Four interesting sculptured stones are represented and their inscriptions interpreted by Sr Ramirez, in a Spanish edition of Prescott's work. The first is a cylinder twenty-six inches long, eleven inches in diameter, representing a bundle of straight sticks bound with a double rope at each end. There are hieroglyphic sculptures on one side and both ends, which are interpreted by Sr Ramirez as a record of the feast which was celebrated at the last 'binding up of the years' in 1507. The second is a block of black lava thirteen and a half by twelve and a half inches, bearing a serpent carved in low relief. The third is a similar block somewhat larger, with a sculptured inscription, supposed to represent the date of November 28, 1456. The fourth monument is that shown in the cut. It is a block of green serpentine, measuring thirty-eight by twenty-six inches. According to the meaning attributed to the sculptures by Ramirez, the lower inscription is the year 8 Acatl, or 1487; the upper part shows the day 7 Acatl, or February 19. The left hand figure is supposed to represent Ahuitzotl, and that on the right Tizoc. The event commemorated by the whole sculpture is thought to be the dedication of the great temple of Mexico, begun by Tizoc and completed by Ahuitzotl. The same block is shown in one of Waldeck's plates.[IX-125] I may also notice a small collection of Mexican relics in my possession, obtained by Porter C. Bliss during his travels in the country. This collection includes a grotesque mask of clay; a head of terra-cotta, eight inches high and six inches wide, including head-dress; a small head carved from limestone; a wooden teponaztli; a copper coin or hatchet; five terra-cotta faces, whose dimensions are generally about two inches; six fragments of pottery, mostly ornamented with raised and indented figures—one with raised figures added after the vessel was completed, one with painted figures, one glazed, and one apparently engraved; and seven fragments, some of which seem to have been handles or legs of large vessels.
I close my description of Mexican Antiquities with the two following quotations, somewhat at variance with the matter contained in the preceding pages. "This, like other American countries, is of too recent civilization to exhibit any monuments of antiquity."[IX-126] "I am informed by a person who resided long in New Spain and visited almost every province of it, that there is not, in all the extent of that vast empire, any monument or vestige of any building more ancient than the conquest, nor of any bridge or highway, except some remains of the causeway from Guadaloupe to the gate of Mexico."[IX-127] I give in a note a list of authorities which contain descriptions more or less complete of Mexican relics, but no information in addition to what has been presented.[IX-128]
NAHUA MONUMENTS.
No general view or résumé of Nahua monuments seems necessary here, nor are extensive concluding remarks called for, in addition to what has been said in connection with particular groups of monuments, and to the conclusions which the reader of the preceding pages will naturally form. The most important bearing of the monuments as a whole is as a confirmation of the Nahua civilization as it was found to exist in the sixteenth century, reported in the pages of the conquerors and early chroniclers, and as it has been exhibited in a preceding volume. That there were exaggerations in the reports that have come down to us is doubtless true, as it is very natural; but a people who could execute the works that have been described and pictured in this and the two preceding chapters, were surely far advanced in many of the elements of what is termed civilization. And all this they did, it must be remembered, while practically still in their 'stone age;' for although copper was used by them, it has been seen that implements of that metal but rarely occur in the list of relics described. It is doubtful if any known people ever advanced so far under similar circumstances—that is in their 'stone age,' or in the earlier stages of their 'bronze age'—as did the Nahuas and Mayas of this continent.
Not only do the northern monuments confirm the reported culture existing at the Conquest, but they agree, so far as they go, with the traditional annals of Anáhuac during the centuries preceding the coming of the Spaniards. Teotihuacan and Cholula differ from any works of the later Nahua epochs; while Xochicalco and Mitla are far superior to any known works of the Aztecs proper. All remains sustain the traditions that the Aztecs were superior to their neighbors chiefly in the arts of war, and that the older inhabitants were more devoted to the arts of architecture and sculpture, if not more skillful in the practice of them, than their successors. Still, this must not be understood to indicate anything like a permanent deterioration, or the beginning of a backward march of civilization, whose march is ever onward, although making but little account of centuries or generations.
NAHUA AND MAYA RELICS.
The comparison of Nahua with Maya monuments is a most interesting subject, into the details of which I do not propose to enter. In the use of the pyramidal structure, common to both branches of American civilized nations, and in a few sculptured emblems there is doubtless a resemblance; but this likeness is utterly insufficient to support what has been in the past a favorite theory among writers on the subject;—namely, that of a civilized people migrating slowly southward, and leaving behind them traces of a gradually improving but identical culture. The resemblances in question have in my opinion been greatly exaggerated, and are altogether outnumbered and outweighed by the marked contrasts, which, as they exist between the monuments of Yucatan and Chiapas, and those of Mexico and Vera Cruz, do not need to be pointed out to one who has studied the preceding descriptions. It is true that the best architectural specimens of Nahua art have been entirely destroyed, still there is no reason to doubt that if they could be partially restored they would resemble the structures of Vera Cruz, or at best, Xochicalco, rather than those of Uxmal and Palenque.
The differences between the northern and southern remains, while far more clearly marked than the resemblances, and constituting a much more forcible argument against than in favor of the theory that all American peoples are identical, must yet not be regarded as in any way conclusive in the matter; for it may be noticed that the likeness is very vague between the Nicaraguan idols of stone and those carved by the hands of the northern Aztecs. Yet the peoples were doubtless identical in blood and language, as the divinities which the respective artists attempted to symbolize in stone were the same. The reader will probably agree with me in the conclusion that, while a comparison of northern and southern monuments is far from proving or disproving the original identity of the Civilized Races of the Pacific States, yet it goes far to show, in connection with the evidence of language, tradition, and institutions, a Nahua and a Maya culture, progressing in separate paths,—though not without contact, friction, and intermingling,—during a long course of centuries.