Head in Terra Cotta—Mitla.
A head in terra cotta, wearing a peculiar helmet, was sketched here by Castañeda, and is shown in the cut. Another terra-cotta image represented a masked human figure, squatting cross-legged with hands on knees. A large semicircular cape reaches from the neck to the ground, showing only the hands and feet in front. The whole is very similar to some of the figures at Zachila, already described, but the tube which may be supposed to have held a torch originally, projects above the head, and is an inch and a half in diameter. The only specimen of stone images or idols found in connection with the ruins, is shown in the cut. It represents a seated figure, carved from a hard red stone, and brilliantly polished. Its height is about four inches. Tempsky tells us that the children at Mitla offered for sale small idols of clay and sandstone, which had been taken from the inner palace walls.[VII-65]
Stone Image from Mitla.
GENERAL REMARKS.
COMPARISONS.
The ruins of Mitla resemble Palenque only in the long low narrow form of the buildings, since the low supporting mounds can hardly be said to resemble the lofty stone-faced pyramids of Chiapas. A stronger likeness may be discovered when they are compared with the structures of Yucatan; since in both cases we find long narrow windowless buildings, raised on low mounds, and enclosing a rectangular courtyard, walls of rubble, and facings of hewn stone. The contrasts are also strong, as seen in the mosaic grecques, the absence of sculpture, and the flat roofs, in some cases supported by columns; although in one city on the east coast of Yucatan flat roofs of wooden beams were found. Whether the mosaic work of Mitla indicates in itself an earlier or later development of aboriginal art than the elaborately sculptured façades of Uxmal, I am unable to decide; but the flat roof supported by pillars would seem to indicate a later architectural development than the overlapping arch. The influence of the builders of Palenque and the cities of Yucatan, was doubtless felt by the builders of Mitla. How the influence was exerted it is very difficult to determine; Viollet-le-Duc attributes these northern structures to a branch of the southern civilization separated from the parent stock after the foundation of the Maya cities in Yucatan. Most antiquarians have concluded that Mitla is less ancient than the southern ruins, and the condition of the remains, so far as it throws any light on the subject, confirms the conclusion. This is the last ruin that will be found in our progress northward, which shows any marked analogy with the Maya monuments, save in the almost universal use of supporting mounds or pyramids, of various forms and dimensions. It has already been shown that the Zapotec language has no likeness whatever to the Aztec, or to the Maya, and that so far as institutions are concerned, this people might almost as properly be classed with the Maya as with the Nahua nations. The Abbé Brasseur in one part of his writings expresses the opinion that Mitla was built by the Toltecs from Cholula, who introduced their religion in Oajaca in the ninth or tenth century. Mitla is also frequently spoken of as a connecting link between the Central American and Mexican remains; this, however, is merely a part of the old favorite theory of one civilized people originating in the far north, moving gradually southward, and leaving at each stopping-place traces of their constantly improving and developing culture. There seems to have been no tradition among the natives at the Conquest, indicating that Mitla was built by a people preceding the Zapotecs. On the contrary, Burgoa and other early Oajacan chroniclers mention the place frequently as a Zapotec holy place, devoted to the burial of kings, the residence of a certain order of the priesthood, who lived here to make expiatory sacrifices for the dead, and a place of royal mourning, whither the king retired on the death of a relative. Subterranean caverns were used for the celebration of religious rites before the upper temples were built. Charnay fancies that the palaces were built by a people that afterwards migrated southward. He noticed that the walls in sheltered places were covered with very rude paintings—a sample of which has been given—and suggests that these were executed by occupants who succeeded the original builders. It will be apparent to the reader that the ruins at Mitla bear no resemblance whatever to other Oajacan monuments, such as those at Guiengola, Monte Alban, and Quiotepec; and that they are either the work of a different nation, or what is much more probable, for a different purpose. I am inclined to believe that Mitla was built by the Zapotecs at a very early period of their civilization, at a time when the builders were strongly influenced by the Maya priesthood, if they were not themselves a branch of the Maya people.[VII-66]