Mr. Norman was himself struck "with the resemblance between this, and the stones that cover the tombs of the Knights Templar in some of the ancient churches of the old world," but he thinks that neither this nor any other circumstance proves this effigy to have been of European origin or of modern date. "The material," he adds, "is the same as that of all the buildings and works of art in this vicinity, and the style and workmanship are those of the great unknown artists of the western hemisphere;" and he arrives at the conclusion, as many ingenuous minds have done before him, that these and the other archæological remains of Mexico and Yucatan, "are the works of a people who have long since passed away; and not of the races, _or the progenitors of the races_, who inhabited the country at the epoch of the discovery."[11-*]
With the highest respect for this intelligent traveller, I am not able to agree with him in his conclusion; but I should not now revive my published opinions or contest his, were it not that some new light appears to me to have dawned on this very question.
In the first place, then, we regard the effigy found near Panuco as probably Caucasian; so does Mr. Norman; but instead of referring it to a very remote antiquity, or to some European occupancy of Mexico long before the Spanish conquest, we will venture to suggest, that even if the town of Panuco was itself older than that event, (of which indeed we have no doubt,) it is consistent with collateral facts to infer, that the Spaniards may have occupied this very town, in common with, or subsequent to, the native inhabitants, and have left this sepulchral monument. That the Spaniards did sometimes practice this joint occupancy, is well known; and that they have, in some instances, left their monuments in places wherein even tradition had almost lost sight of their former sojourn, is susceptible of proof.
Mr. Gregg, in a recent and instructive work on the "Commerce of the Prairies," states the following particulars, which are the more valuable since he had no opinions of his own in reference to the American aborigines, and merely gives the facts as he found them.
Mr. Gregg describes the ruins called _La Gran Quivira_, about 100 miles south of Santa Fé, as larger than the present capital of New Mexico. The architecture of this deserted city is of hewn stone, and there are the remains of aqueducts eight or ten miles in length leading from the neighboring mountains. These ruins "have been supposed to be the remains of a _pueblo_ or aboriginal city;" but he adds that the occurrence of the Spanish coat of arms in more than one instance sculptured and painted upon the houses, prevents the adoption of such an opinion; and that traditional report (and tradition only) mentions this as a city that was sacked and desolated in the Indian insurrection of 1680.[12-*] Now had it not been for the occurrence of the heraldic paintings, this city might have been still regarded as of purely Indian origin and occupancy; as might also the analogous ruins of Abo, Tagique and Chilili in the same vicinity; for although these may have been originally constructed by the natives, yet as they are supposed to be near the ancient mines, it is not improbable that the conquerors in these, as in many other instances, drove out the rightful owners, and took possession for themselves;[12-+] for that they did possess and inhabit the towns above enumerated is a fact beyond question.