every day notoriously and publicly.” And further: “In the place called the edifices of Uxmal and its lands, the 3rd day of the month of January, 1688,” etc.,[151] concluding: “In virtue of the power and authority given me by the Governor, I took the hand of the said Lorenzo, and he walked with me all over Uxmal and its buildings, opened and shut some doors, cut within the space some trees, picked up stones and threw them down, drew water from one of the aguados, and performed other acts of possession.”
This was 150 years after the Conquest; but by this time the reader must be convinced that edifices, notably at Uxmal, were inhabited before and after the coming of Europeans; that they were recent, and that, broadly speaking, the monuments of Yucatan were the work of the existing race, erected at various epochs by the Toltec conquerors.[152]
We will end these long discussions by a quotation from Baron Friedrichsthal, regarding the probable age of these ruins, showing that our theory was promulgated some forty-three years ago, not only by Stephens, but also by the illustrious German scholar: “Historians are unanimous in ascribing all the existing stone structures to the Toltecs or the Aztecs. The latter, however, did not invade New Spain until the middle of the thirteenth century, while no traces are found of their having migrated south. Aztec architecture is quite distinct from the Toltec, which a comparison of Mexican buildings with those found at Palenque sufficiently show; the latter being generally ascribed to the Toltecs by all ancient authorities. The evident analogy which exists between the edifices at Palenque and the ruins in Yucatan, favours the assumption of one origin, although different epochs must be assigned to each, by reason of the progress visible in their treatment. To fix these epochs with some show of probability seems to us, if not impossible, at least very difficult. A thorough exploration, supported by a minute and exhaustive comparison of the standing remains, coupled with a careful observation of the causes and circumstances which have produced or contributed to the state of dilapidation wherein these ruins are found, could alone throw some light across the darkness which has settled over these monuments for so many centuries.” (This is exactly what we have done.)
“The solidity of these edifices is not equal to that of monuments of other nations, which were built throughout the thickness of their walls with stones of different size; whereas the inside of the American wall is a rude mixture of friable mortar and small irregular stones. This heterogeneous composition must have produced the rupture or dislocation of the outward facing as soon as the whole was under the influence of atmospheric moisture, and the rapid infiltrations which were produced by its upper portions. Moreover, the calcareous stone used in these buildings is considered as a very inferior material, as seen by the progressive decomposition of those portions of the buildings which are exposed to the direct influence of the north-east wind, and the consequent action of the prevailing rain. Nor is this all. In the wood used in almost all northern structures, examples are met of resinous wood having lain buried or submerged, in a semi-state of petrifaction, over a thousand years. Now in the Yucatec ruins the cornices and lintels of the doorways, of zapoté wood, were exposed to the open air. This wood, although very hard, not being resinous like cedar, is attacked by devouring insects. For this reason it does not seem probable that these woods are more than six or seven hundred years old. If this supposition be called purely hypothetical, the thoughtful reader has a perfect right to form his opinion from more solid data, while I claim the same to express mine; not that I deem myself infallible—for, says the German proverb, ‘Truth is only attained after repeated tumbles on the rocks of error.’”[153]
American monuments, considered artistically, are but the rude manifestations of a semi-barbarous race, which it were idle to endow with intrinsic value, seeing that their original plans are wanting both in accuracy and symmetry, while their materials are ill-cut, their joints far apart even in bas-reliefs, where the intervening spaces are filled up with cement. Consequently these buildings cannot compare with Indian, Egyptian or Assyrian monuments; for here we have a nation who in the whole course of their political life, extending over several centuries, produced but one note, emitted but one sound; because they had neither traditions nor a higher civilisation around them to draw from. And, although here and there some happier mood is seen, whether in sculpture or cement modelling, their occurrence is too rare ever to have become general. The chief merit of these buildings lies in their interest for the archæologist and the intelligent, who are necessarily few; and this explains the silence of the conquerors respecting them. How well I remember my servant’s strictures on hearing my exclamation of delightful surprise as I stood the first time before the Governor’s Palace: “Well, I can’t, for my part, see anything so wonderful in it; there isn’t a French bricklayer who couldn’t do quite as well and better.” François, on his return home, would no more have dreamt of recounting of the wonderful buildings he had seen in the New World, than did the Spaniards three hundred years before.