DIVERSITY OF OPINION AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT
AMERICANS.
Conflict of Discovery and Dogmatism — Antipodes — Arabic Learning
in the 8th Century — Spirit of Early Writers on America —
Common Opinion as to the Origin of the Americans — Father Duran
— Lost Tribes of Israel — Garcia — Lascarbot — Villagutierre
— Torquemada — Pineda, etc. — Abbé Domenech — Modern Views —
Pre-Columbian Colonization — Plato’s Atlantis — Kingsborough
— The Book of Mormon — Phœnicians — George Jones — Greek
and Egyptian Theories — The Tartars — Japanese and Chinese
Theories — Fusang — The Mongol Theory — Traces of Buddhism —
White-Man’s Land — The Northmen — The Welsh Claim.
Various perplexing problems presented themselves to the minds of
the discoverers of the new continent for solution, as well as to
their immediate successors, which were greatly intensified by the
dogmatic teaching of the times. The status of science in the Middle
Ages was defined from time to time by some ecclesiastical utterance
without any reference to the phenomena of nature or the revelations
of accidental discovery. We say accidental, for no designed or
systematic investigation was so much as tolerated, much less encouraged
by friendly recognition. This unfortunate antagonism to progress
had its foundation chiefly in ignorance, and its origin in the
misinterpretation and perversion of Sacred Scripture.
Two questions, especially in view of the dogmatic utterances of the
day, presented grave difficulties to the minds of the discoverers and
their successors in the New World. “Is the world a sphere?” “Are the
Inhabitants of the Indias of a common origin with the rest of mankind?”
These were the most serious problems that forced themselves upon
their consideration. As long ago as 280 B. C., the investigations of
Aristarchus of Samos, though not accepted by antiquity, suggested an
affirmative answer to the first question. But the Fathers of the Church
had spoken authoritatively on this subject at quite an early day, and
consequently left no room for speculation. St. Augustine discusses the
question as follows: “But as to the fable that there are antipodes,
that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun
rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours,
that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that
this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific
conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the cavity
of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on
the other; hence they say that the part which is beneath us must also
be inhabited. But they do not remark that although it be supposed or
scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical
form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare
of water; or even though it be bare, does it immediately follow that
it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical
statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false
information; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have taken
ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this world to
the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region
are descended from that one first man.”[156]
Though, during the kalifate of Al-Mamoun (A. D. 813–833) Arabic
learning had well-nigh demonstrated the globular form of the earth
and determined its circumference, according to their measurements,
to be about 24,000 miles, still not a man in Christendom ventured
to advocate the theory for almost half a dozen centuries, such was
the power of the ban put upon investigation which ran counter to the
pre-expressed opinions of a dark age. The theories of Tascanelli and
the observations of Columbus on the polar star prepared the way for the
great triumph achieved by De Gama in 1497–8, in his voyage around the
Cape of Good Hope; and the question of the globular form of the earth
was forever set at rest twenty-two years afterwards by the voyage of
Magellan.[157] When it was definitely determined that America was a
continent of itself and not the eastern extremity of India, the fact
that it was inhabited gave rise to speculations which have since been
often repeated. Through an unaccountable misapprehension, not only
the questions of the origin of the Americans, but the manner of their
separation from the rest of the race, together with the routes they
pursued in reaching the new world—all were thought to be capable of
solution by the light of Scripture. The education of the early writers
enables us to account for the intolerance with which they looked upon
any other solution of the problem than that which alone would conform
to the teachings of the church.[158]
It is true that the natural nobility of character possessed by such
writers as Las Casas, Duran and a few others, tempered the fanaticism
which had been inculcated by education, and enabled them to furnish
invaluable information concerning the real condition and traditions
of the so-called Indians. But, upon the other hand, there were great
numbers of blind, unscrupulous ecclesiastics who either destroyed
outright the manuscripts and picture-writing of the natives, committing
them to the flames, or so warping tradition in order that it might
conform to their mistaken theology, that in many cases the most
precious information is irretrievably lost. Such men could hardly be
expected to have treated calmly and with any degree of liberality
the question before us—one which has so often been asked, but as yet
never satisfactorily answered, and one which in the present state of
knowledge cannot be.[159]
The unanimity with which the most celebrated writers on the Americans
during three centuries following the discovery, fixed upon a solution
of the problem, will be best illustrated in the following pages: One
of the most ingenious and at the same time most calmly expressed
opinions on the origin problem is that recorded by Father Duran, a
native of Tezcuco in Mexico, in his _History of New Spain_, written in
the year 1585.[160] He was convinced that the natives had a foreign
origin, and that they performed a long journey of many years duration
in their migration to the new world. He arrived at these conclusions
on account of several considerations, some of which are as follows:
The natives had no definite knowledge of their origin, some claiming
to have proceeded from fountains and springs of water, others that
they were natives of certain caves, and others that they were created
by the gods, while all admit that they had come from other lands.
Furthermore, they preserved in their traditions and pictures the memory
of a journey in which they had suffered hunger, thirst, nakedness and
all manner of afflictions, “with which,” he adds, “my opinion and
supposition is confirmed that these natives are of the ten tribes of
Israel that Salmanasar, king of the Assyrians, made prisoners and
carried to Assyria in the time of Hoshea, king of Israel, and in the
time of Hezekiah, king of Jerusalem, as can be seen in the fourth
Book of the Kings, seventeenth chapter, where it says that Israel
was carried away from their land to Assyria, etc., from whence, says
Esdras, in Book Fourth, chapter third, they went to live in a land,
remote and separated, which had never been inhabited, to which they
had a long and tedious journey of a year and a half, for which reason
it is supposed these people are found in all the islands and lands of
the ocean constituting the Occident.”[161] The preceding opinion was
concurred in by many Spanish writers; but the first English writer
to support the theory was Thorowgood, in his work entitled, _Jewes in
America_.[162] L’Estrange, who replied to this work, controverted the
theory of the lost tribes of Israel, but concluded that Shem was the
progenitor of the Americans; that he was ninety-eight years old at the
time of the flood, and was not present at the building of Babel.[163]
“Thus far,” he quaintly remarks, “have I offered my week conceptions,
first, how America may be collected to have bin first planted, not
denying the Jewes leave to goe into America, but not admitting them
to be the chief or prime planters thereof, for I am of opinion, that
the Americans originated before the captivity of the ten tribes, even
from Shem’s near progeny.”[164] Garcia presents an argument in favor
of the same theory, based upon the presence of Scripture names in Peru
and Yucatan. He is positive that the word Peru has the same meaning
as Ophir, the name of the grandson of Heber, from whom the Hebrews
derive their name. In Yucatan he also finds the name Ioctan, identical
with that of Ophir’s father.[165] However, with a determination not
to be surpassed by any other theorist who might assume the unity
of the race as the basis of his conjectures, he offers a plan for
populating the new world so comprehensive that no room was left for
originality in any who might follow him in the same field. Hispaniola,
Cuba and neighboring isles, he believed to have been peopled by the
Carthaginians. The natives of other parts proceeded from the ten
lost tribes; others from the people whom Ophir commanded to colonize
Peru; others from the people living in the isle Atlantis; others from
regions adjoining that island, and by means of it passed to America;
others from the Greeks; others from the Phœnicians, and still others
from the Chinese and Tartars.[166] Lescarbot cites five opinions on
the subject, all based more or less on scriptural authority, and adds
his own that the Americans were the descendants of Noah. He thinks it
not impossible for voyagers to have reached the western continent when
Solomon’s ships were sent on voyages of three years’ duration.[167]
Herrera, with characteristic soberness, states that because of the lack
of knowledge concerning the proximity of the continents at the “ends of
the earth” he is unable to say positively from whom the natives were
descended, but it seems most reasonable to him to suppose that they are
the descendants of men who passed to the West Indies by the proximity
of the land.[168] Villagutierre reiterates the same opinion, believing
that Noah’s descendants were able to reach the new world either by land
in some unknown quarter, or by swimming, or by embarking in canoes
and balsas, for short distances. He supposes that animals reached the
new continent in the first two ways.[169] Torquemada, after a long
discussion of the subject, falls in with this view, adding, however,
the opinion that, because of their color, they in all probability
were descended from the sons and grandsons of Ham.[170] Pineda adopts
substantially the preceding opinion, but improves upon it somewhat by
pointing out the particular branch of the family of Ham, to which we
may trace the origin of the first Americans. For some reason, perhaps
no more apparent to himself than us, he designates Naphtuhim, son of
Mezraim and grandson of Ham, as their progenitor. He thinks that the
colonization was accomplished soon after the confusion of tongues, and
may have been effected in any of the numerous ways we have previously
mentioned. He cites the tradition of Votan as a proof.[171] Siguenza
y Gongora and Sister Agnes de la Cruz, according to Clavigero, were
the authors of this opinion, who further designated Egypt as the
starting-point for that important expedition of colonists.[172]
Echevarria y Veitia treats the subject fully, tracing it through the
traditions of the people. He cites their creation and flood myths,
their account of the building of the Tower of Babel and the confusion
of tongues, their dispersion upon the face of the earth, and the
passage of seven families to the new world (to _Hue hue Tlappalan_)
by means of balsas, with which they crossed rivers and arms of the
sea which they encountered in their journey. Though minute in his
details, he does nothing more in this respect than other important
writers to whom we shall refer in a further chapter, except that his
computations by means of the Mexican calendar have enabled him to
assign dates to some of these occurrences, which, though they probably
are not accurate, are at least interesting. His study of the Mexican
paintings convinces him that the natives had a foreign origin.[173]
The same author in a part of his work refers to the giants as the
first inhabitants of the country, but fails to state whether they came
from the old world or not.[174] Ulloa thinks Noah’s long and aimless
voyage in the ark was not without fruit to the science of navigation.
It gave confidence to his immediate descendants, who no doubt were
enterprising enough to construct similar vessels and undertake voyages
in them. These, falling in with adverse winds and treacherous currents,
were driven to strange islands and even to the new world, and being
unable to return, became the first colonists in these remote regions.
He thinks the custom of eating raw fish, common to the American
tribes, was acquired during long sea voyages.[175] The Abbé Domenech’s
opinion has been cited by Mr. Bancroft in his summary of the views of
this class of writers; we presume, however, only for the amusement of
the reader.[176] The Abbé, less than a score of years ago, committed
himself to the ludicrous and antiquated theory that Ophir had colonized
Peru.[177] Clavigero considers the creation, flood, and Babel myths
of the natives sufficient evidence of unity of origin. He, however,
believes that the migration to this continent began at a very early
period.[178]
These few writers pretty well represent the opinions of their numerous
contemporaries who, though they wrote voluminously enough on this
subject, added nothing to what we have noted. The opinions of modern
writers are as diverse as those of Garcia, and only surpass him in the
ingenuity with which they press their favorite theories. Very little
has been done in this field with a true scientific spirit. Each has
been an advocate rather than an inquirer; has had his theory to prove
sometimes at the expense of reason and fact, and it is remarkable that
the majority of works written by such advocates have presented the
familiar anomaly of more learning than of probability. It is scarcely
the province of this work to discuss these well-known productions of
imaginative and too often credulous writers. To more than refer to them
would be to lose sight for the time of the object before us.
The claims for the Pre-Columbian colonization of this continent of
course include most of those already mentioned, and properly are
of two classes: First, those which fix the period of colonization
remote enough to account for the old civilization or some phases of
it. Second, those which avowedly are too recent to have accomplished
that civilization. Of the first-named class there are about a dozen
thoroughly elaborated claims, while of the second there are less
than half that number. Mr. Warden years ago treated them all in a
manner and with a fullness which has not been excelled by any more
recent writer.[179] Though it is due to Mr. Bancroft to say that
never before has the subject been so exhaustively handled in our own
language as by him.[180] As nothing new has been developed in this
field of speculation since Mr. Bancroft, and we might add since Mr.
Warden treated it, and as nothing could be contributed either to
the sciences of ethnology or archæology by a repetition of the old
discussion here, for we have our doubts whether any of the claims can
ever be substantiated at all, we will content ourselves with the simple
enumeration of the theories. A theory which rivals in antiquity, if
Egyptian chronology is reliable, the claims of the Fathers that the
immediate descendants of Noah peopled the new world shortly after the
deluge, is that which seeks to establish the truth of the tradition
told to Solon by the Egyptian priests of Psenophis, Sonchis, Heliopolis
and Sais concerning the ancient island Atlantis. Critias, whose
grandfather had heard the tradition from Solon, communicated it to
Socrates. Plato first committed it to writing, and states that the
events which it described occurred nine thousand Egyptian years before
Solon heard it. After speaking of the “Atlantic Sea,” the priest adds
“that sea was indeed navigable, and had an island fronting that mouth
which you call the Pillars of Hercules; and this island was larger
than Libya and Asia put together, and there was a passage hence for
travellers of that day to the rest of the islands, as well as from
those islands to the whole opposite continent that surrounds the real
sea. For as respects what is within the mouth here mentioned, it
appears to be a bay with a kind of narrow entrance, and that sea is
indeed a true sea, and the land that entirely surrounds it may truly
and most correctly be called a continent.” The priest concludes his
account with the statement that an earthquake in a single night buried
the entire island and its inhabitants. This mysterious island has been
sought for in every quarter of the globe; but the fact that part of
the description seems applicable to the West Indies and the Gulf of
Mexico, has led theorists to place its submerged shores between that
locality and the Cape Verde or Canary groups. It is claimed that this
imaginary land bridge, this backbone of earth and rock, may have once
been the connecting link between the two continents. The claim has had
many champions, but none so celebrated as the lamented Abbé Brasseur
de Bourbourg. The labors of this learned Américaniste are too well
known to require comment.[181] The Codex Chimalpopoca, a Nahua MS. of
anonymous authorship, which served the Abbé as the chief authority
for the Toltec Period of his _Histoire des Nations Civilisées_, is the
basis upon which he rests the advocacy of his “Atlantic Theory.” This
singular Codex, which appears to the eyes of the uninitiated to be
only “A History of the Kingdoms of Culhuacan and Mexico,” he considers
susceptible of an allegorical interpretation, in which he reads the
history and fate of that first of the continents, on whose soil
originated all civilization and whose inhabitants were the genii of the
arts, the origin of which are without even a tradition.[182]
The popularity of the Jewish theory at an early date has been indicated
by our citations from some of the Spanish missionaries. Garcia, after
a seven years residence in Peru, wrote his work for the purpose of
proving conclusively that the Jews had been the chief colonists of
the continent at an early date. He elaborated the argument set forth
by Father Duran,[183] which is founded on passages in Esdras, but
proceeded to prop up this theory with a catalogue of analogies between
the Jews and Americans, some of which are so remote from each other
that the very attempt to assimilate them is simply puerile. Garcia
has had many disciples, some of whom have been no more critical than
himself.[184] The illustrious advocate of the Jewish colonization of
America was that indefatigable antiquary, Lord Kingsborough. No more
masterly, no abler and more exhaustive defence was ever made in behalf
of a hopeless and even baseless claim than his; and as the result, the
historian and antiquary has placed at his disposal fac-simile prints
of most of the important hieroglyphic MSS. of Mexican authorship
deposited in the various libraries of Europe, as well as pictures
of the architecture and stone records common to ancient America.
We must confess that the work itself, with its curious plates, its
maze of notes and references, its masterly and novel discoveries of
analogies, though many of them are imaginary, is to us, after prolonged
examination, as much of a riddle as the great and improbable theory
which it seeks to establish.[185] Closely allied to the theory of the
ten lost tribes, is the claim set forth in that pretentious fraud, the
Book of Mormon, which attributes the colonization of North America,
soon after the confusion of tongues, to a people called Jaredites, who,
by divine guidance, reached our shores in eight vessels, and developed
a high state of civilization on our soil. These first colonists,
however, became extinct about six centuries B.C., because of their
social sins. The Jaredites were followed by a second colony, this time
of Israelites, who left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of
Zedekiah, King of Juda. They reached the Indian Ocean by following the
shores of the Red Sea, where they built a vessel which bore them across
the Pacific to the western coast of South America. Having arrived
in the new land of promise, they separated into two parties, called
Nephites and Laminites respectively, after their leaders. They grew to
be great nations and colonized North America also. Religious strife
sprang up between the two nations because of the wickedness of the
Laminites; the Nephites, however, adhered to their religious traditions
and the worship of the true God. Christ appeared in the new world
and by his ministrations converted many of both peoples to Him. But
towards the close of the fourth century of our era, both Laminites and
Nephites backslid in faith and became involved in a war with each other
which resulted in the extermination of the latter people. The numerous
tumuli scattered over the face of the country cover the remains of the
hundreds of thousands of warriors who fell in their deadly strife.
Mormon and his son Morani, the last of the Nephites who escaped by
concealment, deposited by divine command the annals of their ancestors,
the Book of Mormon written on tablets, in the hill of Cumorah, Ontario
County, New York, in the vicinity of which the last battle of these
relentless enemies took place.[186] The claim, of course, merits
mention only on the ground of its romantic character, and not on
the supposition for a moment that it contains a grain of truth. The
Phœnician and Carthaginian colonization of this continent has been much
discussed and credited by a larger number of Americanists than any
other theory, except that which refers the original population to those
parts of Asia adjacent to Alaska. This claim is based on the maritime
achievements of that nation of navigators. The three-year voyages of
Hiram and Solomon’s fleet to Ophir and Tarshish, has often been made to
do service for this theory. Ophir has most frequently been placed by
its advocates in Hayti or Peru.[187] Such speculations, however, are
incapable of proof, and are scarcely deserving of sober consideration.
The theory itself is one of the few that command respectful attention,
since tradition, history, and many facts in natural science, seem to
point to its probability.[188] Mr. Bancroft refers at some length to
the voyage of Hanno, a Carthaginian navigator, whose exploits beyond
the pillars of Hercules, with a fleet of sixty ships and thirty
thousand men, is recorded in his _Periplus_.[189] With true critical
insight, Mr. Bancroft rejects the opinion that Hanno reached America,
and thinks he only coasted along the shores of Africa.[190] The only
tradition preserved by the Americans is that of the mysterious Votan,
whom some have sought to assign to a Phœnician nativity.[191] Of late
years the theory of the Phœnician colonization has failed to receive
its share of support from new writers. This is owing probably to the
fact that the labors of Mr. George Jones, embodied in his _Original
History of Ancient America Founded on the Ruins of Antiquity; the
Identity of the Aborigines with the People of Tyrus and Israel, and the
Introduction of Christianity by the Apostle St. Thomas_,[192] may have
rendered all such support unnecessary. It is more probable, however,
that the assumption and credulity displayed in this extraordinary
work have discouraged any critical writer from aspiring to the honor
of having his name transmitted to posterity as an advocate of the
Phœnician theory, side by side with that of the author of the Original
History. We have no space to devote to so positive a writer, except
to state that he colonizes America with a remnant of the inhabitants
of Tyre who escaped from their island-city when it was besieged by
Alexander the Great in 332 B. C. They sailed out beyond the Pillars of
Hercules to their colonies in the Canaries, whence the trade-winds bore
them across the Atlantic to the shores of Florida. Ezekiel xxvii. 26,
is quoted as proof: “Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters;
the east wind hath broken thee in the midst of the seas.”[193] The
theory that the ancient Americans descended from the Greeks has been
incidentally advocated by several authors, most of the arguments being
based upon supposed Greek inscriptions. Two advocates of the theory
are, however, quite decided in its defence, namely, Mr. Pidegeon[194]
and Mr. Lafitau.[195] The latter believing that the ancient
inhabitants of the Grecian archipelago were driven from their country
by Og, king of Bashan, supposes the inhabitants of the new world
descended from that people, and cites numerous analogies of a political
and social nature.[196] No claim has been advanced, we believe, which
advocates an actual Egyptian colonization of the new world, but strong
arguments have been used to show that the architecture and sculpture
of Central America and Mexico have been influenced from Egypt, if
not attributable directly to Egyptian artisans. These arguments are
based on the resemblance between the gigantic pyramids, the sculptured
obelisks, and the numerous idols of these pre-historic countries and
those of Egypt. It requires no practised eye to trace a resemblance in
general features, though it must be said that the details of American
architecture and sculpture, are peculiarly original in design.[197]
The principal advocate of the theory, Delafield, has furnished many
comparisons, but we think no argument has been presented sufficiently
supported by facts to prove that American architecture and sculpture
had any other than an indigenous origin.[198] Turning westward our
attention is arrested by the probability of the theory which claims
that this continent was peopled with the Tartars and nations occupying
the regions of North-western Asia. No one can consider the natural
certainty of long-continued communication between the two continents
at Behring’s Straits without being impressed with the truth that that
narrow channel served probably as the first highway between the old
world and the new, and _vice versa_. Certainly a part of the ancient
population of America came upon our soil at that quarter. Mr. Bancroft
remarks: “The customs, manner of life, and physical appearance of the
natives on both sides of the straits are identical, as a multitude
of witnesses testify, and it seems absurd to argue the question from
any point. Of course, Behring’s Strait may have served to admit other
nations besides the people inhabiting its shores into America, and
in such cases there is more room for discussion.”[199] Nearly as
plausible is the theory which claims that if the original population
of this continent were not Japanese, at least a considerable infusion
of Japanese blood into the original stock has taken place from time to
time, either by intentional colonization or by the accidents incident
to navigation. The great number of shipwrecks which are continually
being cast upon our Pacific coast by the Japanese current or Kuro-suvo
are constant and substantial witnesses to the reasonableness of the
claim.[200]
The Chinese colonization theory, unfortunately, does not date far
enough back to account for the oldest American civilization. It is
nevertheless remote enough, were it proven true, to considerably
antedate the Aztec and Inca periods. Upwards of a century ago the
learned French sinologist Deguignes announced that he had found in the
writings of early Chinese historians the statement that in the fifth
century of our era certain adventurers of their race had discovered
a country which they called Fusang.[201] He further expressed it as
his opinion that the country described must be Western America, and
probably Mexico. The original document on which the Chinese historians
base their statements was the report of a Buddhist missionary named
Hoei-Shin, who in the year 499 A. D., claims to have returned from a
long journey of discovery to the remote and unknown east. This report,
whatever may be its intrinsic value, was accepted as true by the
Chinese, and found its way into the history of Li yan tcheon—written
at the beginning of the seventh century of our era. In 1841, Dr.
Neumann, Professor of Oriental Languages and History at Munich, after
a residence of a couple of years at Canton, published a translation of
the narrative of Hoei-Shin with comments upon it.[202] A few of the
most striking passages of the account given by this Buddhist missionary
are as follows: “Fusang is about 20,000 Chinese _li_ in an easterly
direction from Tahan and east of the Middle Kingdom.[203] Many Fusang
trees grow there whose leaves resemble the _Dryanda cordifolia_; the
sprouts, on the contrary, resemble those of the bamboo tree, and are
eaten by the inhabitants of the land. The fruit is like a pear in form,
but is red. From the bark they prepare a sort of linen which they use
for clothing, and also a sort of ornamental stuff. The houses are
built of wooden beams; fortified and walled places are there unknown.
They have written characters in this land, and prepare paper from the
bark of the Fusang. The people have no weapons and make no wars, but
in the arrangement of the kingdom, they have a northern and southern
prison. Trifling offenders are lodged in the southern prison, but
those confined for greater offences in the northern. The name of the
king is pronounced Ichi. The color of his clothes changes with the
different years. The horns of the oxen are so large that they hold
ten bushels. They use them to contain all manner of things. Horses,
oxen, and stags are harnessed to their wagons. Stags are used here as
cattle are used in the Middle Kingdom, and from the milk of the hind
they make butter. No iron is found in the land; but copper, gold,
and silver are not prized, and do not serve as a medium of exchange
in the market. Marriage is determined upon in the following manner:
the suitor builds himself a hut before the door of the house where
the one longed for dwells, and waters and cleans the ground every
evening. When a year has passed by, if the maiden is not inclined
to marry him he departs; should she be willing it is completed. In
earlier times these people lived not according to the laws of Buddha,
but it happened that in the second year—named ‘Great Light’ of Song
(A. D. 458)—five beggar-monks from the kingdom of Kipin went to this
land, extended over it the religion of Buddha, and with it his early
writings and images. They instructed the people in the principles of
monastic life, and so changed their manners.”[204] Dr. Neumann does
not claim that the Chinese Fusang tree is identical with the Maguay
plant, but that the resemblance between it and the great numbers of
the latter found in Mexico suggested a name for the country to the
discoverer. The uncertainty as to the distance, arising out of our
inability to determine what was considered the length of a Chinese _li_
in the fifth century, is of course an obstacle to the satisfactory
solution of the question. The amusing and preposterous statement as
to the size of the horns of oxen is no argument against the general
truth of the narrative, since we have no data from which to determine
the capacity of the measure, the name of which is here translated
bushel, since the widest possible difference exists between the
ancient and modern Chinese tables of measurement. The references to
horses and oxen are perplexing, and give the narrative the air either
of imposture or mistake, since both were brought to America first by
the Spaniards.[205] The argument by the opponents of this theory that
Fusang was Japan stands on a very slender foundation, since at a very
early period, centuries before our era, Japan afforded naval stations
for Chinese ships.[206] Klaproth, and later Dr. E. Bretschneider,
designated the island of Tarakai, known as Saghalien on our maps, as
the Fusang of Hoei-Schin.[207] M. D’Eichthal and Professor Neumann
have both made able arguments in defence of the authenticity and
reasonableness of this claim, but there are too many uncertainties
about it to admit of its unqualified acceptance. We are more disposed
to give credence to the theory that the Chinese discovered America at
a very early day, than to attach much importance to the particular
account of that discovery by Hoei-Shin. The theory is a good one,
with an abundance of geographical and ethnological testimony in its
favor.[208]
Closely allied to the Chinese theory is that so enthusiastically
advocated by Ranking, who maintains that the Mongol emperor Kublai
Khan, in the thirteenth century sent a large fleet against Japan, but
that the vast armada was destroyed by a tempest, and a portion of
its ships were wrecked on the shores of Peru.[209] The first Inca he
believes was the son of Kublai Khan. It is a well-known fact that the
Mongol fleet was dispersed by a storm, but there are grave objections
to the opinion that any of the vessels were cast upon the shores of
South America. No tradition was found among the Peruvians only three
centuries later concerning the Incas or any other people having reached
their shores by the accident of shipwreck, or who could be identified
as of Asiatic origin. It is true the Incas may have designed to keep
their human origin as well as their misfortunes a secret, that they
might the better set up their claim to imperial and divine honors among
the people whom they sought to subjugate by that most powerful ally to
ambition—superstition. Mr. Ranking wrote a very plausible book, but
often fell into errors of credulity and unrestrained enthusiasm which
leaves many of his statements open to suspicion. The theory cannot be
accepted without additional and more satisfactory proof.[210] Should
it prove to be true, it certainly cannot throw light upon the origin of
the population, but only on a phase of civilization. Humboldt, Tschudi,
Viollet-le-Duc, Count Stolberg and other writers have pointed out
striking analogies between the religion of Southern Asia, especially
of India and that of Mexico.[211] If the argument from analogy is to
be relied on, there is abundant reason to believe that Buddhism in a
modified form had permeated the religious systems of the new world with
its mystic element besides grafting upon them some of its better and
more humane institutions.
These are all the colonization claims worth mentioning, which date back
far enough to account for the ancient civilization. Of the second class
(those too recent to have made much impression on the existing state of
things) there are three. The earliest of these as to date, is the claim
which credits the Irish with the colonization of the Atlantic coast
from North Carolina to Florida. “White-Man’s Land,” so often located
in this country, is no doubt imaginary. The obscure and unsatisfactory
chronicle which forms the basis of this claim destroys its own
authority by the statement that White-Man’s Land was six days’ sail
from Ireland.[212] Another legend set forth by Broughton, which claims
that St. Patrick preached the Gospel in the “Isles of America,” carries
its own refutation upon its face by the use of the word America in
its text.[213] The Scandinavian discovery of America is a well-known
fact, and requires no discussion here. The _Codex Flatioiensis_, as
expounded by the learned Prof. Rafn in the _Antiquitates Americanæ_,
has, no doubt, set at rest the whole matter. Humboldt, in reviewing
the evidence upon which the claim is founded, sums it up in these
words: “The discovery of the northern part of America by the Northmen
cannot be disputed. The length of the voyage, the direction in which
they sailed, the time of the sun’s rising and setting, are accurately
given. While the caliphate of Bagdad was still flourishing under the
Abbassides, and while the rule of the Samanides, so favorable to
poetry, still flourished in Persia, America was discovered about the
year 1000 by Lief, son of Eric the Red, at about 41½° north latitude.”
No evidence of a substantial character has been produced to show that
the Scandinavians left any impress upon the American civilization. It
is true, Brasseur de Bourbourg, when he first began his labors in the
field of American archæology expressed such an opinion, but we believe
he never repeated it in the latter years of his life.[214] The learned
Abbé was guilty of many contradictions, and this may be considered
one of them. The most positive claims in this direction are advanced
by two recent authors, M. Gravier[215] and Prof. Anderson,[216] the
former attributing the Aztec civilization to Norse influence. He cites
the discovery in Brazil of an ancient city near Bahia, in which was
found the statue of a man pointing with his forefinger to the North
Pole; of course, according to M. Gravier, he was a Northman.[217]
Several authorities for the discovery of Norse remains in the United
States might be cited, but the unwarrantable arguments of most of them
add nothing to the already established fact of Norse colonization
in the tenth century of our era. Another Pre-Columbian claim to the
discovery of America is that which declares Madoc-Ap-owen and his Welsh
countrymen to have reached this continent in 1170 A. D. The chronicle
on which the claim is based, is wanting in authority. A translation
of it, taken from a history of Wales by Dr. Powell, was published by
Hakluyt, in 1589. As this claim can have no relation to our subject,
we refrain from a discussion of it here.[218] The only remaining
theory, and probably the most important of all, because of its purely
scientific character, which presents itself for our consideration, is
that which not only considers the civilization of ancient America to
have been indigenous, but also claims the inhabitants themselves to
have been autochthonic; in a word, that by process of evolution or
in some other way, the first Americans were either developed from a
lower order in the animal kingdom or were created on the soil of this
continent. As the latter theory involves a denial of the unity of the
race, it requires a separate and critical examination.