INDIRECT EXTERNAL EVIDENCES--AMERICAN ANTIQUITIES. PRELIMINARY
CONSIDERATIONS.--Continued.
III.
_Of the Probability of Intercourse Between the Eastern and Western
Hemispheres During Jaredite and Nephite Times._
Another remark should be made in these preliminary observations,
viz.: It cannot possibly be in conflict with the Book of Mormon to
concede that the northeastern coast of America may have been visited
by Norsemen in the tenth century; or that Celtic adventurers came to
America even at an earlier date, but subsequent to the close of the
Nephite period. It might even be possible that migrations came by way
of the Pacific Islands to the western shores of America. I think it
indisputable that there have been migrations from northeastern Asia
into the extreme north parts of North America, by way of Behring
straits, where the continents of Asia and North America are separated
by a distance of but thirty-six miles of ocean. The reasons for this
belief are first, a positive identity of race between the Esquimaux
of North America and the Esquimaux of northern Asia; and, second, a
very clear distinction of race between the Esquimaux and the American
Indians of all other parts of North America. [1]
None of these migrations are impossible or even improbable, though
it must be stated in passing that the proofs for at least some of
them rest on no historical evidence. Whether the theory that in
ancient times the Phoenicians and their colonists, the Carthagenians,
had intercourse with the shores of America is true or not I cannot
determine. The historical evidence is insufficient to justify a
positive opinion; neither does my treatise on the subject in hand
require an extended consideration of this question. It will be enough
to say that if there were such intercourse, both Nephite and Jaredite
records in the Book of Mormon are silent with reference to it. Yet it
must be conceded that the records now in hand, especially that of the
Jaredites, are but very limited histories of these people. All we can
say is that no mention of such intercourse is made in these records,
and yet it is possible that Phoenician vessels might have visited some
parts of the extended coasts of the western world, and such events
receive no mention in the Jaredite or Nephite records known to us. [2]
Equally unnecessary is it for me to inquire whether or not the ancient
inhabitants of America "discovered Europe," as some contend they did.
[3] It is not impossible that between the close of the Nephite period
and the discovery of the western world by Columbus, American craft made
their way to European shores. And even should further investigation
prove that in Nephite or even in Jaredite times such voyages were
made, it would not affect the Book of Mormon and the inquiry we are
making concerning it. As stated in respect of Phoenicians and other
people making their way to America's extended coasts, so it may be
said, with reference to this other theory that Americans "discovered
Europe," no mention is made of such an event in the Book of Mormon.
But it should be remembered that for the history of the Jaredites
we have but Moroni's abridgment of Ether's twenty-four plates. Had
we Ether's history of the Jaredites in full, it could be but a very
limited history of so great a people, and for so long a period--sixteen
centuries--barely an outline, and wholly inadequate to give one any
clear conception of their national greatness, the extent of their
migrations, or the grandeur of their civilization. And yet, even of
this brief history we have but an abridgment, of which Moroni informs
us he has not written a "hundredth part." [4] Hence our very limited
knowledge of the Jaredites and their movements. While our knowledge of
the Nephites is more extensive than our knowledge of the Jaredites,
we have to confess its narrow limits also. The Book of Mormon is, in
the main, but an abridgment of the larger Nephite records; and at the
point where Nephite civilization reached its fullest development,
Mormon informs us that "a hundredth part of the proceedings of this
people, yea, the account of the Lamanites and of the Nephites, and
their wars, and contentions, and dissensions, and their preaching, and
their prophecies, and their shipping, and their building of ships, and
their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries, and
their righteousness, and their wickedness, and their murders, and their
robbings, and their plunderings, and all manner of abominations and
whoredoms, cannot be contained in this work." [5] I repeat, then, even
in Jaredite and Nephite times voyages could have been made from America
to the shores of Europe, and yet no mention of it be made in Nephite
and Jaredite records now known.
I know of but one utterance in the Book of Mormon that would in any
respect be against the probability of intercourse between the old world
and the new, in Nephite times; and that is found in the following
passage:
And behold, it is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from
the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would
overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance.
Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those
whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall
keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this
land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may
possess this land unto themselves. And if it so be that they shall
keep his commandments they shall be blessed upon the face of this
land, and there shall be none to molest them, nor to take away the
land of their inheritance; and they shall dwell safely forever. [6]
This was uttered in the first half of the sixth century B. C. It will
be observed, however, that the covenant with Lehi was based upon the
condition that those whom the Lord led to the land of America must
keep his commandments; a condition which was complied with only in
part, even during Nephite supremacy; and at the last it was wholly
violated on the part of both Nephites and Lamanites, and therefore may
be eliminated as a substantial objection to the idea of intercourse
between the old and the new world even during Nephite times. Still,
in a general way, this land was preserved unto the descendants of
Lehi until the coming of the Spaniards in the fifteenth and sixteenth
centuries.
IV.
_The Western World Since the Close of the Nephite Period--The
Lamanite Civilization._
Other considerations that may affect the evidences of American
antiquities to the Book of Mormon arise out of the conditions which
have obtained in the western world since the close of the Nephite
period. What I have called the Nephite period closes with the
commencement of the fifth century A. D., and as it was towards the
close of the fifteenth century before America was discovered by the
Spaniards and made known to Europeans, there is a thousand years
during which time many things may have happened to affect conditions
in America by the time it was discovered by Columbus; and which, at
the time of that discovery, and now, influence, not to say confuse,
our knowledge of American antiquities, by indiscriminately mingling
the modern with the ancient, confounding local movements with more
ancient and general migrations, and mixing merely tribal events with
the national affairs of more ancient times, until things are rendered
in some respects well nigh unintelligible.
When the Nephites were overthrown in those last great battles about
Cumorah, it appears that the victorious Lamanites were possessed
with the most frenzied determination to destroy the last vestige of
civilization, government, and religion; but when they had destroyed
their enemies, the Nephites, they continued the fighting among
themselves, until the whole face of the land was one continual scene of
intestine wars. [7] How long such conditions continued no one knows,
since the Book of Mormon closes with its sad story of the overthrow of
the Nephites, and there is nothing beyond this point--the early part
of the fifth century A. D.--by which we can be guided. It is probable,
however, that even anarchy at last spent its force; something like
tribal relations may have been brought into existence to take the place
of the more elaborate and complex forms of government which had been
overthrown, and from these may have arisen confederacies of tribes as
interest or fortune, good or ill, may have dictated, until at last
something like semi-civilization begun to arise out of the chaos which
followed the destruction of the Nephites.
The maddened Lamanites might succeed in destroying every vestige of
government, religion and that order of society which had prevailed in
former times, but the memory of those things, and the advantages of
them, could not be obliterated; and the memory of them would be an
incentive to strong minds to re-establish a settled order of things.
It should be remembered in this connection--as lending probability to
what is said here--that when the ancient distinctions of Nephite and
Lamanite were revived in 231 A. D. they no longer stood the former
for the descendants of Nephi and his following and the latter for the
descendants of Laman and his following, as in earlier times; nor did
the former name now stand for a civilized people, and the latter for
a barbarous one, as they had done in some parts of former ages. In
civilization the two parties stood equal, and remained so through the
one hundred and seventy troubled years which followed. For more than
two centuries following the appearance of the Messiah in the western
world, there had been but one people on the land, and these followers
of the Messiah--Christians. This was the American golden age--the
age of peace, of prosperity, of expansion, until the lands, both in
the north and in the south were inhabited by a numerous and happy
people. Then came pride which follows wealth; and corruption which
follows ease. Sects arose within the church, schism followed schism.
Then the wicked, schismatical sects persecuted the true followers of
Christ. The old distinctions of Lamanite and Nephite were revived; and
under these names an internecine war was begun. The true followers of
Christ, who had taken the name of Nephites, unhappily fell away from
righteousness--were no longer Christians, in fact, but fought on under
the name the Christians had assumed until the series of wars between
the two parties ended in anarchy. This much to remind the reader that
there was no distinction in the matter of civilization during this
period between Lamanites and Nephites. After the fall of the Nephite
party--more proper than to say Nephite people--followed the Lamanite
wars and anarchy; from which, however, I have ventured the conjecture
that there was a revolt, and an effort made to return to settled orders
of government, and to some sort of civilization.
The last battles of the great and long continued war which ended in the
destruction of the Nephite party, took place south of the great lake
region, about Cumorah; and to this part of the land had been drawn if
not the bulk, then certainly a very large proportion of the inhabitants
of the land. [8] These moved southward in time, tribe pressing upon
tribe, as ocean wave presses on ocean wave towards the shore; and
doubtless this movement of population southward after the disaster
at Cumorah, accounts for those universal traditions found among the
natives of Mexico and Central America of successive migrations from the
north of powerful tribes or races who so much affected the political
history of those countries. [9] As these tribes from the north reached
the old centers of population and civilization they revived settled
orders of government, fastened themselves upon the weaker inhabitants
as their rulers, compelled industry among the lower orders, gave
encouragement to the arts that ministered to their ease and vanity,
encouraged learning at least among the sacerdotal orders, and received
the credit of founding a new order of civilization, when in reality
it was but a partial reviving of a former civilization, upon which
they fastened the dark and loathsome Lamanite superstitiuous idolatry,
with its horrors of human sacrifice and cannibalism. I believe these
conjectures to be warranted by the fact that in several parts of the
American continents, viz.: in Mexico, Central America, and Peru, a
civilization of no mean degree of advancement was found to exist at
the time of the arrival of the Spaniards; and, indeed, there are not
wanting authorities who assert that the civilization found in America
by the Spaniards, both in Mexico and Peru, was equal to their own. Such
is the assertion of Dr. John W. Draper who says, in speaking of the
crimes of Spain:
From Mexico and Peru a civilization that might have instructed
Europe was crushed out. * * * * It has been her [Spain's] evil
destiny to ruin two civilizations, Oriental and Occidental. * * *
In America she destroyed races more civilized than herself. [10]
Nadaillac remarks:
To sum up, every thing goes to prove that the ancient races of
Central America possessed an advanced culture, exact ideas on
certain arts and sciences, and remarkable technical knowledge.
As pointed out in 1869, by Morgan, in the North American Review,
the Spanish succeeded in destroying in a few years a civilization
undoubtedly superior in many respects to that which they endeavored
to substitute for it. [11]
Prescott places scarcely less value upon it. He says:
Enough has been said, however, to show that the Aztec and Tezcucan
races were advanced in civilization very far beyond the wandering
tribes of North America. The degree of civilization which they
reached, as inferred by their political institutions, may be
considered, perhaps, not much short of that enjoyed by our Saxon
ancestors, under Alfred [849-901 A. D.]. In respect to the nature
of it, they may be better compared with the Egyptians; and the
examination of their social relations and culture may suggest still
stronger points of resemblance to that ancient people. [12]
H. H. Bancroft says:
This, however, I may safely claim; if the preceding pages inform us
aright, then were the Nahuas, the Mayas, and the subordinate and
lesser civilization surrounding these, but little lower than the
contemporaneous civilization of Europe and Asia, and not nearly so
low as we have hitherto been led to suppose. [13]
John D. Baldwin, writing in 1871, says:
We are told repeatedly that the Spaniards employed "Mexican
masons" and found them "very expert" in the arts of building and
plastering. There is no good reason to doubt that the civilized
condition of the country when the Spaniards found it was superior
to what it has been at any time since the conquest. [14]
Tezcuco and Mexico are both known to be comparatively modern cities,
Mexico itself being founded no earlier than 1325 A. D., and Prescott,
in speaking of an era of prosperity which followed the triple alliance
of the states of Mexico, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan says:
The Aztec capital, [Mexico] gave evidence of public prosperity. Its
frail tenements were supplanted by solid structures of stone and
lime. * * * * The dimensions of which, covering the same ground,
were much larger than those of the modern capital of Mexico. [15]
His description of the valley of Mexico, and its cities, fields and
orchards, when first beheld by the invading Spaniards under Cortez, is
as follows:
Stretching far away at their feet, were seen noble forests of
oak, sycamore, and cedar, and beyond, yellow fields of maize and
the towering maguey, intermingled with orchards and blooming
gardens; for flowers, in such demand for their religious festivals,
were even more abundant in this populous valley than in other
parts of Anahuac. In the center of the great basin were beheld
the lakes, occupying then a much larger portion of its surface
than at present; their borders thickly studded with towns and
hamlets, and, in the midst--like some Indian empress with her
coronal of pearls--the fair City of Mexico, with her white towers
and pyramidal temples, reposing, as it were, on the bosom of
the waters--the far-famed "Venice of the Aztecs." High over all
rose the royal hill of Chapoltepec, the residence of the Mexican
monarchs, crowned with the same grove of gigantic cypresses,
which at this day fling their broad shadows over the land. In the
distance beyond the blue waters of the lake, and nearly screened by
intervening foliage, was seen a shining speck, the rival capital of
Tezcuco, and, still further on, the dark belt of porphyry, girdling
the valley around, like a rich setting which nature had devised for
the fairest of her jewels. [16]
From the statements of Bernal Diaz we are also justified in believing
that a somewhat similar state of civilization obtained in Yucatan and
other parts of Central America. While the well-known works of Squier,
[17] Baldwin, Rivero and Tschudi, [18] and the very excellent and
popular volumes of Prescott on Peru, justify us in the belief that
while differing somewhat in its character, the civilization of Peru was
equal and even superior in some respects--to that of Mexico at the time
of the conquest; and the empire of the Incas was even more extensive
than that of the Montezumas.
The civilization in America upon the advent of the Spaniards--since
there is no substantial historical evidence of foreign migrations
in which it could have had its origin--must have arisen, as already
suggested, from among the Lamanites after the fall of the Nephites at
Cumorah--it was Lamanite civilization. I would not have the reader form
too exalted an opinion of that civilization, however. It found its
chief expression, where it attained its highest development, in the
existence of numerous cities, palaces, and temples; in the existence
of regular pursuits of industry, of agriculture, and manufactures;
in a settled order of society, a regular order of government, and a
fixed establishment of religion. So far as these conditions make for
civilization, Mexico, some parts of Central America, and Peru, can
be said to be civilized. But after this is said it must be claimed
that much was lacking in the conditions existing in those parts of
America in order to make them conform to the generally accepted idea
of civilization. The governments were cruel despotisms; the industrial
system reduced the masses to conditions scarcely removed from abject
slavery; the religion of Mexico and Central America, at least, was
the darkest, the most sanguinary, and repulsive described in the
annals of human history; while the revolting practice of refined
cannibalism was more widespread and horrible than among any other
people whatsoever. These and many other considerations, too numerous to
mention in detail, must forbid our entertaining exalted notions of this
Lamanite civilization. We shall see as we proceed with the unfoldment
of our evidences, that these horrible conditions were but the natural
outgrowth of Lamanite tendencies through all the course of their
history.
V.
_Of the Writers on American Antiquities._
Still another remark is necessary in these preliminary observations.
The authorities upon which we have to depend for our knowledge of
American antiquities are widely conflicting. There is not one that may
be followed unreservedly, and it is impossible to say with any degree
of exactness what is even the concensus of opinion of authorities upon
very many subjects, so widely divergent and conflicting are their
views. This conflict of opinion extends to such important subjects as
the following: Who were the first inhabitants of America? Were they
indigenous races, or is their presence in America due to migration?
If due to migration, from what lands did they come? Was there one or
several migrations? What was the course of their migration? Are they of
one or a number of distinct races? Are the monuments of civilization
found in America ancient or comparatively modern? Do they represent the
civilization of vanished races, or are they the work of the not very
remote ancestors of the Indians? Is the civilization represented by
these monuments really of a very high order, or was it but a step or
two removed from savagery? In support of any one of these conflicting
opinions about America's ancient inhabitants and their civilization
one need not be at a loss to find respectable authorities. One may
support with honored names in this field of research the Lost Tribes of
Israel theory of the origin of the American Indians; the Malay theory
of origin; the Phoenician theory; the Egyptian, the Atlantic, and a
number of other minor theories. [19] One can array a formidable list
of authors in favor of the indigenous theory of origin for ancient
American civilization; and perhaps a still longer and equally learned
list of authorities in favor of an exotic origin. All of which makes
it evident that writers upon the subject are to be weighed as well as
counted; and also warns us that in the presence of such a diversity of
opinions many things pertaining to American antiquities must remain
open questions. It must be remembered that as yet, so far as man's
researches are concerned, but little is really known about ancient
America. "That," as a Frenchman remarks, "has yet to be discovered."
True, many of her ancient monuments have been located, but they seem
to tell a different story to each explorer who looks upon them.
There are not wanting stone tablets of hieroglyphics, and ancient
documents written on skins and paper; [20] but up to the present time
they are sealed books even to the learned. Meantime no Rosetta Stone
is discovered [21] to furnish the key to their decipherment, and no
learned American Champollion as yet [22] comes forward to reveal their
mystery.
In considering authorities upon American antiquities, one thing should
be especially observed: one should be upon his guard against the
credulity and bias of the early writers; and equally upon his guard
against the skepticism and bias of the more modern ones. The former,
living in an age of superstition and credulity, and having special
interests to serve, would have us believe too much; the latter, living
in an age super-critical and doubting, would have us believe too
little. There is no doubt but what the Spanish writers connected with
the conquest of America colored their narratives to give importance
in the eyes of their countrymen in Europe to the events with which
they were associated; and they likely exaggerated whatever had such
a tendency. Hence greater empires, more formidable armies, and more
imposing civilizations than really existed in America at the time of
the conquest, were described. So with the missionaries who accompanied
the first European expeditions and those who immediately followed them.
They sometimes very likely saw analogies between the Christian faith
and some of the traditions and superstitions of the natives where none
existed. So closely did some of the native traditions and ceremonies
resemble Catholic Christian dogma and rites that the over-zealous
priests came to the conclusion that the "devil" had in America
counterfeited some parts of the Christian religion and intermixed it
with the native paganism, the better to encompass the damnation of the
natives and hinder the progress of the Christian religion. This led
to the destruction of many Aztec manuscripts which were regarded by
some of the priests as works on magic, and in other ways were supposed
to uphold the idolatry of the natives. This idea strongly impressed
the first archbishop of Mexico, Don Juan de Zumarraga, [23] who from
a number of cities caused large quantities of the native manuscripts
to be collected and destroyed. The collection from Tezcuco was
especially large, since--as Prescott describes it--Tezcuco was "the
great depository of the national archives." The archbishop caused these
collected manuscripts "to be piled up in a 'mountainlike heap,'--as it
is called by the Spanish writers themselves--in the market place at
Tlateloco and reduced them all to ashes. * * * The unlettered soldiery
were not slow in imitating the example of their prelate. Every chart
and volume which fell into their hands was wantonly destroyed: so that
when the scholars of a later and more enlightened age anxiously sought
to recover some of these memorials of civilization, nearly all had
perished, and the few surviving were jealously hidden by the natives."
[24] And thus was destroyed materials which might have gone far towards
solving the mystery that enshrouds the people and civilization of
ancient America.
These native records were more numerous than they are generally
thought to be. Baldwin, in speaking of the people of Central America
and Mexico, says: "The ruins show that they had the art of writing,
and that at the south this art was more developed, more like a
phonetic system of writing, than we find in use among the Aztecs.
The inscriptions of Palenque, and the characters used in some of the
manuscript books that have been preserved, are not the same as the
Mexican picture writing. It is known that books of manuscript writings
were abundant among them in the ages previous to the Aztec period. * *
* Las Casas wrote on this point as follows: 'It should be known that
in all the commonwealths of these countries, in the kingdoms of New
Spain and elsewhere, among other professions duly filled by suitable
persons, was that of chronicler and historian. These chroniclers had
knowledge of the origin of the kingdoms, and of whatever relates to
religion and the gods, as well as to the founders of towns and cities.
They recorded the history of kings, and of the modes of their election
and succession; of their labors, actions, wars, and memorable deeds,
good and bad; of the virtuous men or heroes of former days, their
great deeds, the wars they had waged, and how they had distinguished
themselves; who had been the earliest settlers, what had been their
ancient customs, their triumphs and defeats. They knew, in fact
whatever pertained to history, and were able to give an account of all
past events. * * * Our priests have seen those books, and I myself have
seen them likewise, though many were burned at the instigation of the
monks, who were afraid they might impede the work of conversion.' Books
such as those here described by Las Casas must have contained important
historical information. The older books, belonging to the ages of Copan
and Palenque, went to decay doubtless long previous to his time, in the
wars and revolutions of the Toltec period, or by the wear of time. The
later books, not otherwise lost, were destroyed by Aztec and Spanish
vandalism." [25]
Respecting native writers following the conquest, they were men who
acquired the Spanish language and wrote on the history of their people
either in Spanish, or, if in their own language they employed the
Spanish alphabet--of them it is said, and one may readily admit the
reasonableness of the statement--"most of them were thoroughly imbued
with the spirit of their converters, and their writings as a class are
subject to the same criticism." [26]
Naturally these native writers would emphasize that which would
glorify their own country and exalt the character of its civilization;
belonging to a conquered race--the soreness of the conflict past--they
would be but too prone to please, in order to stand in favor with,
their conquerors; while their religious zeal would prompt them to find
as many analogies as possible between their old faith and the one to
which they were converted. All of which would tend to exaggeration
in the same general direction as that followed by the early Spanish
writers. But because of these tendencies to exaggeration it does not
follow that all the works of early Spanish or native writers on America
are to be described as of no value or even as of little value.
As justly remarked by H. H. Bancroft, "Do we reject all the events of
Greek and Roman history, because the historians believed that the sun
revolved about the earth, and attributed the ordinary phenomena of
nature to the actions of the imaginary gods? * * * And finally, can
we reject the statements of able and conscientious men--many of whom
devoted their lives to the study of aboriginal character and history,
from an honest desire to do the natives good--because they deem
themselves bound by their priestly vows and the fear of the inquisition
to draw scriptural conclusions from each native tradition? The same
remarks apply to the writings of converted and educated natives,
influenced, to a great degree, by their teachers; more prone, perhaps,
to exaggeration through national pride, but at the same time better
acquainted with the native hieroglyphics. To pronounce all these works
deliberately executed forgeries, as a few modern writers have done,
is too absurd to require refutation." [27] And to this I would add a
protest against that spirit of skepticism which in these same modern
writers, when they do not pronounce the works referred to by Bancroft
as forgeries, insist upon so far discrediting them by their sophistries
of criticism that they might as well pronounce them outright forgeries.
Undoubtedly the trend of modern writers is in support of the theory
both of an indigenous people and civilization for America, and the
latter of no very high order. In support of this theory they do not
hesitate to discredit most of the native traditions recorded by the
earlier writers, which tell of migrations of their ancestors from
distant countries; of golden ages of prosperity and peace, and of an
ancient, splendid civilization. It is difficult to determine always
which is most to be discounted, the writers through whom the traditions
of the glorious past are transmitted to us, or those who would
dismantle that part of its glory and present us with an ancient America
undeveloped beyond the point of middle savagery. Perhaps in this, as
in so many other things where man's prejudices are involved, the truth
will be found at about an equal distance between the two extremes; and
even under this adjustment of the conflicting claims of authorities, I
am sure we shall find much that will in an incidental way support the
claims of the Book of Mormon.
Footnotes
1. Vivier de Saint Martin, in the new _Dictionary of Universal
Geography_, article "American Ethnology," states that the tribes all
along the Arctic Ocean known as the Esquimaux are a race absolutely
distinct from all other American natives, (De Roo, _History of America
Before Columbus_, vol. I, pp. 305, 309.)
2. All these theories are considered at length in H. H. Bancrofts'
_Native Races_, vol. V, ch. 1, and also in the _History of America
Before Columbus_, by P. De Roo, vol. I, chs. 6 and 8.
3. The question is considered at length by De Roo in his _History of
America Before Columbus_, vol. I, ch. 7, in support of which theory he
quotes many authorities.
4. Ether 15:33.
5. Helaman 3:14.
6. II Nephi 1:8-9.
7. See Mormon. ch. 8: 1-11.
8. See Mormon 6.
9. Very naturally there is much confusion on the subject of migratory
movements among the ancient native inhabitants of America, and this
owing to the confounding of migrations from the old world with later
intercontinental movements. Also there is a great division of opinion
among authorities upon the subject, some alleging, for instance,
that the tribes who established the civilization, found in Mexico by
the Spaniards, came from the north--some from the northeast, others
from the northwest while others insist that the movement was from
Central America northward. The controversy waged on this subject is
too extensive to be introduced into this note or even into this work.
But I may here say that the disagreement among so many writers worthy
of our respect grows out of the fact that there were movements both
north and south which leads to their confusion. We know from the Book
of Mormon that the general migratory movement of the Nephites at
an early date--55 B. C.--was from the south northward; while during
the period of peace which followed Messiah's advent, there was
unrestricted movements of population north and south. Then came the
period of gathering in the north, south of the great lakes, ending in
the disaster about Cumorah; then the movement of the people from the
north southward to the old centers of population, and the reviving of
partially civilized conditions. One class of writers seized upon the
fragmentary tradition concerning this northward movement for their
conclusions, while another class seizes upon the tradition of the
southward movement for their authority, and hence the conflict. Of the
traditions of the northern origin of the Aztecs, Prescott remarks:
"Traditions of the western, or northwestern, origin were found among
the more barbarous tribes, and by the Mexicans were preserved both
orally and in their hieroglyphical maps, where the different stages
of their migrations are carefully noted. But who, at this day, shall
read them? They are admitted to agree, however, in representing the
populous north as the prolific hive of the American races. In this
quarter were placed their Aztlan, and their Huehuetapallan, the bright
abode of their ancestors, whose warlike exploits rivalled those which
the Teutonic nations have recorded of Odin and the mythic heroes of
Scandanavia. From this quarter the Toltecs, the Chichemecs, and the
kindred races of the Nahuatlacs, came successively up the great plateau
of the Andes, spreading over its hills and valleys, down to the Gulf
of Mexico." (_Conquest of Mexico_, vol. II, pp. 397, 398, Burt & Co.,
N. Y.) Also Nadaillac speaking of the invaders of the valley of Mexico
says: "All these men, whether Toltecs, Chichimecs, or Aztecs, believed
that their people came from the north, and migrated southward, seeking
more fertile lands, more genial climates, or perhaps driven before a
more warlike race; one wave of emigration succeeding another. We must,
according to this tradition, seek in more northern regions the cradle
of the Nahuatl race." (_Pre-Historic America_, p. 13.) Baldwin, quoting
Brasseus de Bourbourg and Sahagun allows a northeast migration for the
Toltecs (_Ancient America_, pp. 200, 202), but insists that the Aztecs
who succeeded these races in the occupation of the valley of Mexico
came from the south (pp. 217, 218). This view of the southern origin
for the Aztecs is also maintained at some length and by an extensive
citation of authorities by Bancroft. (_Native Races_, vol. V, ch. 3.)
10. _Intellectual Development of Europe_, vol. II. pp. 166-167.
11. _Pre-Historic America_, p. 386.
12. _Conquest of Mexico_, vol. I, pp. 57, 58.
13. _Native Races_, vol. II, pp. 804, 805.
14. _Ancient America_, (Baldwin) p. 215.
15. _Conquest of Mexico_, (Prescott) vol. I, p. 39.
16. _Conquest of Mexico_, (Prescott) vol. I, p. 354.
17. Peru, _Incidents of Travel and Exploration of the Land of the
Incas_, E. George Squier, M. A. F. S. A.
18. _Peruvian Antiquities_, by Rivero and Tschudi; the former director
of the National Museum at Lima, the latter a doctor of philosophy and
medicine.
19. "Under the broad range allowed by a descent from the sons of
Noah," says Mr. John L. Stephens, to whom we are indebted for most
excellent works on American antiquities, "the Jews, the Canaanites, the
Phoenicians, the Carthaginians, the Greeks, the Scythians in ancient
times; the Chinese, the Swedes, the Norwegians, the Welsh, and the
Spaniards in modern times, have had ascribed to them the honor of
peopling America." _Central America_, vol. I, pp. 96, 97.
20. There are eight or ten such collections. Their contents for the
most part, are published in Lord Kingsborough's monumental work. A list
of them and a description will also be found in Bancroft's _Native
Races_, vol. II, ch. 17.
21. See chapter 1, p. 33.
22. It was the French linguist and archaeologist, Jean Francois
Champollion, who discovered from the Rosetta Stone the key to the
Egyptian hieroglyphics.
23. Born 1486, died 1549.
24. _Conquest of Mexico_, vol. I, pp. 89, 90.
25. _Ancient America_, pp. 187, 188, J. D. Baldwin.
26. _Native Races_, Bancroft, vol. V, p. 147.
27. _Native Races_, vol. V, pp. 145, 146. The whole chapter from which
the above passage is quoted deals with the subject of the early writers
on ancient America, and could with profit be considered by the reader.
W. H. Prescott also has a very choice set of notes on the subject of
the same class of writers in his first book on the conquest of Mexico,
especially those notes following each chapter on some special authority
on whom he mainly relies for the statements in his text.