[306] “La teoria de la diversidad especifica de razas es tan intenible,

que sin mas decir podemos, dejar esta cuestion, la cual ultimamente, en

especial en Norte-América, ha escitado alguna controversia. Quédanos,

pues, un origen primordial para toda la raza humana y entonces la

cuestion es, saber de qué tronco ó familia del antiguo continente se

pobló el nuevo, ó bien vice-versa, que tambien es possible, aunque

improbable, que del que llamamos nuevo se haya poblado el viego

continente.”—_Ezequiel Uricoechea_ in _Soc. Mex. Bol._ 2d. ep. iv,

1854, p. 128. “For my own part I have long been convinced of the

consanguinity between the brachycephalæ of America and those of Asia

and the Pacific islands, and that this characteristic type may be

traced uninterruptedly through the long chain of tribes inhabiting

the west coast of the American Continent from Behring Straits to Cape

Horn.”—_Retzius, Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 267.

[307] “The era of their existence as a distinct and isolated race must

probably be dated as far back as that time which separated into nations

the inhabitants of the old world, and gave to each branch of the human

family its primitive language and individuality.”—_J. C. Prichard’s

Natural History of Man_, p. 356. London, 1845.

[308] _Hist. Ant. del Messico_ (Eng. trans., 1807), vol. i.

[309] “Quoique Votan soit le veritable fondateur de la civilisation

et de l’empire des Quichés, le Codex Chimalpopoca, attribue néanmoins

la fondation de l’empire à son Igh ou Ik, appelé par les Mexicains

_Ehecatl_ ou _Cipactonac_, parceque ce prince vint le premir amener

une colonie sur le continent américain. Cipactonac est composé de

_Cipactli_, et de _Tonacayo_. Le premier vient de _ce_ un, _Ipan_, sur

ou au-dessus, et _tlactli_, qui est le corps humain, c’est-à-dire, _Un

homme supérieur aux autres hommes_, ou encore de _notre race_, toutes

choses qui conviennent parfaitement au père de la race des chànes.

Tonacayo, veut dire _notre chair_ ou le _corps humain_, le mot tout

entier Cipactonac ayant la signification suivante: ‘Celui qui est sorti

du premier de notre race.’ _Ehecatl_ est en mexicain l’air, ou le

souffle, Igh ou Ik, en langua maya et tzendale. Dans les calendriers

d’Oxaca, Soconusco, Chiappas et d’Yucatan, il suit immediatement le nom

de Nin, Imos ou Imox, comme celui d’Ehecatl suit dans le mexicain celui

de Cipactli.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg, Cartas_, note, p. 71. He then

proceeds to sustain his conclusions by citing analogies between the

name and its significance among the Egyptians.

[310] _Chimalpopoca_, MS., Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh._, p.

lxxxviii; see also _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo, Reyno de

Guatemala_, por Franc. de Paula Garcia Pelaez (Guatemala, 1851). Pelaez

states that Votan founded the ancient Culhuacan, now known as Palenque,

in the year 3000 of the world and in the tenth century B. C.

[311] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxx, on the authority of

Ordoñez.

[312] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 159.

[313] _Ordoñez_, Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxvii.

[314] _Constituciones Diocesanes del Obispado de Chiappas._ Rome, 1702.

[315] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 160: “It is not altogether

improbable that a genuine Maya document similar to the Manuscript

_Troano_ or _Dresden Codex_, preserved from early times, may have found

a native interpreter at the time of the Conquest, and have escaped in

its disguise of Spanish letters the destruction which overtook its

companions.”

[316] “The memoir in his possession consists of five or six folios of

common quarto paper, written in ordinary characters in the Tzendal

language, an evident proof of its having been copied from the original

in hieroglyphics, shortly after the Conquest. At the top of the

first leaf, the two continents are painted in different colors, in

two small squares, placed parallel to each other in the angles; the

one representing Europe, Asia and Africa is marked with two large

S’S upon the upper arms of two bars drawn from the opposite angles

of each square, forming the point of union in the centre; that which

indicates America has two S’S placed horizontally on the bars, but I

am not certain whether upon the upper or lower bars, but I believe

upon the latter. When speaking of the places he had visited on the old

continent, he marks them on the margin of each chapter with an upright

S and those of America with a horizontal S. Between these squares

stands the title of his history: ‘Proof that I am Culebra (a Snake),’

which title he proves in the body of the work by saying that he is

Culebra because he is Chivim.”—_Cabrera, Teatro Critico Amer._, pp.

33–4.

[317] Title of Ordoñez in brief: _Historia de la Creation del Cielo y

de la Tierra Conforme al Sistema de la Gentilidad Americana_.

[318] See his _Teatro Critico Americano_, p. 32 _et seq._, in Rio’s

_Description of the Ruins of an American City_. London, 1822, quarto.

[319] “Mais il y défigura complètement l’ouvrage d’Ordoñez qu’il no

connaissait pas assez et auquel il ajouta des opinions extrêmement

hasardées. D. Ramon se plaignit amèrement de ce plagiat et des fausses

idées que Cabrera donnait de son travail, obtint contre lui un

jugement, où le plagiaire fut condamné par le tribunal de l’audience

royale de Guatémalà, le 30 Juin, 1794. Mais Cabrera, tout en pillant

les idées du savant antiquaire, n’en rendait pas moins justice à son

talent et à son merite.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg on Ordoñez MS. Cartas_,

p. 8.

[320] The explanation given by Cabrera is as follows: “Let us suppose

then, with Calmet and other authors whom he quotes, that some of the

Hivites who were descendants from Heth, son of Canaan, were settled

on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and known from the most remote

parts under the name of Hivim or Givim, from which region they were

expelled, some years before the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt,

by the Caphtorims or Philistines, who, according to some writers,

were colonists from Cappadocia, others considering them to be from

Cyprus, and more probably, according to a third opinion, from Crete,

now Candia; that to strengthen their native country Egypt, and to

protect themselves from all assault, they built five large cities,

viz.: Accaron, Azotus, Ascalon, and Gaza [fifth wanting in account],

from whence they made frequent sallies upon the Canaanite towns and

all their surrounding neighbors (except the Egyptians, whom they

always respected), and carried on many wars in the posterior ages

against the Hebrews. The Scriptures (Deuteronomy, chap. ii, verse 23,

and Joshua, chap. xiii, verse 4) inform us of the expulsion of the

Hivites (Givim) by the Caphtorims, from which it appears that the

latter drove out the former, who inhabited the countries from Azzah

to Gaza. Many others were settled in the vicinity of the mountains

of Eval and Azzah, among whom were reckoned the Sichemites and the

Gabaonites; the latter by stratagem made alliance with Joshua, or

submitted to him. Lastly, others had their dwellings about the skirts

of Mount Hermon, beyond Jordan to the eastward of Canaan (Joshua,

chap. ii, verse 3). Of these last were Cadmus and his wife Hermione or

Hermonia, both memorable in sacred as well as profane history, as their

exploits occasioned their being exalted to the rank of deities, while

in regard to their metamorphosis into snakes (Culebras) mentioned by

Ovid, _Metam._, lib. 3, their being Hivites may have given rise to this

fabulous transmutation, the name in the Phœnician language implying

a snake, which the ancient Hebrew writers suppose to have been given

from this people being accustomed to live in caves under ground like

snakes.”—_Cabrera, Teatro Critico_, pp. 47–8. On p. 95 he reaches the

conclusion that the Votanites were Carthaginians.

[321] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 163.

[322] _Cartas_, p. 12.

[323] The description of its contents drawn by Brasseur de Bourbourg

from the part in his possession is briefly as follows: The second

volume of Ordoñez comprised the history of the ancestors of Votan, a

descendant of Shem by the Hivo-Phœnician line; of their emigration

from the Eastern Continent to the Occident; of their voyage with their

first legislator by the Usumasinta River and its affluents to the

Plain Palenque; the foundation of the great monarchy of the Quichés

as well as that of Nachan, which was the capital; of the founding of

the three royal cities of Mayapan, Tulha, and Chiquimula. The Abbé

finds allusion to this work in Torquemada, Juarros, Cogolludo, Lizana,

and particularly in Sahugun, book iii of his _Hist. Gen._, where it

is claimed to treat of the original inhabitants of Palenque. He then

states that the work was written in Guatemala at the close of the

eighteenth century, and was sent to Spain or taken thither by its

author for publication. In 1803 it was found in the hands of Sr. Gil

Lemos of Madrid, where it had been left for publication. Its contents

becoming known to the Council of the Indias, it was suppressed like

many others on the early history of America. Ordoñez, who for ten years

afterwards was canon of the Cathedral at Ciudad Real, died without

seeing his work published. See Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Cartas_, p. 12

_et seq._

[324] These are as follows: Chontal, Quiché, Zutugil, Kachiquel,

Mam, Pokoman, Pokonchi, Caichi Coxoh, Ixil, Tzendal, Tozotzil, Chol,

Huaxteco, and Totonaco; besides those of the islands of Cuba and Hayti,

Borquia and Jamaica.—_Geografia de los Linguas_, p. 98. Mexico, 1864,

4to.

[325] _Ibid._, p. 128.

[326] “Il y a plus d’un trait de ressemblance entre le personnage

mysterieux qui parut à Carthage et le Votan des Tzendales. Les chemins

souterraines où celui-ci fut admis, lesquels traversent le terre

pour arriver à la racine du ciel, indiquent une suite d’épreuves qui

rappellent les initiations Égyptiennes et dont on trouve des traces

jusqu’à l’époque même de la conquête dans les épreuves de la chevalerie

Mexicaine.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh_, p. cviii.

[327] _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. ii, p. 124. Mexico, 1865, 8vo.

[328] MS. Quiché de Chichicastenango in Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist.

Nat. Civ._, vol. i, pp. 105–6. See also Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol.

v, p. 21.

[329] The _Popol Vuh_ was first published by Dr. Scherzer in Vienna,

in 1857, under the title of _Las Historias del Origen de los Indios

de esta Provincia de Guatemala, traducidas de la Lengua Quiché al

Castellano para mas Comodidad de los Ministros del S. Evangelio_, por

el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenez, cura doctrinero por el real patronato

del Pueblo de S. Thomas, Chuila,—Exactamente segun el texto español del

manuscrito original que se halla en la biblioteca de la Universidad

de Guatemala, publicado por la primera vez, y aumentado con una

introduccion y anotaciones por el Dr. C. Scherzer. Father Ximenez, a

Dominican and curate of Chichicastenango of Guatemala, wrote about

1720, and subsequently. His work, because of its condemnation of the

oppression of the Indians, was suppressed, but was finally discovered

in June, 1854, in the library of the University of San Carlos, in

Guatemala, by Dr. Scherzer. Father Ximinez describes the work as a

literal copy of an original Quiché book, made in Roman letters by

Quiché copyists, after the introduction of Christianity into Guatemala.

The copy is stated ambiguously to have been made to replace the

original _Popol Vuh_—national book—which was lost. How a book which

had been lost could be copied literally, the Father fails to tell us.

Internal evidence, however, sustains the claim that it was written

by native Quichés. In 1860, Brasseur de Bourbourg undertook a new

translation of the _Popol Vuh_, from the Ximinez document (containing

the Quiché and Spanish). This he did among the Quichés and with the aid

of the natives, and as a result it is believed that a much more literal

translation than that made by Ximenez was obtained. In our examination

of Quiché history we have compared both translations and shall draw

from them directly, but shall also take advantage of the excellent

condensations and renderings which Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft has made. See

_Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 42, note, for the leading facts as we have

stated them.

[330] We must refer the reader either to the originals or to that

treasure-house of American traditional lore, Mr. Bancroft’s third

volume, which is a repository of poetic renderings as well. Nor have

we endeavored in every instance to avoid the use of that author’s

incomparable terminology, so expressive of the spirit of the original.

[331] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. 7; Ximinez, _Hist. Ind.

Guat._, pp. 5–6; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 44.

[332] Mr. Bancroft’s rendering, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 45.

[333] Mr. Bancroft’s graceful and truly poetic rendering, _Native

Races_, vol. iii, pp. 47, 48.

[334] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 54. Brasseur de

Bourbourg, _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages 1858_, tome iv, p. 268, and

_Hist. de Tlaxcallan_ in the same, tome xcix, 1843, p. 179, where

reference is made to these bundles.

[335] _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxv, note, et _Ibid._, p. ccliv. The Abbé

places that Tulan among the ruins of the valley of Palenque near

the modern town of Comitan in the state of Chiapas. He adds: “Siége

principal des princes de la race Nahuatl, cette ville aurait été fondée

à une époque contemporaine de la capitale des Xibalbides, plusieurs

siècles avant l’ère chrétienne, et au rapport de toutes les traditions,

elle aurait rivalisé constamment avec sa métropole dont elle cherchait

à se rendre indépendante.”

[336] _Popol Vuh_, notes, pp. xci–ii. We have used Mr. Bancroft’s

rendering of the passage.

[337] _Geografia de las Linguas Mexicanas_, pp. 96–8 and pp. 127–29. A

linguistic argument.

[338] Brasseur de Bourbourg is the authority cited by Mr. Bancroft,

vol. v, p. 188.

[339] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 188.

[340] _Popol Vuh_, p. 195. Bancroft, vol. v, 172–80.

[341] _Popol Vuh_, p. cclvi. Bancroft, vol. v, p. 545. The Abbé has

largely drawn upon his imagination in this instance as in some others,

and the opinion is only interesting because of its authorship.

[342] Las Casas, _Hist. Apologética_, MS., tom. iii, cap. cxxiv et cxxv.

[343] Torquemada, tom. ii, pp. 53–4. Ximinez renders the word Xibalby

“Inferno.”

[344] It will be remembered that Votan deposited his treasure in the

“house of gloom” or “darkness.”

[345] Mr. Bancroft’s rendering of the paragraph. Vol. v, p. 179.

[346] See Bancroft, vol. v, p. 184.

[347] _Ibid._, vol. v, p. 187.

[348] _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala._

Guatemala, 1857.

[349] _Nations Civilisées_, tom. i, p. 126. Also see the following

from the _Popol Vuh_, p. clx: “Quant aux évènements dont Tulan fût

le théâtre à cette époque, on ne saurait se dissimuler, en comparant

l’ensemble des détails qu’on trouve dans ce chaos, qu’il ne se fût

opéré alors un vaste mouvement parmi les populations de l’empire

de Xibalba, mouvement causé sans doute par les efforts d’une caste

souveraine pour garder le pouvoir et par l’invasion de races nouvelles,

sorties des mêmes contrées, septentrionales, d’où étaient venus les

Nahuas, ou des regions plus sauvages du nord-ouest; barbares ou

civilisées, il y eut naturellement de leurs essaims qui s’amalgamèrent

aux nations soumises à l’empire, tandis que d’autres, continuant leur

route vers l’Amérique méridionale, y portèrent, sinon les institutions

entières des Quinamés et des Nahuas, au moins les symboles qui les

avaient le plus frappés au passage ou qui convenaient davantage à leur

génie.”

[350] “De la creation, pues, tenien esta opinion. Decian que antes de

ella ni habia cielo ni tierra ni sol, ni luna ni estrellas. Ponian

que hubo un marido y una muger divinos que lamaron Aehel Atcamma.

Estos habian tenido padre y madre los cuales engendaron trece hijos,

y que él mayor con algunos con él se ensoberbecieron y guiso hacer

criaturas contra la voluntad del padre y madre; pero no pudieron por

que lo que hicieron fueron unos vasos viles de servicio como jarros

y ollas y semejantes. Los hijos menores que se llamaban Huncheven

hunahan, pidieron licencia à su padre y madre para hacer creaturas,

y concedieransela, diciendoles que saldrian con ellos por que se

habian humillado. Y asi lo primero hicieron los Cielos y Planetas,

luego Ayre, Agua y Tierra. Despues dicen que de la tierra formaron

al hombre y á la muger. Los otros que fueron soberbios presumiendo

hacer criaturas contra la voluntad de los padres fueron en el infierno

lanzados.”—_Las Casas, Historia Apologética, MS._, cap. 235, p. 324;

see also _Torquemada, Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 53–4; _Help’s Spanish_

_Conquest_, vol. ii, p. 140; _Garcia, Origen de los Indios_, p. 519,

Valencia ed., 1607, and _Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civil._,

tom. ii, pp. 74–5.

[351] _Historia Apologética, MS._, cap. 235, p. 327.

[352] Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 28, and Herrera, Dec. iv, lib. x, cap. ii.

[353] “Y antiguamente dezian al oriente cen-ial, pequena-baxada, y al

puniente nohen-ial, la grande-baxada.”—_Lizana’s Devocionario_, p. 354

in _Landa’s Relacion_.

[354] Cogolludo’s _Historia de Yucatan_, lib. iv. cap. iii, p. 178.

[355] _Geografia de las Linguas_, p. 128.

[356] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 618.

[357] Bancroft, vol. iii, p. 463; Lizana in Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 356;

Cogolludo’s _Hist. de Yuc._, p. 197; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist.

Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 76, tom. ii, pp. 10–13.

[358] Landa, pp. 35–9, and 300–1.

[359] See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 18;

Torquemada’s _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 52; Herrera’s _Hist. Gen.

Dec._, iv, lib. x, cap. ii; Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. 35–9, 300 _et

seq._; _Echevarria y Veitia, MS._, cap. 19, p. 116 _et seq._, and Las

Casas’ _Hist. Apologética, MS._, cap. cxxiii.

[360] See for those annals the Perez document in Stephen’s _Yucatan_,

vol. ii, pp. 465–9; Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa, pp. 120–9, and

Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 762–5, and vol. v, p. 624 _et seq._

[361] Las Casas, _Hist. Apologética, MS._, cap. cxxiii, p. 10,

Cogolludo’s _Hist. Yuc._, p. 190; Torquemada’s _Monarq. Ind._, tom.

iii, p. 133.

[362] Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones_, in Kingsborough’s _Mexican

Antiquities_, vol. ix, p. 322.

[363] _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. ii.

[364] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 199.

[365] Ixtlilxochitl fixes the date of the destruction in the year 229

A. D., Veytia in 107. See further on the Quinames, Echevarria y Veitia,

_Historia del Origen de Gentes_, MS., tom. i, p. 33, and Kingsborough’s

_Mex. Ant._, vol. viii, cap. iii, p. 179. Mendieta’s _Hist. Eccl._,

p. 96, Mexico, 1870. Pineda in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, tom. iii,

p. 346. Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxviii, and _Hist.

Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 66. Oviedo’s _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, p. 539.

Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, p. 125. Boturini, _Idea

de Una Nueva Historia_, pp. 130–5. Humboldt, _Vues des Cordilleres_, p.

205, and Orozco y Berra, _Geografia de las Lenguas_, pp. 119–24.

[366] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, lib. iii, cap. vii. Bancroft, vol.

v., p. 206. Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 120, 125, 133. Brasseur de

Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 154.

[367] Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, p. 127. Pimentel, _Lenguas Indigenas

de Mexico_, tom. i, p. 223. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 204.

[368] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 278. Brasseur de

Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 151–61.

[369] _Historia Chichimeca_, cap. i, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._,

vol. ix, p. 205.

[370] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 196, and vol. ii, p. 112.

Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 32. Mendieta’s _Hist. Eccl._, p.

146.

[371] “Celebraron assimismo los Indios su dicho origen en antiguos

cantares, y tuvieron tan viva la memoria de la torre de Babel, que la

quisieron imitar en America con varios monstruosos edificias.” He then

cites the Pyramid of Cholula as having been built in commemoration of

the Tower of Babel. See Boturini, _Idea de Una Nueva Historia_, p. 113.

[372] Boturini’s _Idea_, p. 111 _et seq._ Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del

Messico_, tom. i, pp. 129–31, et tom. ii, p. 6. Kingsborough’s _Mex.

Ant._, especially vol. vi, p. 401, and _Spiegazione delle Tavole del

Codice Mexicano_, tav. vii, in _Mex. Ant._, vol. v, pp. 164–5, and

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 67; vol. v, p. 200 _et seq._

[373] A portion of the work has been printed at Mexico.

[374] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España_, MS., tom. i, cap. i, pp.

6–7.

[375] Alcedo (_Diccionario Geografico Historico_, tom. iii, p. 374)

says that the Olmecs subsequently migrated southward and settled

Guatemala. While this statement may be true in part, still it is not

probable that any general migration took place, and Guatemala was

certainly populated long before the Olmec power existed.

[376] Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones_, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol.

ix, pp. 321–2.

[377] Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. viii, p. 25.

[378] See Prescott’s _Conq. Mexico_, vol. i, p. 171, on the Censorial

Council; also Ixtlilxochitl, Clavigero and Veytia as cited by him.

[379] Echevarria y Veitia, _Hist. Gentes_, MS., tom. i, p. 29, and

Kingsborough, vol. viii, p. 176. Panes, _Fragmentos de Historia_, MS.,

p. 3 (copy in Congressional Library, Washington), as well as several

other authorities.

[380] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 193–5.

[381] _Codex Chimalpopoca_ in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp.

53, 71.

[382] _Codex Chimal._ in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 117,

and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 194.

[383] Sahagun, _Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España_, p.

xviii, tom. i, Mexico, 1829.

[384] _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, lib. x, p. 139 _et seq._ A translation

and summary of facts is also given by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v,

p. 189 _et seq._

[385] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 211, in a note has

summarized the dates of departure from Hue hue Tlapalan, as given

by different authors, with the following result: Date of departure

according to Veytia (tom. i, p. 208), 596 A. D.; Clavigero (tom. iv,

p. 46), 544 A. D.; but in the 1st tom., p. 126, he gives 596, agreeing

with Veytia; Müller (_Reisen_, tom. iii, p. 94 _et seq._, 439 A.

D.; Brasseur de Bourbourg (_Popol Vuh_, p. clv), last of the fourth

century; Cabrera (_Teatro_, pp. 90–1), 181 B. C. The commonly accepted

date is that of Clavigero—544 A. D. But after comparing these authors

and considering the grounds upon which they base their calculations, we

are convinced that it is useless to attempt to arrive at the true date,

just as it is impossible to determine any date with certainty in all

the ancient American chronology. We will not go so far as Mr. Bancroft,

who says that “the departure from Hue hue Tlapalan seems to have

taken place in the fifth or sixth century.” The claims for the fourth

century, we think, are just as good as for the others, if not better.

[386] On the migration see Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relacions_, in

Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 321–4; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s

_Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 100, 136, and _Popol Vuh_, p. clv,

clix–xi: Veytia’s _Hist. Ant. Mej. Tom._ _1st passim_; Clavigero’s

_Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, p. 426; tom. iv, pp. 46, 51;

Müller’s _Reisen in den Vereinigten-Staaten, Canada and Mexico_, Bd.

iii, ss. 91–7, Leipzig, 1864; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp.

192–223.

[387] See _Geografia de las Lenguas de Mexico_, the _Carta

ethnografica_ affixed, and the text, pp. 1–76.

[388] Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chichimeca_, cap. ii. Kingsborough, _Mex.

Ant._, vol. ix, p. 206. On page 450 see also another and different

account.

[389] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 214.

[390] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 214–15; Brasseur

de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxiv, cxii, cxxvi–viii, clix;

Ixtlilxocbitl in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, p 446; Alvarado

in _Ternaux-Compans Voy._, série i, tom. x, p. 147.

[391] Baldwin’s _Ancient Am._, p. 202.

[392] See E. Q. Squier, _Nicaragua, its People, Scenery_, etc.

_Archæology and_ _Ethnology of Nicaragua_, part i, vol. iii, _Trans. of

Am. Ethnol. Soc._, and _Notes on Cent. Am._, chap. xvi.

[393] Buschmann (Johann Carl Ed.), especially his _Die Spuren der

Aztekischen Sprachen im Nördlichen Mexico und Höhern Amerikanischen

Norden_. Berlin, 1859. Quarto.

[394] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 688 _et seq._; vol. v, p. 215, and

numerous places.

[395] “All around the lakes of Mexico there are traces of ancient

potteries, and I noticed that the bits of broken red earthenware

scattered about them are identical in composition and color with those

I have picked up in the valley of the Mississippi, and supposed to

be relics of the ancient Mound-builders.”—_Evens (A. S.), Our Sister

Republic_, p. 330. Hartford, 1870. Octavo.

[396] Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relaciones_, Kingsborough’s _Mexican

Antiquities_, vol. ix, p. 322.

[397] _Monarq. Ind._, lib. i, cap. 19.

[398] _Relaciones_, in many places, and in _Hist. Chichimecs_, cap. 13.

[399] _Relacion_, MS. written 1582 in Sr. Icazbalceta’s collection.

[400] _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. i, p. 154.

[401] _Fragmentos de Historia de Nueba España_, MS., p. 45, Library at

Washington.

[402] Duran’s _Historia Antigua_, tom. i, cap. i, p. 9, MS.

[403] Duran’s _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. 27; also cited in

the Spanish by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 306. Aztlan, translated “whiteness”

above, may be rendered “colorless” with equal propriety. Hue hue

Tlapalan, on the contrary, is translated ancient red-land, or land of

color, just the opposite of Aztlan, a fact which may serve to prove

that they were two quite different localities.

[404] Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 156–9 (north of

Colorado River); Humboldt, _Vues_, ii, p. 179, and _Essai Pol._, tom.

i, p. 53 (north of 42° north latitude); Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_,

pp. 81–2, and 136–7; Prichard’s _Nat. Hist of Man_, vol. ii, pp. 514–16

(Arazonia); Pimentel, _Lenguas Indig. Mex._, tom. i, p. 158. Most

writers indefinitely assign the name to a region in the North, without

attempting to designate the locality.

[405] Acosta, _Hist. de las Ind._, p. 454; Schoolcraft’s _Archives of

Ab. Knowledge_, vol. i, p. 68; M. Aubin places it in Lower California;

Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 292; Pickering’s

_Races in U. S. Ex. Ex._, vol. ix, p. 41.

[406] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 144 (Xalisco); Veytia, _Hist. Ant.

Mej._ (Sonora); Möllhausen, _Reisen in d. Felsengebirge N. Am._, tom.

ii, p. 143 _et seq._

[407] Chief among these we may cite: Squier’s _Notes on Central Amer._,

p. 349; Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, p. 45, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_,

vol. v, pp. 221, 305–6, 322–5; Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen

Urreligionen_, pp. 530–4, the latter, though inclined to assign Aztlan

to a southern locality, still recognizes the fact that the Nahua family

was originally a northern people.

[408] _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. i, p. 9.

[409] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 292.

[410] Chief among whom are Gallatin, Gama and Veytia, who suppose that

the adjustment of the calendar took place in 1090 A.D., and that the

year Ce Tochtli corresponds with that date.

[411] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 324, and seems to be the

opinion of Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, pp. 292–5.

[412] Garcia Cubas’ _Republic of Mexico in 1876_ (Eng. trans.), p. 58.

[413] Veytia, tom. ii, pp. 91–8, and as summarized by Bancroft, vol. v,

p. 323.

[414] Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 5–8, and Bancroft, vol.

v, p. 323.

[415] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 156–63.

[416] See Acosta, _Hist. Nat. Ind._, pp. 454–62. Herrera, _Histor.

Gen._, dec. iii, lib. ii, cap. x–xi. Duran, MS., _Hist. Antig._, cap.

i, ii, iii of tom. i.

[417] “Pero porque la noticia que tengo de su origen y principio no es

mas, ni ellos saben dar mas relacion sino desde aqullas siete cuebas

donde habitaron tan largo tiempo, las cuales desampararon para venir

a vuscar esta Tierra unos primero que otros, otros despues, otros muy

despues hasta dejarlas desiertas. Estas cuebas son en Teo-culhuican,

que por otro nombre le llaman Aztlan, tierra de que todos tenemos

noticia caer hacia la parte del Norte y Tierra-firma con la Florida;

por tanto desde este lugar de estas cuebas dare verdadera relacion de

estas Naciones y de sus sucessos. * * * Salieron pues siete Tribus de

Gentes de aquellas cuebas donde habitaban para venir á vuscar esta

Tierra, á las cuales llamaban Chicomostoc, de donde vienen a fingir que

sus Padres nacieron de unas cuebas, no teniendo noticia de lo de atras

de la salida.”—_Duran_, _Hist. Antig._, MS., tom. i, cap. i, p. 9.

[418] The _Fragmentos de Historia de Nueba España_, MS. (Congressional

Library) of Diego Panes alludes to this event. “Como los Tarascos se

adelantaron luego que pasaron el estrecho de mar, en los troncos de

Arboles, y balsas, y otros instrumentos del pasaje y se metieron á

vida y avitar en las siete cuebas espelnucas, y Tabernas de la Tierra,

hasta que hicieron abitaciones, y moradas y como desde alli fueron

cresciendo, y tomnado, el tiento de la Tierra y disposiciones de ella

para poblarla.”

[419] We quote Bancroft’s rendering from the _Vues_, tom. ii, p. 176

_et seq._: “From Colhuacan, the Mexican Ararat, fifteen chiefs or

tribes reach Aztlan, ‘land of flamingoes,’ north of 42°, which they

leave in 1038, passing through Tocolco, ‘humiliation,’ Oztotlan, ‘place

of grottoes,’ Mizquiahuala, Teotzapotlan, ‘place of divine fruit,’

Iluicatepec, Papantla, ‘large-leaved grass,’ Tzompanco, ‘place of

human bones,’ Apazco, ‘clay vessel,’ Atlicalaguian, ‘crevice in which

rivulet escapes,’ Quauhtitlan, ‘eagle grove,’ Atzcapotzalco, ‘ant

hill,’ Chalco, ‘place of precious stones,’ Pantitlan, ‘spinning-place,’

Tolpetlac, ‘rush mat,’ Quauhtepec, ‘eagle mountain,’ Tetepanco, ‘wall

of many small stories,’ Chicomoztoc, ‘seven caves,’ Huitzquilocan,

‘place of thistles,’ Xaltepozauhcan, ‘place where the sand issues,’

Cozcaquauhco, ‘a vulture,’ Techcatitlan, ‘place of obsidian mirrors,’

Azcaxochitl, ‘ant flower,’ Tepetlapan, ‘place of tepetate,’ Apan,

‘place of water,’ Teozomaco, ‘place of divine apes,’ Chapultepec,

‘grasshopper hill.’”—_Native Races_, vol. v, p. 324, note.

[420] The following account is from Franc. Gemelli Carreri’s _Voyage

Round the World_, Churchill’s _Voyages_, London, 1732, 6 vol. fol.

(book iv, cap. iii), p. 485: “The ancient histories of Mexico make

mention of a flood, in which all men and beasts perished, and only one

man and woman were saved in a boat, which in their language they call

_Acalle_. The man, according to the character by which his name is

expressed, was called Cox-cox, and the woman Chichequetzal. This couple

coming to the foot of the mountain, which, according to the picture,

was named Culhuacan, went ashore, and there they had many children, all

born dumb. When they multiplied to a great number, one day a pigeon

came, and from the top of a tree gave them their speech, but not one of

them understood the others’ language, and therefore they divided and

dispersed, every one going to take possession of some country. Among

these they reckoned fifteen heads of families who happened to speak

the same language, joined together and went about to find some land to

inhabit. When they had wandered one hundred and four years they came to

the place they call Antlan, and continuing their journey thence, came

first to the place called _Capultepec_, then to Culhuacan, and lastly

to the place where Mexico now stands.”

[421] See communication in Garcia y Cubas’ _Atlas Geografico,

Estadistico e Histórico de la República Mejicana_, April 1858, entrega

29, and Bancroft, iii, p. 68, note.

[422] We should be guilty of a fault if we were to convey the idea

that no deluge legend other than this was current among the Aztecs.

The Codex Chimalpopoca records a flood in which mankind were drowned

and turned into fishes. In Mr. Bancroft’s graceful rendering we learn

that “the waters and sky drew near each other; in a single day all was

lost, the day Four Flower consumed all that there was of our flesh.

And this was the year Ce-Calli; on the first day, Nahui-Atl, all was

lost. The very mountains were swallowed up in the flood, and the waters

remained, lying tranquil during fifty and two spring-times. But before

the flood began, Titlacahuan had warned the man Nata and his wife

Nena, saying: Make now no more pulque, but hollow out to yourselves a

great cypress, into which you shall enter when, in the month Tozoztli,

the waters shall near the sky. Then they entered into it, and when

Titlacahuan had shut them in, he said to the man: Thou shalt eat but

a single ear of maize, and thy wife but one also. And when they had

finished eating, each an ear of maize, they prepared to set forth, for

the waters remained tranquil and their log moved no longer; and opening

it they began to see the fishes. Then they lit a fire by rubbing pieces

of wood together and they roasted fish.” The account states that the

deities then descended and transformed the fishes into dogs. (Brasseur

de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 425–7. Bancroft, vol. iii,

pp. 69, 70.) We cannot with gravity give the Tezpi legend preserved in

Michoacan. If the reader will refer to the Mosaic account of the flood,

he will only need to substitute the name of Tezpi for Noah, a vulture

for the raven, and a humming-bird for the dove, and the Tezpi legend

substantially will be before him. Of course the detail of the Mosaic

account is wanting; nevertheless it is certain that the Tezpi legend is

the product of the fancy of some over-zealous priest, who thought he

could see a stricter analogy between the Nahua deluge tradition and the

Scriptural account than really exists.

[423] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 325.

[424] See note 1, page 261, this chapter.

[425] Bancroft, vol. v, p. 325.

[426] E. G. Squier in _Notes on Cent. Am._, p. 349, makes the

following remark: “It is a significant fact, that in the map of their

migrations, presented by Gemelli, the place of the origin of the

Aztecs is designated by the sign of water (Atl standing for Atzlan),

a pyramidal temple with grades, and near these a _palm-tree_. This

circumstance did not escape the attention of the observant Humboldt,

who says, ‘I am astonished at finding a palm-tree near this teocalli.

This tree certainly does not indicate a northern origin.’” We might

add that we are equally surprised that so generally able a writer

as Mr. Squier should resort to so absolutely weak an argument. Sr.

Ramirez has clearly explained that all the figures and their adjuncts

are but hieroglyphic parts of proper names. The palm-tree no doubt

plays its part. M. Waldeck (_Voyage Pitt._, p. 45) makes the same

remark as Mr. Squier—that it indicates a southern origin. Gondra

(Prescott’s _Historia Conq. Mex._, cited by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 306,

note) replies that this may be a thoughtless insertion of the painter.

The possibility that an unskillful artist should unintentionally

represent a tree of which he had no knowledge is so great, that any

argument dependent upon it hangs upon a slender thread. Over against

Mr. Squier’s claim we desire to place the simple inquiry, Does the

Elephant Mound of Wisconsin indicate that its constructors were natives

of Asia, where the elephant is common, or that they lived in the epoch

of the American Mastodon? It is well-known that the latter phase of

the question could not be true, since the condition of the mound

contradicts such great antiquity.

[427] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 245 _et seq._, states

that a band of people came from the north by way of Panuco, dressed in

long black robes; that they thence went to Tulla, where they were well

received, but that region being already thickly populated, they went

to Cholula. They were great artists, were skilled in working metals;

with them was Quetzalcoatl, with a fair and ruddy complexion and a long

beard. ‘He was their leader.’

[428] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecl._, pp. 82, 86, 92, 397–8; also cited

by Bancroft, vol. iii, pp. 250–2, and Clavigero, _Hist. Ant. Del.

Messico_, pp. 11–13.

[429] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i, lib. iii, p. 245, and Torquemada,

tom. ii, p. 47 _et seq._, do not agree fully as to the details.

[430] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 47 _et seq._, and

Sahagun, tom. i, chap. iii, p. 245 _et seq._

[431] _Ibid._

[432] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecl._, p. 82 _et seq._

[433] Goatzacoalco, described as a province near the sea, one hundred

and fifty leagues from Cholula (Torquemada, tom ii, pp. 48–52). The

same author traces him to Yucatan and identifies him with Cukulcan. See

preceding chapter.

[434] On a raft, according to Sahagun.

[435] See Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, p. 599.

[436] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 50. In presenting these

legends we have employed nearly the same language which we used in

treating the same subject in an article entitled “Culture-Heroes of the

Ancient Americans,” published in _Appleton’s Journal_ for March 1877.

[437] See Bancroft, vol. v. p. 256, and the authorities cited.

[438] The sources of the Quetzalcoatl legends have been cited in

connection with our version of the fables applying to the name. On the

relation of Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, the Toltec king, to the subject,

see Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii, lib. viii, p. 266, but especially

see Bancroft, vol. v, p. 256 _et seq._, for a fuller account. The

same author has treated the subject with an unprecedented fullness in

his third volume, chap. vii. The able examination of Quetzalcoatl’s

character by Müller, in his _Geschichte d. Am. Urreligionen_ (pp. 577

_et seq._), has been of great value to us in the preparation of this

sketch.

[439] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 404 _et seq._

[440] _Personal Narrative of Explorations and Incidents in Texas, New

Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua._ New York, 1854, vol. ii,

pp. 348 _et seq._

[441] _Ensayo sobre Chihuahua_, p. 74.

[442] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 621 _et seq._

[443] Published in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iv, tom. i, pp. 282 _et

seq._, translated in Schoolcraft’s _Hist. and Condition of Indian

Tribes_, vol. iii, pp. 300 _et seq._, and Bartlett’s _Pers. Narrative_,

vol. ii, pp. 281–2. Quoted in _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 622–23.

[444] Bernal in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 804.

[445] Sedelmair, _Relacion_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv,

p. 847, copied by Orosco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 108–10. Also cited

by Bancroft.

[446] _Pers. Narrative_, vol. ii, pp. 278–80.

[447] Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 81–3.

[448] Johnston’s _Journal_ in _Ibid._, pp. 567–600.

[449] _Pers. Nar._, pp. 271–284.

[450] Browne’s _Apache Country_, pp. 114–24.

[451] Coronado, on his trip from Culiacan to the “seven cities of

Cibola” in 1540, saw a roofless building called Chichilticale, or “red

house.” Castañeda says it was built of red earth and had formerly been

occupied by people from Cíbola. This is of interest, especially since

it is quite certain that the seven cities visited were identical with

the Pueblo towns around old Zuñi on the Zuñi River in New Mexico (see

Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 673–4, and Morgan in _North American Review_,

April, 1869. The best treatment of Coronado’s march is by Simpson in

_Smithsonian Report_, 1859, pp. 309 _et seq._ See further _Castañeda_,

in Ternaux-campans, _Voy._, série i, tom. ix, pp. 40–1, 161–2. Gallatin

in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, and Whipple in _Pac. R. R.

Report_, vol. iii.

[452] _Relacion_ in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 847.

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 634.

[453] Velarde in _ibid._, série iv, tom. i, p. 363, and _Native Races_,

vol. iv, p. 634.

[454] Bartlett’s _Pers. Nar._, vol. ii, pp. 242–8. Johnston in Emory’s

_Reconnoissance_, pp. 596–600. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p.

636.

[455] Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii,

pp. 14, 15.

[456] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 636.

[457] Whipple in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 91–4.

[458] Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 63–9, 80, 133–4. _Ibid._, pp.

581–96. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 638–9, has copied three

plans.

[459] _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 640.

[460] Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_.

[461] First published in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, Nos. 3, 4 and

5, for January, February and March, 1875.

[462] _Cañons of the Colorado_, in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix,

p. 528. Powell’s _Explorations of the Colorado River of the West_.

Washington. 1875. 4to.

[463] “It was ever a source of wonder to us why these ancient people

sought such inaccessible places for their homes. They were doubtless

an agricultural race, but there were no lands here of any considerable

extent which they could have cultivated. To the west of Oraiby, and

of the towns of the Province of Tusayan, in northern Arizona, the

inhabitants have actually built little terraces along the face of

the cliff, where a spring gushes out, and there made their site for

gardens. It is possible that the ancient inhabitants of this place

made their lands in the same way. But why should they seek such spots?

Surely the country was not so crowded with population as to demand the

utilization of a region like this. The only solution which suggests

itself is this: We know that for a century or two after the settlement

of Mexico, many expeditions were sent into the country now comprising

Arizona and New Mexico for the purpose of bringing the town-building

people under the dominion of the Spanish government. Many of their

villages were destroyed, and the inhabitants fled to regions at that

time unknown, and there are traditions among the people who now inhabit

the pueblos which remain, that the cañons were these unknown lands.

It may be that these buildings were erected at that time. Sure it is

that they had a much more modern appearance than the ruins scattered

over Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.”—_Major Powell in

Scribner_, vol. ix, p. 525. _Id._, _Explorations of the Colorado River

of the West_, pp. 87, 88.

[464] _Cañons of the Colorado_, in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, p.

402; Powell’s _Exploration of the Colorado River of the West_, pp.

68–9. Major Powell on the 125th page of his report on the Colorado,

gives a brief description of remains in a side cañon, a few miles from

the great river.

[465] Sitgreaves’ _Report, Zuñi and Colorado Rivers_, pp. 8–9; Whipple,

_Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 46–50; Bancroft’s _Native Races_,

vol. iv, pp. 642–3.

[466] Whipple, _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 76–7.

[467] Sitgreaves, _Zuñi Ex._, p. 6; Whipple, in _Pacific R. R. Report_,

vol. iii, pp. 39, 71; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 645, 673.

[468] See authorities cited on page 281, note 1, of this chapter.

[469] See Whipple, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, p. 67, with

beautiful full-page view. Simpson’s _Jour. of Mil. Recon._, pp. 90–3;

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 645, 667, 673.

[470] Whipple in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 68, 70, 66,

40–8, views of old Zuñi, and sacred spring; Möllhausen, _Reisen in die

Felsengebirge N. Am._, tom. ii, pp. 196, 402; _Id._, _Tagebuch_, pp.

283–4, 278, with cut; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 645–7, with cut.

[471] Möllhausen’s _Journey_, vol. ii, p. 82; Whipple _et al._, in

_Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, p. 39; Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._,

pp. 95–7; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 647–8.

[472] Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 89–109, 60–1, 65–74, 100, with

cuts, views and plans; Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R.

Report_, vol. iii, pp. 22, 52, 63–4; see also Möllhausen’s _Tagebuch_

and _Journey_; Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 645–50.

[473] In Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 131–3, and copied in a note

by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 657.

[474] See on Chaco ruins, Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 34–43,

131–3. Domenech’s _Deserts_, vol. i, pp. 199–200, 379–81, 385.

Baldwin’s _Anc. Am._, pp. 86–9, cut; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol.

iv, pp. 652–62, which we have found of valuable assistance; especially

see _Ruins of the Chaco Cañon, examined in 1877_, by W. H. Jackson, in

_Tenth Annual Report of U. S. Geol. Survey_. Washington, 1879. Best

account.

[475] Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 74–5, plates 53–4, copied by

Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 652; also see Domenech’s _Deserts_, vol i, p.

201, and _Annual Scienc. Discov._, 1850, p. 362.

[476] W. H. Jackson in _Bulletin of U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the

Territories_, 2d series, No. 1, Washington, 1875, and in the _Annual

Report_ of the same, Washington, 1876, pp. 369 _et seq._ A condensed

though excellent account is furnished by Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 718 _et

seq._ Also a condensed account by Prof. Edwin A. Barber in _Congrès des

Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877. _Seconde Session_, tom. i, pp. 22–38.

Also _Ibid._, _The Ancient Pueblos, or Ruins of the Valley of the Rio

San Juan_. Parts I, II.

[477] _Bulletin No. 1_, vol. ii, pp. 11, 12.

[478] Published in _Bulletin of the Geological and Geographical Survey

of the Territories_, vol. ii, No. 1. Washington, 1876. Mr. Bancroft’s

account in the _Native Races_, necessarily terminates with the close of

Mr. Jackson’s labors in 1874.

[479] See _A Notice of the Ancient Ruins of South-western Colorado,

examined during the summer of 1875, by W. H. Holmes_, in _Bulletin of

the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories_, vol. ii,

No. 1. Washington, 1876.

[480] Ives’ _Colorado River of the West_, pp. 119–26, with plates. The

same extract condensed into nearly the same form as above is given by

Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 667–80.

[481] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 662 _et seq._, and the authors cited

therein.

[482] _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 663, and Simpson’s _Journal Mil.

Recon._, p. 114.

[483] I have carefully examined Father Escalante’s _Diario_ in the

MS. copy deposited in the Congressional Library at Washington, but

find nothing to contradict the opinion of recent explorers. The reader

will also see Dominguez and Escalante’s _Diario y Derrotero Sante Fé à

Monterey_, 1776, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._ Serie ii, tom. i.

[484] _Ninth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 12. Cambridge, 1876.

[485] _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, Cambridge, 1878, pp.

198–200, 267–80.

[486] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 413 _et seq._; and this work,

chapter I.

[487] The facts claimed in the following account are drawn from

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii., pp. 171–74 and 175–7. Ward,

in _Ind. Aff. Report_, 1864, pp. 192–3. Brinton’s _Myths of the New

World_, p. 190. Ten Broeck in Schoolcraft’s _History and Condition of

the Indian Tribes_, vol. iv, p. 73, and Tyler’s _Primitive Culture_,

vol. ii, p. 384.

[488] Davidson, in _Ind. Aff. Report_, 1865, pp. 131–3, and Bancroft’s

_Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 75–77.

[489] This feature of the legend is beautifully developed by Mr.

Bancroft.

[490] In this account of Montezuma I have used, with few variations,

the same language employed by me in treating the subject in an article

entitled, “Culture-Heroes of the Ancient Americans,” published in

_Appleton’s Journal_ for March, 1877, pp. 275–6.

[491] Hindoo Mounds, see Squier’s observations on Dr. Westerman in _Am.

Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, April, 1851; and Atwater, in _Am. Ethnol. Soc.

Trans._, vol. i, pp. 196–267.

[492] Chief among whom are Dupaix, in Kingsborough’s _Mexican

Antiquities_; Waldeck (exploration performed in 1832–3), Pub. 1866

fol.; Stevens and Catherwood in 1840; M. Morelet in 1846, and Charney

in 1858; for best bibliographical treatment, see Bancroft’s _Native

Races_, vol. iv, pp. 289–294, note.

[493] Stephens, vol. ii, p. 310: Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. 2, and

Brasseur in _Ibid._, p. 17; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 300.

[494] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 300–1.

[495] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. vii. See also Stephens, vol. ii, p.

310; Dupaix, pl. xi.; Kingsborough, vol. iv, pl. xiii; Bancroft, vol.

iv, p. 307.

[496] _Ibid._, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 312.

[497] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 303.

[498] Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 339–43, and Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 323–27.

[499] On the tower, see Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. iii, pl. xviii, xix.

Morelet’s _Voyage_, tom. i, p. 266. Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 315, and

Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 86–7.

[500] Stephens’ _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_. New York (1st ed.

1843, and others subsequently).

[501] Waldeck, _Voyage Pittoresque et Archéologique dans la Province

d’Yucatan_, Paris, 1838, large fol., 22 illustrations. Norman,

_Rambles in Yucatan_, New York, 1843, 8vo, illustrated. Baron von

Friederichstal, _Les Monuments de l’Yucatan_, in _Nouvelles Annales

des Voyages_, 1841, tom. xcii, pp. 297, 314. Charnay, _Cités et Ruines

Américaines_, Paris, 1863, large folio. Of many general notices made

up from these sources we consider Bancroft’s as the most critical and

satisfactory. His note on the bibliography of the subject is also of

interest.

[502] We have followed the measurements of Stephens; seeming to us most

accurate. (See _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 165 _et seq._) Norman, Charnay and

Waldeck all differ in their measurements. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 154–5

has given a good condensation of the description.

[503] _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 175. Reproduced in Bancroft, vol. iv, p.

156, and Baldwin, _Anc. America_, p. 132.

[504] _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 174. Reproduced by Bancroft, vol. iv, p.

160, and Baldwin, _Anc. America_, p. 132.

[505] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 301. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp.

176–7. Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, p. 136.

[506] Waldeck reports that a turtle was sculptured upon each of the

blocks of the pavement. See _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xii, where four are

figured. Stephens, however, found no traces of them. See Bancroft, vol.

iv, p. 175.

[507] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 313. Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pp.

95–6, pl. ix, x, xi. Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, pp. 425 _et

seq._ Charnay’s _Ruines Americ._, pp. 70 _et seq._ Bancroft, vol. iv,

pp. 192 _et seq._

[508] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 397, view of Kabah edifice. See a

sectional view in Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 207.

[509] D’abord j’ai été frappé de la ressemblance qu’offrent ces

étranges figures des édifices mayas avec la tête de l’éléphant. Cet

appendice, placé entre deux yeux et depassant la bouche de presque

toute la longueur, m’a semblé ne pouvoir être autre chose que l’image

de la trompe d’un proboscidian, car le museau charnu et saillant du

tapir n’est pas de cette longueur.—_Waldeck, Voy. Pitt._, p. 74, pl.

xiv, xv. Also _Humboldt, Vues_, ed. 1810, p. 92.

[510] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 311–17; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp.

230–36, with plans and cuts from Stephens’ and Baldwin’s _Anc. Amer._,

p. 140.

[511] _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 130–9; Baldwin, _Anc. Amer._, p. 129.

[512] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 387 _et seq._; Bancroft, vol

iv, pp. 254–9.

[513] The original accounts furnished by actual explorers of Copan

are as follows: 1st, by the Licenciado Diego García de Palacio, who

prepared an account of his duties and their performance, for the king,

Felipe II of Spain, dated March 8, 1576, and preserved in the Muñoz

collection of MSS. The account has been published several times, at

least once in the United States, in Palacio, _Carta Dirijida al Rey_,

Albany, 1860, and translated into English by E. G. Squier; 2d, an

account by Fuentes y Guzman, in a MS. dated 1689. However, so much as

related to Copan was published in 1808 in Juarros, _Compendio de la

Hist. de la Ciudad de Guatemala_, trans. in English in 1823; 3d, by

Col. Juan Galindo, an officer in Central American service (explorations

made in 1835), published communication in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Trans._,

vol. ii, pp. 545–50, and in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, pp. 73,

76; 4th, Stephens and Catherwood in 1839, published in _Incidents and

Travels in Central America_, vol. i, pp, 95–160. New York, 1841.

The ruins have been visited by two or three persons since described

by Stephens, but the public has not enjoyed the benefit of their

researches, as we believe nothing has since been published on Copan.

Brasseur de Bourbourg, who visited the ruins in 1863 and 1866,

testifies to the perfect accuracy of the descriptions and plates in

Stephens’ and Catherwood’s work. A considerable number of notices

of Copan have been made up by different writers from these sources.

The latest and best of such notices is that by Mr. Bancroft, _Native

Races_, vol. iv, pp. 77–105, from whose bibliographical note we have

drawn somewhat for the above facts.

[514] Juarros, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 56–7; Stephens’ _Central America_,

vol. i, p. 144, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 82–3.

[515] Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. ii, pp. 171, 182–8, and

Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 124–8.

[516] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 15, and

cited by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 131.

[517] The only comprehensive and satisfactory treatment of the entire

field in detail is that by Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, chaps. vii,

viii, ix, x.

[518] Dupaix, _Third Expedition_, pp. 6–7, pl. iii–v, fig. 6–9;

Kingsborough, _Mex. Ant._, vol. vi, p. 469, and Mayer’s _Observations

on Mexican History and Archæology_, pp. 25–6, and cuts (Smithsonian

contribution, No. 86), 1856; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp.

368–71, with cuts.

[519] _Reisen_, tom. ii, p. 282, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv,

p. 375.

[520] Dupaix, _Seconde Expédition_, published in Kingsborough, vol. v,

pp. 255–68, vol. vi, pp. 447–56, vol. iv, pl. xxvii–xli, fig. 81–95,

and in _Antiq. Mex.; Seconde Expédition_, pp. 30–44, pl. xxix–xlvi,

figs. 78–93.; Charnay, _Cités et Ruines Américaines_, pp. 261–9,

photographs ii–xviii, and Viollet-le-Duc in _Ibid._, pp. 74–104;

Humboldt obtained his information and plates from the survey and

drawings of Don Luis Martin and Col. de la Laguna, who visited the

ruins in 1802; see _Vues_, tom. ii, pp. 278–85, pl. xvii–xviii, and

in his other works on the same subject. The remaining original works

are Mühlenpfordt in the _Ilustracion Mejicana_, tom. ii, pp. 493–8;

Tempsky’s _Mitla_, pp. 250–3, with plates; Garcia, in _Soc. Mex. Georg.

Boletin_, tom. ii, pp. 271–2; Sawkins in Mayer’s _Observations_;

Fossey in his _Mexique_, pp. 365–70, and Müller, _Reisen_, tom. ii,

pp. 279–81. We might append a large number of notices made second-hand

from the above, but as they contain nothing original we omit them, and

refer the reader who is desirous of examining them, to Bancroft’s note

in _Native Races_, vol. iv. p. 391. Our examination of the subject

has been confined to the accounts of Dupaix, Humboldt, and Charnay,

together with Mr. Bancroft’s critical review of the field. From the

latter we draw some of our bibliographical material.

[521] Charnay, _Mexique_, Phot. iv; also _Cités et Ruines Amér._, Phot.

v, vi. Other views in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 396–405.

[522] Fossey, _Mexique_, p. 367, finds twenty-two different styles

of grecques in this front, while Mühlenpfordt gives cuts of sixteen

different styles in _Ilustracion Mej._, tom. ii, p. 501.

[523] See full discussion by Viollet le Duc in Charnay’s _Ruines

Amér._, pp. 78–9.

[524] Charnay, phot. x. Mr. Bancroft was not ignorant of this error.

Tempsky’s plate served as the guide for Baldwin’s cut.

[525] Dupaix, _Seconde Exped._, pp. 40–1, pl. xliv–v, fig. 93–4.

Kingsborough, vol. v, p. 265; vol. vi, p. 455; vol. iv, pl. xl–i, fig.

95, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 413.

[526] See especially a communication from Mr. Hugo Finck, for

twenty-eight years a resident of the region, published in the

_Smithsonian Report_ for 1870, an extract from which is published in

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 431–3.

[527] Sr. Gondra received considerable information concerning these

ruins from some unnamed person, which he published in _Mosaico

Mexicano_, tom. ii, pp. 368–72.

[528] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 442. This author has given

quite a full description of the fortification, and two plates.

[529] Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, pp. 8–9, pl. ix–xi, fig. 9–12;

Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 215–16; vol. vi, pp. 425–6, pl. v–vi, fig.

11–15; an account in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 368–72 and

cut.

[530] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco y Arqueolójico sobre la República

Mejicana_, 1829–34, Paris, 1839, fol.; Mayer’s _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii,

pp. 199–200; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 247–8, and Bancroft’s

_Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 47, 55–8, with two illustrations. We have

cited Nebel from the latter.

[531] The original describers of Papantla are Diego Ruiz, in _Gaceta

de Mexico_, July 12, 1785, tom. i, pp. 349–51, copied in _Diccionario

Univ. Geog._, tom x, pp. 120–1; also Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_.

Humboldt states that Dupaix and Castañeda visited the locality, but

they published no description, his own description may have been from

information received from them; _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 102–3; _Ibid._,

_Essai Pol._, p. 274; _Ibid._, in _Ant. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, p. 12.

Of the many descriptions drawn from these sources, those of Mayer,

_Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp. 196–7; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp.

248–9, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 452–4, with cut from

Nebel, are probably the best.

[532] Of a large number of notices of Cholula, the most important of

the original class are those of Humboldt, _Essai Pol._, pp. 239–40;

_Ibid._, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 96–124, fol. 2d, pl. vii–viii; Dupaix’s

_First Expedition_, p. 2, pl. xvi, fig. 17, and Kingsborough, vol.

v, p. 218, vol. iv, pl. viii, fig. 20; Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del

Messico_, tom. ii, pl. 33–4; Mayer, _Mexico As it Was_, p. 26, and

_Mex. Aztec_, etc., vol. ii, p. 328, cuts. For most recent reference,

though not very scientific, see Evens’ _Our Sister Republic_, pp.

428–32 (1869), and Haven’s _Mexico, Our Next Door Neighbor_, pp.

109–202, 1875. Mr. Bancroft has given a short, though satisfactory

notice, especially valuable for its citation of authorities. In a note

(11) vol. iv, p. 471–2, a full list of the authors who have written on

Cholula will be found, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 469–77.

[533] _Reisen_, pp. 131–2.

[534] Heller, _Reisen_, pp. 131–2, cited by Bancroft, _Native Races_,

vol. iv, p. 473.

[535] Exploration performed in 1777, and account published in _Gaceta

de Literatura_, November, 1791, also tom. ii, p. 127 of the same.

[536] Copied the proceedings to a considerable extent in _Vues_, tom.

i, pp. 129–37, pl. ix, and in _Essai Pol._, pp. 189–90.

[537] Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, pp. 14–18, pl. xxxi–ii, figs. 33–6;

Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 222–4, vol. iv, pl. xv–vi.

[538] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_, pl. ix–x, xix–xx.

[539] The Government exploration report in _Revista Mexicana_, tom.

i, pp. 539–50, and in _Deccionario Univ. Geog._, tom. x, pp. 938–42;

Mayer’s _Mexico As It Was_, pp. 185–7; _Ibid._, _Mex. Aztec_, etc.,

vol. ii, pp. 283–5, with cuts; Tylor’s _Anáhuac_, pp. 183–95. To these

original accounts many compiled notices might be added. Mr. Bancroft’s

critical review of the sources, supplemented with full bibliographical

notes, is valuable and should receive the attention of the reader. See

_Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 483–98, with several cuts after Nebel. We

have found this writer’s summary of facts of great service in making up

the following description.

[540] The vandalic destruction of this Acropolis of Mexican

architecture is due to the vulgar cupidity of a neighboring sugar

manufacturer, who despoiled it in order to build the furnaces of his

refinery.

[541] See Tylor, _Anahuac_, p. 149, and on the subject in hand.

[542] See Prescott, book iv, caps. i, ii, vol. ii, Kirk’s ed. of 1875,

pp. 100–51.

[543] See chapter vi, p. 248, this work.

[544] Almaraz, _Apuntes sobre las Pirámides de San Juan Teotihuacan_.

_Mexico_, 1864.

[545] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 529–44, and a good

bibliographical note on p. 530.

[546] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 533. On page 548, the

same author in a note translates the following interesting passage

from Sr. Garcia y Cubas: “The pyramids of Teotihuacan, as they exist

to day, are not in their primitive state. There is now a mass of loose

stones whose interstices covered with vegetable earth have caused to

spring up the multitude of plants and flowers with which the faces of

the pyramids are now covered. This mass of stones differs from the

plan of construction followed in the body of the monuments and besides

the falling of these stones, which has taken place chiefly on the

eastern face of the Moon, has laid bare an inclined plane perfectly

smooth, which seems to be the true face of the pyramid. This isolated

observation would not give so much force to my argument if it were not

accompanied by the same circumstances in all the monuments.” This inner

smooth surface has an inclination of 47°, differing from the angle of

the outer faces. Sr. Garcia y Cubas, conjectures that the Toltecs, the

descendants of the civilized architects of these monuments, fearing

that they would be despoiled by the savages who followed them, covered

up their sacred places with the outer coatings described. See Appendix.

[547] Quemada was at first mentioned by early writers as one of

the stations in the Aztec migration. Captain Lyon published in his

_Journal_, vol. i. pp. 225–44, the result of explorations performed by

him at Los Edificios in 1826. Another report was made by Sr. Esparza

from data furnished him by Pedro Rivera in 1830, which appeared in

Esparza’s _Informe presentado al Gobierno_, pp. 56–8, and _Museo

Mex._, tom. i, pp. 185 _et seq._ Herr Berghes made a pretty good

survey of the ruins in 1831: his observations were published by Nebel.

Herr Burkart, a companion of Berghes, published a description in his

_Aufenthalt und Reisen in Mexico_, tom. ii, pp. 97–105. Nebel published

his observations in his _Viaje_. Several authors have made up notices

from these sources without adding any original information. A list of

these, as well as those given above, may be found in Bancroft’s _Native

Races_, vol. iv, pp. 578–9.

[548] Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. ii, pp. 438 _et seq._

[549] Viollet-le-Duc in Charnay’s _Cités et Ruines, Introduct._, pp. 28

_et seq._

[550] Garcia y Cubas, _Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo entre las

Pirámides Egípcias y Mexicanas_; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv,

pp. 543–4, and vol. v, pp. 55–6. See Appendix.

[551] Delafield, _Inquiry into the Origin of American Antiquities_, pp.

57–61. 1839. 4to.

[552] _Mexique_, pp. 274–5. Leipzig, 1843.

[553] _Historical Researches_, p. 355.

[554] See further, Clavigero, _Storia del Messico_, tom. iv, pp. 19–20;

Jones, _Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 122; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 474; Prescott,

_Mex._, tom. iii, p. 407; Humboldt, _Essai Pol._, tom. i, p. 265;

Tylor’s _Early History_, p. 206.

[555] Humboldt, _Vues_, p. 92 (fol. ed., 1810), considers that this

people was originally from Asia and preserved some remembrance of the

elephant, or that in their traditions they had accounts of the mammoth

of the American continent.

[556] Waldeck, p. v, pl. xii, xiii. Stephens, _Cent. Am._, vol ii, pp.

311, 116–17. Dupaix, pp. 20, 37, 75–6, pl. xiv–xxii. Kingsborough, vol.

iv, pl. xxvi. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol iv, pp. 304–6.

[557] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. xiv, xv, shows both groups. Bancroft,

vol. iv, p. 313. Dupaix, pl. xxiii–iv.

[558] Waldeck, pl. xiv.

[559] Waldeck, pl. xvii. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 317–18. Stephens, vol.

ii, p. 318. Morelet, p. 97.

[560] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. iii, pl. 42. Dupaix, pl. xxxiii, Fig.

37. Kingsborough, pl. xxxv, fig. 37. Stephens, vol. ii, p. 355.

Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 328–30.

[561] Waldeck, p. vii, pl. xxi–ii. Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 345–7.

Charnay, p. 419, pl. xxi. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 332–6. Especially see

Rau’s _Palenque Tablet_ (Smithsonian Contrib., No. 331), for the best

account of Tablet of the Cross.

[562] Waldeck, pl. 23–24; Stephens, vol. ii, p. 352; Dupaix, p. 24, pl.

xxxvii–viii; mention in Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 332–3.

[563] Waldeck, pl. 25; Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 344, 349; Bancroft, vol.

iv, pp. 336–7, with cut.

[564] Waldeck, pl. xxvi–xxxii; Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 351–4; Bancroft,

vol. iv, pp. 338–41.

[565] Plates, Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xv–xvii; Charnay’s

photographs have attested the accuracy of Waldeck’s drawings; Waldeck’s

views reproduced in Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 182–3.

[566] Stephens’ _Yuc._, vol. i, p. 306; Waldeck’s pl. xvi; also see

Charnay’s phot. 39; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 182–4; Viollet-le-Duc’s

drawing in Charnay, p. 65.

[567] Cut from Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xiii–xviii and p. 100;

reproduced by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 185, of which ours is an

electrotype copy. See also Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 302–3;

Charnay, _Ruines Amer._, phot. 40, 41, 44; Norman’s _Rambles in

Yucatan_, p. 162.

[568] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 303–11; Charnay’s _Ruines

Amér._, pp. 140–1, phot. 33, 34; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv,

pp. 220–36.

[569] Mr. Salisbury, with the most liberal courtesy, has furnished the

heliotypes and photos from which the accompanying engravings were made.

We take this opportunity of expressing publicly our thanks for this

rare favor.

[570] _Archæological Communication on Yucatan_, by Dr. Le Plongeon in

Salisbury’s _Maya Archæology_, p. 65, and _Proceedings of Am. Antiq.

Soc._, October 21, 1878.

[571] _Maya Archæology_, p. 61.

[572] _Ibid._, p. 62.

[573] See Torquemada, _Monarchia Indiana_, lib. iv, cap. 8, and

Herrera, _Hist. Gen. Ind._, decade ii, lib. iv, cap. 17, quoted by

Salisbury, _Maya Archæology_, pp. 33–35.

[574] See _Terra-cotta Figure from Isla Mugeres_, by Stephen Salisbury,

Jr., in _Maya Archæology_ (heliotypes).

[575] Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol. i, pp. 103–4, 134–43 with plates;

Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 302–322, 338–9; Galindo in _Amer.

Antiq. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, pp. 548–9; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 89–105,

with cuts.

[576] Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 371, 381, 385, 387, 414, 415, 421, 427,

428, 435, 436, 455, 457, 462, has figured some of these, but all

indicate an order of art inferior to the Maya.

[577] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_; Mayer’s _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp.

199, 200; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 457–8.

[578] Vetch, in _London Geog. Soc. Jour._, vol. vii, pp. 1–11, plate;

Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 462.

[579] Dupaix, _Third Expedition_, p. 5, pl. i–ii; _Ibid._, _First

Expedition_, pp. 3–4, pl. i–ii, fig. 1, 2; p. 10, pl. xii; pp. 12–13,

pl. xvii–xxii, fig. 19, 24; _Second Expedition_, p. 51, pl. lxi, fig.

117; Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 285–6; vol. iv, pl. i–ii, fig. 1–3; vol.

vi, p. 467; vol. v, pp. 209–10; vol. vi, pp. 421–2; vol. iv, pl. i,

fig. 1–4; vol. v, p. 217; vol. iv, p. vi, fig. 16, and Bancroft, vol.

iv, pp. 467–69.

[580] Dupaix, _First Expedition_, p. 14; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 481.

[581] This work, p. 372.

[582] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 499, has reproduced some of them.

[583] Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 332 _et seq._; tom. ii, pp. 1 _et

seq._ and 84–5, pl. viii, (fol. ed. pl. xxiii); _Mayer, Mexico As it

Was_, pp. 126–8; Prescott, _Conq. Mex._, vol. i, pp. 126, 145–6; vol.

ii, pp. 112, ed. 1875; Bancroft, vol. iv. pp. 505–9, and cut.

[584] Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. ii, pp. 148–61 (fol. ed., pl. xxix);

_Ibid._, _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, pp. 25–7, suppl. pl. vi;

Nebel, _Viaje_, with large plate; Mayer, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. i, pp.

108–11; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 109–14; Bullock’s _Mexico_,

pp. 337–42; Leon y Gama, _Dos Piedras_, pt. i, pp. 1–3, 9, 10, 34,

and five plates latterly cited by Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 512–15, four

plates.

[585] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 517; Mayer, _Mexico As it Was_, pl. 100–1;

_Ibid._, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, p. 274.

[586] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. 55.

[587] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. viii, pl. xliv. Tylor’s _Anahuac_, pp.

110, 337, for information concerning the masks. Also Bancroft, vol. iv,

pp. 557–9.

[588] _Smithsonian Contribution_, No. 287, pp. 82–7 (1876).

[589] _Hist. Kingdom Guatemala_, p. 19. Lond., 1823.

[590] F. Giordan, _Description et colonization de l’Isthme de

Tehuantepec_, p. 57. Paris, 1838.

[591] Melgar in _Mex. Geog. Soc. Bolletin_, 2d época, tom. iii, p. 112

_et seq._

[592] Dr. Max Uhlmann, _Handbuch der gesamten Ægyptischen

Alterthumskunde_, I _Theil. Geschichte der Egyptologie_, p. 108.

Leipzig, 1857.

[593] Botta, _Mon. de Ninive_, vol. ii, pl. 58, and _Edinburgh Review_

for Jan. 1870, p. 231.

[594] John Newton in Appendix to Inman’s _Ancient Pagan and Modern

Christian Symbolism_, p. 116. London, 1874.

[595] _Saturn_, lib. i, cap. 20.

[596] Zoeckler, _Das Kreutz Christi_, p. 9, Güterslo, 1875, and

_Edinburgh Review_, Jan. 1870, p. 232.

[597] Mr. Bancroft remarks, “He happens, however, here to have selected

two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America.

In the preceding volume of this work, page 333, is given a cut of what

is called the ‘Tablet of the Cross’ at Palenque. In this we see a

cross and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two human

figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering. In

Mr. Stephens’ representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost the

same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented Latin

cross, we have here a _crux commissa_, or _patibulata_; that instead

of one bird there are two, not on the cross but immediately above it,

and that the figures, though in profile and holding the same general

positions, are dressed in a different manner, and are apparently

binding the cross with the lotus instead of making an offering to it;

in Mr. Stephens’ representation from the obelisk of Carnac, however,

a priest is evidently making an offering to a large bird perched upon

an altar; and here again the human figures occupy the same position.

The hieroglyphics, though the characters are of course different, are,

it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in much the same manner.

The frontispiece of Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, described on p.

352, represents the tablet, on the back wall of the altar, Casa No. 3

at Palenque. Once more here are two priests clad in all the elaborate

insignia of their office, standing one on either side of a table or

altar, upon which are erected two batons, crossed in such a manner as

to form a _crux decussata_, and supporting a hideous mask. To this

emblem they are making an offering.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, vol. v,

pp. 60–1, note.

[598] W. H. Holmes in _Bulletin of the Geog. and Geol. Survey of the

Territories_, Vol. II, No. I, p. 20, Pl. 11 and 12.

[599] Landa, _Relacion_, p. 44. Villagutierre, _Conq.Itza_, pp. 393–4.

Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 768.

[600] _Relacion_, p. 316.

[601] Peter Martyr, Dec. iv, lib. viii. Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 769–70.

[602] Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, pp. 342, 453–5.

[603] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 780. Brasseur’s admission

will be found in the _Bibliothéque Mexico-Guatemalienne_, Paris, 1871,

p. xxvii. The translation, prefaced with 136 quarto pages devoted to

a consideration of the Maya characters, is published under the title,

_MS. Troano: Etudes sur le systéme graphique et la langue des Mayas_.

Paris, 1869–70. 4to, 2 vols., 70 colored plates.

[604] Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 773, plate, p. 774.

[605] The original of Landa’s explanation is as follows: “De sus

letras porne aqui un _a_, _b_, _c_, que no permite su pesadumbre

mas porque usan para todas las aspiraciones de las letras de un

caracter, y despues, al puntar de las partes otro, y assi viene a

hazer _in infinitum_, como se podra ver en el siguiente exemplo: _Lé_,

quiere dezir laço y caçar con el; para escrivirle con sus carateres,

haviendoles nosotros hecho entender que son dos letras, lo escrivian

ellos con tres, puniendo a la aspiracion de la _l_ la vocale _é_ que

antes de si trae, y en esto no hierran. aunque usense, si quisieren

ellos de su curiosidad, exemplo: _e L e Lé._ Despues al cabo le pegan

la parte junta. _Ha_ que quiere dezir agua, porque la _haché_ tiene

_a_, _h_, antes de si la ponen ellos al prinicipio con _a_, y al cabo

deste manera, _ha_. Tambien lo escriven a partes pero de la una y otra

manera, yo no pusiera aqui ni tratara dello sino por dar cuenta enters

de las cosas desta gente. _Ma in kati_ quiere dezir no quiero, ellos lo

escriven a partes desta manera: _ma i n ka ti._”—_Landa, Relacion_, p.

318, translated by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 778.

[606] _Relacion_, p. 322.

[607] Bollaert, _Examination of Central American Hieroglyphs_, in

_Memoirs of Anthropological Soc. of London_, vol. iii, pp. 288–314.

London, 1870.

[608] Charencey, _Essai de Déchiffrement d’un fragment d’inscription

palenquéenne_, in _Actes de la Société Philologique_, tom. i. March,

1870.

[609] Rosny, _Essai sur le Déchiffrement de L’Écriture Hiératique de

L’Amérique Centrale_, Paris, 1876, folio, with large colored plates and

fac-similes. In three parts, two of which only have as yet appeared

(Oct. 1878). The author informs me (Feb. 1879) that a fourth part will

be required to complete the work.

[610] Bollaert in _Memoirs of Anthropol. Soc. of London_, vol. iii, p.

298.

[611] _Ibid._, p. 301.

[612] _Ibid._, p. 307.

[613] See a review of these attempts in Rosny’s _Essai_, pp. 12–13, and

remarks on Charencey in Appendix D of Baldwin’s _Ancient America_.

[614] _Examination of Cent. Am. Hier._, p. 306.

[615] _The Ancient Phonetic Alphabet of Yucatan_, p. 6, N. Y., 1870,

cited by Rosny, _Essai_, p. 25.

[616] _Essai_, p. 26; Rosny cites Bancroft’s opinion to the same

effect, _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 782.

[617] _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 529–33.

[618] _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 537.

[619] Gemelli Carreri, Humboldt, Kingsborough, Ramirez in Garcia y

Cubas, and Bancroft; see this work, chapter vi, p. 262.

[620] Vol. ii, pp. 544–5.

[621] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. i, pl. lxi; explanation, vol. v, pp. 96–7;

Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 538–40.

[622] Delafield, _Antiq. of Am._, pp. 42–7. M. Ed. Madier de Montjau

has recently added much to our understanding of Aztec picture-writing

in his Chronologie hieroglyphico-phonétic des rois Aztèques de

1352–1522 retrouvée dans diverses mappes américaines antiques,

expliquée et précédée d’une introduction sur l’Écriture mexicaine.

A valuable article on the same subject is found in the _Congrès

des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877, tom. ii, pp. 346–362, by M.

l’Abbé Jules Pipart, entitled Eléments phonétiques dans les Ecritures

figuratives des anciens Mexicains.

[623] An excellent account of the various collections of Aztec

picture-writing will be found in the introduction to Domenech’s

_Manuscrit Pictographique_, Paris, 1860, 8vo; a book which would

be valueless but for that feature. See also account of M. Aubun’s

collection in Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp.

lxxvi–lxxviii. For general description of hieroglyphic principles see

Tylor, _Researches_, pp. 89–101, and Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. i, pp.

177–9, 162–202. See also Boturini, _Idea de una Hist._, pp. 5, 77,

87, 96, 112, 116. Prescott, _Conq. Mex._ (Kirk’s ed., 1875), vol. i,

pp. 94, 99, 107–9. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. ii, pp.

187–94. Mendoza, in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, 2d época, tom. i, pp.

896–904. Gallatin in _Amer. Ethno. Soc. Transact._, vol. i, pp. 126,

165–69. Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. vi, p. 87, and Ixtlilxochitl’s

_Hist. Chich._ in Kingsborough, vol. ix, p. 201. Torquemada, _Monarq.

Ind._, tom. i, p. 149. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 521–52.

[624] Landa, _Relation_, pp. 204–316, and the work by Perez, entitled

_Cronologia Antigua de Yucatan_, with Brasseur’s translation into

French in the above work, pp. 366–429. Also see English translation

in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 434–59. See also Orozco y Berra,

_Geografia_, pp. 104–8, and an able discussion in Bancroft’s _Native

Races_, vol. ii, pp. 755–67.

[625] Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 204. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii,

p. 756.

[626] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 757.

[627] See Perez’s Appendix to Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 458–59,

and in Landa’s _Relacion_, Appendix, pp. 370–382, and Brasseur in the

same. Especially Rosny, _Essai sur le Dech. de L’Écrit. Hiérat. de

L’Amér. Cent._, pp. 15–24.

[628] Landa, _Relacion_, p. 234. Perez in Landa, pp. 394 _et seq._, and

in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 439; also see Bancroft, vol. ii, pp.

759 _et seq._

[629] Perez in Landa, _Relacion_, pp. 366–8; also cited by Bancroft,

vol. ii, p. 759.

[630] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 318–19. Stephens was unable to

assign any use to the pillars referred to. He counted upwards of 380.

Dr. Le Plongeon accords with our view.

[631] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 441 _et seq._

[632] See Landa, _Relacion_, pp. 313, 400–412; Stephens, _Yucatan_,

Perez, vol. i, pp. 441–447, MS. cited in vol. ii, pp. 465–469;

Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 762–765; M. Delaporte, _Le

Calendrier Yucatèque_, MS. cited by Rosny, _Essai sur le déchiffrement

de L’Écriture Hiératique_, p. 25.

[633] Perez in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 447.

[634] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i, lib. ii, pp. 49–76; lib. iv, pp.

282–310, gives a partial though very satisfactory account. Leon y Gama,

_Dos Piedras_, is critical and learned, but often incorrect. Humboldt,

_Vues_, furnishes an elaborate account, which is very valuable though

complicated. Veytia’s explanation is the result of thorough research,

_Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i. Gallatin is extremely clear and reliable in

_Amer. Ethno. Soc. Transactions_, vol. i. McCulloch’s _Researches in

Amer._, pp. 201–25. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 502–22,

furnishes us an account, clear and full, as are all of his discussions.

Several cuts enhance the value of the chapter. We especially refer

the reader to his rich bibliography of the subject, appended in

notes. A number of additional authors are before us: Ixtlilxochitl,

Müller, Herrera, Clavigero, Brasseur de Bourbourg, Boturini, Prichard,

but last and best is the ingenious and masterly _Vortrag über den

Mexicanischen Calender stein gehalten von Prof._ _Ph. Valentini, am

30 April, 1878_ (in Republican Hall, New York), _vor dem Deutsch

ges. wissenschaftlichen Verein_, 32 pp. 8vo, recently translated and

published by Stephen Salisbury, Jr.

[635] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 508.

[636] Mr. Bancroft also follows the opinion that the above date is the

correct one.—_Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 515.

[637] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 512.

[638] Prof. Valentini, _Vortrag_, p. 16.

[639] _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 513.

[640] Mr. Bancroft incorrectly states that thirteen days were

intercalated at the end of each tlalpilli (13 years). It is plain

that if 365 days constitute a year, the lost time would not amount to

thirteen days before fifty-two years.

[641] Prof. Valentini quotes the terms given above, and Mr. Bancroft

states that the same process of computation was pursued in both

divisions.

[642] See _The Nation_ for Aug. 8, 1878, p. 84, and for Sept. 19, 1878.

Also Mr. Salisbury’s translation of Valentini’s _Vortrag_, Worcester,

1879.

[643] Prof. Valentini cites _Codex Vaticanus_, pl. 91, _Codex

Boturini_, pl. 10, _Codex Tellerianus_, pl. 6 and 8. The Professor

in making the comparison, remarks: “Auf beiden senkt sich ein Schaft

in ein rundes Loch, von welchem aus sich etwas volutenähnliches

hervorwindet. Wir gewahren auf den gemalten Bildern, dass jede der

Voluten in 2 Hälften getheilt ist, die eine grau die andere roth

gemalt. Dieselbe Abtheilung finden wir auch auf der Sculptur. Was

dieses Symbol bedeute, wird uns aus der Beobachtung klar, dass wir

es in den gemalten Jahrestafeln immer nur dann wiederkehrend finden,

sobald 52 Jahre verflossen sind. Wir sehen es immer gerade an das

Symbol dieses 52ten Jahres angehängt, an einer Stelle, in Cod. Tell.

IV, Pl. 8. 1. Kingsb. Coll., vol. i, es erscheint auch mit einem

erklärenden Texte. Er lautet: ‘_Dieses ist das Zeichen für die

Zusammenbindung der 52 Jahre._’”—_Vortrag_, pp. 23, 24.

[644] Prof. Valentini, _Vortrag_, pp. 24, 25, cites _Codex Selden_, pl.

10, _Codex Laud_, pl. 8, and _Codex Veletri_, fol. 34.

[645] Prof. Valentini cites a Codex from the Squier collection, where

the symbol occurs accompanied with the word _Molpiynxihuitl_, which

translated means “the binding of the years.” He also cites _Codex

Boturini_, pl. 10, Kingsborough Collection.—_Vortrag_, pp. 25, 26.

[646] Dr. Le Plongeon in _Yucatan_, by Stephen Salisbury, Jr., p. 88.

Worcester, 1877.

[647] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, pp. 254 _et seq._

[648] Humboldt, _Vues_, pp. 148 _et seq._ (Ed. 1810.)

[649] _Vues_, p. 152. On page 150 he furnishes tables of comparison

which show unmistakably the analogy between the Mexican Calendar and

that of the people of Eastern Asia.

[650] Cabrera, _Teatro_ in _Rio’s Description_, pp. 103–5.

[651] Delafield’s _American Antiquities_, pp. 52–3.

[652] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. vi, pp. 174, 182.

[653] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. vi, p. 163.

[654] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. viii, p. 19.

[655] “It is impossible on reading what Mexican mythology records

of the war in heaven, and of the fall of Zoutemoque and the other

rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the word Touacatecutli,

and of the division of the waters; of the sin of Yztlacohuhqui, and

his blindness and nakedness; of the temptation of Suchiquecal and

her disobedience in gathering roses from a tree, and the consequent

misery and disgrace of herself and all her posterity—not to recognize

scriptural analogies. But the Mexican tradition of the deluge is that

which bears the most unequivocal marks of having been derived from a

Hebrew source. This tradition records that a few persons escaped in

the Ahuehuete, or ark of fir, when the earth was swallowed up by the

deluge, the chief of whom was named Patecatle or Cipaquetona; that he

invented the art of making wine; that Xelua, one of his descendants, at

least one of those who escaped with him in the ark, was present at the

building of a high tower, which the succeeding generation constructed

with a view of escaping from the deluge should it again occur; that

Tonacatecutli, incensed at their presumption, destroyed the tower with

lightning, confounded their language and dispersed them; and that Xelua

led a colony to the New World.”—_Mex. Antiq._, tom. vi, p. 401.

[656] Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relaciones_ in _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, and this

work, chap. vi.

[657] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 66, 68.

[658] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, p. 27.

[659] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 246.

[660] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 253.

[661] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 361.

[662] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, p. 67.

[663] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 137.

[664] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 382.

[665] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 238; washing of hands after meals, see p.

53, Appendix.

[666] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 414; vol. viii, p. 18.

[667] The following is Kingsborough’s account of the Mexican baptism:

“The midwife took the infant in her arms naked, and carried it into

the court of the mother’s house, in which court were strewed reeds or

rushes, which they call Tule, upon which was placed a small vessel of

water, in which the said midwife bathed the said infant; and after she

had bathed it, three boys being seated near the said rushes, eating

roasted maize mixed with boiled beans, which kind of food they named

Yxcue, which provision or paste they set before the said boys, in order

that they might eat it. After the said bathing or washing, the said

midwife desired the said boys to pronounce the name aloud, bestowing a

new name on the infant which had been thus bathed; and the name which

they gave it was that which the midwife wished.”—_Mex. Antiq._, vol.

vi, p. 45.

[668] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 248.

[669] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 69.

[670] _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 163 _et seq._

[671] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 167.

[672] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 248.

[673] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 125; _Codex Telleriano-Remensis_, pl.

xix; _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vii, pp. 240–1, and Duran, MS., part ii, cap.

20; see further, _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, pp. 135–218.

[674] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, pp. 121–2. He cites several authors to

prove this sweeping statement, and is not content with finding it among

the Indians, but is provoked by his zeal to discover the practice of

the same rite among the Hottentots. See _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 272,

333–5; vol. viii, pp. 143, 391, 20. On page 393, vol vi, he makes this

remarkable statement: “From an examination of some of the Mexican

paintings, it would appear that circumcision among the Indians was

not confined to the human species.” Also vol. viii, p. 155: “The head

of the Totonac high-priest, was anointed by the blood of circumcised

children.”

[675] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 273; vol. viii, pp. 157, 236, 160.

[676] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 504.

[677] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 361.

[678] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 257.

[679] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 222.

[680] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 142.

[681] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 258.

[682] _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 301, 312; vol. viii, pp. 23–58.

[683] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 27.

[684] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 32.

[685] _Ibid._, vol. viii, pp. 26–7.

[686] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 190.

[687] _Ibid._, vol. vi, pp. 207–8.

[688] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 261.

[689] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, pp. 207–8. He thinks the gospel must have

been preached at an early day in Yucatan, and in proof cites from the

sixth chapter of the Fourth Book of Cogolludo’s History the following:

“A certain ecclesiastic wrote to a priest commissioned by Las Casas,

that he met a principle-lord, who, on being questioned respecting

the ancient religion which they professed, told him that they knew

and believed in the God who was in Heaven, and that this God was the

Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and that the Father was named Yzona, who

had created man; and that the Son was called Bacab, who was born of a

virgin of the name of Chiribirias, and that the mother of Chiribirias

was named Yxchel; and that the Holy Ghost was named Echvah. Of Bacab,

the Son, they said he was put to death and scourged and crowned with

thorns and placed with his arms extended upon a beam of wood, to which

they did not suppose that he had been nailed, but that he was tied,

where he died and remained dead during three days, and on the third day

came to life and ascended into heaven, where he is with his Father; and

that immediately afterwards Echvah, who is the Holy Ghost, came and

filled the earth with whatsoever it stood in need of.”

[690] Mr. Bancroft in his fifth vol., pp. 84–89, has collated a great

number of Lord Kingsborough’s analogies. Our limited space forbids

further treatment.

[691] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 41; Humboldt’s _Vues_, tom.

i, p. 236.

[692] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 41; Humboldt, _Vues_, p.

256; Tschudi, _Peruvian Antiq._, p. 211.

[693] _Vues_, p. 230 (ed. 1810).

[694] Viollet-le-Duc in Charnay’s _Ruins_, pp. 41–2. Paris, 1863.

[695] _Vues_, p. 148 (ed. 1810).

[696] _Mœurs des Sauvages_, pp. 108–455.

[697] Brasseur in _Introduction_ to Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. lxx–i.

[698] Landa’s _Relacion_, _Introduc._, pp. lxxi _et seq._

[699] Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa, pp. lxvi–ix.

[700] We have not thought it necessary to treat the mythology or

religious systems of the Mayas and Nahuas in any formal manner, but

only incidentally to call attention to some salient features, cropping

out in connection with the subject in hand. The religions of the

ancient Americans have been so often and so admirably treated, that

anything relating to them in this connection would be superfluous. See

especially Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii; Müller’s _Geschichte

der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_; Squier’s _Serpent Symbol in America_;

Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, and _Ibid._, _Religious Sentiments

in the New World_.

[701] _Families of Speech_, pp. 134–6. London, 1873. 12mo.

[702] Spanish, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, pp. 110–15.

[703] English translation in Prescott’s _Mexico_, vol. iii, and

Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 494–97.

[704] _Families of Speech_, pp. 125–26.

[705] The same author refers to the classification of languages adopted

by Prof. Steinthal in his _Charakteristik der hauptsächlichsten

Typen des Sprachbaues_. Languages are divided into _cultivated_ and

_uncultivated_, and each again are subdivided into _isolating_ and

_inflectional_. The American languages are classed as uncultivated and

inflectional by incorporation.—(_Families of Speech_, p. 127.)

[706] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 559, 670–2. See on

the latter page especially a vocabulary of resemblances.

[707] We refer the reader who is interested in the aboriginal languages

of the North-west to the _Contributions to North American Ethnology_,

published by the Department of the Interior, under the direction of

Major J. W. Powell, Washington, 1877. 3 vols. 4to.

[708] Garcia y Cubas, _The Republic of Mexico in 1876_. A political and

ethnographical division of the population, etc., translated by Geo.

F. Henderson, p. 66. Mexico, 1876. Most of the above names are cited

by Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 760; by Orozco y Berra,

_Geografía_, pp. 18–25 _et passim_, and by Pimentel, _Lenguas Indígenas

de Mex._, vol. ii, p. 5 _et seq._

[709] _Leng. Indig. de Mex._, vol. ii, p. 3.

[710] _Geografía de las Lenguas de Mex._, pp. 129.

[711] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 760, and the literary

apparatus appended.

[712] Orozco y Berra, _Geografía_, pp. 22, 128.

[713] Communication of Dr. Le Plongeon to the Hon. John W. Foster,

minister of the United States at Mexico, dated Island of Cozumel, May

1, 1877, in Salisbury’s _Dr. Le Plongeon in Yucatan_, p. 83.

[714] Dr. Le Plongeon, communication to Stephen Salisbury, Jr., Esq.,

dated Island of Cozumel, June 15, 1877. He remarks: “Notwithstanding

a few guttural sounds, the Maya is soft, pliant, rich in diction and

expression, even every shade of thought may be expressed.” “Strange to

say the language remained unaltered. Even to-day, in many places in

Yucatan the descendants of the Spanish conquerors have forgotten the

native tongue of their sires, and only speak Maya, the idiom of the

vanquished.”—_Communication above cited in Salisbury’s Le Plongeon in

Yucatan_, pp. 95 _et seq._

[715] The following is Señor Melgar’s comparative list with the Spanish

translated into English.

_Hebrew._ _English._ _Chiapenec._

Ben, Son, Been.

Bath, Daughter, Batz.

Abbá, Father, Abagh.

Chimah, Star in Zodiac? the creator of rain, Chimax.

Maloc, King, Molo.

Abah, Name applied to Adam, Abagh.

Chanan, Afflicted, Chanam.

Elab, God, Elab.

Tischiri, September, Tsiquin.

Chi, More, Chic.

Chabic, Rich, Chabin.

Enos, Son of Seth, Enot.

Votan, To give, Votan.

Lambotus, River of Arica, Lambat.

He adds: “Todas estas coincidencias hacer suponer que en épocas muy

remotas existeron communicaciones entre el viejo y el nuevo mundo.” He

then refers to Plato’s _Atlantis_.—_Melgar in Sociedad Mex. de Geog.

Boletin_, iii, _Época_, p. 108.

[716] Brasseur’s letter to M. Rafn in _Nouvelles Annales des Voy._, 6th

series, vol. xvi, p. 263. He thinks the Scandinavians may have reached

those remote parts at an early day. On pp. 281–9 he gives a list of

words chosen from the Quiché, Cakchiquel and Zutohil, showing analogies

with languages of Northern Europe, especially with the Scandinavian.

Also see the same author in the _Nouv. Ann. des Voy._, 6th series, vol.

iii, 1855, pp. 156–7. The Abbé in a letter to the _New York Tribune_,

November 21st, 1855, in referring to the early inhabitants of Vera

Paz, says: “_They came from the east_—not from the south-east, _but

from the north-east_. I speak only of the tribes of Quiché-Cakchiquel

and Zutohil. They came from the north-east, certainly passed through

the United States, and as they say themselves, _they crossed the sea

in darkness, mist, cold and snow_. I suppose they must have come from

Denmark and Norway. They came in small numbers, and lost their white

blood by their mixture with the Indians whom they found—whether in the

United States or in these regions, certainly there must have been a

Tula in our northern European countries. But what is more convincing of

this migration or passage, I find the same result by a comparison of

the languages. I cannot speak of the structure of them, but by what I

have observed is that the fundamental forms and words of the languages

of these regions (except the Mexican) are intimately connected with the

Maya or Tzendal, and that all the words that are neither Mexican nor

Maya belong to our languages of Northern Europe, viz.: English, Saxon,

Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Flemish and German, some even appear to

belong to the French or Persian.”

[717] Dr. Farrar, referring to the Basque, says: “What is certain

about it is, that its structure is polysynthetic, like the language of

America. Like them, and them only, it habitually forms its compounds by

the elimination of certain radicals in the simple words; so that, _e.

g._, _ilhun_, twilight, is contracted from _hill_, dead, and _egun_,

day; and _belhaun_, the knee, from _belhar_, front, and _oin_, leg.

It was this fact that made Larramendi give to his treatise on Basque

grammar the title of ‘The Impossible Overcome.’ The most daring of all

the hypotheses which have been suggested points to the conceivable

existence of some great Atlantis; to the possibility of the ‘Basque

area being the remains of a vast system, of which Madeira and the

Azores are fragments belonging to the Miocene period.’ Be this as

it may, the fact is indisputable and is eminently noteworthy that,

while the affinities of the Basque roots have never been conclusively

elucidated, there has never been any doubt that this isolated language,

preserving its identity in a western corner of Europe between two

mighty kingdoms, resembles in its grammatical structure the aboriginal

languages of the vast opposite continent, and those alone.”—_Families

of Speech_, pp. 132–3. Also see Alfred Maury in Nott and Gliddon’s

_Indigenous Races of the Earth_, p. 48.

[718] See Maury in Nott and Gliddon’s _Indig. Races_, pp. 81–84.

[719] Salisbury’s _Le Plongeon in Yucatan_, p. 96.

[720] See on the Maya, Ruz, _Gram. Yucateca_; Pimentel, _Quadro Leng.

Indig._, tom. ii, pp. 5 _et seq._, whose grammar we have followed

above. Also vol. ii, pp. 119, 221; vol. i, p. 229, for idioms; Gallatin

in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Transact._, vol. i, pp. 252 et seq.; Vater,

_Mithridates_. tom. iii, pt. iii, pp. 4–24; Brasseur de Bourbourg,

_Grammaire_ in Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. 459 _et seq._, also _Maya and

French Vocabulary_; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 759–82,

quotes prayer as above. Further see literature cited in Ludewig’s

_Literature of American Aboriginal Languages_, ed. of Trübner. London,

1858, pp. 102–3.

[721] Full accounts of the grammatical structure of the languages of

this family may be found in Pimentel’s _Quadro_, tom. i, pp. 35–78,

321–60; Orozco y Berra’s _Geografía_, pp. 25 _et seq._; Bancroft’s

_Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 748–58.

[722] Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chic._ in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Antiq._,

vol. ix, p. 217, and cited by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p.

724.

[723] _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 724–5; Pimentel, _Quadro Leng.

Indig. de Mex._, tom. i, pp. 154–8, and our discussion in this work,

chapter vi. p. 255.

[724] _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 726–7. The same author refers

to the _Natural History_ of Dr. Hernandez, written in the Aztec, as

proof of its copiousness. “Twelve hundred different species of Mexican

plants, two hundred or more species of birds, and a large number of

quadrupeds, reptiles, insects and metals, each of which is given its

proper name in the Mexican language.” (Quoted by Pimentel, _Quadro._,

vol. i, p. 168.)

[725] See Prescott’s _Conq. of Mex._, vol. i, p. 174 (ed. of 1875).

“Tezcuco,” says Boturini, “where the noblemen sent their sons to

acquire the most polished dialect of the Nahuatlac language, and to

study poetry, moral philosophy, the heathen theology, astronomy,

medicine and history.” (_Idea_, p. 142, cited by Prescott.)

[726] _Geografía de las Lenguas_, p. 9.

[727] Pimentel, _Quadro, Lenguas Indig._, p. 165, also copied by

Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 731. From Pimentel we draw our

extract of Aztec Grammar.

[728] _Quadro, Leng. Indig._, tom. i, p. 183.

[729] It will be observed in some portions of this abstract, I have

used almost the same words as are employed by Mr. Bancroft. This is

owing to the fact that both he and I have translated certain passages

literally from Señor Pimentel, from whose work I have drawn this

account throughout. See _Quadro, Lenguas Indig. de Mex._, tom. i, pp.

164–216; Gallatin in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. i, pp. 214–246;

Vater, _Mithridates_, vol. iii, pt. iii, pp. 85–106, and Bancroft’s

_Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 721–37.

[730] _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 726.

[731] _Mithridates_, tom. iii, pt. iii, pp. 75 _et seq._

[732] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 663–70, our authority

for the facts stated on p. 486. See his sketch of the theory and the

reaction under Buschmann.

[733] _Die Lautveränderung Aztekischer Wörter in der Sonorischen

Sprachen._ Berlin, 1855, 4to, and _Die Spuren der Aztekischen

Sprachen_. Berlin, 1850, 4to.

[734] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 669.

[735] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 667–8; William von

Humboldt in Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._ pp. 48–50; Orozco y

Berra, _Geografia_, p. 39.

[736] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, p. 172; Orozco y Berra,

_Geografia_, pp. 321–5; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 714.

[737] _Geografia_, pp. 58, 147–8.

[738] “As regards this Aztec element, I do not mean to say that these

languages are related to the Aztec language in the same sense that

other languages are spoken of as being related to each other, for

this might lead those who are searching for the former habitation or

fatherland of the Aztecs, to suppose that it has been found. This

element consists simply in a number of words identical or reasonably

approximate to the like Aztec words, and in the similarity, perhaps,

of a few grammatical rules. How this Aztec word-material crept into

the languages of the Shoshones, whether by inter-communication, or

Aztec colonization, we do not know. Nor do I wish to be understood as

attempting to sustain the popular theory of an Aztec migration from the

North; on the contrary, the evidences of language are all on the other

side.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 660–1.

[739] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, p. 290; Bancroft, _Native

Races_, vol. iii, pp. 673–4.

[740] _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, pp. 349–51, 391, 648–52 _et seq._;

Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 661–79, comparative table

compiled from Buschmann, Turner, Molina, Ortega, and others, on p. 678.

[741] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, p. 629, and Bancroft,

_Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 630–1.

[742] “The Chinook language is spoken by all the nations from the

mouth of the Columbia to the Falls. It is hard and difficult to

pronounce for strangers, being full of gutturals like the Gaelic. The

combinations _thl_ or _tl_ are as frequent in the Chinook as in the

Mexican.”—Franchère, _Narrative of a Voy. to N. W. Coast of N. Am._,

p. 262. Swan, speaking of the Chinook, says: “The peculiar clucking

sound is produced by pressing the tongue against the roof of the mouth,

and pronouncing the word ending with _tl_ as if it were the letter _k_

at the end of the _tl_; but it is impossible in any form or method of

spelling that I know of, to convey the proper guttural clucking sound.

Sometimes they will, as if for amusement, end all their words in _tl_;

and the effect is ludicrous to hear three or four talking at the same

time with this singular sound, like so many sitting-hens.”—_North West

Coast_, p. 315.

[743] Buschmann, _Spuren der Aztek. Spr._, pp. 628–9; Bancroft, _Native

Races_, vol. iii, p. 619.

[744] Gibbs’ _Alphabetical Vocab. of Clallam and Lummi Lang._, p. 6;

Gallatin, in _Trans. Am. Eth. Soc._, vol. i, p. 54.

[745] Buschmann, _Die Völker und Sprachen Neu-Mexico’s_, p. 370, calls

attention to the great resemblance of

_Aztec._ _Nutka._

tepuztli = copper = chipuz

tetl = stone = tenetschök

and adds that _Esquiates_ the name of a society is entirely Mexican. We

append the result of his investigations:

“Von ähnlicher Art, gleich den Spanisch gemodelten Gestalten

Mexicanischer Wörter, sind viele Nutka-Wörter der Spanischen

Sammlung: nur mit dem Unterschiede, dass sie auf keinen

vorhandenen mexicanischen Wörtern beruhen (da zufällig diese

Buchstaben-combinationem in der Azt. Sprache nicht vorkommen, aber

ihren Wesen nach recht gut vorkommen könnten). Solche Wörter sind:

_iztocoti_ = Muschel (dazu Eigenname _iztocoti_ No. 923); _majati_

= jagd (caza), _mamati_ = Hof, _muztati_ = Regenbogen: _cucustlati_

= Nasenloch, _natlaycazte_ = Rippen; _otniquit_ = Jungfrau;

_mamatle_ = Schiff; _oumatle_ = Leib; _aguequetle_ = Hunger;

_capitzitle_ = Dieb; _tahechitle_ = larga: _temextixitle_ = Kuss;

_cuachitle_ = reisen; _cuchitle_ = pincher; _meyali_ = Schmerz.

Es giebt noch eine höhere Gattung von Nutka-Wörtern (der Span.

Reise), welche (besonders durch die Aechtheit ihrer Endung von der

vorigen verschieden) ganz und gar wie mexicanische Wörter aussehen,

und (so weit sie substantiva sind) mexicanische sein würden, wenn

es der Sprache beliebt hätte diese bestimmten Lautgestalten zu

bilden: _inapatl_ = Rücken; _tlexatl_ = Matte; _tzahuacatl_ =

9; _chamiehtl_ = Iris; _naguatzitl_ = Zwerg; _naschitl_ = Tag;

_jacamitl_ = viereckig; _huatzacchitl_ = Husten; _nectzitl_ =

trinken; _pugxitl_ = heben; _cocotl_ = Seeotter; _amanutl_ =

espinilla; _apactzutl_ = Bart; _ictlatzutl_ = Mund; _iniyutl_ =

Kehle; _jayutl_ = Fluth; _tlatlacastzeme_ = Blätter (wie ein Mex.

Plural in _me_); _coyactzac_ = Fuchsbalg. Noch mehr Wörter finden

sich, wenn man für die Mex. Sprache unnatürliche und zu harte

Consonanten—Verbindungen übersieht. Diese letzte höhere Gattung

vorzüglich, doch auch die erstere meint Alexander von Humboldt in

der obigen Stelle (S. 363). So gawinnt die Nutka-Sprache durch eine

reiche Zahl von Wörtern und durch grosse Züge ihres Lautwesens,

einzig von allen anderen fremden, die ich habe aufdecken können,

in einem bedeutenden Theile eine täuschende Aehnlichkeit mit

der Aztekischen oder Mexicanischen; und so wird die ihr schon

früher gewidmete Aufmerksamkeit vollständig gerechtfertigt. Ihrer

Mexicanischen Erscheinrung fehlt aber, wie ich von meiner Seite

hier ausspreche jede Wirklichkeit.”—_Ibid._, p. 371.

[746] _Compte-Rendu Seconde Ses. Cong. Internat, des Américanistes_,

Luxembourg, vol. i, pp. 51–2.

[747] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 727. Acosta, _Hist. Nat.

Ind._, p. 600. Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, lib. ix, cap. 9.

[748] “To show how languages spring up and grow, Vancouver, when

visiting the coast in 1792, found in various places along the shores of

Oregon, Washington and Vancouver’s Island, nations that now and then

understood words and sentences of the Nootka and other tongues, some of

which had been adopted into their own language. When Lewis and Clarke,

in 1806, reached the coast, the jargon [Chinook] seems to have already

assumed a fixed shape, as may be seen from the sentences quoted by the

explorers.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 632.

[749] I append a partial list from Señor Najera’s _Disertacion sobre

la lengua_ _Othomi_, Mexico, 1845, fol., pp. 87–8. I have rendered the

Spanish list into English.

+----------+----------+-------------++----------+---------+------------+

|_Chinese._|_Othomi._ | _English._ ||_Chinese._|_Othomi._| _English._ |

+----------+----------+-------------++----------+---------+------------+

| Cho. | To. | The, that. || Pa. | Da. | To give. |

| Y. | N-y. | A wound. || Tsun. | Nsu. | Honor. |

| Ten. | Gu, Mu. | Head. || Hu. | Hmu. | Sir, Lord. |

| Siao. | Sui. | Night. || Na. | Na. | That. |

| Tien. | Tsi. | Tooth. || Hu. | He. | Cold. |

| Ye. | Yo. | Shining. || Ye. | He. | And. |

| Ky. | Hy (ji). | Happiness. || Hos. | Hia. | Word. |

| Ku. | Du. | Death. || Nugo. | Nga. | I. |

| Po. | Yo. | No. || Ni. | Nuy. | Thou. |

| Na. | Ta. | Man. || Hao. | Nho. | The good. |

| Nin. | Nsu. | Female. || Ta. | Da. | The great. |

| Tseu. | Tsi, Ti. | Son. || Li. | Ti. | Gain. |

| Tso. | Tsa. | To perfect. || Ho. | To. | Who. |

| uan. | Khuani. | True. || Pa. | Pa. | To leave. |

| Siao. | Sa. | To mock. || Mu, Mo. | Me. | Mother. |

+----------+----------+-------------++----------+---------+------------+

[750] Warden, in _Antiquités Mexicaines_, tom. ii, div. ii, pp. 125 _et

seq._ The same author has furnished many linguistic analogies, though

without following any scientific classification. Ampère, _Promenade

en Amérique_, vol. ii, p. 301, furnishes a list of Chinese and Otomi

resemblances.

[751] Orozco y Berra, _Geografía_, p. 17. Pimentel, _Leng. Indig.

de Mex._, tom. i, p. 118. Bancroft, vol. iii, p. 737. Vater,

_Mithridates_, tom. iii, pt. iii, p. 113. Malte-Brun (V. S.), in

_Congrès des Américanistes, Luxembourg, Seconds Ses._, tom. ii, pp.

16–18.

[752] “In 1857, a gentleman named Henley, a good Chinese scholar, who

acted as an interpreter of this state for some time, published a list

of words in the Chinese and Indian languages to show that they were of

the same origin. From this we make an extract supporting our remarks:

_Indian._ _Chinese._ _English._ | _Indian._ _Chinese._ _English._

|

Nang-a, Nang, Man. | A-pa, A-pa, Father.

Yi-soo, Soa, Hand. | A-ma, A-ma, Mother.

Keoka, Keok, Foot. | Ko-le, A-ko, Brother.

Aek-a-soo, Soo, Beard. | Ko-chae, To-chae, Thanks.

Yuet-a, Yuet, Moon. | Nagam, Yam, Drunk.

Yeeta, Yat, Sun. | Koolae, Ku-kay, Her.

Utyta, Hoto, Much. | Koo-chue, Chue-koo, Hog.

Lee-lum, Ee-lung, Deafness. | Chookoo, Kow-chi, Dog.”

Ho-ya-pa, Ho-ah, Good. |

We have no means at hand of testing the following statement from

the same author: “The Chinese, who have become so numerous in

California since the discovery of gold, bear a striking resemblance

to the Indians, and are known to be able to converse with them in

their respective languages to an extent that cannot be the result of

mere coincidence of expression.”—_Cronaise, The Natural Wealth of

California_, p. 31. Probably a mistake.

[753] “Unhesitatingly as I make this assertion—an assertion for which I

have numerous tabulated vocabularies as proof—I am by no means prepared

to say that one-tenth part of the necessary work has been done for

the parts in question; indeed, it is my impression that it is easier

to connect America with the Kuirle Isles and Japan, etc., than it is

to make Japan and the Kuirle Isles, etc., Asiatic.”—_Latham, Man and

His Migrations_, pp. 195–6. Barton, _New Views_, is certain that the

languages of America originated in Asia; see pp. lxxxviii–xcii. On p.

28 of Appendix he furnishes a comparative list of Japanese and Indian

words.

[754] Vergleichung der Amerikanischen Sprachen mit den Ural-Altaïschen

hinsichtlich ihrer Grammatik. (_Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg,

1877, tom. ii, p. 56 _et seq._) Also see E. L. O. Roehrig “On the

Language of the Dakota or Sioux Indians,” _Smithsonian Report_, 1872.

[755] Prof. Valentini’s communication to the author.

[756] Brasseur, in Landa’s _Relacion_, p. xxi, and _Popol Vuh_, chap.

iii. Brasseur, in _Quatre Lettres_, p. 24, speaking of the _Codex

Chimalpopoca_, says: “Oui, Monsieur, si ce livre est en apparence

l’histoire des Toltèques et ensuite des rois des Colhuacan et de

Mexico, il présente, en réalité, le récit du cataclysme qui bouleversa

le monde, il y a quelques six on sept mille ans, et constitua le

continents dans leur état actuel,” pp. 40–41. He expresses his belief

that the _Cod. Chim._ has a double meaning, and that many names

and symbols possessed by the natives refer to the cataclysm which

occurred six or seven thousand years ago. “C’est le récit de ces

bouleversements, c’est l’histoire du cataclysme, dont tous les peuples

ont gardé la mémoire, que racontent tous mes documents.”

[757] The following are the legends, according to Brasseur de

Bourbourg: “According to the tradition of the Sacred Book (_Popol

Vuh_), water and fire contributed to the universal ruin, at the time of

the last cataclysm which preceded the fourth creation. ‘Then,’ says the

author, ‘the waters were agitated by the will of the Heart of Heaven,

and a great inundation came upon the heads of these creatures. * * *

They were engulfed, and a resinous thickness descended from heaven.

* * * The face of the earth was obscured and a heavy darkening rain

commenced, rain by day and rain by night. * * * There was heard a

great noise above their heads as if produced by fire. Then were men

seen running, pushing each other, filled with despair; they wished

to climb upon their houses, and the houses tumbling down fell to the

ground; they wished to climb upon the trees, and the trees shook them

off; they wished to enter into the grottoes, and the grottoes closed

themselves before them.’ In the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, the author,

speaking of the destruction which took place by fire, says: ‘The third

sun is called _Quia-Tonatiuh_, sun of rain, because there fell a rain

of fire; all which existed burned, and there fell a rain of gravel.’

They also narrate that whilst the sandstone which we now see scattered

about, and the _tetzontli_ (amygdaloide poreuse) boiled with great

tumult, there also rose the rocks of vermillion color. Now this was in

the year _Ce Tecpactl_, One Flint, it was the day _Nahui-Quiahuitl_,

Fourth Rain. Now, in this day, in which men were lost and destroyed in

a rain of fire, they were transformed into goslings; the sun itself

was on fire, and everything, together with the houses, was consumed.”

Brasseur recounts a Haytian legend concerning the origin of the sea and

isles: “There was, they say, a powerful man called Iaia, who, having

murdered his only son, wished to bury him; but not knowing where to

put him, enclosed him in a calabash, which he placed afterwards at the

foot of a high mountain, situated a little distance from the place

where he lived; on account of his affection for his son he often went

to the spot. One day, having opened it (the calabash), there came out

whales and other very large fishes, of which Iaia, full of fear, having

returned home, told his neighbors what had happened, saying that this

calabash was filled with water and innumerable fishes. This news being

spread abroad, four twin brothers, desiring to obtain fish, went to

the place where the calabash was. Just as they had taken it in their

hand to open it, Iaia came, and they seeing him, threw the calabash on

the ground, in their fear of him. This (the calabash) having burst,

on account of the great weight which was enclosed in it, the waters

gushed forth, and the interminable plain, which stretched farther than

the eye could reach, was flooded and covered with water. The mountains

alone, because of their great height, were not submerged in this great

inundation. So they believed that these mountains were the islands and

the other divisions of the earth which we see in the world.”—_Brasseur

de Bourbourg_, in _Landa’s Relacion_, pp. xxi–iv.

[758] “With regard to the primitive dolichocephalæ of America, I

entertain an hypothesis still more bold, perhaps, namely, that they

are nearly related to the Guanches in the Canary Islands and to the

Atlantic populations of Africa, the Moors, Tauricks, Copts, etc.,

which Latham comprises under the name of Egyptian-Atlantidæ. * * * We

find, then, one and the same form of skull in the Canary Islands, in

front of the African coast, and in the Carib-Islands, on the opposite

coast which faces Africa. * * * The color of the skin on both sides

of the Atlantic is represented in these populations as being of a

reddish-brown. * * * These facts involuntarily recall the tradition

which Plato tells us in his _Timæus_ was communicated to Solan by an

Egyptian priest respecting the ancient Atlantis. * * * This tradition

deserves attention in connection with facts which seem to point in the

same direction.”—_Retzius, in Smithsonian Report_ for 1859, p. 266.

[759] Salisbury, _Dr. Le Plongeon in Yucatan_, pp. 57–61.

[760] Unger, _Die Versunkene Insel Atlantis_, cited by Lyell,

_Antiquity of Man_, p. 440.

[761] Published in Winterthal, 1854–58, 3 bde. Also by the name author,

see _Urwelt der Schweiz_, Zurich, 1865, and _Ergänzungsblätter_, bd. ii

(Hildburgh), 1867. See Meyer’s _Konversations-Lexicon_, 3. _Aufl._, bd.

viii, p. 693; bd. ii, p. 125, where the above are cited. Dr. Otto Ule,

_Die Erde_, bd. i, p. 27, concurs with the above; work published in

Leipzig, 1874, 2 vols. large 8vo.

[762] See Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, p. 440, and Oliver, _Lecture at

the Royal Institution_, March 7, 1862, cited by Lyell.

[763] Sir C. Wyville Thomson, _The Atlantic_ (voyage of the

_Challenger_), vol. i, pp. 190, 208, 213; vol. ii, 23, 232. New York,

1878. Also see _Scientific American_ for July 28th, 1877.

[764] _Depths of the Sea_, by Dr. Carpenter, F.R.S., J. G. Jeffreys,

F.R.S., and Dr. Wyville Thomson, F.R.S., London, 1873.

[765] _The Atlantic, Exploring Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger_, vol. ii,

pp. 248–9.

[766] _The Atlantic_, vol. ii, p. 23.

[767] _Scientific American_, July 28, 1877.

[768] _The Atlantic_, vol. ii, p. 254.

[769] _Ibid._, vol. ii, p. 288.

[770] _Popular Science Review_, July 1878, cited by _Scientific

American_ of August 24, 1878, vol. xxxix, p. 114.

[771] Le Conte, _Elements of Geology_, New York, 1878, p. 131.

[772] Le Conte, _Geology_, p. 129.

[773] _Ibid._, pp. 127–32. Dr. Otto Ule, _Die Erde_, bd. i, ss. 496–502.

[774] See Plato’s _Critias and Timæas_. Also Aristotle, _De Mundo_,

cap. iii, and _Prince Henry the Navigator_, chap, vii, by Major, Lond.,

1868.

[775] See Reclus, _The Ocean_, pp. 70–82. New York, ed. 1878.

[776] Irving’s _Columbus_, vol. i, chap, iii; vol. ii, p. 308. Reclus,

_Ocean_, pp. 223, 229.

[777] Irving’s _Columbus_, vol. ii, p. 279. Lafiteau, _Conquestes des

Portugais_, lib. ii, cited by Irving.

[778] See Martius, _Beitrage_, etc., p. 180, for the origin-tradition

of the Tupis or Brazilians, where it is narrated that two brothers with

their families landed at a remote period on Cape Frio. The brothers

Tupi and Guarani gave their names to the two great South American

families.

[779] Brasseur in Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. lii–lxv; Eckstein, _Les Cares

or Cariens de l’Antiquité_, 2d part, vi, dans la _Revue Archéologique,

XVᵉ année_; Brugsch, _Die Geogr. der Nachbarlaender Egyptens_, pp.

84–88, cited by Brasseur. “En ces vieux jours du monde, dit encore

M. d’Eckstein, où Ibères et Libyens, Lahabim et Phoutim s’enlacaient

plus ou moins à travers l’Europe occidentale, et poussaient jusqu’au

sein de l’Irlande et de la Grande Bretagne, les monuments de

Mizraïm semblent révéler des rapports maritimes de ces Libyens et

probablement de ces Ibères avec les Cares et avec les autres races

anté-pélasgiques des côtes de la Grèce et de l’Italie, ainsi que des

iles de l’Archipel.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa’s Relacion_, pp.

lvii–lviii.

[780] _Manual of Geology_, second ed., p. 583.

[781] Le Conte, _Elements of Geology_, pp. 145–149.

[782] Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, Appendix C, pp. 288–293.

[783] _Man and His Migrations_, pp. 129–30.

[784] Kennon in Leland’s _Fusang_, p. 68.

[785] “From the result of the most accurate scientific observation, it

is evident that the voyage from China to America can be made without

being out of sight of land more than a few hours at a time. To a

landsman, unfamiliar with long voyages, the mere idea of being ‘alone

on the wide, wide sea’ with nothing but water visible, even for an

hour, conveys a strange sense of desolation, of daring and adventure.

But in truth it is regarded as a mere trifle, not only by regular

seafaring men, but even by the rudest races in all parts of the world;

and I have no doubt that from the remotest ages, and on all shores,

fishermen in open boats, canoes, or even coracles, guided simply by the

stars and currents, have not hesitated to go far out of sight of land.

At the present day, natives of the South Pacific islands undertake,

without a compass, and successfully, long voyages which astonish even a

regular Jack-tar, who is not often astonished at anything.”—_Kennon in

Leland’s Fusang_, pp. 71–2.

[786] See Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 51–54, where the paper

of the Japanese Consul, Mr. Brooks, read before the Californian Academy

of Sciences in March, 1875, is cited, detailing forty-one instances in

which Japanese junks were cast upon our coast since 1782. Mr. Brooks

states that he has a record of over one hundred similar disasters.

Whymper, in his _Alaska_ (N. Y. 1869), p. 250, refers to other Japanese

wrecks, and especially to one which, after drifting ten months, reached

the Sandwich Islands. The Hawaiians, on seeing the crew, said, “It is

plain now, we came from Asia.” See also M. de Roquefeuil, _Journal d’un

Voyage autour du Monde, pendant les annes, 1816–1819_; _Smith’s Human

Species_, p. 238.

[787] _Physical Geography_, p. 41, cited by Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_,

p. 367.

[788] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 367.

[789] “There is as much reason to believe that America was peopled from

Asia, as that the primitive races of Europe and Africa should derive

their origin from an Eastern source.”—_Macfie, Vancouver Island and

British Columbia._ London, 1865.

[790] “The weather is, it is true, cold at Behring’s Straits, even

in summer, but not one-fourth as cold as at Matsumai, Japan, in

winter.”—_Col. Kennon in Leland’s Fusang_, p. 74.

[791] Frederick von Hellwald in _Smithsonian Report_, 1866, p. 345.

“Open skin canoes, capable of containing twenty or more persons with

their effects, and hoisting several masts and sails, are now frequently

observed among the seacoast Tehuktchis, and the inhabitants of northern

Alaska.”—_Whymper, Alaska_, p. 246–7.

[792] He continues his statement that the Gulf Stream of the Pacific

is the warming agent, and adds the argument that “the present

inhabitants of the countries contiguous to Behring’s Straits on the

two sides, in manners, customs, and physical appearance are almost

identical.”—_Smithsonian Report_, 1866, p. 345.

[793] Gallatin, p. 156. Bancroft, in assuming the certainty of a

migration by Behring’s Straits, says “it seems absurd to argue the

question from any point,” vol. v, p. 54. Venegas, _Noticia de la

California_, Madrid, 1757, vol. i, p. 71, and London ed., 1759, p. 61,

says the Californians at that date had clear traditions of having come

from the north. Fontaine, _How the World was Peopled_, (N. Y. 1872),

pp. 147–9, thinks that the march of Genghis with 1,400,000 Tartars

caused the flight of his enemies in large numbers across the Aleutian

archipelago and Behring’s Straits. Warden, _Recherches_, pp. 118–36,

makes an argument for a migration through Behring’s Straits from

Tartary and China.

[794] Gallatin, in _Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. i, p. 158, says:

“That America was first peopled by Asiatic tribes is highly probable;

but after the lapse of several thousand years, the memory of that

ancient migration was lost.” He inquires as to what we knew of Gaul or

Britain before the Roman invasion. Mr. W. H. Dall, in his thoughtful

Memoir on the _Origin of the Innuit_, says: “I see no reason for

disputing the hypothesis that America was peopled from Asia originally,

and that there were successive waves of emigration. The northern route

was clearly by way of Behring Strait; at least, it was not to the south

of that, and especially it was not by way of the Aleutian Islands.”—_In

Contributions to North American Ethnology_, vol. i, p. 95. Washington,

1877. 4to.

[795] Aug. R. Grote, _The Peopling of America_, in _American

Naturalist_, April 1877.

[796] Croll, _Climate and Time_, New York, 1875, 12mo. Prof. McFarland

in _Am. Jour. of Sci. and Arts_, June 1876, p. 456. Newcomb on Croll’s

_Theory_ in same journal for April 1876, p. 263.

[797] Whymper, _Alaska_, pp. 246, 247, discusses the volcanic nature

of the Aleutian Islands, mentioning the fact that “There are records

of very severe shocks of earthquake felt by the Russian traders and

nations dwelling on them.”

[798] Sir Charles Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, pp. 273 _et seq._, has

shown that Great Britain was separated from the continent by subsidence

and glacial action, thus producing the English Channel which, we have

already seen, corresponds singularly with Behring’s Straits in width

and depth, and formerly, no doubt, both corresponded more nearly in

climatic conditions. It is not unreasonable to suppose that both

passages were produced by the same agencies.

[799] Presidential Address to the Am. Association for Adv. of Sci.,

1872, and published in his _Darwiniana_, pp. 203 _et seq._

[800] John H. Becker, _The Migration of the Nahuas, Congrès des

Américanistes_, Luxembourg, ses., tom. i. p. 349. Altogether the most

enlightened treatment of the subject yet published.

[801] Becker in _Ibid._, pp. 348–9. The same author cites from the

_Trans. of Am. Geog. Soc._, 1874, the following interesting statement

made by Gen. Milnor: “Nowhere else on the continent can similar

great valleys such as the Missouri and Columbia be found, meeting

advantageously at a common point on the main dividing backbone

which separates the continental waters flowing east and west to

the two oceans. The heads of these main valleys are here only from

three to four thousand feet above the sea, while the great treeless

plains—further south—are elevated more than six thousand feet.”

[802] The expedition which the German government and the Berlin

Geographical Society is about to send to the North Pacific under the

intelligent direction of my friend Dr. Van der Horck, will no doubt

contribute largely to our information concerning the ethnographical

relationship of America to Asia.

[803] Second Report on the Implements found in the Glacial Drift of New

Jersey, by C. C. Abbott in _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_,

pp. 225–57. Cambridge, 1878.

[804] Mr. Becker remarks: “Why should the Aztec priesthood and

nobility, a class bred and educated in the understanding of traditional

lore and an elaborate system of picture-writing, be considered as a

set of metaphysical lunatics who did not know or did not mean what

they said.”—_Migration of the Nahuas_ in _Cong. des Américanistes_,

Luxembourg, 1877, tom. i, p. 342.

[805] _Vide_ _Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History_,

Vol. I, No. 3, October, 1878.

[806] _Vide_ _Archæological Explorations in Tennessee_, by F. W.

Putnam. _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American

Archæology and Ethnology_, Cambridge, Mass., 1878.

[807] Letter to the author, dated Davenport, Iowa, May 24, 1879.

[808] _Bulletin of U. S. Geological and Geographical Survey of the

Territories_, vol. ii., No. i., p. 6.

[809] _Contributions to North American Ethnology_, vol. iv.—U. S.

Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, J. W.

Powell in charge. Washington, 1881: especially chap. ix.

[810] In addition to the work by Mr. Morgan above cited, the student

of Mound-builder and Pueblo archæology should not fail to consult

vol. vii. of the _Report upon U. S. Geographical Surveys west of the

one hundredth meridian, in charge of Lieutenant Wheeler_, Washington,

1879. The volume bears the above date, but did not appear until near

the close of 1881. The editing of this valuable work was committed to

the discriminating care of Professor F. W. Putnam, who was assisted by

an able corps of specialists, among others Dr. C. C. Abbott and Albert

S. Gatschet. The Second Part is devoted to papers on the Pueblos. The

magnificent fund of materials here presented, accompanied by full-page

heliotypes of ruins and implements, vastly enlarges our knowledge of

that interesting people. Still another work, of more than ordinary

importance to ethnological and archæological students, is Dr. Charles

Rau’s _Observations on Cup-shaped and other Lapidarian Sculptures in

the Old World and in America_, Contributions to Ethnology, vol. v.

Washington, 1881. Last, but not least, is Professor Otis T. Mason’s

_Account of recent Progress in Anthropology_, in Smithsonian Report for

1880.

Transcriber’s Notes:

- Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_).

- Blank pages have been removed.

- Obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected.

- Wide tables have been split.