Monumental archæology, as distinguished from written and traditional archæology, owes its interest largely to its reality and tangibility. The teachings of material relics, so far as they go, are irrefutable. Real in themselves they impart an air of reality to the study of the past. They stand before us as the actual work of human hands, affording no foothold for scepticism; they are the balance-wheels of tradition, resting-places for the mind wearied with the study of aboriginal fable, stepping-stones on which to cross the miry sloughs of mythic history. The ruins of a great city represent and recall vividly its original state and the populace that once thronged its streets; the towering mound or pyramid brings before the observer's mind toiling bands of slaves driven to their unwelcome task by strong progressive masters; temples and idols are but remnants of religious systems, native fear, superstition, and faith; altars imply victims and sacrificial ceremonies; sculpture, the existence of art; kingly palaces are the result of a strong government, wars, and conquest; sepulchral deposits reveal thoughts of another life; and hieroglyphic inscriptions, even if their key be lost, imply events deemed worthy of record, and a degree of progress toward letters.
What the personal souvenir is to the memory of dead friends, what the ancestral mansion with its portraits and other relics is to family memories and pride of descent, what the ancient battle-ground with the monument commemorating early struggles for liberty is to national patriotism, what the familiar hill, valley, stream, and tree to recollection and love of home,—all this and more are material relics to the study of ages gone by. Destroy such relics in the case of the individual, the family, and the nation, and imagine the effect on our interest in a past, which is, however, in nearly every instance clearly recorded. What would be the consequence of blotting from existence the ruins that stand as monuments of a past but vaguely known even in the most favorable circumstances through the medium of traditionary and written annals? Traditional archæology, fascinating as its study is and important in its results, leaves always in the mind a feeling of uncertainty, a fear that any particular tradition may be in its present form, modified willfully or involuntarily in passing through many hands, a distortion of the original, or perhaps a pure invention; or if intact in form its primary signification may be altogether misunderstood. And even in the case of written annals, more definite and reliable of course than oral traditions, we cannot forget that back beyond a certain time impossible to locate in the distant past, history founds its statements of events on no more substantial basis than popular fable.
COUNTERFEIT ANTIQUITIES.
It is true that false reports may be made respecting the discovery or nature of ruined cities and other monuments; and relics may be collected and exhibited which have no claim whatever to antiquity. Indeed it is said that in some parts of Spanish America, Aztec, Chichimec, or Toltec relics, of any desired era since the creation, are manufactured to order by the ingenious natives and sold to the enthusiastic but unwary antiquarian. To similar imposition and like enthusiasm may be referred the long list of Roman, Greek, Scandinavian, Tyrian, and other old-world coins, medals, and inscriptions, whose discovery in the New World from time to time has been reported, and used in support of some pet origin-theory. Yet practically these counterfeit or fabulous antiquities do little harm; their falsity may in most cases be without difficulty detected, as will be apparent from several instances of the kind noted in the following pages. There are, as I have said, few ruins of any importance that have not been described by more than one competent and reliable explorer. The discovery of wonderful cities and palaces, or of movable relics which differ essentially from the well-authenticated antiquities of the same region, is not accepted by archæologists, or by the public generally, without more positive proof of genuineness than the representations of a single traveler whose reliability has not been fully proved.
The study of ancient monuments, in addition to its high degree of interest, is moreover of great practical value in the development of historical science, as a source of positive information, as a corroboration of annals otherwise recorded, and as an incentive to continued research. It contributes to actual knowledge by indicating the various arts that flourished among the peoples of antiquity, the germs of the corresponding arts of modern times. The monuments show not alone the precise degree of excellence in architecture and sculpture attained by the particular people whose work they are, but by an examination of their differences they throw much light on the origin and growth of these and other arts, while by comparison with the works of other peoples better known they serve to establish more or less clearly national affinities. And not only do they illustrate the state of the fine and useful arts, but also to a great extent public institutions and private customs. Temples, idols, and altars reveal much of religious rites and priestly power; weapons, of warfare; implements, of household habits; ornaments, of dress; tombs and sepulchral relics, of burial ceremonies, regard for the dead, and ideas respecting another life. When, in addition to their indirect teachings respecting the arts and institutions of their builders, antique monuments bear also inscriptions in written or legible hieroglyphic characters, their value is of course greatly increased; indeed under such circumstances they become the very highest historic authority.
It is, however, in connection with the other branches of the science, written and traditional, that material relics accomplish their most satisfactory results, their corroborative evidence being even more valuable than the positive information they convey. For instance, tradition relates wondrous tales of the wealth, power, and mighty deeds of a people that long ago occupied what is now a barren desert or a dense forest. These tales are classed with other aboriginal fables, interesting but comparatively valueless; but some wandering explorer, by chance or as the result of an apparently absurd and profitless research, discovers in the shade of the tangled thicket, or lays bare under the drifting desert-sands, the ruins of a great city with magnificent palace and temple; at once the mythic fable is transformed into authentic history, especially if the traditional statements of that people's arts and institutions are confirmed by their relics.
Again, the written record of biblical tradition, unsatisfactory to some, when not supported by corroborative evidence, narrates with minute detail the history of an ancient city, including its conquest at a given date by a foreign king. The discovery in another land of that monarch's statue or triumphal arch, inscribed with his name, title, and a list of his deeds, confirms or invalidates the scriptural account not only of that particular event but indirectly of other details of the city's annals not recorded in stone. In America material relics acquire increased importance as corroborative and corrective witnesses, in comparison with those of the old world, from the absence of contemporary written annals. Beside constituting the only tangible supports of the more ancient triumphs of American civilization, they are the best illustrations of comparatively modern stages of art whose products have disappeared, and by no means superfluous in support of Spanish chroniclers in later times, "very many, or perhaps most of whose statements respecting the wonderful phenomena of the New World culture," as I have remarked in a preceding volume, "without this incontrovertible material proof would find few believers among the sceptical students of the present day."
IMPORTANCE OF MATERIAL RELICS.
The importance of monumental remains as incentives to historical study and research results directly from the interest and curiosity which their examination invariably excites. Gibbon relates that he was first prompted to write the annals of Rome's decline and fall by the contemplation of her ruined structures. Few even of the most prosaic and matter-of-fact travelers can resist the impulse to reason and speculate on the origin of ruins that come under their notice, and the civilization to which they owe their existence; and there are probably few eminent archæologists but may trace the first development of a taste for antiquarian pursuits to the curiosity excited at the sight of some mysterious relic.
This irresistible desire to follow back remains of art to the artist's hand and genius, prompted the oft-repeated and so long fruitless attempts to decipher the Egyptian hieroglyphics and the cuneiform inscriptions of Persia and Assyria. These efforts were at last crowned with success; the key to the mysterious wedges, and the Rosetta-stone were found, by which the tablets of Babylon, Ninevah, and the pyramids—the Palenque, Copan, and Teotihuacan of the old world—may be read. The palaces, monuments, and statues of ancient kings bear legible records of their lives, dominions, and succession. By the aid of these records definite dates are established for events in the history of these countries as early as two thousand years before the Christian era, and thus corroborations and checks are placed on the statements of biblical and profane history. But the art of interpreting these hieroglyphics is yet in its infancy, and the results thus far accomplished are infinitesimal in comparison with what may be reasonably anticipated in the future.