Ground plan—Temple of the Cross.
The interior arrangement is made clear by the adjoined plan. Within the central apartment of the rear, or northern, corridor, and directly opposite to the main doorway is an enclosure measuring seven by thirteen feet. From its being mentioned as an enclosure rather than a regular room by Stephens, it would seem probable that it does not reach the full height of the chamber, but has a ceiling, or covering, of its own. At any rate, it receives light only by the doorway. Besides a heavy cornice round the enclosure, the doorway was surmounted by massive and graceful stucco decorations, and at its sides on the exterior were originally two stone tablets bearing each a human figure sculptured in low relief, resembling in their general characteristics the more common stucco designs, but somewhat more elaborately draped and decorated. One of them wears a leopard-skin as a cloak. These tablets were sketched by both Waldeck and Catherwood in the village of Santo Domingo, whither they had been carried and set up in a modern house. Stephens understood them to come from another of the ruins yet to be mentioned, but the evidence indicates strongly that he was misinformed. Both Waldeck and Stephens entered into some negotiations with a view to remove these tablets; at the time of the former's visit the condition of obtaining them was to marry one of the proprietresses; in Stephens' time a purchase of the house in which they stood would suffice. Neither removed them.[VI-36]
Tablet of the Cross.
TABLET OF THE CROSS.
Fixed in the wall at the back of the enclosure, and covering nearly its whole surface, was the tablet of the cross, six feet four inches high, ten feet eight inches wide, and formed of three stones. The central stone, and part of the western, bear the sculptured figures shown in the cut. The rest of the western, and all of the eastern stone, were covered with hieroglyphics. This cut is a photographic reduction of Waldeck's drawing, the accuracy of which is proved by a careful comparison with Charnay's photograph. The subject doubtless possessed a religious signification, and the location of the tablet may be considered a sacred altar, or most holy place, of the ancient Maya or Tzendal priesthood. Two men, probably priests, clad in the robes and insignia of their office, are making an offering to the cross or to a bird perched on its summit. This tablet has been perhaps the most fruitful theme for antiquarian speculation yet discovered in America, but a fictitious importance has doubtless been attached to it by reason of some fancied connection between the sculptured cross and the Christian emblem. All agree respecting the excellence of the sculpture. Of the two priests, Stephens says: "They are well drawn, and in symmetry of proportion are perhaps equal to many that are carved on the walls of the ruined temples in Egypt. Their costume is in a style different from any heretofore given, and the folds would seem to indicate that they were of a soft and pliable texture like cotton." Stephens and other writers discover a possible likeness in the object offered to a new-born child. Of the hieroglyphics which cover the two lateral stones, the cut on the opposite page shows, as a specimen, the upper portion of the western stone, or what may be considered, perhaps, the beginning of the inscription. The large initial character, like an aboriginal capital letter, is a remarkable feature. In Dupaix's time all parts of the tablet were probably in their place, and in good condition, but his artist only sketched, and that somewhat imperfectly, the cross and human figures, omitting the hieroglyphics. Waldeck and Stephens found and sketched the central stone in the forest on the bank of the stream, to which point it had been removed, according to the former, with a view to its removal to the United States, but according to the latter its intended destination had been the village of Santo Domingo. Stephens says he found the eastern stone entirely destroyed, though Charnay speaks of it as still in place nearly twenty years later; why Waldeck made no drawing of it does not appear.[VI-37]