Mr. Bandelier found, besides two artificial hills, traces of thirty-nine distinct edifices, and, as he thinks these are all the buildings that ever stood there, it is manifest that this was not a city in our sense of the word. Two or three of the buildings were constructed of adobe, plastered, and painted red. The others were built of stone. Of these latter the greater part stands upon the ground, but a few are built upon elevated terraces, composed of stone and earth heaped together and faced with stone. In one group of four buildings the terraced foundation contained a basement—in one case, at least—in the form of a cross. The purpose of this cellar or basement left in the artificial foundation is unknown. Some think they were used for burial purposes but it is more likely they were general store-rooms. The arrangement of these buildings was the same as elsewhere. That is, so placed as to inclose a court. This illustration shows us the method of constructing the walls of the building. We notice two distinct parts. The inner part is built of broken stones laid in tolerably regular courses in clay. There was no mortar used. This inner core is much the same sort of work as the masonry in the pueblos of Arizona. A facing was put on over this inner core, which served both for ornament and for strength. This illustration is a corner of one of these buildings, and gives us in excellent idea of the peculiar ornamentation employed at Mitla. Mr. Bancroft gives us a clear idea of how this facing was put on: “First, a double tier of very large blocks are placed as a base along the surface of the supporting mound, projecting two or three feet from the line of the wall, the stones of the upper tier sloping inward. On this base is erected a kind of framework of large, hewn blocks with perfectly plain, unsculptured fronts, which divide the surface of the wall into oblong panels of different dimensions.”43
It would, then, seem as if the panels were thickly coated with clay. Into this clay was then driven small, smoothed blocks of wedge-shaped stones, in such a way as to cover them with geometrical ornamentations, which, though not absolutely symmetrical, present a striking and agreeable appearance. Each section of the wall presents a different pattern, but this difference is so slight that the general effect is harmonious.44 This mosaic ornamentation is found in some of the inner facings of the walls as well. In general, however, the walls on the inside were covered with mortar and painted.
Some of the blocks of stone forming the basement, the framework of the panels, and the lintels of the door are of great size, and the lintels were in some cases sculptured. One of the largest rooms at Mitla is represented in the preceding cut. The peculiar feature about it is the range of columns seen in the drawing. The inner plastering has fallen, exposing the rough wall. The columns are simple stone pillars, having neither chapter nor base. It is generally supposed that these pillars supported the roof. As in the pueblo buildings to the north, as well as the Toltec house at Tulla, the roof was probably formed of the trunks of small-sized trees laid close together and covered with clay and cement.
We have as yet not seen any thing in these ruins sufficiently striking to justify the somewhat extravagant assertion made about them. The ornamentation is indeed peculiar and tasteful, but aside from that, we see no reason to speak of them as magnificent structures. The buildings are low and narrow; the rooms are small, dark, and illy ventilated. “Light could only have been admitted from one side, and the apertures for this purpose were neither lofty nor broad.” Mr. Bandelier fittingly characterizes the ruins as the “barbaric effort of a barbarous people.” Those scholars who think we have in Mexico the ruins of a highly civilized, powerful empire, regard these ruins as in some way set aside for mourning purposes of the royal family. “According to tradition,” says Mayer, “They were . . . intended as the places of sepulture for their princes. At the death of members of the royal family, their bodies were entombed in the vaults beneath; and the sovereign and his relatives retired to mourn over the departed scion in the chambers above these solemn abodes, screened by dark and silent groves from the public eye.” Another tradition devotes the edifices to a sect of priests, whose duty it was to live in perfect seclusion, and offer expiatory sacrifices for the royal dead who reposed in the vaults beneath.45
With all due respect to traditions, we think a much more reasonable explanation can be given. One reason why Mitla has been regarded as such an important place, is because it has been assumed that there were no other ruins like it, especially in Mexico. This, according to Mr. Bandelier, is a mistake. He examined one or two quite similar ruins in the near vicinity, and at another place he found a group of ruins in every way worthy of being compared to Mitla, but he was not able to examine them. So we must either decide there were a number of these “Sepulchral Palaces,” or else adopt some simpler explanation. But still stronger is the fact, that at the time of the conquest, Mitla was an inhabited pueblo. We have the account of a monk who visited it in 1533. He mentions in particular the ornamentation of the walls, the huge doorways, and the hall with the pillars. It is extremely probable that if it was devoted to any such purpose, some mention would have been made of it. We think Mr. Bandelier is right when he concludes that these structures are communal buildings, but little different from others.