INTRODUCTORY TO ABORIGINAL HISTORY.
Origin and Earliest History of the Americans Unrecorded
-- The Dark Sea of Antiquity -- Boundary between Myth and
History -- Primitive Annals of America compared with those
of the Old World -- Authorities and Historical Material --
Traditional Annals and their Value -- Hieroglyphic Records
of the Mayas and Nahuas -- Spanish Writers -- The Conquerors
-- The Missionaries -- The Historians -- Converted Native
Chroniclers -- Secondary Authorities -- Ethnology -- Arts,
Institutions, and Beliefs -- Languages -- Material Monuments
of Antiquity -- Use of Authorities and Method of Treating the
Subject.
The preceding résumé shows pretty conclusively that the American
peoples and the American civilizations, if not indigenous to the
New World, were introduced from the Old at a period long preceding
any to which we are carried by the traditional or monumental annals
of either continent. We have found no evidence of any populating
or civilizing migration across the ocean from east or west, north
or south, within historic times. Nothing approaching identity has
been discovered between any two nations separated by the Atlantic
or Pacific. No positive record appears even of communication between
America and the Old World,--intentionally by commercial, exploring,
or warlike expeditions, or accidentally by shipwreck,--previous to
the voyages of the Northmen in the tenth century; yet that such
communication did take place in many instances and at different
periods is extremely probable. The numerous trans-oceanic analogies,
more or less clearly defined, which are observed, may have resulted
partially from this communication, although they do not of themselves
necessarily imply such an agency. If scientific research shall in the
future decide that all mankind descended from one original pair, that
the centre of population was in Asia rather than in America, and that
all civilization originated with one Old World branch of the human
family--and these are all yet open questions--then there will be no
great difficulty in accounting for the transfer of both population
and culture; in fact the means of intercontinental intercourse are so
numerous and practicable that it will perhaps be impossible to decide
on the particular route or routes by which the transfer was effected.
If, on the other hand, a contrary decision be reached on the above
questions, the phenomena of American civilization and savagism will be
even more easily accounted for.
[Sidenote: THE MYSTERY OF ANTIQUITY.]
Regarding North America then, at the most remote epoch reached by
tradition, as already peopled for perhaps hundreds of centuries, I
propose in the remaining pages of this volume to record all that is
known of aboriginal history down to the period when the native races
were found by Europeans living under the institutions and practicing
the arts that have been described in the preceding volumes of this
work. Comparatively little is known or can ever be known of that
history. The sixteenth century is a bluff coast line bounding the dark
unnavigable sea of American antiquity. At a very few points along
the long line headlands project slightly into the waters, affording
a tolerably sure footing for a time, but terminating for the most
part in dangerous reefs and quicksands over which the adventurous
antiquarian may pass with much risk still farther from the firm land
of written record, and gaze at flickering mythical lights attached
to buoys beyond. As a rule, nothing whatever is known respecting the
history of savage tribes until they come in contact with nations of
a higher degree of culture possessing some system of written record.
Respecting the past of the Wild Tribes by whom most of our territory
was inhabited, we have only a few childish fables of creation, the
adventures of some bird or beast divinity, of a flood or some other
natural convulsion, a victory or a defeat which may have occurred one
or a hundred generations ago. These fables lack chronology, and have
no definite historical signification which can be made available.
The Civilized Nations, however, had recorded annals not altogether
mythical. The Nahua annals reach back chronologically, although not
uninterruptedly to about the sixth century of our era; the Maya record
is somewhat less extensive in an unbroken line; but both extend more
or less vaguely and mythically to the beginning of the Christian
era, perhaps much farther. Myths are mingled in great abundance with
historical traditions throughout the whole aboriginal period, and it
is often utterly impossible to distinguish between them, or to fix the
boundary line beyond which the element of history is absolutely wanting.
The primitive aboriginal life, not only in America but throughout
the world, is wrapped in mystery. The clear light of history fades
gradually, as we recede from the present age, into an ever-deepening
shadow, which, beyond a varying indefinable point, a border-land
of myth and fable, merges into the black night of antiquity. The
investigations of modern science move back but slowly this bound
between the past and present, and while the results in the aggregate
are immense, in shedding new light on portions of the world's annals,
progress toward the ultimate end is almost inappreciable. If the
human mind shall ever penetrate the mystery, it will be one of its
last and most glorious triumphs. America does not differ so much as
would at first thought appear from the so-called Old World in respect
to the obscurity that shrouds her early history, if both are viewed
from a corresponding stand-point--in America the Spanish Conquest in
the sixteenth century, in the eastern continent a remote period when
history first began to be recorded in languages still in use. Or if
we attach greater importance to Biblical than to other traditions,
still America should be compared, not with the nations whose history
is traced in the Hebrew record, but with the distant extremities of
Asia, Europe, and Africa, on whose history the Bible throws no light,
save the statement that they were peopled from a common centre, in
which populating movement America has equal claims to be included. To
all whose investigations are a search for truth, darkness covers the
origin of the American peoples, and their primitive history, save for
a few centuries preceding the Conquest. The darkness is lighted up here
and there by dim rays of conjecture, which only become fixed lights of
fact in the eyes of antiquarians whose lively imagination enables them
to see best in the dark, and whose researches are but a sifting-out of
supports to a preconceived opinion.
* * * * *
The authorities on which our knowledge of aboriginal history rests are
native traditions orally handed down from generation to generation, the
Aztec picture-writings that still exist, the writings of the Spanish
authors who came in contact with the natives in the period immediately
following the Conquest, and also of converted native writers who wrote
in Spanish, or at least by the aid of European letters. In connection
with these positive authorities the actual condition, institutions,
and beliefs of the natives at the Conquest, together with the material
monuments of antiquity, all described in the preceding volumes,
constitute an important illustrative, corrective, or confirmatory
source of information.
[Sidenote: TRADITION AS AN AUTHORITY.]
Oral tradition, in connection with linguistic affinities, is our only
authority in the case of the wild tribes, and also plays a prominent
part in the annals of the civilized nations. In estimating its
historical value, not only the intrinsic value of the tradition itself,
but the authenticity of the version presented to us must be taken into
consideration; the latter consideration is, however, closely connected
with that of the early writers and their reliability as authorities on
aboriginal history. No tribe is altogether without traditions of the
past, many--probably most--of which were founded on actual occurrences,
while a few are wholly imaginary. Yet, whatever their origin, all are,
if unsupported by written records, practically of little or no value.
Every trace of the circumstances that gave rise to a tradition is soon
lost, although the tradition itself in curiously modified forms is long
preserved. Natural convulsions, like floods and earthquakes, famines,
wars, tribal migrations, naturally leave an impression on the savage
mind which is not easily effaced, but the fable in which the record
is embodied may have assumed a form so changed and childish that we
pass over it to-day as having no historical value, seeking information
only in an apparently more consistent tale, which may have originated
at a recent date from some very trivial circumstance. Examples are not
wanting of very important events in the comparatively modern history of
Indian tribes, the record of which has not apparently been preserved
in song or story, or the memory of which at least has become entirely
obliterated in little more than a hundred years. Oral tradition has no
chronology that is not purely imaginary; "many moons ago," "our fathers
did thus and so," may refer to antediluvian times or to the exploits
of the narrator's grandfather. Among the American savages there was
not even a pride in the pedigree of families or horses to induce care
in this respect, as among the Asiatic hordes of patriarchal times. But
the traditions of savages, valueless by themselves for a time more
remote than one or two generations, begin to assume importance when
the events narrated have been otherwise ascertained by the records of
some contemporary nation, throwing indirectly much light on history
which they were powerless to reveal. Three traditions are especially
prevalent in some form in nearly every section of America;--that of a
deluge, of an aboriginal migration, and of giants that dwelt upon the
earth at some time in the remote past. These may be taken as examples
and interpreted as follows, the respective interpretations being
arranged in the order of their probability.
The tradition of a flood would naturally arise, 1st, from the
destruction of a tribe or part of a tribe by the sudden rising of
a river or mountain stream--that is from a modern event such as has
occurred at some time in the history of nearly every people, and which
a hundred years and a fertile imagination would readily have converted
into a universal inundation. 2d. From the finding of sea-shells and
other marine relics inland, and even on high mountains, suggesting
to the natives' untutored mind what it proves to later scientific
research--the fact that water once covered all. 3d. From the actual
submersion of some portions of the continent by the action of volcano
or earthquake, an event that geology shows not to be improbable, and
which would be well calculated to leave a lasting impression on the
minds of savages. 4th. From the deluge of the scriptural tradition,
the only one of the many similar events that may have occurred which
makes any claims to have been historically recorded. The accompanying
particulars would be naturally invented. Some must have escaped, and an
ark or a high mountain are the natural means.
A traditional migration from north, south, east, or west may point to
the local journeying of a family or tribe, either in search of better
hunting-grounds, or as a result of adverse fortune in war; in a few
cases a general migration of many tribes constituting a great nation
may be referred to; and finally, it is not quite impossible that a
faint memory of an Old World origin may have survived through hundreds
of generations.
[Sidenote: INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION.]
So with the giant tradition, resulting, 1st, from the memory of a
fierce, numerous, powerful, and successful enemy, possibly of large
physique. No tribe so valiant that it has not met with reverses,
and the attributing of gigantic strength and supernatural powers
to the successful foe, removes among the descendants the sting of
their ancestors' defeat. 2d. From the discovery of immense fossil
bones of mastodons and other extinct species. It is not strange that
such were deemed human remains by the natives when the Spaniards in
later times have honestly believed them to be the bones of an extinct
gigantic race. 3d. From the existence of grand ruins in many parts
of the country, far beyond the constructive powers of the savage, and
therefore in his eyes the work of giants--as they were intellectually,
in comparison with their degenerate descendants. 4th. From an actual
traditional remembrance of those who built the ruined cities, and
intercourse with comparatively civilized tribes. 5th. From the
existence in primitive times of a race of giants.
Numerous additional sources for each of these traditions might
doubtless be suggested; but those given suffice for illustration, and,
as I have remarked, they are arranged in each case in what would seem
the natural order of probability. The near and natural should always
be preferred to the remote and supernatural; and the fables mentioned
should be referred to Noah's deluge, Asiatic origin, and the existence
of a gigantic race, only when the previous suppositions are proved by
extraneous evidence to be untenable. The early writers on aboriginal
America, using their reason only when it did not conflict with their
faith, reversed the order of probability, and thus greatly impaired
the usefulness of their contributions to history. The supposition
of a purely imaginary origin, common to aboriginal legend and modern
romance, should of course be added to each of the preceding lists, and
generally placed before the last supposition given.
* * * * *
Passing from the wild tribes to the civilized nations of Mexico and
Central America, we find tradition, or what is generally regarded as
such, much more complete and extensive in its scope, less childish
in detail, and with a more clearly defined dividing line between
history and mythology. Theoretically we might expect a higher grade
of tradition among a partially civilized people; but on the other
hand, what need had the Nahuas or Mayas of oral tradition when they
had the art of recording events? In fact, our knowledge of Aztec
and Maya history is not in any proper sense traditional, although
commonly spoken of as such by the writers. Previous to the practice
of the hieroglyphic art--the date of whose invention or introduction
is unknown, but must probably be placed long before the Christian
era--oral tradition was doubtless the only guide to the past; but
the traditions were recorded as soon as the system of picture-writing
was sufficiently perfected to suggest if not to clearly express their
import. After picture-writing came into general use, it is difficult
to imagine that any historical events should have been handed down by
tradition alone. Still in one sense the popular knowledge of the past
among the Mexicans may be called traditional, inasmuch as the written
records of the nation were not in the hands of the people, but were
kept by a class of the priesthood, and may be supposed to have been
read by comparatively few. The contents of the records, however, except
perhaps some religious mysteries which the priests alone comprehended,
were tolerably well known to the educated classes; and when the records
were destroyed by Spanish fanaticism, this general knowledge became the
chief source whence, through the 'talk of the old men,' the earlier
writers drew their information. It is in this light that we must
understand the statement of many able writers, that the greater part
of our knowledge of early American history is traditional, since this
knowledge was not obtained by an actual examination of the records
by the Spaniards, but orally from the people, the upper classes of
whom had themselves read the pictured annals, while the masses were
somewhat familiar through popular chants and plays with their contents.
The value of history faithfully taken from such a source cannot be
doubted, but its vagueness and conflicting statements respecting dates
and details may be best appreciated by questioning intelligent men in
the light of nineteenth century civilization respecting the details
of modern history, withholding the privilege of reference to books or
documents.
[Sidenote: HIEROGLYPHIC RECORDS.]
Of the Nahua hieroglyphic system and its capabilities enough has
been said elsewhere.[II-1] By its aid, from the beginning of the Toltec
period at least, all historical events were recorded that were deemed
worthy of being preserved. The popular knowledge of these events was
perpetuated by means of poems, songs, and plays, and this knowledge was
naturally faulty in dates. The numerous discrepancies which students of
the present day meet at every step in the investigation of aboriginal
annals, result chiefly from the almost total destruction of the painted
records, the carelessness of those who attempted to interpret the few
surviving documents at a time when such a task by native aid ought to
have been feasible, the neglect of the Spanish priesthood in allowing
the art of interpretation to be well-nigh lost, their necessary
reliance for historical information on the popular knowledge above
referred to, and to a certain degree doubtless from their failure to
properly record information thus obtained.
But few native manuscripts have been preserved to the present time,
and only a small part of those few are historical in their nature,
two of the most important having been given in my second volume.[II-2]
Most of the events indicated in such picture-writings as have been
interpreted are also narrated by the early writers from traditional
sources. Thus we see that our knowledge of aboriginal history depends
chiefly on the hieroglyphic records destroyed by the Spaniards, rather
than on the few fragments that escaped such destruction. To documents
that may be found in the future, and to a more careful study of those
now existing, we may look perhaps for much corrective information
respecting dates and other details, but it is not probable that newly
discovered picture-writings or new readings of old ones will extend the
aboriginal annals much farther back into the past. These remarks apply
of course only to the Aztec documents; the Maya records painted on skin
and paper, or inscribed on stone, are yet sealed books, respecting the
nature of whose contents conjecture is vain, but from which the future
may evolve revelations of the greatest importance.
* * * * *
[Sidenote: THE SPANISH WRITERS.]
Closely connected with the consideration of tradition and hieroglyphic
records as authorities for my present subject, is that of the Spanish
and native writers through whom for the most part American traditions,
both hieroglyphically recorded and orally transmitted--in fact, what
was known to the natives at the Conquest of their own past history--are
made known to the modern student. These were Catholic missionaries
and their converts, numerous, zealous, and as a class honest writers.
Through an excess of religious zeal they had caused at the first
irreparable harm by destroying the native records, but later they seem
to have realized to a certain extent their error, and to have done
all in their power to repair its consequences by zealously collecting
such fragments of historical knowledge as had been preserved among
the people. Their works have passed the test of severe criticism,
and the defects of each have been fairly pointed out, exaggerated, or
defended, according to the spirit of the critic; but the agreement of
the different works in general outline, and even their differences in
detail and their petty blunders, show that in their efforts to record
all that could be ascertained of the history of the New World and the
institutions of its people, their leading motive was the discovery
of the truth, although they were swayed like other writers of their
time, and all other times, by the spirit of the age, and by various
religious, political, and personal prejudices.
The prevailing weakness of Spanish writers on America is well
known--their religious enthusiasm and strong attachment to church
dogmas, which, in view of some of its consequences, is pronounced at
least mistaken zeal even by devoted churchmen of the present day. They
believed in the frequent miraculous interposition of God in the work
of converting the native pagans; in the instrumentality of the devil
in the spiritual darkness preceding the Conquest. In their antiquarian
researches a passage of scripture as commented by the Fathers brought
infinitely stronger conviction to their minds than any sculptured
monument, hieroglyphic record, historical tradition, or law of nature.
In short, they were true Catholics of their time.[II-3] The prevalence
of this religious spirit among the only men who had an opportunity
to clear up some of the mysteries of the American past is to be
regretted. They could have done their work much better without its
influence; but, on the other hand, without such a motive as religious
enthusiasm there is little probability that the work would have been
done at all. It is not only in American researches, however, that this
imperfection prevails. As we recede from the present we find men more
and more religious, and religion has ever been an imperious mistress,
brooking no rivalry on the part of reason. Reliance on superstition and
prejudice, rather than facts and reason, is not more noticeable perhaps
in works on ancient America than in other old works. The faith of the
Spaniards renders their conclusions on origin and the earlier periods
of primitive history valueless, but if that were all, the defect would
be of slight importance, for it is not likely that the natives knew
anything of their own origin, and the Spaniards had no means not now
accessible of learning anything on that subject from other sources. We
may well pardon them for finding St Thomas and his Christian teachings
in the Toltec traditions of Quetzalcoatl; the ten lost tribes of Israel
in the American aborigines; Noah's flood and the confusion of tongues
in an Aztec picture of a man floating on the water and a bird speaking
from a tree; provided they have left us a correct version of the
tradition, a true account of the natives and their institutions, and an
accurate copy of the picture referred to. But it is not improbable that
their zeal gave a coloring to some traditions and suppressed others
which furnished no support to the Biblical accounts, and were invented
wholly in the interests of the devil. Fortunately it was chiefly
on the mythological traditions supposed to relate to the creation,
deluge, connection of the Americans with the Old World peoples, and
other very remote events that they exercised their faith, rather than
on historical traditions proper; fortunately, because the matters of
origin and the earliest primitive history were entirely beyond the
reach of such authorities, even had they been represented with the most
perfect accuracy.
The writings of the authors in question were moreover submitted to a
rigorous system of censorship by Spanish councils and tribunals under
the control of the priesthood, without the approval of whose officials
no work could be published. The spirit that animated these censors
was the same as that alluded to above, and their zeal was chiefly
directed to the discovery and expurgation of any lurking anti-Catholic
sentiment. Many valuable works were doubtless suppressed, but such
of them as were preserved in manuscript, or those whose contents have
since been made known, have not proved that the censors directed their
efforts against anything but heterodoxy and unfavorable criticism of
Spanish dealings with the natives.
Spanish credulity accepted as facts many things which modern reason
pronounces absurd; shall we therefore reject all statements that
rest on Spanish authority? 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 imaginary gods? Should we deny the historical value
of the Old Testament records because they tell of Jonah swallowed by
a whale, and the sun ordered to stand still? Do we refuse to accept
the occurrences of modern Mexican history because many of the ablest
Mexican writers apparently believe in the apparition of Nuestra Señora
de Guadalupe? 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 deemed 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 character and
with the interpretation of the native hieroglyphics. To pronounce all
these works deliberately executed forgeries, as a few modern writers
have done, is too absurd to require refutation.
The writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who derived
their information from original sources, and on whose works all that
has been written subsequently is founded, comprise, 1st, the conquerors
themselves, chiefly Cortés, Diaz del Castillo, and the Anonymous
Conqueror, whose writings only touch incidentally upon a few points of
ancient history. 2d. The first missionaries who were sent from Spain
to supplement the achievements of Cortés by spiritual conquests. Such
were José de Acosta, Bernardino Sahagun, Bartolomé de Las Casas, Juan
de Torquemada, Diego Duran, Gerónimo de Mendieta, Toribio de Benavente
(Motolinia), Diego García de Palacio, Didaco Valades, and Alonzo de
Zurita. Of these Torquemada is the most complete and comprehensive,
so far as aboriginal history is concerned, furnishing an immense
mass of material drawn from native sources, very badly arranged and
written. Duran also devotes a large portion of his work[II-4] to history,
confining himself chiefly, however, to the annals of the Aztecs. The
other authorities named, although containing full accounts of the
natives and their institutions, devote comparatively little space
to historical traditions; Sahagun is the best authority of all, so
far as his observations go in this direction. All have been printed,
either in the original Spanish or in translations, except Las Casas,
whose great historical works exist only in manuscript. 3d. The native
writers who after their conversion acquired the Spanish language and
wrote on the history of their people, either in Spanish or in their own
language, employing the Spanish alphabet. Most of them were thoroughly
imbued with the spirit of their converters, and their writings as
a class are subject to the same criticism. Domingo Muñoz Camargo,
a noble Tlascaltec, wrote, about 1585, a history of his own people,
which has been published only in a French translation. Fernando de
Alvarado Tezozomoc, descended from the royal family of Azcapuzalco,
wrote the chronicles of Mexican history from the standpoint of the
Tepanecs, represented at the time of the Conquest by the kingdom of
Tlacopan. Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl was a grandson of the last
king of Tezcuco, from whom he inherited all that were saved of the
records in the public archives. His works are more extensive than
those of any other native writer, covering the whole ground of Nahua
history, although treating more particularly of the Chichimecs, his
ancestors.[II-5]
[Sidenote: SECONDARY AUTHORITIES.]
In this class should be included the reported but little known
writings of Juan Ventura Zapata y Mendoza, Tadeo de Niza, and Alonzo
Franco.[II-6] There are also many manuscripts by native authors whose
names are unknown, brought to light by comparatively recent
researches, and preserved for the most part in the Brasseur and Aubin
collections in Paris. Their contents are unknown except through the
writings of the Abbé Brasseur. The Popol Vuh is another important
document, of which there are extant a Spanish and a French
translation. 4th. Spanish authors who passed their lives mostly in
Spain, and wrote chiefly under royal appointment. Their information
was derived from the writers already mentioned, from the official
correspondence of the colonists, and from the narratives of returning
adventurers. Most of them touched upon aboriginal history among other
topics. To this class belonged Peter Martyr, Francisco Lopez de
Gomara, Antonio de Herrera, and Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés.
5th. Catholic priests and missionaries who founded or were in charge
of the missions at later periods or in remote regions, as Yucatan,
Guatemala, Chiapas, Oajaca, Michoacan, and the north-western provinces
of New Spain. They wrote chiefly in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, and treat principally of the conversion of the natives, but
include also in many cases their historical traditions and their
explanations of the few aboriginal documents that fell into the
possession of the converts. The number of such works is very great,
and many of them have never been printed. Among the most important
writers of this class are Diego de Landa, Diego Lopez Cogolludo, Padre
Lizana, and Juan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, on Yucatan; Ramon de
Ordoñez y Aguiar,[II-7] Fuentes y Guzman,[II-8] F. E. Arana,[II-9]
Francisco García Pelaez,[II-10] and Domingo Juarros, on Guatemala;
Francisco Nuñez de la Vega,[II-11] Francisco Ximenez,[II-12] and
Antonio de Remesal, on Chiapas; Ribas, Alegre, and Arricivita on the
north-western provinces; and Francisco de Burgoa on Oajaca. To the
above should be added the regular records kept in all the missions,
and the numerous letters and reports of the missionaries in distant
provinces, many of which have been preserved, and not a few printed.
There may also be included in this class the writings of some later
Mexican authors, such as Boturini, Sigüenza y Góngora, Veytia, Leon y
Gama, and Clavigero. Their works were mostly founded on the
information supplied by their predecessors, which they did much to
arrange and classify, but they also had access to some original
authorities not previously used. Clavigero is almost universally
spoken of as the best writer on the subject, but it is probable that
he owes his reputation much more to his systematic arrangement and
clear narration of traditions that had before been greatly confused,
and to the omission of the most perplexing and contradictory points,
than to deep research or new discoveries.
The preceding classes include all the original authorities, that is,
all founded on information not accessible to later writers. These
works have been the foundation of all that has been written since,
except what has been developed from linguistic and other scientific
researches. All that modern authors have done may be followed step by
step, their facts as well as their conclusions.
Of the secondary authorities already alluded to, the condition and
institutions of the natives, with the material relics of their past,
not much need be said. It is only indirectly by means of comparisons
that these authorities can help us in the study of history. How
little they can teach unaided is illustrated in the case of the wild
tribes, for whose history they are practically the only authorities.
In Mexico and Central America the state of civilization as shown in
native art, religion, government, or manners and customs, may indicate
by resemblances or dissimilarities a connection or want of it between
the different civilized tribes, and may thus corroborate or modify
their written annals; it may even throw some light on the unity or
diversity of its own origin by showing the nature of the connection
between the Nahua and Maya cultures, in which striking resemblances
as well as contrasts are observed. Outside of the regions mentioned,
where there were no tangible records, we can only search among the
wilder tribes for points of likeness by which to attach their past to
that of the civilized nations. It may be foreseen that the results of
such a search will be but meagre and unsatisfactory, yet on several
important branches of the subject, such as the relation borne by the
Mound-Builders and Pueblos to the southern nations, it furnishes our
only light.
[Sidenote: LANGUAGE AS A HISTORICAL AUTHORITY.]
Of the historical aids now under consideration, ethnology proper,
the study of physical and mental characteristics, has yielded and
promises apparently the least important results. In fact, as has
been already pointed out in another part of this work, it has hardly
acquired the right to be classed among the sciences, so far as its
application to the American people is concerned. Theoretically it
may, in a more perfect state of development than now exists, throw
some light on the route and order of American migrations, possibly
on the question of origin; thus far, however, ethnological studies
have been practically fruitless. Results obtained from a comparison
of the miscellaneous arts and customs of various tribes have likewise
furnished and will continue to furnish but very slight assistance in
historical investigations. Resemblances and dissimilarities in these
respects depend intimately on environment, which in comparatively
short periods works the most striking changes. Strongly marked
analogies are noted in tribes that never came in contact with each
other, while contrasts as marked appear in people but a short time
separated. Under the same circumstances, after all, men do about the
same things, the mind originating like inventions; and coincidences
in arts and customs, unless of an extraordinary nature, may be more
safely attributed to an independent origin resulting from environment,
than to international identity or connection. That language is by far
the best of these secondary authorities is conceded by all. No better
proof of relationship between native tribes can be desired than the
fact that they speak the same language, or dialects showing clear
verbal and constructive resemblances. The most prominent abuse of this
authority has been a disposition to connect the past of tribes in whose
languages slight and forced verbal similarities are pointed out. There
is also some difference of opinion about the use of the authority.
That two tribes speaking the same languages or similar dialects have
had a common origin, or have at least been intimately connected in the
past, as tribes, is evident; but how far back that origin or connection
may extend, whether it may reach back through the ages to the first
division of the human race, or even to the first subdivision of the
American peoples, is a disputed point. Fortunately the doubts that have
been raised concern chiefly the question of origin, which for other
reasons cannot yet be settled.[II-13]
Having thus given a sketch of the sources to which we may look for
all that is known and has been conjectured respecting the American
past, I shall proceed to place before the reader in the remaining
chapters of my work what these authorities reveal on the subject. I
have not, I believe, exaggerated their value, but fully comprehend the
unsubstantial character which must be attributed to many of them. I am
well aware that aboriginal American history, like the ancient Egyptian
and Hebrew annals, differs materially in its nature and degree of
accuracy from the history of England since the expedition of William
the Conqueror, or of Mexico since the Conquest by Hernan Cortés. I do
not propose to record such events only as may be made to conform to the
modern idea of chronologic exactitude, rejecting all else as fabulous
and mythic. Were such my purpose, a chapter on the subject already
given in the second volume would suffice, with some contraction for
the earlier epochs, and a corresponding expansion, perhaps, for Aztec
history during the century immediately preceding the Conquest. On the
contrary, I shall tell the tale as I find it recorded, mingled as it
doubtless is at many points with myth and fable, and shall recount,
as others have done, the achievements of heroes that possibly never
lived, the wanderings of tribes who never left their original homes.
It is not in a spirit of real or feigned credulity that I adopt this
course,--on the contrary, I wish to clearly discriminate between fact
and fancy wherever such discrimination may be possible, and so far as
an extensive study of my subject may enable me to do so--but it is in
accordance with the general plan of the whole work to record all that
is found, rejecting only what may be proven false and valueless rather
than what may possibly be so.
[Sidenote: TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT.]
I have compared the American past to a dark sea, from the bluff coast
line of which projects an occasional cape terminating in precipitous
cliffs, quicksands, and sunken rocks, beyond which some faint lights
are floated by buoys. The old authors, as Torquemada, Clavigero, and
Veytia, had but little difficulty in crossing from the headlands to the
tower of Babel beyond the Sea of Darkness; they told the story, fables
and all, with little discrimination save here and there the rejection
of a tale infringing apparently on orthodoxy, or the expression of
a doubt as to the literal acceptation of some marvelous occurrence.
Of modern authors, those who, like Wilson, refuse to venture upon
the projecting capes of solid rock and earth, who utterly reject the
Aztec civilization with all its records, are few, and at this day
their writings may be considered as unworthy of serious notice. Other
writers, of whom Gallatin is a specimen, venture boldly from the main
coast to the extremity of each projecting point, and acknowledge the
existence of the rocks, sands, and buoys beyond, but decline to attempt
their passage, doubting their security. These men, in favor of whose
method there is much to be said, accept the annals of the later Aztec
periods, but look with distrust upon the traditions of the Chichimec,
Toltec, and Olmec epochs; and hardly see in the far distance the
twinkling floating lights that shine from Votan's Empire of Xibalba.
Then there are writers who are continually dreaming they have found
secure footing by routes previously unknown, from rock to rock and
through the midst of shifting sands. Such are the advocates of special
theories of American history resting on newly discovered authorities
or new readings of old ones. They carefully sift out such mythic
traditions as fit their theories, converting them into incontrovertible
facts, and reject all else as unworthy of notice; these, however,
have chiefly to do with the matter of origin. Finally, I may speak
of Brasseur de Bourbourg, rather a class by himself, perhaps, than
the representative of a class. This author, to speak with a degree
of exaggeration, steps out without hesitation from rock to rock over
the deep waters; to him the banks of shifting quicksand, if somewhat
treacherous about the edges, are firm land in the central parts; to
him the faintest buoy-supported stars are a blaze of noon-day sun; and
only on the floating masses of sea-weed far out on the waters lighted
up by dim phosphorescent reflections, does he admit that his footing is
becoming insecure and the light grows faint. In other words, he accepts
the facts recorded by preceding authors, arranges them often with
great wisdom and discrimination, ingeniously finds a historic record
in traditions by others regarded as pure fables, and thus pushes his
research far beyond the limits previously reached. He rejects nothing,
but transforms everything into historic facts.
In the present sketch I wish to imitate to a certain extent the writers
of each class mentioned, except perhaps the specialists, for I have
no theory to defend, have found no new bright sun to illumine what
has ever been dark. With the Spanish writers I would tell all that
the natives told as history, and that without constantly reminding the
reader that the sun did not probably stand still in the heavens, that
giants did not flourish in America, that the Toltec kings and prophets
did not live to the age of several hundred years, and otherwise
warning him against what he is in no danger whatever of accepting
as truth. With Wilson and his class of antiquarian sceptics I would
feel no hesitation in rejecting the shallow theories and fancies
evolved by certain writers from their own brain. With Gallatin I wish
to discriminate clearly, when such discrimination is called for and
possible, between the historic and the probably mythic; to indicate
the boundary between firm land and treacherous quicksand; but also
like Brasseur, I would pass beyond the firm land, spring from rock
to rock, wade through shifting sands, swim to the farthest, faintest,
light, and catch at straws by the way;--yet not flatter myself while
thus employed, as the abbé occasionally seems to do, that I am treading
dry-shod on a wide, solid, and well-lighted highway.
FOOTNOTES:
[II-1] Vol. ii., pp. 523-52.
[II-2] pp. 544-9.
[II-3] The fact that they were Spaniards and Catholics is enough to
condemn them with critics of a certain class, of which Adair may be
quoted as an example: 'I lay little stress upon Spanish testimonies,
for time and ocular proof have convinced us of the labored falsehood
of almost all their historical narrations.... They were so divested of
those principles inherent to honest enquirers after truth, that they
have recorded themselves to be a tribe of prejudiced bigots.' _Amer.
Ind._, p. 197.
[II-4] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España_, MS. of 1588, folio, 3
volumes. A part of this work has recently been printed in Mexico. I
have a manuscript copy made by Mr C. A. Spofford from that existing in
the Congressional Library in Washington.
[II-5] Ixtlilxochitl has been the subject of much criticism favorable
and otherwise. The verdict of the best authors seems to be that he
wrote honestly, compiling from authentic documents in his possession,
but carelessly, especially in the matter of chronology which presents
contradictions on nearly every page. Even Wilson, _Conq. Mex._, pp.
23, 61, who stigmatizes as liars all the early writers on this
subject, admits that Alva lies elegantly, and has written an able
though fictitious narrative. Carelessness in dates and a disposition
to unduly exalt his own race and family, are the most glaring faults
of this author, and are observable also to a certain extent in all the
native historians.
[II-6] _Veytia_, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. ii., p. 91; _Clavigero_,
_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i., p. 10; _Brasseur de Bourbourg_,
_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii., p. 196.
[II-7] _Historia de la Creacion del Cielo y de la Tierra, conforme al
Sistema de la gentilidad Americana._
[II-8] _Recopilacion Florida de la Historia del Reyno de Guatemala_,
MS. in the Guatemalan Archives.
[II-9] _Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan_, a history of the Cakchiquel
Kingdom, MS. discovered by Brasseur.
[II-10] _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala._
Guatemala, 1852.
[II-11] _Constituciones Diocesanas del Obispado de Chiappas._ Rome,
1702.
[II-12] Vol. iii. of a History of Chiapas and Guatemala, found by
Scherzer at the University of San Carlos. See _Ximenez_, _Hist. Ind.
Guat._, pp. viii., xiii.
[II-13] Languages, 'the most ancient historical monuments of nations.'
'If in the philosophical study of the structure of languages, the
analogy of a few roots acquires value only when they can be
geographically connected together, neither is the want of resemblance
in roots any very strong proof against the common origin of nations.'
_Humboldt's Pers. Nar._, vol. v., pp. 143, 293. Language, 'which
usually exhibits traces of its origin, even when the science and
literature, that are embodied in it, have widely diverged.'
_Prescott's Mex._, vol. iii., p. 394. 'In the absence of historical
evidence, language is the best test of consanguinity; there are
reasons why climate should alter the physical character, but it does
not appear that the language would be materially affected by such
local influence.' _Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man_, vol. i., p. xvi.
'Efectivamente, la historia por sí sola nada nos descubre acerca del
orígen de las naciones, muy poco nos enseña sobre la mezcla y
confusion de las razas, casi nada nos dice de las emigraciones de los
pueblos, mientras todo esto lo esplica admirablemente el análisis y la
investigacion del filólogo.' _Pimentel_, _Discurso_, in _Soc. Mex.
Geog., Boletin_, tom. viii., pp. 367-8. 'The problem of the common
origin of languages has no necessary connection with the problem of
the common origin of mankind.... The science of language and the
science of Ethnology have both suffered most severely from being mixed
up together. The classification of races and languages, should be
quite independent of each other. Races may change their language and
history supplies us with several instances where one race adopted the
language of another. Different languages, therefore, may be spoken by
different races; so that any attempt at squaring the classification of
races and tongues must necessarily fail.' _Müller's Science of Lang._,
vol. i., pp. 326-7.