Guatemala : $b the land of the quetzal; a sketchBrigham, William Tufts
History
Guatemala : $b the land of the quetzal; a sketch
Brigham, William Tufts
Central America -- Bibliography; Guatemala -- Antiquities; Guatemala -- Description and travel
It is quite possible that Soconusco is derived from _xoconochtli_, a word
meaning “wild figs,” and Honduras from _fonduras_, meaning “depths,”
although the application may not be clear at the present day. More
satisfactory are _Michatoyatl_, “a river abounding in fish;” _Paxa_,
“water which separates,”—the Rio Pax, or Paz, having always been the
boundary between Guatemala and San Salvador. _Tonalá_, the “City of the
Sun,” and _Gumarca(a)h_, “ruined houses,” are generally admitted to be
correct derivations.
The Spanish invaders exhibited slight inventive powers, and some half
a dozen saints were made godfathers and godmothers to all the Indian
towns that were important enough to be rechristened; and Santos Juan,
José, Tomas, and Marcos, and Santas Maria, Lucia, Ana, and Catarina
are the favorites, although Pedro, Esteban, Jago, Miguel, Antonio,
Cristoval, Pablo, Izabal, and Clara are by no means neglected. The
proper name of the capital city of Guatemala is Santiago (St. James); and
if the ambitious projects dear to the late President Barrios should be
accomplished, as seems not improbable, England will have to be satisfied
with St. George, and leave “The Court of St. James” to the Central
American kingdom.
To the Anglo-Saxon such names as True Cross, Holy Cross, Thanks to God,
City of Angels, Nativity, and Holy Saviour seem wholly inappropriate
as names of places; but to the devout Spaniard they were evidently
favorite appellations. Nor are they very different from Praise-God
Barebones, Faith, Prudence, and the like, which we know were not uncommon
appellatives among the Puritans.
NO RUINS OF DWELLINGS.
In all the remains of ancient cities or holy places hitherto discovered
in Central America, there are temples or oratories, and so-called
palaces, but not a sign of human habitations; even the palaces are
apparently too small for comfortable habitation, and the temples would
not admit more than four or five persons at the same time. Herrera says
there “were so many and such stately Stone Buildings that it was amazing;
and the greatest Wonder is, that, having no Use of any Metal, they were
able to raise such Structures, which seem to have been Temples, for
their Houses were always of Timber and thatched.” Always of less durable
material than stone, the houses have disappeared, and we must not infer
that there were no dwellers about the places where we find to-day only
monuments of the dead or religious edifices. At the present time there
is many a village in Guatemala where the church is the only building of
masonry, all the houses being of the most perishable materials, as palm
stems and leaves, bark and mud. If the town of Livingston were destroyed
to-day and not rebuilt, there would be nothing on the site after two
years to show that men had ever lived there.
It would certainly be interesting to learn why many of the temples have
doors, passages, and even rooms that a man of average stature cannot
stand erect in.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account