There should indeed be hesitation upon a subject, so capable of denying a conclusion, directly opposed to occular demonstration.
"If there be any resemblance [to the Egyptian] at all striking, it is only that the figures, are in profile, and this is equally true of all good Sculpture in bas-relievo."
Why does he select "bas-relievo bring forth alto-relievo,—also,—for they are both found in Egypt and America. The Altar at Copan, and the walls at Palenque present profile figures and in alto-relievo,—so does the Vocal Memnon of Thebes, and the walls of Egypt: at Palenque the two figures grouped at the Altar (of Casa, No. 3) are in profile, and face to face, with the Mask of Saturn between them, and holding the same general position as the two figures of the Vocal Memnon,—who are also face to face, and in profile,—but instead of the mask, they have the Egyptian Tau T between them, and in the act of binding it with the lotus plant. But he objects to similitude apparently from the want of analogy in the physiognomy, or profile characteristics of the relative figures of Egypt and America. This certainly then must prove that they were a different people; this we distinctly believe;—but, that that people had knowledge of Egyptian Architecture and Sculpture, from commercial intercourse with the Nile. alto-relievo Sculpture is in America and Egypt:—in the former country, on the Idol-columns of Copan; in the latter nation, upon the Capitals of the Temple Columns;—and in both countries the faces are not in profile, but full front. The profile figures being on Temples, were supposed to be deified, and consequently the facial outlines were represented different from human outline.
Again:—What are the Obelisks of Egypt? Are they not square columns for the facility of Sculpture? and of what form are the isolated columns at Copan? Are they not square, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture with which they are covered, and with workmanship "as fine as that of Egypt?" This is a point that Mr. Stephens has passed over without even a comment! The Columns of Copan stand detached and solitary,—the Obelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and covered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived from the Nile is perfect,—for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt, and Ancient America, is the square sculptured Column to be found? He affects to despise the Idol-Obelisks of Copan, because they do not tower in a single stone, "ninety-feet" in height like those of Egypt,—that they could not "be derived from" the latter country, because they are only one-sixth of the altitude of their prototypes!
Has Mr. Stephens then travelled amid the giant Ruins of Memphis and Thebes, and gazed upon the Pyramids of Ghizeh, unconscious of their history, as of the Ruins in America? Has he yet to learn, that captives and prisoners of war, numbering their thousands, by tens and hundreds, built the former? Freemen built the latter, and consequently they are less in grandeur! Strange and original as this assertion may appear, it is no less philosophically, than historically true. What points out Egypt from the wreck of Empires, even at this day?—her Colossal Pyramids and Temples! What preserves ancient Rome amid all the Ruins of Italy, and in present grandeur?—her giant Coliseum! Who built these wonders of even the modern world? Cheops and Sesostris, Vespasian and Titus? They indeed commanded that they should be erected as trophies of their power;—but, who were the workmen, the actual builders and labourers? There is not a Pyramid, or Temple of Egypt, upon which the hand of a Freeman aided in building! Millions of Captives, made by the Egyptian kings, and especially by Sesostris, during his nine years foreign warfare, were sent to Egypt, from Arabia, Africa, and Asia,—his pride and vainglory were, that posterity should know his Conquests by the magnitude of his Edifices,—for being built by his Captives, modern art might easily realize the extent, and to him, grandeur of his victories. The useless, and unsupporting Pyramid of the Nile, may well serve for the emblem of Cheops, or the vainglorious Sesostris! Who were the builders and labourers of the Coliseum? Ninety-seven thousand captives, and believers in The Only God! That human slaughterhouse of Rome, is cemented from its base to its cornice, with the sighs and blood of Jerusalem! When Liberty lays the corner-stone,—Utility is the Architect,—Grace and Beauty the Sculptors,—and Freemen the builders and artizans: these combined, useless Magnificence can never cross the threshold, or Slavery breathe upon the Altar!
The absence of the Arch in all the Ruins of America will, also, identify those ancient cities with a nation having a Knowledge of, and contemporaneous with, Egypt,—for the Arch is not to be found in the cities of the Nile—nor was it at Sidon or Tyrus. The Arch was invented by the Greeks, but seldom practised by them, as they did not think it graceful,—the Romans did, and consequently used it upon nearly every occasion. Not only does the absence of the Arch point out Egypt as a contemporaneous nation with the builders in America, (this is omitted by Mr. Stephens) but the manner of forming their ceilings is distinctly imitated at Ocosingo, Palenque, and Uxmal:—for the ceilings there are formed by stones lapping over each other (like reversed steps) till they reach a centre, or such small distance from each other, that a single stone will bind them. At Uxmal the ceiling is smooth-surfaced, like a pyramidal, or gable-end ceiling. In vol. ii., p. 313, he says, "The ceiling of each corridor was in this form. [Described above.] The builders were evidently ignorant of the principles of the Arch; and the support was made by stones lapping over as they rose, as at Ocosingo," &c. It will be remembered that at Palenque, the principal part of the architectural ornaments are of stucco and as "hard as stone." "The whole front [of the Temple] was covered with stucco and painted." The reader who may be familiar with descriptions of the wonders of the Nile by Legh, Wilkinson, and Belzoni, will recognise at once that "painted stucco" is also Egyptian:—but, this comparison is avoided by Mr. Stephens; as, also, the following artistical fact and analogy, which is found at Memphis and other cities of Egypt—viz., "On the top of one [i. e. stucco figures at Palenque] are three hieroglyphics SUNK IN THE STUCCO!" The following will not serve to support his conclusions.
"And the most radical difference of all is, the Pyramids of Egypt are complete in themselves: the structures in this country [America] were erected to serve as the foundations of buildings. There is no pyramid in Egypt with a Palace or Temple upon it, [would he have it on an apex?]—there is no pyramidal structure in this country without."
From the foregone extract can any reader acquainted with the Arts, fail to arrive at the conclusion, that the builders of Palenque and Uxmal derived from the Egyptians all that was good of their great edifices, and improved upon the other parts? For what reader will deny, that a Temple erected upon the lower portion of a Pyramid, is an improvement upon the original, by the association of utility? And being an improvement, it must have been by those acquainted with the Original, and as remarked in the following pages, what Nation had the facility of being so acquainted as the Tyrian? And as if in direct copy of the Egyptian, we have shewn that the size of the pyramidal base at Copan is identical with that of the great Pyramid of the Nile,—while that at Cholula, in Mexican America, is exactly twice the base measurement. It is scarcely possible that these dimensions should have been accidental in construction.
"There is then," he says, "no resemblance in these remains to those of the Egyptians; and failing here we look elsewhere in vain."
His conclusions upon false premises, would indeed prove "no resemblance:" but, truth and her all-powerful propositions are against him,—his own descriptions, and those of his attendant artist crush him at every step,—they both prove "resemblance" in every Ruin;—at Copan, pyramidal structures, idol-obelisks, and sepulchral chamber: at Palenque, profile figures, and square-based, pyro-foundations: at Uxmal the same, with a Colonnade of circular Columns,—and at the second city (Palenque) a stone statue is even found, and from the engraving, Egypt, or her Tyrian neighbour, would instantly claim it. Of this statue he writes. (Vol. ii., p. 349.)