INDIRECT EXTERNAL EVIDENCES—AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES. Continued.
 
I.
 
Antiquity of American Ruins
 
We have now before us a subject on which the authorities on American Antiquities are most divided, and I shall not attempt in this writing to reconcile them or dispute the position of either class; but after a few quotations from these authorities shall leave the question of the antiquity of American ruins found in Central America and elsewhere as I find it, an open question. "There is nothing in the buildings to indicate the date of their erection—that they were or were not standing at the commencement of the Christian era," says H. H. Bancroft, in speaking of the cities and other monuments of Yucatan—and it is a remark which could with equal propriety be made of nearly all the ruined cities of America. "We may see now, abandoned and uncared for," he continues, "they may have resisted the ravages of the elements for three or four centuries. How many centuries they may have stood guarded and kept in repair by the builders and their descendants, we can only conjecture."[1] Later, in the same work, our author discusses the question of the age of Palenque and other ruins in the following manner:
 
I 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 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 Anahuac 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.[2]
 
Following this passage, Mr. Bancroft gives a valuable collection of opinions in his notes where he represents M. Violett-le-Duc as expressing the belief that Palenque was built probably some centuries before Christ by a people in which "yellow blood predominated, although with some Aryan intermixture; but that the Yucatan cities owe their foundation to the same people at a later epoch and under a much stronger influence of the white races." Dupaix he represents as believing that the buildings were reared by a flatheaded race that has become extinct, and who, after writing his narrative, made up his mind that Palenque was antediluvian or at least that a floor had covered it. Lenoir he represents as saying that, according to all voyagers and students, the ruins of Palenque are not less than three thousand years old; while Catlin, a French writer, in a French periodical for March, 1867, he represents as asserting that the ruined cities of Palenque and Uxmal have within themselves the evidence that the ocean has been their bed for thousands of years, but the material is soft limestone and presents no water lines. Foster, the author of Pre-Historic Races (pp. 398-9), is represented as regarding the ruins of Palenque as the work of an extinct race, and then he proceeds with a number of citations for a more modern origin. The valuable notes will be found in Bancroft's Native Races, vol. IV, pp. 262-3.
 
Prescott, in his treatise on the origin of Mexican civilization, offers the following reflections on the antiquity of American ruins:
 
It is impossible to contemplate these mysterious monuments of a lost civilization, without a strong feeling of curiosity as to who were their architects, and what is their probable age. The data on which to rest our conjectures of their age, are not very substantial; although some find in them a warrant for an antiquity of thousands of years, coeval with the architecture of Egypt and Hindostan. But the interpretation of hieroglyphics, and the apparent duration of trees, are vague and unsatisfactory. And how far can we derive an argument from the discoloration and dilapidated condition of the ruins, when we find so many structures of the Middle Ages dark and mouldering with decay, while the marbles of the Acropolis, and the gray stone of Paestum, still shine in their primitive splendor? There are, however, undoubted proofs of considerable age to be found there. Trees have shot up in the midst of the buildings, which measure, it is said, more than nine feet in diameter. A still more striking face is the accumulation of vegetable mould in one of the courts, to the depth of nine feet above the pavement. This in our latitude would be decisive of a very great antiquity. But, in the rich soil of Yucatan, and under the ardent sun of the tropics, vegetation bursts forth with irrepressible exuberence, and generations of plants succeed each other without intermission, leaving an accumulation of deposits, that would have perished under the northern winter. Another evidence of their age is afforded by the circumstance, that, in one of the courts of Uxmal, the granite pavement, on which the figures of tortoises were raised in relief, is worn nearly smooth by the feet of the crowds who have passed over it; a curious fact, suggesting inferences both in regard to the age and population of the place. Lastly, we have authority for carrying back the date of many of these ruins to a certain period, since they were found in a deserted, and probably dilapidated state by the first Spaniards who entered the country. Their notices, indeed, are brief and casual, for the old conquerors had little respect for works of art; and it is fortunate for these structures, that they had ceased to be the living temples of the gods, since no merit of architecture, probably, would have availed to save them from the general doom of the monuments of Mexico.[3]
 
It is proper, to say, however, that Mr. Prescott declares that some of the remarks in the above paragraph would have been omitted had he enjoyed the benefit of Mr. Stephens' researches when it was originally written. Mr. Stephens, it should be remembered, is among those who grant no great antiquity to the ruins. On this subject, however, I find the fairest treatment in the profound reflections of Mr. Baldwin:
 
The Mexican and Central American ruins make it certain that in ancient times an important civilization existed in that part of the continent, which must have begun at a remote period in the past. If they have any significance, this must be accepted as an ascertained fact. A large portion of them had been forgotten in the forests, or became mythical and mysterious, long before the arrival of the Spaniards.
 
In 1520, three hundred and fifty years ago, the forest which so largely covers Yucatan, Guatemala, and Chiapa was growing as it grows now. * * * * How many additional centuries it had existed no one can tell. If its age could be told, it would still be necessary to consider that the ruins hidden in it are much older than the forest, and that the period of civilization they represent closed long before it was established.
 
In the ages previous to the beginning of this immense forest, the region it covers was the seat of civilization which grew up to a high degree of development, flourished a long time, and finally declined, until its cities were deserted, and its cultivated fields left to the wild influences of nature, it may be safely assumed that both the forest-covered ruins and the forest itself are far older than the Aztec period; but who can tell how much older? Copan, first discovered and described three hundred years ago, was then as strange to the natives dwelling near it as the old Chaldean ruins are to the Arabs who wander over the wasted plains of Lower Mesopotamia. Native tradition had forgotten its history and become silent in regard to it. How long had ruined Copan been in this condition? No one can tell. Manifestly it was forgotten, left buried in the forest without recollection of its history, long before Montezuma's people, the Aztecs, rose to power; and it is easily understood that this old city had an important history previous to that unknown time in the past when war, revolution or some other agency of destruction, put an end to its career and left it to become what it is now.
 
Moreover, these old ruins, in all cases, show us only the cities last occupied in the period to which they belong. Doubtless others still older preceded them; and, besides, it can be seen that some of the ruined cities which can now be traced were several times renewed by reconstructions. We must consider, also, that building magnificent cities is not the first work of an original civilization. The development was necessarily gradual. Its first period was more or less rude. The art of building and ornamenting such edifices arose slowly. Many ages must have been required to develop such admirable skill in masonry and ornamentation. Therefore the period between the beginning of this mysterious development of civilized life and the first builders who used cut stone laid in mortar and cement, and covered their work with beautifully sculptured ornaments and inscriptions, must have been very long.
 
We have no measure of the time, no clew to the old dates, nothing whatever, beyond such considerations as I have stated, to warrant even a vague hypothesis. It can be seen clearly that the beginning of this old civilization was much older than the earliest great cities, and, also, that these were much more ancient than the time when any of the later built or reconstructed cities whose relics still exist, were left to decay. If we suppose Palenque to have been deserted some six hundred years previous to the Spanish conquest, this date will carry us back only to the last days of its history as an inhabited city. Beyond it, in the distant past, is a vast period in which the civilization represented by Palenque was developed, made capable of building such cities, and then carried on through the many ages during which cities became numerous, flourished, grew old, and gave place to others, until the long history of Palenque itself began. * * * * * * * *
 
No well considered theory of these ruins can avoid the conclusion that most of them are very ancient, and that, to find the origin of the civilization they represent, we must go far back into the "deep of antiquity." * * * *
 
Nevertheless, some of them must be very old. The forest established since the ruin began, the entire disappearance of every thing more perishable than stone, the utter oblivion which veiled their history in the time of Montezuma, and probably long previous to his time, all these facts bear witness to their great antiquity. In many of them, as at Quirigua and Kabah, the stone structures have become masses of debris; and even at Copan, Palenque, and Mitla, only a few of them are sufficiently well preserved to show us what they were in the great days of their history. Meanwhile, keep in mind that the ruined cities did not begin their present condition until the civilization that created them had declined; and, also, that if we could determine exactly the date when they were deserted and left to decay, we should only reach that point in the past where their history as inhabited cities was brought to a close.
 
Take Copan, for instance. This city may have become a ruin during the time of the Toltecs, which began long before the Christian era and ended some five or six centuries probably before the country was invaded by Cortez. It was built before their time, for the style of writing, and many features of the architecture and ornamentation, show the workmanship of their predecessors, judging by the historical intimation found in the old books and traditions. We may suppose it to have been an old city at the time of the Toltec invasion, although not one of the first cities built by that more ancient and more cultivated people by whom this old American civilization was originated.[4]
 
From the foregoing it will be apparent how unsatisfactory are the conclusions respecting the age of America's ruined cities and monuments of antiquity; and since, as Mr. H. H. Bancroft remarks, there is nothing in the ruins themselves by which their age may be determined, it is clear that all the authorities are merely dealing in conjecture concerning them. The value of that conjecture will, of course, depend upon the general breadth of knowledge and judgment of the individual expressing it. This much may be safely claimed, so far as the Book of Mormon is concerned, in the question: there is nothing as to the age of American ruins that contradicts its statements, nor can I conceive of the rising of any circumstance in connection with the age of American ruined cities that would conflict with its claims. If it should turn out eventually that all the monuments of American ruins are of comparatively modern origin, that is, suppose they have arisen within that thousand years preceding the advent of the Spaniards, who came early in the sixteenth century, it could then be claimed that they were the monuments of Lamanite civilization merely; and that the monuments of the Jaredite and Nephite civilization had passed away, or that the monuments of Lamanite civilization were built in the midst of the monuments of the earlier civilizations, and so intermingled as to confuse everything and render classification impossible. If investigation, however, should finally establish the fact that the ruined cities of America are the monuments of very ancient and perhaps of successive civilizations, it would tend in a positive way to establish the truth of the Book of Mormon more clearly, and I now proceed to the consideration of that branch of the subject.
 
II.
 
Successive Civilizations.
 
Scattered over the southern plateaus are heaps of architectural remains and monumental piles. Furthermore, native traditions, both orally transmitted and hieroglyphically recorded by means of legible picture-writings, afford us a tolerably clear view of the civilized nations during a period of several centuries preceding the Spanish conquest, together with passing glances, through momentary clearings in mythologic clouds, at historical epochs much more remote. Here we have as aids to this analysis—aids almost wholly wanting among the so-called savage tribes—antiquities, traditions, history, carrying the student far back into the mysterious New World past; and hence it is that from its simultaneous revelation and eclipse, American civilization would otherwise offer a more limited field for investigation than American savagism, yet by the introduction of this new element the field is widely extended.
 
Nor have we even yet reached the limits of our resources for the investigation of this New World civilization. In these relics of architecture and literature, of mythology and tradition, there are clear indications of an older and higher type of culture than that brought immediately to the knowledge of the invaders; of a type that had temporarily deteriorated, perhaps through the influence of long-continued and bloody conflicts, civil and foreign, by which the more warlike rather than the more highly cultured nations had been brought into prominence and power. But this anterior and superior civilization, resting largely as it does on vague tradition, and preserved to our knowledge in general allusions rather than in detail, may, like the native condition since the conquest, be utilized to the best advantage here as illustrative of the later and better-known, if somewhat inferior civilization of the sixteenth century, described by the conqueror, the missionary, and the Spanish historian.[5]
 
In addition to the "passing glances" through "momentary clearings" in the mythological clouds "at historical epochs much more remote" than those "several centuries preceding the Spanish conquest," there is also the evidence afforded by the different ages in which the cities of America now in ruins were built; the difference being so marked in some instances as to suggest not only different ages for their construction, but their construction by different races. "That a long time must have passed between the erection of Copan and Utatlan,[6] the civilization of the builders meantime undergoing great modification, involving probably the introduction of new elements from foreign sources, is a theory supported by a careful study of the two classes of ruins.[7] * * * Then we have the strong differences noticeable between Uxmal[8] 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 have long been separated; or by branches, which, under the influence of foreign tribes, lived under greatly modified institutions."[9]
 
Speaking of the ruins at Quiche, Mr. Stephens says:
 
The point to which we directed our attention was to discover some resemblance to the ruins of Copan and Quirigua; but we did not find statues, or carved figures, or hieroglyphics, nor could we learn that any had ever been found there. If there had been such evidences we should have considered these ruins the works of the same race of people, but in the absence of such evidences we believed that Copan and Quirigua were cities of another race and of a much older date.[10]
 
On this point of distinct eras in American civilization, Baldwin says:
 
It is a point of no little interest that these old constructions belong to different periods in the past, and represent somewhat different phases of civilization. Uxmal, which is supposed to have been partly inhabited when the Spaniards arrived in the country, is plainly much more modern than Copan or Palenque. This is easily traced in the ruins. Its edifices were finished in a different style, and show fewer inscriptions. Round pillars, somewhat in the Doric style, are found at Uxmal, but none like the square, richly carved pillars, bearing inscriptions, discovered in some of the other ruins. Copan and Palenque, and even Kabah, in Yucatan, may have been very old cities, if not already old ruins, when Uxmal was built. Accepting the reports of explorers as correct, there is evidence in the ruins that Quirigua is older than Copan, and that Copan is older than Palenque. The old monuments in Yucatan represent several distinct epochs in the ancient history of that peninsula. Some of them are kindred to those hidden in the great forest, and reminded us more of Palenque than of Uxmal. Among those described, the most modern, or most of these, are in Yucatan; they belong to the time when the kingdom of the Mayas flourished. Many of the others belong to ages previous to the rise of this kingdom; and in ages still earlier, ages older than the great forest, there were other cities, doubtless, whose remains have perished utterly, or were long ago removed from us in the later constructions.
 
The evidence of repeated reconstructions in some of the cities before they were deserted has been pointed out by explorers. I have quoted what Charnay says of it in his description of Mitla. At Palenque, as at Mitla, the oldest work is the most artistic and admirable. Over this feature of the monuments, and the manifest signs of their difference in age, the attention of investigators lingered in speculation. They find in them a significance which is stated as follows by Brasseur de Bourbourg: "Among the edifices forgotten by time in the forests of Mexico and Central America, we find architectural characteristics so different from each other, that it is impossible to attribute them all to the same people as to believe they were all built at the same epoch." In his view, "the substruction at Mayapan, some of those at Tulha, and a great part of those at Palenque, are among the older remains. These are not the oldest cities whose remains are still visible, but they may have been built, in part, upon the foundation of cities much more ancient. No well considered theory of these ruins can avoid the conclusion that most of them are very ancient, and that, to find the origin of the civilization they represent, we must go far back into the 'deeps of antiquity.'"[11]
 
Further on, in speaking of the Aztecs and their civilization, Mr. Baldwin says:
 
They were less advanced in many things than their predecessors. Their skill in architecture and architectural ornamentation did not enable them to build such cities as Mitla and Palenque, and their "picture writing" was a much ruder form of the graphic art than the phonetic system of the Mayas and Quiches. It does not appear that they ever went so far in literary improvements as to adopt this simpler and more complete system for any purpose whatever. If the country had never, in............