(24) "Myths of the New World," p. 95.

(25) Bancroft's "Native Races," Vol. V, p. 506.

(26) See, also, "American Encyclopedia," Art. "Cross."

(27) "Conquest of Mexico," p. 160.

(28) "Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge," Vol. XXII.

(29) Bancroft's "Native Races," Vol. III, p. 470.

(30) "Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology," Vol. I.

(31) Mr. Holden uses, as an important link in his arguments, a figure engraved on a chalchiute (a sacred stone). He concludes it to be a representative of Huitzilopochtli, the G.o.d of war, or rather the Maya representative of the Mexican G.o.d of that name.

It is unfortunate that Prof. Valentine gives to this same figure a different significance. In the "Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society," for April, 1884, in a paper on that subject, he concludes it to be a representation of a victorious warrior giving sacrifice to his G.o.d. The only persons ent.i.tled to speak on such subjects are those thoroughly acquainted with Maya Archaeology.

(32) Huitzilopochtli.

(33) Tlaloc.

(34) Bancroft's "Native Races," Vol. III, p. 324.

(35) While such seem to us to be the results of Mr. Holden's labors, it must not be understood that he vouches for them.

They must be regarded as personal views which we express with some mental forebodings. In this matter we must abide by further investigations.

(36) Bandelier: "An Archaeological Tour in Mexico," p. 184.

(37) Bancroft's "Native Races," Vol. IV, p. 345.

(38) See Charney, in _North American Review,_ 1881. They wore formerly in a house.

(39) Bancroft's "Native Races," Vol. IV, p. 332.

(40) Brinton's "Contribution to North American Ethnology," Vol.

V, p. 36. "Introduction to Study of Ma.n.u.script Troano," by Prof.

Thomas.

(41) _North American Review,_ February, 1881, p. 187.

(42) Bancroft's "Native Races," p. 287.

(43) "Central America," Vol. II, p. 261. At this time Mr.

Stephens had not seen the ruins at Palenque, and those in Yucatan.

(44) p.r.o.nounced "oosh-mal."

(45) Our princ.i.p.al authority on the ruin's of Yucatan is Mr.

Stephens, whose work, "Incidents of Travel in Yucatan," in two volumes, is all that can be desired. Mr. Bancroft, in "Native Races," Vol. IV, has gathered together whatever of worth there is in the writings of various explorers.

(46) Mr. Stephens thinks they were for the support of the arches, while building. As, however, it is almost certain they constructed this arch over a solid cove of masonry, which they afterwards removed (see "Contributions to N.A. Ethnology,"

Vol. IV, p. 262), they could not have been intended for such use.

(47) The pyramid is three hundred and fifty feet square at the base and nineteen feet high. The terraces are along the south side. The lowest terrace is three feet high and twenty feet wide. The second is twelve feet high and forty-five feet wide.

The third is four feet high and five feet wide. The building on the south side is two hundred and seventy-nine feet long, twenty-eight feet wide, and eighteen feet high. The north one is two hundred and sixty-four feet long, twenty-eight feet wide, and twenty-five feet high. The eastern one, one hundred and fifty-eight feet long, thirty-five feet wide, and twenty-two feet high. The western one, one hundred and seventy-three feet long, thirty-five feet wide, and twenty feet high. (Bancroft's "Native Races," Vol. IV, p. 174.) The area of the court is two hundred and fourteen feet by two hundred and fifty-eight feet.

It is about two and a half feet lower than the buildings on the eastern, western, and southern sides. There are seventy-six rooms in the four ranges of buildings, and twelve more in the facings of the terrace of the north building, to be described.

In size the rooms vary from twenty to thirty feet long by from ten to twelve feet wide.

(48) Bancroft: "Native Races," Vol. IV, p. 179.

(49) The dimensions of this mound are as follows: Length of base, two hundred and thirty-five feet; width of base, one hundred and five feet; height, eighty-eight feet. Though diminishing as it rises, it is not exactly pyramidal, but its corners are rounded. It is incased with stone, and is apparently solid from the plain.--Stephens's "Yucatan," Vol. I, p. 316.

(50) See "Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society," April, 1880, p. 57.

(51) _North American Review,_ 1882.

(52) "Contributions to North American Ethnology," Vol. IV, p. 267.

(53) Stephens's "Yucatan," Vol. II, p. 164.

(54) Short's "North Americans of Antiquity," p. 396; Charney: _North American Review,_ October, 1880.

(55) "Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society," Oct., 1878, p. 73.

(56) Learned men of the Mayas.

(57) American Antiquarian Society, October 1878.

(58) The tigers can be seen on the engraving of the gymnasium.

(59) Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, April, 1877, p. 97.

(60) Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, April, 1877, p. 101.

(61) M. Le Plongon interprets the curved figures issuing from the throat of the wise-man. In the original, different parts of this figure were of different colors. The doctor frankly tells us, that "imagination does the greater part of the work" in his interpretation.

(62) "Guided, as I have said, by my interpretations of the mural paintings, bas-reliefs, and other signs,... I directed my steps, perhaps inspired by the instincts of the archaeologist, to a dense part of the thicket." Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1877, p. 85.

(63) _North American Review,_ October, 1880. And yet there are indications that this is a statue. See Bandelier's "Archaeological Tour in Mexico," p. 74.

(64) Stephens's "Yucatan," Vol. II, p. 318.

Chapter XV.

THE CULTURE OF THE CIVILIZED TRIBES.<1>

Different views on this question--Reason for the same--Their architecture--Different styles of houses--The communal house--The tecpan--The teocalli--State of society indicated by this architecture--The gens among the Mexicans--The phratry among the Mexicans--The tribe--The powers and duties of the council--The head chiefs of the tribe--The duties of the "Chief-of-men"--The mistake of the Spaniards--The Confederacy--The idea of property among the Mexicans--The ownership of land--Their laws--Enforcement of the laws--Outline of the growth of the Mexicans in power--Their tribute system--How collected--Their system of trade--Slight knowledge of metallurgy--Religion--Quietzalcohuatl--Huitzilopochtli--Mexican priesthood--Human sacrifices--The system of Numeration--The calendar system--The calendar stone--Picture writing--Landa alphabet--Historical outline.

A landscape presents varied aspects according to the standpoint from which it is viewed. Here we have a glimpse of hill and dale; there a stretch of running water. But two persons, standing in the same position, owing to their different mental temperaments, will view things in a different light. Where one, an artist born, is carried away with the beautiful scenery, another, with a more practical turn of mind, perceives only its adaptability for investments. Education and habits of life are also very potent factors in determining our views on various questions. Scholars of wide and extended learning differ very greatly in their views of questions deeply affecting human interests. We know how true that is of abstruse topics, such as religion and questions of state polity. It is also true of the entire field of scientific research. The unknown is a vastly greater domain than the known, and men, after deep and patient research, adopt widely different theories to explain the same facts.

It need, therefore, occasion no surprise to learn that there is a great difference of opinion as to the real state of culture among the so-called civilized tribes of Mexico and Central America. We have incidentally mentioned this difference in describing the ruins and their probable purpose. As one of the objects we have in view, and perhaps the most important one, is to learn what we can of the real state of society amongst the prehistoric people we treat of, it becomes necessary to examine these different views, and, if we can not decide in our own minds what to accept as true, we will be prepared to receive additional evidence that scholars are now bringing forward, and know to how weigh them and compare them with others.

It has only been within the last few years that we have gained an insight into the peculiar organization of Indian society. After some centuries of contact between the various tribes of Indians and whites, their social organization was still unknown. But we are now beginning to understand this, and the important discovery has also been made that this same system of government was very widely spread, indeed. This subject has, however, been as extensively treated as is necessary in chapter xii, so we need not stop longer. But if, with all the light of modern learning, we have only lately gained a clear understanding of the social organization of Indian tribes, it need occasion no surprise, nor call for any indignant denial, to affirm that the Spaniards totally misunderstood the social organization of the tribes with which they came in contact in Mexico.

We must also take into consideration the political condition of Europe at this time. Feudalism still exercised an influence on men's minds.

The Spanish writers, in order to convey to Europeans a knowledge of the country and its inhabitants, applied European names and phrases to American Indian (advanced though they were) personages and inst.i.tutions.

But the means employed totally defeated the object sought. Instead of imparting a clear idea, a very erroneous one was conveyed.

As an ill.u.s.tration of this abuse of language, we might refer to the case of Montezuma, which name itself is a corruption of the Mexican word "Motecu-zoma," meaning literally "my wrathy chief." Mr. Bandelier<2> and Mr. Morgan have quite clearly shown what his real position was.

His t.i.tle was "chief of men."<3> He was simply one of the two chief executive officers of the tribe and general of the forces of the confederacy. His office was strictly elective, and he could be deposed for misdemeanor. Instead of giving him his proper t.i.tle, and explaining its meaning, the Spaniards bestowed on him the t.i.tle of king, which was soon enlarged to that of emperor, European words, it will be observed, which convey an altogether wrong idea of Mexican society. Many such ill.u.s.trations could be given.

The literature that has grown up about this subject is very voluminous, but the authors not being acquainted with the organization of Indian society, have not been able to write understandingly about them. We do not flatter ourselves that we have now solved all the difficulties of the case. But since Mr. Morgan has succeeded in throwing such a flood of light on the const.i.tution of ancient society, and especially of Indian society, and Mr. Bandelier has given us the results of his careful investigation of the culture of the Mexicans, we feel that a foundation has been laid for a correct understanding of this vexed problem.

We will now examine their architecture, or style of building. In dealing with prehistoric people, we have several times referred to the tribal state of government, involving village life and communism in living. We have seen how this principle enabled us to understand the condition of Europe during the Neolithic Age. In still another place we have used this principle to show the connection of the Pueblo Indians and other tribes of the United States. Now we think this is the key which is to explain many of the ruins we have described in the preceding chapter.

But another principle to be borne in mind, is that of defense. War, we have seen, is really the normal state of things amongst tribal communities. Therefore, either some position naturally strong must be selected as a village site, or the houses themselves must be fortified, after the fashion of Indians. This will be found to explain many peculiarities in their method of construction.

Amongst the pueblo structures of to-day, and among the ruins of the cliff-dwellers, we have seen how compact every thing was. The estufa, or place of council and worship, was built in close proximity to the other building, and sometimes it formed part of it, and we do not learn that there was any thing distinguishing about the apartments of the chief.

Further South a change is noticed. A specialization of structures, if we may use such an expression, has taken place, and, among the Mexicans, three kinds of houses were distinguished. It is extremely probable the same cla.s.sification could be made elsewhere. There was, first of all, the ordinary dwelling houses. Every vestige of aboriginal buildings in the pueblos of Mexico has long since disappeared, and our knowledge of these structures can only be gathered from the somewhat confused accounts of the early writers.

Many, perhaps most, of the houses had a terraced, pyramidal foundation.

Some were constructed on three sides of a court, like those on the Rio Chaco, in New Mexico. Others probably surrounded an open court, or quadrangle. The houses were of one and two stories in height. When two stories, the upper one receded from the first, probably in the terraced form. As serving to connect them with the more ornamental structures in Yucatan, we are told they were sometimes "adorned with elegant cornices and stucco designs of flowers and animals, which were often painted with brilliant colors. Prominent among these figures was the coiling serpent."<4> After pointing out, by many citations, that the evidence always was that these houses were occupied by many families, Mr. Morgan concludes, "They were evidently joint tenement-houses of the aboriginal American model, each occupied by a number of families ranging from five and ten to one hundred, and perhaps, in some cases, two hundred families in a house."<5>

We can discern this kind of dwelling-house in many of the descriptions we have given of the ruins in the preceding chapter. M. Charney evidently found them at Tulla and Teotihuacan. Mr. Bandelier concludes that similar ruins once crowded the terraces at Cholula, and that to this cla.s.s belongs the ruins at Mitla. The Palace, at Palenque, is evidently but another instance, as well as the House of Nuns, at Uxmal.

In fact, with our present knowledge of the pueblos of Arizona, and the purposes which they subserved, as well as the uses made of such houses by the Mexicans, we are no longer justified in bestowing upon the structures in Yucatan the name of palaces.

The mistake was excusable among the Spaniards. They were totally ignorant of the mode of life indicated by these joint tenement-houses.

When they found one of these large structures, capable of accommodating several hundred occupants, with its inner court, terraced foundation, and ornamented by stucco work, or sculpture, it was extremely natural that they should call it a palace, and cast about for some t.i.tled owner.

A second cla.s.s of houses includes public buildings. The Mexicans, when at the height of their power, required buildings for public use, and this was doubtless true of the people who inhabited Uxmal and Palenque.

The most important house was the tecpan, the official house of the tribe, the council house proper. This was the official residence of the "chief of men" and his a.s.sistants, such as runners. This was the place of meeting of the council of chiefs. It was here that the hospitality of the Pueblo was exercised. Official visitors from other tribes and traders from a distance were provided with accommodations here. When Cortez and his followers entered Mexico they were provided for at the tecpan. We would not expect to find these public buildings, except in rich and prosperous pueblos. It has been suggested that the Governor's House at Uxmal was the official house of that settlement. The large halls, suitable for council purposes, favor this idea.<6>

A third cla.s.s of buildings was the teocalli, or "House of G.o.d"--in other words, the temple. These were quite common. Each of the gens that composed the Mexican tribe had its own particular medicine lodge or temple. This was doubtless true of each and every tribe of sedentary Indians in the territory we are describing. "The larger temples were usually built upon pyramidal parallelograms, square or oblong, and consisted of a series of superimposed terraces with perpendicular or sloping sides."<7> It is not necessary to dwell longer on this style of buildings. We have only to recall the temples of the Sun, of the Cross, and of the Beau-relief at Palenque; the House of the Dwarf at Uxmal, and the Citadel at Chichen-Itza, to gather a clear idea of their construction.

The architecture of a people is a very good exponent of their culture.

Yet all have seen what different views are held as to the culture of the tribes we are considering. We have, perhaps, said all that is required on this part of the subject, yet even repet.i.tion is pardonable if it enables us to more clearly understand our subject. The ornamentation on the ruins of Yucatan is so peculiar that in our opinion it has unduly influenced the judgment of explorers in this matter. They lose sight of the fact that the apartments of the houses are small, dark, and illy ventilated.

That they should hive gone to the trouble of so profusely decorating their usual places of abode is, indeed, somewhat singular.<8> But Mitla was certainly an inhabited pueblo at the time of the Spanish conquest, and there is no good reason for concluding it was ever any thing more than a group of communal buildings. Yet, from the description given of it, we can not see that the buildings are greatly inferior in decoration to the structures in Yucatan. And yet again, from the imperfect accounts we have of the aboriginal structures in the pueblo of Mexico, we infer they were constructed on the general plan of communal buildings. As for the decorations, we have seen they had sometimes elaborate cornices, and were covered with stucco designs of animals and flowers. In this case some of them were, to be sure, public buildings for tribal purposes, but the majority of them were certainly communal residences. With these facts before us, we can not do otherwise than conclude that these so-called ruins of great cities we have described are simply the ruins of pueblos, consisting of communal houses, temples, and, in the case of large and powerful tribes, official houses. To this conclusion we believe American scholars are tending more and more.