Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 58-9;
Religious Cer. and Cust., vol. iii., pp. 4-10;
Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., pp. 277-81;
Vigne's Travels, vol. ii., pp. 37-8;
Gage's New Survey, p. 162;
Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 7-9;
Farcy,
Discours, in
Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 45;
Humboldt,
Essai Pol., tom. i., pp. 79-80;
Adair's Amer. Ind., pp. 12-13;
Norman's Rambles by Land and Water, pp. 215-16;
Humboldt,
Vues, tom. i., p. 267;
Vater,
Ueber Amer. Bevölkerung, pp. 155-69, cited in
Humboldt,
Vues, tom. i., p. 175;
Laplace,
Circumnav., tom. vi., p. 156;
Warden,
Recherches, pp. 201-2;
Josselyn's Two Voyages;
Williamson's Observations on Climate;
Hill's Antiq. of Amer.;
Ixtlilxochitl,
Relaciones, in
Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. ix., pp. 392-3, 450;
Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 334-5;
Volney's View;
Bossu,
Nouveaux Voy.;
Slight's Indian Researches;
Carver's Trav., pp. 187-96, 208-19;
Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 241-5;
Las Casas,
Hist. Apologética, cap. ccix., quoted in
Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. viii., pp. 398-9;
Delafield's Antiq. Amer., pp. 13-104;
Malte-Brun,
Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., pp. 293-4;
Monglave, in
Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 60;
Heylyn's Cosmog., p. 947;
Norman's Rambles in Yuc., p. 174.
119
Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo.
120
Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 57.
121
Ranking's Hist. Researches, p. 356.
122
See vol. iv., pp. 88, 95-6, for further description, also plan of Copan ruins, p. 85, for location of vault. Jones, commenting on the above, remarks: '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.' Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 116-17. Stephens, who in his first volume of travels in Central America, p. 144, describes this vault, writes in vol. ii., pp. 439-40: '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 pyramids), on the contrary, are of solid earth and stone. No interior chambers have ever been discovered, and probably none exist.' Mr Jones criticises Mr Stephens very severely for this apparent contradiction, but it is customary with Mr Jones to tilt blindly at whatever obstructs his theories. Stephens doubtless refers in this passage to such chambers as would lead one to suppose that the pyramid was built as a token of their presence. Löwenstern is very positive that the Mexican pyramid was not intended for sepulchral purposes. Mexique, p. 274. Clavigero is of the same opinion: 'quelli degli Egizj erano per lo più vuoti; quelli de' Messicani massiccj; questi servivano di basi a' loro Santuarj; quelli di sepolcri de' Re.' Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., pp. 19-20. Foster, on the other hand, writes: 'There are those who, in the truncated pyramids, see evidences of Egyptian origin. The pyramids, like the temple-mounds, were used for sepulchres, but here the analogy ends.' Pre-Hist. Races, p. 187.
123
See vol. iv., p. 474.
124
Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 440.
125
The reader can compare the various accounts of pyramidal structures given in vol. iv. on this point. See heading 'pyramid,' in Index.
126
Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 439.
128
Humboldt reviews the points of resemblance and comes to the conclusion that they afford no foundation upon which to base a theory of Egyptian origin. Vues, tom. i., pp. 120-4. 'There is much in the shape, proportions and sculptures of this pyramid (Xochicalco) to connect its architects with the Egyptians.' Mayer's Mex. as it Was, p. 186. Bradford finds that some 'of the Egyptian pyramids, and those which with some reason it has been supposed are the most ancient, are precisely similar to the Mexican Teocalli.' But he only sees Egyptian traces in this; he shows that similar pyramidal structures have been found in very many parts of the world; and he believes the Americans to have originated from many sources and stocks. See Amer. Antiq., p. 423.
129
See vol. iv., chap. v., vii., and x. Quoting from Molina, Hist. Chili, tom. i., notes, p. 169, M'Culloh writes: 'Between the hills of Mendoza and La Punta, upon a low range of hills, is a pillar of stone one hundred and fifty feet high, and twelve in diameter.' 'This,' he adds, 'very much reminds us of the pillar and obelisks of ancient Egypt.' Researches, pp. 171-2. Jones, Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 122-3, is very confident about the obelisk. He asks: 'What are the Obelisks of Egypt? Are they not square columns for the facility of Sculpture? And of what form are the isolated columns at Copan? Are they not square, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture with which they are covered, and with workmanship "as fine as that of Egypt?"… The columns of Copan stand detached and solitary, – the Obelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and covered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived from the Nile is perfect, – for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt, and Ancient America, is the square sculptured Column to be found?'
130
Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 265. Notwithstanding certain points of resemblance, says Prescott, 'the Palenque architecture has little to remind us of the Egyptian, or of the Oriental. It is, indeed, more conformable, in the perpendicular elevation of the walls, the moderate size of the stones, and the general arrangement of the posts, to the European. It must be admitted, however, to have a character of originality peculiar to itself.' Mex., vol. iii., pp. 407-8.
131
There is a plate showing an Aztec priestess in Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 61, which, if correctly drawn, certainly presents a head-dress strikingly Egyptian. The same might almost be said of a cut in vol. iv. of this work, p. 562 , and, indeed, of several other cuts in the same volume. Mr Stephens, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 441, gives, for the sake of comparison, a plate representing two specimens of Egyptian sculpture; one from the side of the great monument at Thebes known as the Vocal Memnon, and the other from the top of the fallen obelisk at Carnac. 'I think,', he writes, 'by comparison with the engravings before presented, it will be found that there is no resemblance whatever. If there be any at all striking, it is only that the figures are in profile, and this is equally true of all good sculpture in bas-relief.' He happens, however, here, to have selected two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America. In the preceding volume of this work, p. 333 , is given a cut of what is called the 'tablet of the cross' at Palenque. In this we see a cross, and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two human figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering. In Mr Stephens' representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost the same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented Latin cross, we have here a crux commissa, or patibulata; that instead of one bird there are two, not on the cross but immediately above it; and that the figures, though in profile and holding the same general positions, are dressed in a different manner, and are apparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making an offering to it; in Mr Stephens' representation from the obelisk of Carnac, however, a priest is evidently making
