The resemblances in the different groups of ruins in Chiapas, Yucatan, and Honduras, are more than sufficient to prove intimate connection between the builders and artists. The differences pointed out prove just as conclusively that the edifices were not all erected and decorated by the same people, under the same laws and religious control, at the same epoch.
ANTIQUITY OF PALENQUE.
And this brings me to the question of the age of Palenque, the date of its foundation and abandonment. It has already been shown that the Yucatan structures were built by the direct ancestors of the Mayas who occupied the peninsula at the time of the conquest; that they were not abandoned wholly until the coming of the Spaniards, although partially so during the two centuries preceding that event; that the reasons adduced for and against the great antiquity of the ruins by different authors, bear almost exclusively on the date of their abandonment rather than that of their erection; and that the latter date, so far as anything can be known of it, depends chiefly on traditional history, which indicates that the cities were built at different dates from the third to the tenth century. It is chiefly by comparison with the ruined cities of Yucatan that the age of Palenque must be determined, since there is no traditional history that relates definitely to this city, and it was doubtless abandoned before the Spaniards came; for it is hardly possible that a great inhabited city could have remained utterly unknown during the conquest of this part of the country, especially as Cortés is known to have passed within thirty miles of its site. In favor of great antiquity for Palenque, the growth of large trees on the ruins, the accumulation of vegetable mold in the courtyards, and the disappearance of all traces of wood, have been considered strong arguments; but they all bear on the date of abandonment rather than of building, as do the rapid crumbling of the ruins since their discovery, the remains of bright-colored paint, the destructiveness of tropical climate and vegetation, and the comparison with some European ruins of known age. The size of trees and accumulation of earth are known to be very uncertain tests of age in this region; indeed the clearings and excavations of the earlier explorers seem to have left few signs visible to those who came a few years later. The utter disappearance of wooden lintels is, however, a very strong argument that Palenque was abandoned some centuries earlier than the cities of the peninsula, where the lintels were found often in perfect preservation, although it cannot be conclusively shown that the same kind of wood was employed. When we add to this the more advanced state of ruin of the Palenque structures, and the utter silence of all later traditions respecting any great city or religious centre in this region, it seems safe to conclude that Palenque was abandoned, or left without repairs, as early as the twelfth or thirteenth century, and possibly earlier.
FOUNDATION OF PALENQUE.
Respecting the date when the city was built, we have the resemblances to Yucatan ruins already noticed, which show beyond doubt that it was built—under different conditions, such as religion and government possibly—by a people of the same race and language, and not by an extinct race as has been sometimes imagined. The present deteriorated condition of the natives, and the flattened foreheads of the sculptured figures have been the strongest reasons for believing in an extinct race; but the former has been shown, I believe, in the three preceding volumes of this work to have no weight, and the peculiar cranial conformation may be much more simply and as satisfactorily explained by supposing that in ancient as in modern times the forehead was artificially flattened. Then we have the strong differences noticeable between Uxmal and Palenque, which lead us to conclude that these cities must have been built either at widely different epochs, or by branches of the Maya race which had long been separated, or by branches, which through the influence of foreign tribes lived under greatly modified institutions. It cannot be accurately determined to what extent the last two conditions prevailed, but from what is known of Maya history, and the uniformity of Maya institutions, I am inclined to attribute most of the architectural and sculptural differences noted to the lapse of time, and to allow a difference of a few centuries between the dates of building. I must confess my inability to judge from the degree of art displayed respectively in the peninsular ruins and those of Palenque, which are the older; I will go further, and while in a confessional mood, confess to a shade of skepticism respecting the ability of other writers to form a well-founded judgment in the matter. Authors are, however, unanimous in the opinion that Palenque was founded before any of the cities of Yucatan, an opinion which is supported to a certain extent by traditional history, which represents Votan's empire in Chiapas and Tabasco as preceding chronologically the allied Maya empire in the peninsula. If the Yucatan cities flourished, as I have conjectured, between the third and tenth centuries, Palenque may be conjecturally referred to a period between the first and eighth centuries. I regard the theory that Palenque was built by the Toltecs after their expulsion from Anáhuac in the tenth century as wholly without foundation; and I believe that it would be equally impossible to prove or disprove that the Palace was standing at the birth of Christ. It must be added that Brasseur and some others regard the stucco decorations and especially the peculiar roof-structures as the work of a later people than the original builders, or at least, of a later epoch and grade of culture.[VI-68]
OLD WORLD RESEMBLANCES.
Respecting the vague resemblances in the Palenque monuments to old-world ruins, there is very little to be said. The earlier observers were not permitted by their religious faith to doubt that the builders must be connected with some race of the old world; they were, however, allowed to use their judgment to a certain extent in determining which should have the credit, and most of them discovered the strongest similarities to Egyptian antiquities, although Dupaix could find no likeness in the hieroglyphics. Later authorities are not disposed to admit a marked likeness to the monuments of any particular nation of Europe, Asia, or Africa, although finding vague and perhaps accidental similarities to those of many of the older nations. My acquaintance with old-world antiquities is not sufficiently thorough to give any weight to my individual opinion in the matter, and I have no space for the introduction of descriptive text and illustrative plates. I give in a note the opinions of some writers on the subject.[VI-69]
ART DISPLAYED AT PALENQUE.