Sidor som bilder

sixty feet on each side. This elevation [pyramidal] was formerly faced with stone, which has been thrown down by the growth of trees.” We have here a distinct and an admitted analogy between the original characteristic of the Egyptian and the American Pyramids-proved upon the very point [the sides] brought forward by him to negate the proposition, and from his own words. Again; at the base of the Pyramid of Cephrenes (Egypt), the triangular stones that formed the smooth sides are still perceptible; so, also, are they to be seen at the base of the Pyramid of Palenque, each stone an oracular witness against his “conclusive consideration.” He objects to similitude upon another ground, and again refutes himself—viz.: “The Pyramids of Egypt are all square at the base, —the nearest approach to this is at Copan ; but even at that place there is no entire Pyramid standing alone and disconnected,—nor one with four sides complete, but only two, or at most three sides, and intended to form part of other structures.” At Copan (as we have shewn) the very measurement of the base is within a few feet and (from errors in sum total by different authors) may justly be regarded as identical in size with the great Pyramid of Egypt. It has, it is true, but three sides (pyramidal); the fourth being on the river, consists of a perpendicular wall, identical in height to the sea-wall of Tyrus. In Egypt they had no river-walls that were perpendicular. But why does he select Copan only, to prove

whether four sides existed ? Why not again review Palenque 2 His motive is not concealed with the proverbial ingenuity of his country; for at Palenque the four-sided pyramidal structure is found, both in his description and in his map of locality, where no less than five “Casas" (houses) are presented on pyramidal bases, having distinctly four sides, and three of them square ; nor is this all, the Temple of Palenque itself stands on a pyramidal elevation, having distinctly four sides / As he read a “Congressional" document in the Ruins of Palenque, by the light of “fire beetles,” it would almost appear that he formed his “conclusions” by the same uncertain midnight lamps;–for from such treacherous and deceptive flames has he illumined the historical portion of his volumes; but yet the glimmering of the “feeble light" is sufficient to discover his hidden motive. We now bring forward a contradiction more astonishing than all the preceding: and but that his volumes are before us, it would scarcely be credited from the pen of any critic. Vol. ii., p. 439, he writes— “Besides, the Pyramids of Egypt are known to have interior chambers, and whatever their other uses, to have been intended and used as sepulchres. These (American), on the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. No INTERIOR CHAMBERs have ever been discovered, and probably none exist?” In the first volume (p. 143), in writing of the pyramidal structure rising from the centre of the Temple of Copan, is the following description, and which was reserved from the details of that City, to prove this contradiction. “On each side of the centre of the steps is a mound of ruins, apparently of a circular tower. About half. way up the steps [of the pyramidal base] on this side, is a pit [i. e. descent] five feet square and seventeen feet deep, cased with stone. At the bottom is an opening two feet four inches high, with a wall one foot nine inches thick, which leads to a CHAMBER (!) ten feet long, five feet eight inches wide, and four feet high. At each end is a niche one foot nine inches high, one foot eight inches deep, and two feet five inches long. Colonel Galindo first broke into this SEPULCHRAL v.AULt [“chamber"] and found the niches and the ground full of red earthenware, dishes, and pottery, [Egyptian again] more than fifty of which, he says, were full of human bones, packed in lime. Also several sharp-edged and pointed knives of chaya; a small DEATH's-HEAD carved in fine green stone, its eyes nearly closed, the lower features distorted, the back symmetrically perforated with holes, the whole of erquisite workmanship !” This last sentence brings us to a specimen of Gem engraving, the most ancient of all the antique works of Art. Not only is the death “Chamber” identical with that of Egypt, but also the very way of reaching it—viz., first, by ascending the pyramidal base, and

then descending, and so entering the Sepulchre ! This could not be accidental,—the builders of that pyramidal Sepulchre must have had a knowledge of Egypt. The foregone “self-denials” (so valued in man under other aspects), lose all their virtue when exerted to sustain fallacious premises. It might be thought that enough has been brought forward to refute his conclusions; but we desire to operate upon this subject, as Tobin says, “Like the skilful surgeon, who cuts beyond the wound to make the cure complete.” “Again,” he writes, “columns [circular] are a distinguishing feature of Egyptian architecture. There is not a Temple on the Nile without them; and the reader will bear in mind, that among the whole of these ruins, NOT ONE column has been found ! If this Architecture had been derived from the Egyptians, so striking and important a feature would never have been thrown aside.” We admit the force of the preceding extract, so far as relates to the circular column being a feature in the Architecture of the Nile; and that they would also be found in America, if the edifices in that country were of, or “derived from," Egypt; while we admit this reasoning, we at once deny the truth of the assertion, that the round column has not been found in the Ruins of Ancient America. This denial is given upon the unimpeachable authority of Humboldt, who, in his illustrations of the Ruins of Mitla, gives by writing, as

well as by pictorial description, the circular columns distinct! The denial is also founded upon the grave authority of Mr. Stephens himself—for he (as Baron Humboldt) testifies to the fact both by pen and pencil. First, will be quoted from his pen. In vol. ii., p. 428, in writing of the Ruins of Uxmal, he says— “At the South-east corner of this platform [of the Temple] is a row of ROUND PILLARs, eighteen inches in diameter, and three or four feet high [broken], extending about one hundred feet along the platform; and these were the nearest approach (/) to pillars or columns that we saw in all our exploration of the ruins of that country.” Now in the name of Reason, and all its attributes, could there be a “nearer approach" to circular columns, than “round pillars 2" Are they not identical? The proposition can only be answered in the affirmative ; and as a consequence, it becomes absolute from the identity. Again— “In the middle of the terrace, along an avenue leading to a range of steps, was a broken round pillar, inclined and falling, with trees growing around it." We will now refer to his map, or ground-plan of the Temple of Uxmal, drawn by his artist, the accurate Catherwood—(vol. ii., p. 428-9). On that plan there are two rows of circular columns in parallel lines, one row is perfect, and contains eleven columns, the other is imperfect, and presents six columns; but, as dotted on the plan, and when the parallel lines were not

« FöregåendeFortsätt »