The Project Gutenberg eBook of The North Americans of Antiquity, by
John Thomas Short
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
using this eBook.
Title: The North Americans of Antiquity
Their origin, migrations, and type of civilization considered
Author: John Thomas Short
Release Date: January 5, 2022 [eBook #67101]
Language: English
Produced by: Turgut Dincer, Robert Tonsing and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NORTH AMERICANS OF
ANTIQUITY ***
[Illustration: COURT AND TOWER OF THE PALACE, PALENQUE. (After
Waldeck.)]
THE
NORTH AMERICANS
OF
ANTIQUITY
_THEIR ORIGIN, MIGRATIONS, AND TYPE OF
CIVILIZATION CONSIDERED_
BY JOHN T. SHORT
THIRD EDITION
[Illustration]
NEW YORK
HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS
FRANKLIN SQUARE
1882
Copyright, 1879, by JOHN T. SHORT.
PREFACE.
The growing interest in the origin, migrations and life of the races of
American Antiquity has led me to believe that the subjects considered
in these pages would meet with the favorable attention of the public
and of the specialist in this field. With such a conviction I present
this volume, realizing the difficulties which attend any efforts to
elucidate such dark problems. Yet I cannot conceal my satisfaction
that the age of North American Antiquity is not all darkness, but on
the contrary is rapidly growing radiant with light, while a host of
patient searchers for its truths roll up the obscuring curtain. The
recent discoveries by Geo. Smith, Cesnola, and Schliemann naturally
cause us to turn with national pride to the rich antiquarian fields
in our own land. Very satisfactory results have been obtained within
a few years in the exploration of Mound-works and the Cliff-dwellings
of the West. A just view of the civilization of the builders of these
remains, however, requires that it be considered in connection with the
traditional history and civilization of the ancient races of Mexico and
Central America, so marked was the influence of the ancient peoples of
this continent upon each other.
Regarding this to be important, I have endeavored to present a
comprehensive view of the civilization of the Mound-builders,
Cliff-dwellers, and Pueblos, and to bring to the attention of the
reader the traditional history and architectural remains of the Mayas
of Yucatan and the Nahuas of Mexico. Only the probable origin and
the most remote period of the growth of these latter peoples could
receive attention within the limits prescribed for this work, since it
is my design that this volume shall serve as a manual of information
relating to the earliest period of North-American Antiquity, and as
an introduction to Ancient American History. My material relating to
the Mound-builders has been drawn almost entirely from the Smithsonian
Reports, the Proceedings of scientific societies, and private memoirs.
Still it is but justice to one honored co-laborer in the same field,
Col. J. W. Foster, to say that his excellent work, _The Pre-Historic
Races of the U. S._, has been of great service in our investigation
of this subject. Although his sources of information have been, with
few exceptions, before me, my appreciation of his work is attested
by my constant reference to it. Nevertheless, the wonderful advances
which have been made in Mound-exploration since the issue of the
_Pre-Historic Races_, called for a fresh treatment of the subject.
On the Mayas and Nahuas the following manuscript works in the
possession of the Congressional Library at Washington were consulted,
and yielded valuable material:
_Las Casas_: Historia Apologética de las Indias occidentals, 4 vols.
folio.
_Las Casas_: Historia de Indias, 4 vols. folio.
_Panes_ (_D. Diego_): Fragmentos de Historia de Nueva España, folio.
_Echevarria y Veitia_: Historia del origen de gentes que poblaron la
America Septentrional, 1755, 3 vols. folio (about one-fourth of the
work is published in Kingsborough’s Mex. Antiq., vol. viii).
_Escalante in Teniente_ (_Jose Cortes_): Memoria sobre las Provincias
del Norte de Nueva España 1799, folio.
_Duran_ (_Diego_): Historia Antigua de la Nueva España 1585, 3 vols.
folio (part of the work has been published in Mexico).
These, together with the large number of printed books relating to
America in the Congressional Library added to works in my possession,
afforded an ample field for research.
I must express my appreciation of the courteous attentions of the
accomplished Librarian of Congress, the Hon. A. R. Spofford, who
together with his assistants did everything possible to facilitate
my investigations. To the uniform and friendly interest which Mr.
Spofford has manifested in my work, its successful completion is
largely due. The substantial assistance which I received from the
lamented Professor Joseph Henry—the record of whose kindly offices
to his fellowmen can never be written—was invaluable to me. Besides
placing the latest material at my disposal, he generously furnished
most of the engravings in this work relating to the Mound-builders.
Dr. Charles Rau, also of the _Smithsonian Institution_, has placed
me under obligations for valued services. To Professor F. V. Hayden
and to the painstaking offices of Mr. James Stevenson of the _U. S.
Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories_, I am indebted
for the engravings as well as the sources of information relating to
the Cliff-dwellers. The Hon. J. R. Bartlett, of Providence, R. I., with
equal generosity has conferred like favors. Prof. F. W. Putnam, of the
Peabody Museum of American Archæology and Ethnology at Cambridge,
Mass., and his courteous assistants, Mr. Carr and Miss Smith, have
provided me with valuable engravings and reports. Robert Clarke,
Esq., and Mr. E. Gest, of Cincinnati, have also sent me engravings,
and the former in particular has conferred frequent favors. Professor
Ph. Valentini, of Albion, N. Y., with rare liberality, contributed
interesting material relating to the Nahua Calendar. To Mr. Stephen
Salisbury, Jr., of Worcester, Mass., Dr. R. J. Farquharson, of the
Davenport Academy of Sciences, Rev. S. D. Peet, editor of the _American
Antiquarian_, Cleveland, O., and to A. J. Conant, Esq., of St. Louis,
Mo., I am indebted for the interest they have manifested, and for the
material which they have brought to my attention.
Señor Orozco y Berra, of the City of Mexico, the distinguished author
of the _Geografía de las lenguas Mexicanas_, has from time to time
freely made important suggestions concerning some of the problems under
consideration. To my friend the Rev. John W. Butler, of the City of
Mexico, whose intelligent efforts in my behalf have been unremitting,
I have special reason to be thankful. To all these generous friends I
must be permitted here to express my deep sense of gratitude for their
favors.
However, this pleasant task would be but half performed were I to
omit the recognition of the unselfish friendship of the justly
eminent author of the _Native Races of the Pacific States_. Mr.
Hubert Howe Bancroft, whose rare erudition and breadth of thought are
only surpassed by his magnanimity of nature and manliness of spirit,
with a liberality which has scarce a parallel in authorship, sent me
the majority of the engravings illustrative of the Maya and Nahua
architecture and sculpture, used in the fourth volume of the _Native
Races_. To this I may add the no less valuable encouragement which
he so heartily gave during the progress of my work. Although some
of my investigations were prosecuted before the publication of the
_Native Races_, and though all of Mr. Bancroft’s sources relating to
subjects which have received our mutual attention were before me and
underwent a critical examination at my hands, it is but fair to state
that the assistance which I derived from the _Native Races_ has been
of incalculable service in the preparation of this volume. If in any
place I have omitted to render full credit to Mr. Bancroft, and to
that imperishable monument of learning and industry, his great work,
the omission has been due to inadvertence rather than intention. My
obligations to Mr. Bancroft can never be discharged, nor can the kind
attentions of Mr. Henry L. Oak, of the Bancroft Library, San Francisco,
be forgotten.
Still my examination of the sources has not always led me to the same
conclusions as were reached by the author of the _Native Races_. This
may be owing to our different standpoints of observation, or possibly
to an inappreciable bias in my own mind. It is, however, but justice to
myself to say that this work has been prosecuted to its completion with
the spirit of inquiry rather than of advocacy, and is the embodiment of
an honest search for the truth.
THE AUTHOR.
COLUMBUS, O., _November, 1879_.
PREFACE TO THIRD EDITION.
This, the third edition of “The North Americans of Antiquity,” has been
carefully revised and new facts incorporated. In this connection I
take the opportunity of thankfully acknowledging the kindly reception
and marked consideration which this work has enjoyed at the hands of
specialists, of learned Societies in both America and Europe, and from
the University of Leipzig.
J. T. S.
COLUMBUS, OHIO, _September, 1881_.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The Aborigines — Antiquity of the Red Indian — The Mound-builders
— Geographical Distribution of Mound-works — Frontier
Defences of the Mound-builders — Michigan Mounds — Mounds
in the North-west — On the Upper Missouri — In Dakota —
Animal Mounds of Wisconsin — Elephant Mound — Discoveries
at Davenport, Iowa — Davenport Tablet — Heart of the
Mound-builder Country — Cahokia — Resemblances to Mexico —
St. Louis and Cincinnati Works — Cincinnati Tablet — Works
in Ohio — Fortified Places — Fort Ancient — Signal Systems —
Works at Newark — The Ohio Valley — Explorations in Tennessee
— Burial in Stone Coffins — Mound Colonies in the South-east
— Mr. Anderson’s Calendar Stone — Mounds of the Lower
Mississippi Valley — Seltzertown Mound — Alabama and Georgia
Mounds — Pyramid of Kolee-Mokee — Explorations in Missouri
— Sun-dried Bricks — Remains in the South-west — Direction
of the Migration — Architectural Progress — Altar Mounds —
Mounds of Sepulture — Ancient Copper Mines — Astronomical
Knowledge.
CHAPTER II.
ANTIQUITY OF MAN ON THE WESTERN CONTINENT.
Antiquity of the Mounds — No Tradition of the Mound-builders
— Vegetation Covering the Mounds — Age of Mound Crania —
Probable Date of the Abandonment of the Mounds — Ancient
Shell-heaps — Man’s Influence on Nature — Supposed Testimony
of Geology — Agassiz on the Floridian Jaw-bone — Remains
on Santos River — The Natchez Bone — Remains on Petit
Anse Island — Brazilian Bone caves — Dr. Koch’s Pretended
Discoveries — Ancient Hearths — Age of the Mississippi Delta
— Dr. Dowler’s Discovery at New Orleans — Dr. Abbott’s
Discoveries in New Jersey — Discoveries in California —
Inter-Glacial Relics in Ohio — Crania from Mounds in the
North-west — No Evidences as yet Discovered Proving Man’s
Great Antiquity in America.
CHAPTER III.
DIVERSITY OF OPINION AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT
AMERICANS.
Conflict of Discovery and Dogmatism — Arabic Learning in the
VIIIth Century — Spirit of the Early Writers on America —
Common Opinion as to the Origin of the Americans — Father
Duran — Lost Tribes of Israel — Garcia — Lascarbot —
Villagutierre — Torquemada — Pineda, etc. — Abbé Domenech —
Modern Views — Pre-Columbian Colonization — Plato’s Atlantis
— Kingsborough — The “Book of Mormon” — Phœnicians — George
Jones — Greek and Egyptian Theories — The Tartars — Japanese
and Chinese Theories — Fusang — The Mongol Theory — Traces of
Buddhism — White-Man’s Land — The Northmen — The Welsh Claim.
CHAPTER IV.
ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS AS VIEWED FROM THE STANDPOINT
OF SCIENCE.
Origin Theories — Indigenous Origin — Separate Creation Theory
— Dr. Morton’s Theory — Agassiz’s Views — Dr. Morton’s
Cranial Measurements — Dr. Morton’s Theory of Ethnic Unity
Groundless — Ethnic Relationships — Typical Mound-skull —
Crania from the River Rouge — Dr. Farquharson’s Measurements
— Crania from Kentucky — Researches in Tennessee by Prof.
Jones — Measurements — Prof. Putnam’s Collection of Crania
from Tennessee Mounds — Low Type Crania from the Mounds —
Development Observable in Mound Crania — Head-Flattening
Derived from Asia — Diseases of the Mound-builders —
Physiognomy of the Ancient Americans — Languages — Evolution
and its Bearing on the Origin of the Americans — Darwin
and Hæckel on the Indigenous American — The Autochthonic
Hypothesis Groundless — Unity of the Human Family — Accepted
Chronology Faulty.
CHAPTER V.
TRADITIONAL HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA
NATIONS.
Ancient Civilization of Tabasco and Chiapas — The Tradition of
Votan — The First Immigrants to America — The City of Nachan
— The Votanic Document — Ordoñez — Brasseur and Cabrera on
the Tzendal Document — The Empire of the Chanes — The Oldest
Civilization — The Earliest Home of the Mayas — The Quichés —
Their Origin Tradition — The Quiché Cosmogony — The Creation
of Man — The Quiché Migration — Tulan — Mt. Hacavitz — Human
Sacrifices Instituted — Four Tulans — Association of the
Mayas and Nahuas — Heroic Period of the Quichés — Xibalba and
its Downfall — Exploits of the Quiché Chieftains — War of
the Sects — Xibalba and Palenque the Same — Mayas of Yucatan
and their Traditions — Culture-heroes — Zamna and Cukulcan —
Christ Myth.
CHAPTER VI.
TRADITIONAL HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NAHUA
NATIONS.
The Early Inhabitants of Mexico — Quinames — Miztecs and Zapotecs
— Totonacs and Huastecs — Olmecs and Xicalancas — The Nahuas
— The Cholula Pyramid — Its Origin Explained by Duran — No
Relation to a Flood — Ixtlilxochitl’s Deluge Tradition —
The first Toltecs — The Codex Chimalpopoca Account — The
Discovery of Maize — Sahagun’s Origin of the Nahuas — They
came from Florida — Their Settlement in Tamoanchan — Their
Migrations — Hue Hue Tlapalan — Its location, according to
the Sources — Not Identical with Tlapallan de Cortés — Not
in Central America — Probably in the Mississippi Valley —
Beginning of the Toltec Annals — The Chichimecs not Nahuas
— The Nahuatlacas — The Aztecs — Aztlan — As Described by
Early Writers — Aztec Migration — Aztec Maps — Señor Ramirez
on Migration Maps — The seven Caves — Three Claims for the
Location of Aztlan — The culture Hero, Quetzalcoatl.
CHAPTER VII.
THE ANCIENT PUEBLOS AND CLIFF-DWELLERS.
The Casas Grandes of Chihuahua — Ruins in the Casas Grandes and
Janos Valleys — Casa Grande of the Rio Gila — Ruins in the
Gila Valley — Also in the Valley of the Rio Salado — Ruins
in the Cañon of the Colorado — In the Valley of the Colorado
Chiquito — Pueblos of the Zuñi River — Zuñi and the “Seven
Cities of Cibola” — “El Moro” — Pueblos of the Chaco Valley
— Cliff-dwellers — Mr. Jackson’s Discoveries in the Valley
of the Rio San Juan — Cliff-houses of the Rio Mancos —
Cliff-dwellings on the McElmo — Traditional Origin and Fate
of the Cliff-dwellers — Ancestors of the Moquis — Remarkable
Discoveries by Mr. Holmes — The Seven Moqui Towns — The
Montezuma Legend.
CHAPTER VIII.
ANCIENT AMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND SUPPOSED OLD WORLD
ANALOGIES. — ARCHITECTURE, SCULPTURE, AND HIEROGLYPHICS.
Analogies, Real and Fancied — MAYA ARCHITECTURE — The American
Pyramid — The Palace of Palenque — The French Roof at
Palenque — The Trefoil Arch — Yucatanic Architecture — Uxmal
— The Casa de Monjas — Kabah — Casa Grande of Zayi — QUICHÉ
ARCHITECTURE — Copan — Circus of Copan — Description by
Fuentes — Utatlan — NAHUA ARCHITECTURE — Remains in Oajaca
— Mitla — Grecques at Mitla — Remains in the State of Vera
Cruz — Cholula — Pyramid of Xochicalco — The Temple of Mexico
— Teotihuacan — Los Edificios of Quemada — Maya and Nahua
Architecture Compared — Old World Analogies — SCULPTURE — Of
the Mounds — At Palenque — At Uxmal — Of the Nahuas — Ancient
American Art and its Old World Analogies — Egyptian Tau at
Palenque — Serpent Sculpture — Nahua Symbolism probably
Asiatic — HIEROGLYPHICS — Maya MSS. and Books — Landa’s
Alphabet — Attempts at the Interpretation of Maya MSS. by
Bollaert, Charencey, and Rosny — Rosny’s Classification of
the Hieroglyphics — Hopes that a Key has been Discovered —
The Mexican Picture-writing — Aztec Migration Maps.
CHAPTER IX.
CHRONOLOGY, CALENDAR SYSTEMS, AND RELIGIOUS
ANALOGIES.
No Mound-builder Chronology Known — Maya Calendar — Landa on
the Calendar — Maya Days — Maya Months — The Katun — The
Ahau Katun or Great Cycle — The Maya System Adjusted to our
Chronology — The Adjustment by Perez — Intercalary Days —
The Nahua Calendar — The Sources — Divisions of the Mexican
Calendar — The Aztec Year — The Nemontemi — Aztec Months —
Aztec Days — Nahua Ritual Calendar — Mexican Calendar Stone
— Sources of Interpretation — History of the Stone — Its
Interpretation — Date of the Origin of the Calendar Stone
— Date of the Nahua Migration — Analogies with the Nahua
Calendar — RELIGIOUS ANALOGIES — Jewish Analogies — Deluge
Traditions — Supposed Parallels in Jewish and Mexican History
— Analogies of Doctrine — Analogies of Ceremonial Law —
Yucatanic Trinity Myth — Mexican and Asiatic Analogies —
Buddhism in the New World — Scandinavian Analogies — Mexican
and Greek Analogies — Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Comparisons.
CHAPTER X.
LANGUAGE AND ITS RELATION TO NORTH AMERICA
MIGRATIONS.
Diversity of Languages in America — Causes of Diversity —
Richness of American Languages — Polysynthesis — Grimm’s
Law — The Maya-Quiché Languages — Stability of the Maya —
Oldest American Language — The Maya compared to the Greek,
the Hebrew, the North European, the Basque, West African,
and the Quichua Languages — Epitome of Maya Grammar — The
Mizteco-Zapotec Languages — The Nahua or Aztec — The Classic
Tongue — Ancient and Modern Nahua — Epitome of Aztec Grammar
— Geographical Extension of the Aztec — In the South — In
the North-west — Buschmann’s Researches — The Sonora Family
— Opata-Tarahumar-Pima Family — Moqui and Aztec Elements
— Aztec in the Shoshone and in the Languages of Oregon
and the Columbian Region — Line of Aztec Elements — The
Nahua probably the Language of the Mound-builders — The
Otomi — Supposed Chinese Analogies — Japanese Analogies —
Geographical Names.
CHAPTER XI.
PROBABILITIES THAT AMERICA WAS PEOPLED FROM THE OLD WORLD
CONSIDERED GEOGRAPHICALLY AND PHYSICALLY.
Legends of Atlantis — Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Theory — The
Subject Examined in the Light of Science — Retzius’ View — Le
Plongeon’s Observations — Identity of European and American
Plant Types — Revelations of the _Dolphin_ and _Challenger_
Expeditions — The Atlantic Floor — Challenger and Dolphin
Ridges — “Challenger Plateau” probably once Dry Land —
Identity of European and South American Fauna — Elevation and
Depression of Coast Level — Of Greenland, the United States,
and South America — The Gulf Stream — Equatorial Current —
The Trade-Winds — Accidental Discovery of Brazil — America
Probably Reached by Ancient Navigators — The Caras — Atolls
of the Pacific Ocean — A Pacific Continent — Contiguity
of the Continents at the North — Aleutian Islands — The
Kuro-Suvo — Behring’s Straits — Inviting Appearance of the
American Shore — Remoteness of the Migration — Prof. Grote’s
View — Prof. Asa Gray’s Observations — Conditions Favorable
to a Migration — Mr. John H. Becker’s Observations.
CHAPTER XII.
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX.
A. MADISONVILLE EXPLORATIONS.
B. ELEPHANT PIPE.
C. CHARNAY EXPLORATION.
D. HOUSE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS AND PUEBLOS.
INDEX
THE
NORTH-AMERICANS
OF
ANTIQUITY.
CHAPTER I.
ANCIENT INHABITANTS OF THE UNITED STATES.
The Aborigines — Antiquity of the Red Indian — The Mound-builders
— Geographical Distribution of Mound-works — Frontier Defences
of the Mound-builders — Michigan Mounds — Mounds in the
North-west — On the Upper Missouri — In Dakota — Animal Mounds
of Wisconsin — Elephant Mound — Discoveries at Davenport,
Iowa — Davenport Tablet — Heart of the Mound-builder Country
— Cahokia — Resemblances to Mexico — St. Louis and Cincinnati
Works — Cincinnati Tablet — Works in Ohio — Fortified Places
— Fort Ancient — Signal Systems — Works at Newark — The Ohio
Valley — Explorations in Tennessee — Burial in Stone Coffins
— Mound Colonies in the South-east — Mr. Anderson’s Calendar
Stone — Mounds of the Lower Mississippi Valley — Seltzertown
Mound — Alabama and Georgia Mounds — Pyramid of Kolee-Mokee
— Explorations in Missouri — Sun-dried Bricks — Remains in
the South-west — Direction of the Migration — Architectural
Progress — Altar Mounds — Mounds of Sepulture — Ancient Copper
Mines — Astronomical Knowledge.
On that eventful morning nearly four centuries ago, when the spell
of uncertainty and mystery which enshrouded the Atlantic was broken,
and the darkness of the deep vanished with the darkness of the night,
the illustrious admiral discovered a world populated with beings
like himself. They were male and female, with all the physical
characteristics common to the rest of mankind, and differed from the
Spaniards only in that their skin was of a copper hue, and their cheek
bones more prominent. They were tattooed and wore their straight black
hair, cut short above the ears, with a few unshorn locks falling upon
their shoulders.[1] These naked uncivilized men and women were the
same in their physical type with those discovered subsequently on the
islands and the main land by the Cabots, Vespucius, Verrezano, and
Cartier. To rehearse their descriptions of the natives whom they first
met would be but to repeat the experience and observations of Columbus.
Nearly five centuries earlier the Norse adventurer Thorwald Ericson
(1002 A.D.) encountered natives on the New England coast, corresponding
in appearance, habits, and condition to those who occupied the country
when colonized by the first settlers. To these natives they gave the
name of _Skrellings_, from _skraekja_, a name which they had previously
applied to the Eskimo, meaning _to cry out_.[2] Thorfin Karlsefne, who
also reached the New England coast four years later than Thorwald,
describes the natives as sallow-colored and ill-looking, having ugly
heads of hair, large eyes and broad cheeks. They came in canoes to
his ships for the purposes of trade, and though peaceable at first,
soon exhibited hostility and treachery.[3] It is probable that these
Skrellings were North American Indians, who had interbred with the
Atlantic Coast Eskimo. How long the red man’s occupation of the
country antedated its discovery by the Scandinavians is uncertain.
His traditions are worthless on that subject. His chronology of moons
and cycles is an incoherent and contradictory jumble. Nor does he
know any more certainly from whence he came. It would seem that his
race came by installments, if it came at all, and that he was just
as far advanced in the arts of hunting and war and domestic life
on the day in which he first possessed himself of the soil, as on
that in which he was driven from it by the European. Only under the
fostering care of the white man has he shown any improvement, and that
has been of such an uncertain character as to amount to proof of his
incapacity for self-civilization. The Indian, measured by his low
condition in the scale of progress from the extremest barbarism towards
semi-civilization, belongs to what is known as the flint age (old-stone
or Palæolithic) in Europe, in which the rudest flint implements seem
to have been the chief auxiliaries which he possessed with which to
supplement and assist his hands in securing a livelihood or to protect
his person and family from ferocious beasts. Perhaps we may more
properly place him in a position midway between the flint and the
stone ages (new-stone or Neolithic), for he no doubt was possessed of
polished stone implements of a limited number and variety. Whether made
by his own hands or by those of his predecessors is uncertain.[4] In
thus assigning the Indian his place in the scale by which man’s state
of barbarism or degree of civilization has been measured by scholars in
Europe, we do not pretend to claim for him the antiquity of the man of
the flint age in any other part of the globe.[5]
[Illustration: Arrow Heads in the National Museum (Washington).]
[Illustration: Methods Employed by Indians of Hafting Stone Weapons.]
[Illustration: Indian and Mound-builder Spear-Heads.]
Dr. Abbott, of New Jersey, in an extended treatment of the _Stone Age_
in his own State, has shown many evidences of the protracted occupancy
of the Atlantic States by a people whose weapons resemble those of
ancient man in Europe. Col. Charles Whittlesey has called attention
to the discovery of Indian remains in the “Shelter Cave,” near
Elyria, Ohio, and also in a cave near Louisville, Kentucky, where the
conditions seemed to point to an interment as long ago as two thousand
years, but the evidences both as to the remains having been those of
the red man and the period of burial are too uncertain to be of any
service in the construction of a theory.[6]
The eras or ages which have been observed to mark the different stages
of the development of pre-historic man in Europe (in the manufacture
of implements and the construction of places of abode), are apparently
reversed in America.
The Neolithic and Bronze ages preceded the Palæolithic at least in
the Mississippi Basin—not that the last inhabitants deteriorated and
lost the higher arts which are well known to have been cultivated upon
the same soil occupied by them, but that they were preceded by a race
possessed of no inferior civilization, who were not their ancestors,
but a distinct people with a capacity for progress, for the exercise of
government, for the erection of magnificent architectural monuments,
and possessed of a respectable knowledge of geometrical principles.
The remains of this mysterious people known as the mound-builders
are spread over thousands of square miles of the United States, and
it is a question whether the antiquarian is more surprised at the
greatness of their number than in many instances at the immensity
of their proportions. The entire valley region of the Missouri,
Mississippi and Ohio rivers with that of their affluents was occupied
by this remarkable people—presenting us with a parallel to the ancient
civilization which flourished in the earliest times on the watercourses
of the old world. The geographical distribution of these mounds may be
described in general terms with a view to the territory occupied by
them in the United States, as central, western, and southern.
The publication of the valuable works of Squier and Davis, of Dr.
Lapham and those of Mr. Squier alone, in which the remains of these
regions are described, was like a revelation which brought to light
the wonders of an entombed civilization.[7] In treating of the mounds
geographically, we find no evidences of this people having reached the
Atlantic seaboard, unless we except the great shell-heaps found in
various localities on the coast, and of which we will speak further on.
It is true that in South Carolina a few vestiges of their residence
are found on the Wateree River near Camden, and in the mountainous
regions of North Carolina,[8] where they wrought mica mines for the
mineral which they prized as precious, and which so often accompanies
the remains of their dead. No _authentic_ remains of the Mound-Builders
are found in the New England States, nor even in the State of New
York. In the former, we have an isolated mound in the valley of the
Kennebec in Maine, and dim outlines of enclosures near Sanborn and
Concord in New Hampshire, but there is no certainty of their being the
work of this people.[9] In the latter, it was at first supposed that
the remains found in the western portion of the State were uniform
in their plan of construction with the works of the Ohio valley; but
Mr. Squier pronounces them to be purely the work of Red Indians.
This conclusion should not be viewed as final, even though Cusick’s
vague statement (in _Schoolcraft_, vol. v) that the Iroquois “were
compelled to build fortifications in order to save themselves from
the devouring monsters” lends it an air of plausibility. Either people
may have been their builders. Col. Whittlesey would assign these
fort-like structures, differing from the more southern enclosures in
that they were surrounded by trenches on their outside, while the
latter uniformly have the trench on the inside of the enclosure, to
a people anterior to the Red Indian and perhaps contemporaneous with
the Mound-builders, but distinct from either.[10] A quite reasonable
view is that of Dr. Foster, that they are the _frontier_ works of the
Mound-builders, adapted to the purposes of defence against the sudden
irruptions of hostile tribes. He remarks, “If our country were to
become a desolation, the future antiquary would find the sea-coast
studded with fortifications of a complex form, and as he penetrated
to the interior they would disappear altogether.”[11] It is probable
that these defences belong to the last period of the Mound-builders’
residence on the lakes, and were erected when the more warlike peoples
of the North who drove them from their cities first made their
appearance. Passing along the boundary of the Mound-builders’ territory
towards the west, we find the great lakes in all cases to have served
as its limit on the north. Mr. Henry Gillman has described in several
publications[12] his exploration of mounds in Michigan and the lakes.
One of the richest mounds in relics and human remains is known as “the
Great Mound of the River Rouge,” situated on the stream from which it
takes its name, near the Detroit River and about four and a half miles
from the centre of the city of Detroit. The mound now measures twenty
feet in height, and must originally have measured 300 feet in length
by 200 in width, though the removal of large quantities of sand from
it has greatly reduced its proportions and destroyed many valuable
relics. Many other mounds surrounding it have also been removed. The
most remarkable result of the exploration was the discovery of tibiæ
flattened to an extreme degree, such as is peculiar to platycnemic
man. A circular mound in the vicinity yielded even more remarkable
specimens of this singular flattening or compression. Two specimens
presented unprecedented proportions; the transverse diameter of one
shaft being 0.42 and the other 0.40 of the antero-posterior diameter.
The circular mound yielded eleven skeletons besides a large number of
burial vases and stone implements of all descriptions peculiar to the
mounds. Of the crania from this mound we shall speak in Chapter IV.
In 1872, Mr. Gillman examined a remarkable group of tumuli situated
at the head of St. Clair River. These mostly stand on the shores of
Lake Huron. The relics, besides human remains, consisted of pieces of
mica, and necklaces of beads of the teeth of the moose alternating with
well-wrought beads of copper. The same peculiarity of flattened _tibiæ_
was markedly prominent in the remains.[13] The same investigator has
examined mounds at Ottawa Point, Michigan, near the mouth of the Oqueoc
River, at Point La Barbe in the Straits of Mackinac, and at Beaver
Harbor on Beaver Island in Lake Michigan. Excepting ancient copper
mines, no known works extend as far north as Lake Superior anywhere in
the central region. Farther to the North-west, however, the works of
the same people are comparatively numerous. Dr. Foster quotes a British
Columbia newspaper, without giving either name or date, as authority
for the discovery of a large number of mounds, seemingly the works of
the same people who built farther east and south.[14] On the Butte
Prairies of Oregon Wilkes and his exploring expedition discovered
thousands of similar mounds.[15]
[Illustration: Great Serpent, Adams Co., O.]
Lewis and Clarke, in the Journal of their expedition up the Missouri
River, describe the remains of fortifications on Bonhomme Islands at
as early a date as 1804–5–6, but until recently their statements have
been received with a degree of doubt.[16] This doubt has, however,
been fully set at rest by the members of the United States Geological
Surveying Expedition of 1872. Not only has it been shown that works
exist at Bonhomme’s Island, but all the way up through the Yellowstone
region and on the upper tributaries of the Missouri mounds are found
in profusion.[17] Dr. C. Thomas, of the above-named expedition, made
interesting discoveries in Dakota Territory, near the Northern Pacific
Railroad crossing of the James River. Mounds were examined giving
evidence of perhaps greater antiquity than those common in the interior
of the country, if their contents be depended upon as furnishing a
means of test.[18] The Missouri valley seems to have been one of the
most populous branches of the wide-spread Mound-builder country. The
valleys of its affluents, the Platte and Kansas rivers, also furnish
evidence that these streams served as the channels into which flowed
a part of the tide of population which either descended or ascended
the Missouri. The Mississippi and Ohio river valleys, however, formed
the great central arteries of the Mound-builder domain. In Wisconsin
we find the northern central limit of their works; occasionally on the
western shores of Lake Michigan, but in great numbers in the southern
counties of the State, and especially on the lower Wisconsin River.
The peculiar and fantastic forms of most of these mounds have led some
writers to suppose that they belonged to a different race from that
which occupied the valleys to the south. Instead of the usual type
of the pyramid and circle, these remains mostly represent animals,
or birds, or men. Still Dr. Lapham, who has described them fully in
his admirable work[19] on the _Antiquities of Wisconsin_, concluded
that sufficient resemblances between these remains and those of the
south exist to ascribe to them a common origin. A few instances of the
circle and square are found in association with the animal mounds,
while in Ohio, on Brush Creek in Adams County, the “Great Serpent,”
and the “Alligator” in Licking County furnish proof that either the
same people built them or at least the same impulses, religious or
otherwise, actuated the people of both districts. The former of the
above figures is well described by its name, “with its head conforming
to the crest of a hill, and its body winding back for 700 feet in
graceful undulations, terminating in a triple coil at the tail.”
The length of the latter “from the point of the nose following the
curves of the tail to the tip, is about 250 feet, the breadth of the
body forty feet and the length of the legs or paws each thirty-six
feet.”[20] Until recently no effigy mounds were believed exist further
south than Ohio; however, Mr. C. C. Jones, Jr., in the _Smithsonian
Report_ for 1877 has shown this to be a mistake. Mr. Jones describes
an eagle-shaped stone mound north of Eatonton, in Putnam Co., Georgia,
of the following dimensions: Height of tumulus at the breast of the
bird, seven or eight feet; length from the top of the head to the
extremity of the tail, 102 feet; distance from tip to tip of the wings,
120 feet; greatest expanse of tail, 38 feet. A careful regard to the
proportions of the bird are shown. A similar stone mound, of nearly the
same proportions, was found near Lawrence Ferry on the Oconee River
in Putnam County. In this instance a circle of stones encloses the
effigy. At Trenton, Wisconsin, and in many other places examined by
Dr. Lapham, cruciform works were found, some of which were constructed
with the arms extending toward the cardinal points.[21] Instances of
extinct or unknown animal forms occur occasionally: one instance is
that of an animal somewhat resembling a monkey, having a body of about
160 feet in length, while the tail describes a semicircle and measures
alone 320 feet.[22] The most remarkable instance of the kind, however,
is that of the big elephant mound found a few miles below the mouth
of the Wisconsin River, so perfect in its proportions and complete in
its representations of an elephant that its builders must have been
well acquainted with all the physical characteristics of the animal
which they delineated.[23] This fact suggests the inquiry whether these
people were Asiatic in origin and penetrated to the interior of the
country before their recollections of the elephant were forgotten,
or whether they were contemporaneous with the mastodon of North
America? In the remarkable works at Aztlan, Dr. Lapham finds not only
resemblances to the Ohio antiquities, but striking analogies with those
of Mexico.[24]
[Illustration: Elephant Mound, Wisconsin.]
Across the Mississippi in Minnesota and Iowa, the predominant type
of circular tumuli prevail, extending throughout the latter State to
the Missouri. There are evidences that the Upper Missouri region was
connected with that of the Upper Mississippi by settlements occupying
the intervening country. Mounds are found even in the valley of the Red
River of the North.[25]
Eastern Iowa, especially in the neighborhood of Davenport, has
furnished some of the most interesting mounds that have yet been
examined. Several gentlemen—especially Rev. Mr. Gass—of the Davenport
Academy of Sciences have within a couple of years recovered a number of
fine specimens of copper axes, nearly all wrapped in Mound-builder’s
cloth. This cloth had been “preserved by the antiseptic action of
the salts of copper, in all probability of the carbonates. In all
specimens one thread of the warp is double or twisted, and there are
about four to the one-fourth of an inch.”[26] Stone pipes of excellent
workmanship carved to represent various animals were found. Pottery,
copper beads in considerable numbers, mica and sea-shells (Pyrula and
Cassis), one which had an internal capacity of 152 cubic inches, or
five and one-half pints, were among the relics recovered. Most of the
human remains were much decayed; although some, among them a skull,
were preserved. The character of the Altar mound in this group is
rather unusual. Within the mound hewn rectangular stones were laid upon
one another with perfect regularity, so as to break joints, forming
something resembling the exterior appearance of a chimney. We are not
aware of any similarly shaped altar ever having been discovered in the
mounds. The most remarkable discovery of all, however, was made January
10, 1877, by Rev. Mr. Gass and his assistants in one of the mounds
which previously had been examined in part. Two tablets of coal slate
covered with a variety of figures and hieroglyphics were found.[27] One
of these, the larger, is of a most interesting character. On one side,
as will be seen in the accompanying cut, a number of persons with hands
joined have formed a semicircle around a mound, upon which a fire has
been kindled, probably for the purpose of sacrifice, or for converting
into a hardened and water-proof covering the layer of clay which may
have been spread over the remains of some distinguished personage
beneath. The presence of a layer of baked clay above human remains
in so many Ohio mounds leads to this conjecture. The three prostrate
human figures may be those of wives or servants of the deceased, to be
sacrificed upon his grave, as has been the custom from the remotest
times in India and among many savage tribes. The conspicuousness of
the sun, moon, and stars, suggest even a sadder thought, that perhaps
it may be purely a religious ceremony in which human victims are being
offered to the heavenly bodies. Sabine worship, which spread throughout
the entire length of the continent, is known to have been accompanied
with the most horrid rites. Above the arch of the firmament are
hieroglyphics which if deciphered no doubt would tell of the nature of
this and other similar scenes. On the reverse side of the tablet is a
rude representation of a hunting scene in which various animals, such
as the buffalo cow, deer, bear, etc., etc., are figured. It has been
conjectured that a large animal in the upper left-hand corner may be a
mammoth, but there is little ground for the supposition. The scene is
probably a representation of the exploits of the person buried in the
mound. The smaller tablet is evidently a calendar stone with signs of
the zodiac regularly marked upon it; of this calendar we shall speak in
a future chapter. The above conjectures as to the significance of the
representations on these tablets are based upon the supposition that
they are genuine and not the work of an impostor, of which we cannot
refrain from expressing a slight suspicion. That Rev. Mr. Gass has
given a true account of his discovery there cannot be the slightest
doubt—that he and his co-laborers in the work of excavation believe
them to be genuine is equally certain.
[Illustration: The Davenport Tablet.]
Descending to the interior, we find the heart of the Mound-builder
country in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. It is uncertain whether its
vital centre was in Southern Illinois or in Ohio—probably the former
because of its geographical situation with reference to the mouths of
the Missouri and Ohio Rivers. To enter upon a detailed description
of the antiquities of this remarkable region would alone more than
occupy the entire limits which we have prescribed for this work. This
undertaking has already been well performed by Atwater, Squier and
Davis, Foster, Baldwin, and many others. We shall therefore confine
our remarks to notices of the most conspicuous remains and the general
peculiarities of Mound-builder architecture. This people possessed
a due appreciation of the physical advantages of certain localities
for their cities. The site of St. Louis was formerly covered with
mounds, one of which was thirty-five feet high, while in the American
bottom on the Illinois side of the river their number approximates two
hundred. In a group of sixty or more, lying between Alton and East St.
Louis, stands the most magnificent of all the Mound-builders’ works,
the great Mound of Cahokia, which rises to a height of ninety-seven
feet and extends its huge mass in the form of a parallelogram, with
sides measuring 700 and 500 feet respectively. On the south-west there
was a terrace 160 by 300 feet, reached by means of a graded way. The
summit of the pyramid is truncated, affording a platform of 200 by 450
feet. Upon this platform stands a conical mound ten feet high. Dr.
Foster remarks: “It is probable that upon this platform was reared a
capacious temple, within whose walls the high-priests gathered from
different quarters at stated seasons, celebrating their mystic rites,
whilst the swarming multitude below looked up with mute adoration.”[28]
When we consider the analogy between the general features of this
pyramid and that on which the temple of Mexico was situated, it is not
unnatural to reflect that Cahokia may have served as the prototype of
the more magnificent structure which was so often deluged with the
blood of its thousands of human victims. The temple of Mexico and many
others of its type may have been the embodiment of the same principles
of architecture employed at Cahokia, but carried to greater perfection
under the more favorable conditions afforded in the valley of Anahuac,
or precisely the reverse may be true. Such speculations are, however,
more easily set forth than sustained. Dr. Foster, through a mistake,
states that the monster mound has been removed. This, we are happy to
say, is not the case.[29]
[Illustration: Drilled Ceremonial Weapons. (Nat. Mus.)]
Numerous interesting explorations have been conducted recently in
Illinois with rich results. Among the most notable of these are the
discoveries of Mr. Henry R. Howland, reported in a paper read before
the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences, March, 1877 (_Bulletin of the
Buffalo Soc. of Nat. Sc._, vol. iii., p. 204 _et seq._). In January,
1876, Mr. Howland witnessed the removal of a mound near Mitchell
Station in the American Bottom. In a stratum four or five feet from the
base, composed chiefly of human bones, a large quantity of matting and
a number of copper relics were disclosed to view. The matting was a
coarse vegetable cane-like fibre simply woven, without twisting. Among
the articles wrapped in the matting were several miniature tortoise
shells formed of copper. They were of beaten copper of one sixty-fourth
of an inch in thickness, the largest being but two and one-eighth
inches in length. “A narrow flange or rim, about five thirty-secondths
of an inch in width, is neatly turned at the base, and over the entire
outer surface the curious markings peculiar to the tortoise shell are
carefully produced by indentation—the entire workmanship evincing
a delicate skill of which we have never before found traces in any
discovered remains of the arts of the Mound-builders.” These shells
were covered with several wrappings, the first and nearest to the
shell proving to be of vegetable fibre, the second of a dark-brown
color; when placed under the microscope and examined by Dr. G. J.
Engleman and Sir Joseph Hooker, proved to be a very fine cloth woven
from animal hair—of the rabbit and possibly of the deer. The third
envelope was made from the intestine of some animal. The lower jaws of
deer were discovered in which the forward part containing the teeth
were encased in thin copper and wrapped in the fine hair-cloth just
described. From holes bored in the back of each jaw, it is inferred
that the articles were suspended from the neck as totems or badges
of authority. Three wooden spool-like objects were found in the same
place, partially plated with thin copper. Copper rods or needles from
fourteen to eighteen inches in length, a beautiful shell necklace, and
a spear head of chert a foot long, were also discovered. Among the rest
were several sea-shells (_Busycon Perversum_), evidently brought from
the Gulf a thousand miles distant. In the summer of 1874, Mr. H. R.
Enoch, of Rockford, Ill., discovered a tablet in a mound situated on
the bank of Rock River, five miles south of Rockford. The “Rockford
Tablet” created quite a sensation at first because it was thought to
bear upon its face several symbols found upon the Mexican Calendar
stone. However, a thorough investigation of its claims prove it to be
a fraud, no doubt placed in the mound where discovered for the purpose
of deception. Mr. J. Moody of Mendota, Ill., in referring to the twelve
symbols of the tablet said to be Mexican, remarks: “Six are nearly
exact counterparts of that number of Lybian characters which I find
represented in Priest’s _American Antiquities_. * * * From a comparison
of the Rockford Tablet with the plates in the work referred to above,
the inference is almost irresistible that the engraver had a copy of
Priest’s _American Antiquities_ before him while doing his work.” (See
_Congrès International des Américanistes, Luxembourg_, 1877. Tome ii,
p. 160.)
The same sagacity which chose the neighborhood of St. Louis for these
works, covered the site of Cincinnati with an extensive system of
circumvallations and mounds. Almost the entire space now occupied by
the city was utilized by the mysterious builders in the construction
of embankments and tumuli built upon the most accurate geometrical
principles, and evincing keen military foresight.[30] Dr. Daniel Drake
described these works in 1815, and many others subsequently.[31] The
most important discovery made among these remains was that of the
“Cincinnati Tablet” in 1841. This singular relic was taken from a large
mound formerly thirty-five feet high, removed at the above date from
the extension of Mound Street across Fifth Street. When found, it was
lying on a level with the original surface under the skull of a much
decayed skeleton, with two polished, pointed bones about seven inches
long, and a bed of charcoal and ashes. This stone in all probability
served the double purpose of a record of the calendar and a scale
for measurement.[32] Mr. E. Gest, the courteous owner of the tablet,
provided the accompanying cuts expressly for this work, regarding them
as the first correct representations of the stone.
[Illustration: Cincinnati Tablet. (Front.)]
[Illustration: Cincinnati Tablet. (Back.)]
[Illustration: Dagger ½ Size. (Nat. Mus.)]
The vast number as well as the magnitude of the works found in the
State of Ohio, have surprised the most careless and indifferent
observers. It is estimated by the most conservative, and Messrs.
Squier and Davis among them, that the number of tumuli in Ohio equals
10,000, and the number of enclosures 1000 or 1500. In Ross County
alone, 100 enclosures and upwards of 500 mounds have been examined.
Some of the works exhibit fine engineering skill; such, for instance,
are those near Liberty, Ohio, where two embankments, each forming a
perfect circle, are found in conjunction with a perfect square. The
larger circle measures 1700 feet in diameter and contains forty acres,
while the smaller has a diameter of 800 feet. The square contains
twenty-seven acres and measures 1080 feet on each side. One set of
works in Pike County consists of a circle enclosing a square, the
four corners of which each touch the circular embankment. The opening
or doorway through the circle is opposite the opening in the square.
Prof. E. B. Andrews found a conical mound enclosed by a circle, the
base of the mound reaching to the edge of the ditch outside of which
is the circular wall. The mound was located on the Hocking River,
nine miles northward of Lancaster, Ohio (see _Tenth Ann. Rep. of
Peabody Mus. of Arch. and Eth._, p. 51). The works at Hopetown, near
Chillicothe, present several combinations of the square and circle.
The two principal figures of these works are a square and circle—each
containing exactly twenty acres. The discovery of these geometrical
combinations—executed with such precision—in many parts of the country,
lead to the belief that the Mound-builders were one people spread over
a large territory, possessed of the same institutions, religion, and
perhaps one government. These facts are highly important as shedding
light upon the degree of their civilization. The evidence is ample
that they were possessed of regular scales of measurement, of the means
of determining angles and of computing the area to be enclosed by a
square and circle, so that the space enclosed by these figures standing
side by side might exactly correspond. In a word, their scientific and
mathematical knowledge was of a very respectable order.
[Illustration: Works in Liberty Township, Ross County, Ohio.]
[Illustration: Celts. (Nat. Mus.)
The large celt, upper line, from a mound (Tenn.). The others Surface
Finds.]
[Illustration: Aboriginal Chisels, Gouges and Adzes. (Nat. Mus.)
Surface Finds.]
The military works of the Mound-builders, other than those previously
mentioned as existing on the Lakes and in Western New York State,
are of a twofold character, consisting first of fortified eminences,
of which an instance is found in Butler County, Ohio, where 16³⁄₁₀
acres are walled in on the summit of a hill, and the entrance to the
enclosure guarded by a complicated system of covered ways. On Paint
Creek, Ross County, a remarkable stone work encloses 140 acres, in
the centre of which was an artificial lake, probably to supply water
in case of a siege. Perhaps the most remarkable fortification left
by the Mound-builders is that known as Fort Ancient, Ohio, on the
Little Miami River, forty-two miles north-east of Cincinnati. The
specialist is already familiar with the oft-quoted description of the
Survey by Prof. Locke, made in 1843. We will therefore only refer to
a few of the measurements contained in that description. “The work
occupies a terrace on the left bank of the river, two hundred and
thirty feet above its waters. The place is naturally a strong one,
being a peninsula defended by two ravines, which, originating on the
east side, near to each other, diverging and sweeping around, enter
the Miami, the one above, the other below the work. The Miami itself,
with its precipitous bank of two hundred feet, defends the western
side.” * * * “The whole circuit of this work is between four and five
miles. The number of cubic yards of excavation may be approximately
estimated at 628,800”. The embankment stands in many places twenty feet
in perpendicular height. The most interesting and valuable paper on
this work is that by Mr. L. M. Hosea, of Cincinnati, in the _Quarterly
Journal of Science_ (Cincinnati), October, 1874, p. 289 _et seq._ This
writer observes that it has often been remarked that the form of Fort
Ancient resembles a rude outline of the continent of North and South
America. None of the mounds contained in the enclosure have yielded
any relics of special interest. The greatest possible diversity of
opinion exists concerning the antiquity of the abandonment of the
works. Judges Dunlevy and Force, the latter in his memoir on the
_Mound-builders_,[33] estimate the period as a thousand years, while
Mr. Hosea thinks several thousand years would be required to produce
the numerous little hillocks and depressions which mark the spot where
trees have grown, fallen and decayed. Reasoning from other data, we are
inclined to the more conservative opinion of Judge Force as altogether
the safer. Fort Ancient, which could have held a garrison of 60,000 men
with their families and provisions, was one of a line of fortifications
which extend across the State and served to check the incursion of the
savages of the North in their descent upon the Mound-builder country.
The second class of military works, which are exceedingly numerous on
all the watercourses—existing not only on the Ohio and Mississippi, but
on all their tributaries, especially on the Muskingum, Scioto, Miami,
Wabash, Illinois, Kentucky, and minor streams—are mounds which served
as outlooks. These were always placed in positions to command extended
views, and from which signals could be given to still others of the
same character, or probably to settlements remote from the watercourses.
[Illustration: Square Mound, Marietta.]
A system of these works no doubt formerly existed on the Great Miami
River extending north of Dayton, Ohio, southward to the Ohio River,
and connected with the great settlement on the site of Cincinnati
and with the high bluffs on the Kentucky shore. The great Mound
at Miamisburgh, ten miles south of Dayton, formed a part of this
chain. This monster mound is sixty-eight feet high and 852 feet in
circumference, and may have served the double purpose of a signal
station and the base of a small edifice devoted to astronomical or
religious purposes. There is little doubt that the Mound-builders in
the latter period of their occupancy of this region, when apprehensive
of danger from their enemies, employed a system of signal telegraph
by which communication was had, through means of the watch-fire or
the torch, between localities as distant as those now occupied by
Cincinnati and Dayton. Only a few minutes were necessary by means of
such a perfected system in which to transmit a signal fifty or one
hundred miles. Squier and Davis remark on this subject: “There seems
to have existed a system of defences extending from the sources of the
Alleghany and Susquehanna in New York, diagonally across the country,
through Central and Northern Ohio to the Wabash. Within this range the
works which are regarded as defensive are largest and most numerous.”
The signal system we have reason to believe was employed throughout the
entire extent of this range of works. The majority of the enclosures
found in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys are presumed not to have
been designed for military purposes, since the trench is usually
_inside_ of the embankment. However, instances of the trench being
outside of the parapet occur in Southern Ohio.[34] The most magnificent
Mound-builder remains in Ohio are the extensive and intricate works
near Newark in Licking County. The survey made by Col. Whittlesey and
published in the _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, is
the most reliable as well as the fullest source of our information
concerning their magnitude, though the plan has been corrected
considerably by more recent surveys. These works occupy an area of two
miles square, and formerly consisted of twelve miles of embankment.
The spacious gateways—one of which has embankments on both sides
measuring thirty-five feet in height from the bottom of the interior
trench—the labyrinthine system of avenues, the strangely-shaped mounds,
one of which resembles a huge bird-track with a middle toe 155 feet
in length and the remaining two each 110 feet in length—together with
the solitude of the ancient forest which entombed this buried city,
we confess impressed us with a sense of wonderment and that strange
perplexity which an insoluble mystery exercises over the mind. We
can appreciate the remark of Mr. Squier in his description: “Here
covered with the gigantic trees of a primitive forest, the work
truly presents a grand and impressive appearance; and in entering
the ancient avenue for the first time, the visitor does not fail to
experience a sensation of awe, such as he might feel in passing the
portals of an Egyptian temple, or in gazing upon the ruins of Petra of
the Desert.” It is estimated that a force of thousands of men assisted
by modern appliances and implements as well as horse-power, which the
Mound-builder did not possess, would require several months in which
to construct these works.[35] At Marietta a most interesting system of
works exist, covering an area three-fourths of a mile long and half
a mile broad. These occupy the river terrace or second bottom at the
confluence of the Muskingum River with the Ohio, and present analogies
with the works further south and with those of Mexico.[36] Two
irregular squares inclose fifty and twenty-seven acres respectively.
The walls of the larger are between five and six feet high and from
twenty to thirty feet wide at the base. Within an enclosure are four
truncated pyramids or platforms, one of which, the largest, is 188 feet
long, 132 feet wide, and only 10 feet high, with a graded way reaching
to its summit, as have also two of the other pyramids. No one can look
at these structures without seeing the force of Lewis H. Morgan’s
Pueblo theory,[37] which makes these mounds or flattened pyramidal
elevations the foundation for edifices of a perishable nature;
constructed perhaps of hewn wood, but not of a combination of the adobe
and wood as he supposes, since no material for such a combination is
found in the Ohio valley.[38] The most elevated of the Marietta works
is an elliptical mound thirty feet high, enclosed by an embankment.
[Illustration: Graded Way near Piketon, Ohio.]
The most recent and satisfactory exploration of mounds in Ohio, was
that conducted by Prof. E. B. Andrews for the Peabody Museum of
American Archæology and Ethnology, and published in the Tenth Annual
Report of the Trustees (Cambridge, 1877). The mounds examined are in
Fairfield, Perry, Athens, and Hocking Counties. In Fairfield County
they were all located upon hills and commanded extensive views. Their
contents indicated great age, being much decayed. At New Lexington in
Perry County, ancient flint diggings, unquestionably worked by the
Mound-builders, were examined, many of the pits being six to eight feet
deep. In Athens County, on Wolf Plain, situated in Athens and Dover
Townships, several circles and nineteen conical mounds are found. One
of the latter measures forty feet high, with a diameter of 170 feet,
and contains 437.742 cubic feet. Another, known as the Beard Mound, was
excavated, and the interesting fact discovered that in its construction
the dirt had been “thrown down in small quantities—averaging about a
peck—as if from a basket.” Prof. Andrews is of the opinion that the
mound was a long time in building, “for we find,” he remarks, “at
many different levels, the proof that grasses and other vegetation
grew rankly upon the earth heap and were buried by the dirt.” In a
neighboring mound known as the George Connett Mound, under a bed of
charcoal five feet below the summit, a skeleton was found in a box or
coffin, enclosed by timbers. The upper part of the coffin and middle of
the body had been destroyed by fire. A circle of five hundred copper
beads was found around the body. A copper instrument resembling a
calker’s chisel, measuring 141 mm. in length, width at flattened end,
52 mm., diameter of cylindrical part, 20 mm. The instrument was formed
from sheet copper, beaten with such care that no traces of the hammer
are visible. “The edges are brought together and united very closely
by a slight overlap.” Professor Andrews describes and figures a piece
of leather ornamented with oval copper beads taken from a point eight
feet below the surface of a mound designated as the “school-house
mound.” The original piece measured eight or ten inches square, but
unfortunately fell into the hands of bystanders, who tore it in pieces
for relics. The Professor regards the curiosity as of Mound-builder
origin, and thinks it belonged to an ornamented dress. We cannot
detail these interesting explorations here, and must dismiss them with
the deduction that in certain cases the cremation of the bodies found
in mounds was accidental, caused by the heat penetrating through a
layer of earth on which a fire had been kindled. In other instances,
the body seems to have been burned intentionally, and the ashes and
charred bones heaped together in the centre of the mound. Some clay and
stone tubes of fine workmanship were obtained. The same document above
cited contains a valuable paper by Mr. Lucian Carr on his interesting
exploration of a mound in Lee County, Virginia.
Grave Creek Mound, situated twelve miles below Wheeling in West
Virginia, is the Monster work of the Ohio Valley. It measures seventy
feet in height and nine hundred feet in circumference. Its form is that
of a truncated cone, the flattened area on the top being fifty feet in
diameter.[39] The States of Indiana[40] and Illinois formed with Ohio
a portion of the great centre of the Mound-builder country, as the
remains found on the watercourses of both States testify. The valleys
of the Wabash, Kankakee, Illinois and Saline Rivers were the once
populous dwelling-places of a thrifty and industrious people who have
left thousands of structures behind them.[41] The Alleghany Mountains,
the natural limit of the great Mississippi basin, appears to have
served as the eastern and south-eastern boundary of the Mound-builder
country. In Western New York, Western Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
and in all of Kentucky and Tennessee, their remains are numerous
and in some instances imposing. In Tennessee especially, the works
of the Mound-builders are of the most interesting character. Prof.
Joseph Jones, of the University of New Orleans, has by his thorough
and recent explorations under the patronage of the Smithsonian
Institution, brought to light very interesting materials for the study
of the history of this people. The works of defence in the shape
of stone forts, by some thought to be peculiar to New York and the
lake boundaries, with occasional exceptions in the Ohio Valley, have
been found to abound in Coffee and other counties. One very perfect
example of this kind of fortification, but very imperfectly described
and figured by Haywood,[42] is that known as the stone fort near
Manchester, Tenn. This enclosure, containing over fifty-four acres, has
been minutely described by Prof. Jones.[43] In the accompanying cut
the reader will obtain a pretty clear idea of the form of this fort.
The wall, which varies from four to ten feet in height, is composed
of loose rocks gathered apparently from the bed of the streams below,
and the vicinity. The ditch shown in the cut at the rear of the works
was probably designed to convey water from one creek to the other.
The entrance is quite complicated and constitutes the most remarkable
feature of the fortification.
[Illustration: Pendants and Sinkers. (Nat. Mus.) Surface Finds.]
[Illustration: STONE FORT.]
One peculiarity of burial noticeable in this locality, and one
which evidently indicates progression when we come to compare these
people with those farther north, is the fact that the ancient race of
Tennessee buried their dead in rude stone coffins or cists, constructed
of flat pieces of limestone or slaty sandstone which abound in the
central portions of the State. In most of the mounds this mode of
burial prevailed, but was not confined to them, for outside of the
mounds in many enclosures a large number of stone graves occur. Of
the class of “Stone-grave Burial Mounds”, one situated twelve miles
from Nashville, near Brentwood, is worthy of mention. This mound was
about forty-five feet in diameter by twelve feet high, and contained
one hundred skeletons. These were mostly in stone graves, which were
constructed in ranges one above another, three or four deep. The lower
graves were short and square, containing bones that had apparently
been deposited after the flesh had been removed. The upper graves
were full length and contained remains in which the bones occupied
their natural relation to each other. The workmanship both of the
mound and stone cists was of the most perfect character. The lids
of the upper stone cists were so arranged as to present a perfectly
rounded, sloping rock surface. The mound was situated on the eastern
slope of a beautiful hill, covered with a heavy growth of the native
forest. In a large and carefully constructed stone tomb, Prof. Jones
discovered the skeleton of an aged individual of immense length, having
toothless jaw bones. In a grave occupied by a skeleton of a female,
a small compartment or stone box was found near the head, separated
from the main coffin by stone slabs, in which was the skeleton of an
infant. It should be added that in the square or short graves so often
met with, the skull was placed in the centre and the other bones
arranged around it.[44] Numerous stone graves not covered by mounds
were found on the Cumberland River opposite the mouth of Lick Branch,
surrounding a chain of four mounds. A similar graveyard was found
on the same bank of the Cumberland, a mile and a half farther down.
Others were met with on White Creek, nine miles from Nashville, at
Sycamore in Cheatham County; at Brentwood, in White County near Sparta,
and along the tributaries of the Cumberland and Tennessee Rivers at
short intervals. At Oldtown on the Big Harpeth, is an extensive and
remarkable collection of stone graves. All these burial grounds seem
to be those of the people who constructed the mounds, for most of the
mounds examined contained stone graves, not in their upper strata, but
on the level of the surrounding land. A mound opposite Nashville, on
the east bank of the Cumberland River, of great interest, was examined.
Prof. Jones is convinced that it formerly served as the site or base
of a temple. Its dimensions were one hundred feet in diameter by only
ten feet high. In the centre of the mound and only three feet from its
surface the Professor uncovered a large sacrificial vase or altar,
forty-three inches in diameter, composed of a mixture of clay and
river-shells. The rim of this flat earthen vessel or sacrificial altar
was three inches in height and appeared mathematically circular. The
surface of the “altar” was covered by a layer of ashes about one inch
in thickness. The antlers and jaw-bone of a deer were found resting on
the surface of the altar, and it is probable that part of the animal
had been consumed as a sacrifice. The whole had been carefully covered
with three feet of earth and the ashes preserved. In this mound rude
sarcophagi were ranged around this sacred centre with the heads toward
the altar and the feet toward the circumference of the circle, while
the directions of the bodies were those of radii. Those bodies near
the altar were ornamented with numerous beads of sea-shell and bone.
In a carefully constructed stone sarcophagus, in which the face of
the skeleton was turned toward the setting sun, the beautiful shell
ornament shown in the cut, measuring 4.4 inches in diameter, was found
lying on the breast-bone of the skeleton. It was made from some large
shell derived from the sea-coast. Of the numerous interesting places
examined by Prof. Jones, the site of Oldtown, on the Big Harpeth River,
about six miles south-west of Franklyn, Tennessee, is worthy of special
attention. The plan of the works and their general dimensions will be
seen in the cut. At present, the crescent-shaped wall of 2470 feet in
extent is but from two to six feet in height, having been reduced to
its present condition by the plowshare. Thirty years ago it is said
to have been so steep that it was impossible to ride a horse over
it. Within the enclosure are two pyramidal mounds; the larger is one
hundred and twelve by sixty-five feet and eleven feet high, and the
smaller, seventy by sixty feet by nine feet high; also a small burial
mound measuring thirty by twenty feet and 2.5 feet high. Another burial
mound is covered by the residence of the owner, Mr. Thomas Brown. Many
curiously-shaped clay vessels were obtained at these works by the
explorers. Some of the vases were fashioned into effigies of frogs and
various animals, and one vase obtained by Mr. Brown in excavating for
the foundation for his residence, had a neck terminating in two human
heads. Some of the vessels from Oldtown are figured in the cut.
[Illustration: Clay Image from a Stone Grave in Burial Mound near
Brentwood, Tennessee.]
[Illustration: “Stone Sword” from Ancient Earthwork on Big Harpeth
River, Tennessee. ¼ Natural Size.]
[Illustration: Shell Ornament from the Breast of a Skeleton found in a
carefully constructed Stone Coffin in a Mound near Nashville, Tenn.]
[Illustration: Plan of Oldtown Works.]
[Illustration: Stone Pipe, Murfreesboro, Tenn. ¼ Natural Size.]
[Illustration: Pottery from Oldtown, Tenn.]
[Illustration: Black Vase from an Aboriginal Cemetery, Nine Miles from
Nashville.]
The art of painting seems to have been extensively practised by the
mound people of Tennessee, not only in the decoration of pottery, but
in representing ideal conceptions, which they spread out in extensive
pictures upon the smooth faces of rocky walls overhanging the rivers.
The material generally used was _red ochre_. Prof. Jones says: “The
painting representing the sun on the rocks overhanging the Big Harpeth
River, about three miles below the road which crosses this stream
and connects Nashville and Charlotte, can be seen for a distance
of four miles, and it is probable that the worshippers of the sun
assembled before this high place for the performance of their sacred
rites.”[45] The Professor’s vast collection of relics in stone and
clay, including several images, we cannot here describe. We refer the
reader to the Memoir itself. The Professor has clearly shown that the
Mound-builder people and the Indians were distinct, and has set at
rest a question upon which some few doubts were still entertained by
a certain school of Archæologists, which has really never been very
strong. The connection with or identity of the Mound-builders and the
Toltics or the same family of people is also shown satisfactorily. We
will add that the Professor is disposed to consider the Natchez as the
connecting link between the Mound-builders and the Nahuas. We regard
the Memoir one of the most important which has ever appeared on the
subject of mound exploration. The rich collection of crania will be
referred to in a future chapter.
In September, 1877, Prof. F. W. Putnam and Mr. Edwin Curtiss, also
a party under Major Powell excavated a large number of mounds and
stone graves, mostly in the neighborhood of Nashville, Tennessee. The
results were substantially the same as those obtained by Prof. Jones.
Prof. Putnam found within an earthwork near Lebanon, in Wilson County,
sixty miles east of Nashville, what he considers to be the remains of
dwellings of the Mound-builders. There were circular ridges of earth
varying from a few inches to a little over three feet in height, with
diameters ranging from ten to fifty feet. Within these enclosures, a
few inches below the surface, hard floors, upon which fires had been
made, were discovered. Under these floors, in many instances, infants
and children had been buried, while the adults had been interred in a
neighboring mound. Accompanying the skeletons of the children, many
beautiful vessels of strange and artistic forms were found (cuts of
three of these were kindly furnished by Prof. Putnam for this work),
all evincing the tenderness with which the offspring of this people
were regarded. Prof. Putnam examined nineteen of the earth-circles,
which he adds, “proved to my satisfaction that the ridges were formed
by the decay of the walls of a circular dwelling. * * * These houses
had probably consisted of a frail circular structure, the decay of
which would only leave a slight elevation, the formation of the ridge
being assisted by the refuse from the house.”[46]
[Illustration: Painted Jar from Child’s Grave (Tennessee).
(Prof. Putnam’s Exploration.)]
[Illustration: Dish from Child’s Grave (Tennessee).
(Prof. Putnam’s Exploration.)]
Colonies of Mound-builders seem to have passed the great natural
barrier into North Carolina and left remains in Marion County, while
still others penetrated into South Carolina and built on the Wateree
River. In March, 1873, Mr. Jas. R. Page examined several mounds in
Washington and Issaquena Counties in the State of Mississippi. One
mound explored in Washington County on the old bank of the Mississippi
River, was a truncated cone eighty feet in diameter by forty feet
high. A mound in the neighborhood, only eleven feet high, yielded
rich returns for the labors of excavation. A white oak on its summit
measured thirty-six inches in diameter. This mound yielded twelve
skeletons with their crania. The group was in a sitting posture around
a circle, with their faces looking toward its centre. Directly in
front of the mouth of each skeleton were placed two or three vessels
of pottery, beautifully ornamented with etchings and graceful lines.
The object of the vessels, placed in such near proximity to the mouths
of the buried remains, can only be conjectured. We regret that no
measurements of the crania are given, and what is more, we deplore the
loss of most of the crania in the course of their transportation.[47]
Mr. W. Marshall Anderson, of Circleville, Ohio, examined Mounds in
Issaquena County, Miss., with interesting results; in one mound
opened, not far from its outer edge, three skeletons were found
buried in a standing position, as though they had acted as the guards
of a more distinguished person deposited in the centre. Penetrating
the mound still farther by means of a trench, Mr. Anderson reached a
large deposit of ashes and burnt earth. Near the centre of the mound
and five feet above the level of the earth, upwards of twenty-five
unbroken specimens of fine pottery were discovered. At the very centre
three individuals had been buried apparently in great state, with
all the insignia of their important positions in life. These were
ornaments, urns, vases, beads, and arrow-points; while adjoining the
heads of each were food and drinking vessels. Not far removed from
these, two skeletons were found with bowls placed upon their heads
like helmets. Mr. Anderson is the possessor of a very remarkable stone
disk obtained for him by Dr. Robinson from a Issaquena mound near
Lake Washington, Miss. The disk is nearly eight and a half inches
in diameter and three-quarters of an inch thick, of fine-grained
sandstone. The device which it bears upon its face is composed of two
entwined rattlesnakes. A trifling ornamental border is graven on the
reverse side of the disk. When found it was broken in two pieces. Mr.
Anderson, in comparing its strange device to the Aztec Calendar Stone,
remarks: “Here are the eighteen pipes of the border corresponding to
the eighteen months of the year, but the twenty days of the month and
the five intercalaries are not to be found. The thirteen hieroglyphical
figures, and the four zodiacal signs, which as multiples give the
fifty-two years of the Aztec cycle, are also absent on the Mississippi
stone.”[48] The serpent-symbol appears to have played its part among
the Mound-builders, as well as in Mexico and Central America. The great
serpent of Adams County, Ohio, is the most extensive delineation of
the all-important symbol on the continent. Out of eighteen engraved
circular plates made of the shell of the Pyrula and taken from
Brakebill and Lick Creek Mounds in East Tennessee (and now deposited
in the Peabody Museum of Archæology) thirteen bear the device of a
rattlesnake. In one of the mounds of “Mound City,” Ross County, Ohio,
several small tablets representing the rattlesnake were unearthed,
while other mounds in the same locality yielded pipes bearing the same
representation.[49]
[Illustration: Jar from Child’s Grave (Tennessee).
(Prof. Putnam’s Exploration.)]
[Illustration: Works in Washington County, Miss.]
[Illustration: Aboriginal Shuttle-like Tablets. (Nat. Mus.) Surface
Finds.]
On the Southern Mississippi, in the area embraced between the
termination of the Cumberland Mountains near Florence and Tuscumbia in
Alabama and the mouth of Big Black River, this people left numerous
works, many of which were of a remarkable character.[50] The whole
region bordering on the tributaries of the Tombigbee, the country
through which the Wolf River flows and that watered by the Yazoo River
and its affluents, was densely populated by the same people who built
mounds in the Ohio Valley. Mr. Fontaine describes the mounds of this
region and of the Tennessee River Valley as being most frequently of
the truncated pyramidal type, and refers to one (seen by him in 1847)
seventy feet high, covering an acre of ground. It is remarkable that
the entire valley of the great river from Cairo to the mouth of Pointe
à la Hache, fifty miles below New Orleans, is thickly studded with
mounds.[51] As at Cahokia the Monarch Mound occupied a space equal
to six acres, so at Seltzertown, Mississippi, we have another immense
mound covering nearly the same area. Its dimensions are: length, about
six hundred feet; breadth, four hundred feet at the base; height,
forty feet, with a summit nearly four acres in area, reached by means
of a graded way. The structure lies with its greatest length nearly
due east and west. Upon the platform summit are three conical mounds,
one at each end and the third in the centre. The mound at the western
extremity of the summit rises to a height of nearly forty feet, while
the one at the opposite extreme does not fall far short of the same
altitude. This would give a total height of eighty feet above the level
of the base. Both of these mounds are truncated. Eight other mounds of
minor proportions are observable. The most remarkable feature connected
with this mound is a wall of sun-dried bricks, built two feet thick, as
its support on the northern side. These were filled with grass rushes
and leaves, while some of the bricks of great size used in angular
tumuli which mark the corners of the mound, retain the impressions of
human hands.[52] The Mound-builders were certainly numerous in the
Gulf States east of the Mississippi. On the Etowah River in Alabama a
mound seventy-five feet high and twelve hundred feet in diameter at the
base, has a graded avenue leading to its flattened summit. It has close
affinities to the Mexican and Yucatan mounds.[53] M. F. Stephenson
describes a group of ten mounds near Cartersville, Georgia, on the
Etowah River, the principal one of which is eighty feet high and one
hundred and fifty feet square on the top. A stone idol, gold beads,
mica mirrors, translucent quartz beautifully wrought, and many relics
of interest were here discovered. He also describes three chambers hewn
out of the solid rock at the falls of Little River, near the Alabama
line; while at Nacooche the crest of a conical hill was cut off at
fifty feet from its base, leaving a platform top with an area of an
acre and a half. Two sides are quite precipitous, but the others are
protected by a ditch and wall. Two other instances of the stone wall
are mentioned. First at Yond Mountain, four thousand feet high of solid
granite, and perpendicular on all sides except a small space which
is protected by a stone wall of artificial construction. The second
instance is quite similar, occurring at Stone Mountain, which reaches a
height of 2360 feet.[54] These natural eminences no doubt were utilized
for the purposes of worship or observation, just as many natural hills
in Mexico were graded and shaped symmetrically to serve similar uses.
Wm. McKinley, Esq., has described and surveyed additional works in
Georgia of quite a remarkable character, on Sapelio Island in McIntosh
County and on Dry Creek in Sacred Grove, Early County. But the most
lofty work of all, the giant of the mounds, is the pyramid of Kolee
Mokee in the same county, reaching a height of ninety-five feet and
having a circumference at its base of 1128 feet. Its form is that of
a parallelogram, 350 feet long and 214 wide. The plane on the summit
measures 181 feet in length by 82½ feet in width.[55] In Florida the
works of the Mound-builders have been extensively examined by Prof.
Jeffries Wyman, to whose labors we shall refer in the next chapter.
Dr. A. Mitchell made some interesting explorations in 1848 on Amelia
Island, and was rewarded by the recovery of some well-marked mound
crania.[56]
Returning to the confluence of the Missouri with the Mississippi,
the point at which we left the western boundary of the Mound-builder
country in order to treat the characteristics of its central region,
we find mounds, as we previously stated, in great numbers in the
neighborhood of St. Louis. In the valley of the St. Francis River,
mounds that have been explored have yielded many rich relics, artistic
water vessels, vases and statuettes. In Green County, Missouri, N. Lat.
37° 20´ and 16° Long, west of Washington City, is a very remarkable
truncated conical mound which has only been externally surveyed. This
mound is 60 feet high, 350 feet in diameter at the base, and 130 feet
in diameter on the top. It is surrounded by a trench (except about
twenty feet at the north) about two hundred feet wide and four feet
deep. On the north the excavation is seven or eight feet deep.[57]
These trenches served a double purpose—that of furnishing material for
the construction of the mound, and when completed, of providing an
impassable moat filled with water, that neither enemies nor the rabble
might approach the sacred mount.[58] In Phillips County, Prof. Cox
discovered an ancient fortification near Helena, built like a part of
the Seltzertown mound, of sun-dried bricks; stems and leaves of the
cane were used instead of straw in making the bricks.[59]
Professor Swallow, in company with a number of scientific gentlemen,
opened a large mound in Lewis’ Prairie, west of New Madrid, Missouri
(in December, 1856), in which he found a great collection of earthen
dishes and vases. The mound was elliptical in form, measuring 900
feet in periphery at the base, 570 feet at the top and twenty feet in
height. The remarkable feature of the mound was that it contained a
room formed of poles, lathed with split cane and plastered with clay
both inside and out, forming a solid mass. “Over this room was built
the earthwork of the mound, so that when it was completed the room was
in its centre. The earthwork was then coated with the plaster, and
over all nature formed a soil. This mud plastering was left rough on
the outside of the room, but smooth on the inside, which was painted
with red ochre.”[60] Some of the plastering was burned as red and hard
as brick, while other parts were only sun-dried. Professor Swallow
believes the mounds of the region to be very ancient. On mounds
and neighboring embankments a sycamore tree twenty-eight feet in
circumference, three feet above the ground, a black-walnut twenty-six
feet in circumference, a white ash twelve feet and a chestnut oak
eleven feet in circumference were observed. In addition to these
evidences of age, the Professor states that six feet of stratified
sands and clays have formed around the mounds since they were deserted.
(See Eighth _Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 16 _et seq._
Cambridge, 1875.)
Mr. A. J. Conant, in a very able paper published in the _Transactions
of the St. Louis Academy of Sciences_ for April 5, 1876, has more fully
described the mound works near New Madrid. On the western bank of the
Bayou St. John, partly in a cypress swamp covered with heavy timber
and partly on adjacent prairie land, an earthwork encloses an area of
about fifty acres. In this enclosure are three large mounds, one of
which is pyramidal in form and still has traces of a graded way. An
ancient well is discernible near it. A circular mound at the opposite
end of the enclosure is estimated by Mr. Conant to have afforded a
place of burial for a thousand individuals. The bodies were buried with
their heads pointing toward the centre of the mound. A gourd-shaped
vase, a small jug or drinking vessel, and an earthen pan or platter
was found with each skeleton. The mouths of the vases were fashioned
into the form of the head of some bird or the figure of some animal or
of a human female. In depressions about three feet deep, within the
enclosure, remains of burnt clay ovens were found. Fire-places were
disclosed, as well as fragments of earthen vessels capable of holding
ten or twelve gallons. The veritable kitchens of the Mound-builders,
with their furniture, seem to have been brought to light. In front of
the enclosure and projecting out into the bayou, are tongues of land
about thirty feet long by ten or fifteen feet in width, and about the
same distance apart, “resembling upon a small scale the wharves of a
seaport town.” Mr. Conant pronounces them artificial, and that when
employed by these builders, the present cypress swamp was the channel
of a river. The multitude of mound works which are scattered over the
entire south-eastern portion of Missouri indicate that the region “was
once inhabited by a population so numerous, that in comparison its
present occupants are only as the scattered pioneers of a newly-settled
country.”[61]
[Illustration: Discoidal Stones. (Nat. Mus.)
Central figure, upper line, from Illinois Mound.]
Prof. C. G. Forshey in _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, presents most
valuable information relative to the mounds in the south-west. His
observations convince us that the State of Louisiana and the valleys of
the Arkansas and Red Rivers were not only the most thickly populated
wing of the Mound-builder domain, but also furnish us with remains
presenting affinities with the great works of Mexico so striking that
no doubt can longer exist that the same people were the architects
of both. He describes works, some of them of immense proportions, on
the Mississippi fifty miles above Vicksburg; on Walnut Bayou; the
south-west bend of Lake St. Joseph, and at Trinity in the parish of
Catahoula, Louisiana. On the east bank of the Little River, a couple of
miles above its mouth, where it empties into Lake Ocalohoola, stands a
bluff walled with roughly hewn stone. The same writer observed a mound
near Natchez twenty-five feet high, standing isolated in a swamp. This
mound is one among many in different parts of the lower Mississippi
region surmounted by comparatively younger trees than are found on the
remains farther north. Works occur in the Atchafalaya basin, in the
rear of Baton Rouge, on the uplands of Lake Pontchartrain and on the
banks of Bayou Gros Tête. A remarkable group of truncated pyramids,
peculiarly Mexican in their style of architecture, exist in Madison
Parish, Louisiana, and are figured in Squier and Davis and copied
by Foster.[62] It is needless to discuss the fact that the works of
the Mound-builders exist in considerable numbers in Texas, extending
across the Rio Grande into Mexico, establishing an unmistakable
relationship as well as actual union between the truncated pyramids
of the Mississippi Valley and the Tocalli of Mexico and the countries
further south.[63] There can be no doubt as to the unity of the origin
of the works in both countries. There are evidences also that the most
recent works of Louisiana and Texas do not compare in antiquity with
any found in the Ohio Valley, showing it to be altogether probable
that the Mound-builders occupied the Lower Mississippi Valley and
Gulf coast for a considerable period after they were driven from the
northern and central region by their enemies.[64] Several recent
writers, with no more proof than that obsidian from Mexico has been
found in the mounds, have confidently expressed the belief that the
Mound-builders entered the Mississippi Valley and the Central Region
from the South. This was based also on the assumption that no remains
were found in the North-west. It, however, is proper to note here the
marks of architectural progression observable in the geographical
distribution of ancient works. Men all around the world have been
mound or pyramid builders. To attempt to demonstrate this well-known
fact to an intelligent reader by citing the customs of antiquity and
the works of the present great Asiatic nations, would seem little
less than pedantry rather than the work of serious investigation. The
religious idea in man, whether observed in the darkest heathenism or
partially enlightened civilization, has always associated a place of
sanctuary with the conditions of elevation and separateness. It matters
not whether you apply the rule to the practices of the most obscure
antiquity, where a hill or natural eminence was the sanctuary of an
idol, the residence of a god, or examine the motives which prompt the
erection of the dome of a St. Paul or a St. Peter’s, or coming nearer
home, analyze the reasons for the construction of the ordinary church
spire, the same inexplicable intuition is found at the bottom of them
all. The simple mound so common in the northern and central region
of the United States, represents probably the first attempts at the
imitation of nature in providing a place of worship. In the absence
of hills and natural eminences on great plains like the prairies of
the North-west (for instance in such cases as are cited on pages 28
and 29), nothing would be more natural than the construction of an
artificial hillock, especially if the elements and nature were the
objects of worship. The next step might have been again a copy or an
imitation, but instead of choosing a subject from inanimate nature,
an advance is made in the artistic scale, and the animal kingdom
furnishes not only one but varied models for reproduction. The custom
among savage tribes of personifying the deity, of dressing him up in
some form, tangible and visible, was especially characteristic of the
mythology of the Nahua nations of Mexico. It is not necessary to go to
Egypt, or India, or China to find animals of various kinds dedicated
to and associated with the national gods, for in the Maya and Nahua
mythologies, as well as in the traditions of some of the wild tribes of
the Pacific coast, the serpent, the coyote, the beaver and the buzzard
play an active part. The erection of religious structures representing
animals no doubt sacred to the Mound-builders, was carried on to a
remarkable extent in Wisconsin. These strange works probably indicate
the second step in their scale of architectural progression. In the
Ohio Valley, while the ordinary mound is found in great numbers, and a
few instances of animal mounds occur, three new architectural features
present themselves in marked prominence, all of which are artistically
in advance of those existing in the North and North-west. These are
the enclosures, the truncated mounds, and principally the truncated
pyramids, all of which are a departure from the strict imitation of
nature, and exhibit the gradual growth of the architectural idea and
the outcropping of the notion of utility. South of the Ohio Valley
the animal mounds disappear altogether and the truncated mounds grow
less common, while the truncated pyramid, the highest artistic form,
with its complicated system of graded ways and its nice geometrical
proportions, becomes the all predominant type of structure. In the
Lower Mississippi Valley, in some cases, as we have observed, dried
brick were used in the walls and angles of pyramids of the most
perfect type. Stone was also employed in a few instances. Here we find
the transition to Southern Mexico complete. No break exists in the
architectural chain.
[Illustration: Stone Plates. ⅙ Natural Size. (Nat. Mus.)
The left and central figures from an Alabama Mound.]
Squier and Davis (and Foster as well as most other writers have
followed their example) classified the works of the Mound-builders as
follows:
{_For Defence._
I. ENCLOSURES {_Sacred._
{_Miscellaneous._
{_Of Sacrifice._
II. MOUNDS {_For Temple-Sites._
{_Of Sepulture._
{_Of Observation._
To this some have added mounds for residence.
It does not fall within the scope of this work to treat of the specific
character and uses of the works of the Mound-builders, but rather
to note their extent and indications of age with relation to their
bearing on the antiquity of man in this country. Some of the arts and
manufactures of the Mound-builders are set forth in the illustrations
interspersed throughout the chapter.[65] A few of the cuts figure
objects found upon the surface. Yet it is not improbable that a due
proportion of these objects were of Mound-builder origin.
The domestic arts appear the most advanced of any among this ancient
people. Pottery of respectable quality and of varied patterns is
abundant among their remains. Coarse cloth woven of vegetable fibre,
and in some instances partly made of hair, has been discovered in
mounds in several localities. Shell and copper beads for the purposes
of ornamentation were made in great numbers. Copper axes of good
quality have occasionally been exhumed. Copper and bone needles with
well-drilled eyes were made by them. They wove baskets and coarse
matting. They carved pipes in stone or moulded them in clay, sometimes
in fantastic forms, while again they fashioned them with rare skill
into the perfect effigies of animals and birds, or possibly ornamented
them with likenesses of their own faces. With the exception of a
few observations on the altar and sepulchral mounds, we refrain from
a further treatment of the works above classified, as having no
particular bearing on the question in hand, and refer the reader to
the works of Squier and Davis, and also to that of Dr. Foster, already
often quoted. Of the Altar or Sacrificial Mounds, the first-named
authors remark: The general characteristics of this class of mounds
are: 1. That they occur only within the vicinity of the enclosures
or sacred places; 2. That they are stratified; 3. That they contain
symmetrical altars of burned clay or stone, on which were deposited
various remains which in all cases have been more or less subjected to
the action of fire.[66] The same authors present the following section
of a mound examined by them at Mound City, near Chillicothe, Ohio,
which is a fair sample of the usual stratification observed in altar
mounds.[67] The altar which this mound contained was a parallelogram
measuring 8 × 10 feet at its base and 4 × 6 feet at its top. It was
only eighteen inches in height, and contained a basin with a dip of
nine inches. In this basin were found fine ashes, fragments of pottery
and shell beads. A reference to the figure shows that the sand-stratum
is semicircular, with its extremities resting on the outer sides of
the altar. The skeleton shown in the figure designates a point three
feet below the apex of the mound where two well-preserved skeletons
were found. The strata were disturbed for their burial evidently at
a considerable period after the construction of the mound. This is a
fair example of the “intrusive burial” practised in the mounds by Red
Indians. The same authors found some of these altars rich in relics;
one especially in the vicinity of the above-described mound contained
nearly two hundred pipes carved in stone. Also a considerable number
of pearl and shell beads and copper ornaments covered with silver. It
is quite probable that the copper was from their Lake Superior mines,
as they alone are known to yield deposits of silver with copper. The
same peculiarity was observed with reference to the copper ornaments
and implements found in the Marietta works. The pipes secured in this
mound were much calcined by heat, and considerable copper had been
fused in the basin of the altar. In some of the mounds examined large
collections were obtained, and in some instances, articles made of
obsidian, which it is believed could be procured nowhere nearer than
the Mexican mountains of Cerro Gordo, or the region west of the Rocky
Mountains.[68]
[Illustration: Pestles and Mullers. (Nat. Mus.) Surface Finds.]
[Illustration: Section of Altar Mound. (After Squier and Davis.)]
[Illustration: Vase from an Ohio Mound.]
The evidences are abundant that some mysterious rites were performed
at the altar mounds; cremation only may have been practised, but we
fear that even more awful and heart-sickening ceremonies took place
upon these altars as well as upon the high temple sites in which human
victims may have been offered to appease the elements or the sun or
moon by their death agonies. What splendid ceremonial, what mystic
rites administered by a national priesthood in the presence of a devout
multitude may have accompanied these horrible sacrifices, are beyond
even the limits of conjecture. Besides cremation, inhumation was also
practised extensively. Multitudes of mounds were devoted either
partly or exclusively to such uses. Mr. Tomlinson, the owner of the
Grave Creek Mound, who sank a shaft from its original summit to its
centre, and intercepted it by a tunnel along the surface of the ground,
speaking of the latter excavation, remarks: “At the distance of one
hundred and eleven feet we came to a vault, which had been excavated
before the mound was commenced, eight by twelve feet and seven in
depth. Along each side and across the ends, upright timbers had been
placed, which supported timbers thrown across the vault as a ceiling.
These timbers were covered with loose unhewn stone, common to the
neighborhood. The timbers had rotted and tumbled into the vault. * * *
In this vault were two human skeletons, one of which had no ornaments,
the other was surrounded by six hundred and fifty ivory (shell) beads,
and an ivory (bone) ornament six inches long.” Thirty-five feet above
the bottom vault another was found containing a skeleton decorated with
copper rings, plates of mica and shell disks. The number of disks cut
from the shell known as the _Buscycon perversum_ and collected by the
excavators was 2350; of mica 250 specimens, and of the little shell
known as _Marginella apicina_, 500; all of which had been pierced and
strung as beads. Ten skeletons were subsequently found together upon
enlarging the horizontal tunnel. Ashes, charcoal and burnt bones were
also discovered in large masses. Though this was the largest of this
class of mounds, still the general characteristics of the contents are
the same in all of them, and are usually disposed in the same relative
position to each other.[69] One of the most interesting explorations of
sepulchral mounds was that conducted in the autumn of 1865 by Professor
O. C. Marsh, assisted by Mr. Geo. P. Russell, of Salem, Mass., in
what is known as the “Taylor Mound,” situated two and a half miles
south of Newark, Ohio. The mound was ten feet high and eighty feet in
diameter, and was surmounted by a forest of oak trees ranging from two
and a half to eight feet in thickness, while the decaying trunks of
a former growth were lying upon the ground. The mound was excavated
from the apex downward. Five feet from the surface a pipe and a tube
of stone unknown in Ohio were found. Seven feet from the top, in a
thin white layer of earth, a string of more than one hundred beads of
native copper were found around the neck of a child about three years
old. The salts of the copper had preserved the cord of vegetable fibre
on which they were strung. The beads were about one-fourth of an inch
in length and one-third in diameter. They evidently had been hammered
out of the metal in its original state, and the workmanship displayed
no inferior skill. One foot deeper the remains of two adults, male and
female, were found carefully buried in layers of bark, their heads
towards the east, and the body of the female resting upon that of
the male skeleton. Immediately above these were found a considerable
number of charred human bones and the evidences of cremation or human
sacrifice in honor to the couple (probably man and wife) below. The
Professor even expresses the fear that the wife—who appears to have
been about thirty years of age—may have been put to death and buried
above the remains of her deceased consort. A foot deeper the party
found another layer of charcoal, ashes and charred bones, similar to
the above, and immediately beneath it a carefully-buried skeleton, much
decomposed, lying in a white layer of earth, and with its head toward
the east. A few inches below this skeleton several carelessly-buried
skeletons were found near the natural level of the earth. Below the
natural surface a cist six feet long, three feet wide and two feet deep
was found containing the remains of eight or more skeletons, which seem
to have been imperfect when buried. The remains had been thrown into
the grave in a careless and perhaps hasty manner. In the grave were
found nine lance and arrow-heads of flint. Six small hand-axes, one of
them of hematite and the others of compact greenstone or diorite, a
small hatchet of hematite, a flint chisel and scraper, fine needles or
bodkins made of the metatarsal bones of the common deer, a whistle made
from the tooth of a young bear, and spoons cut from the shells of river
mussels. A rude vessel of clay was found, but broken, while several
bones of animals, all but two of existing species in Ohio at present,
were discovered; though it is worthy of remark that the remains of
the deer were of a size seldom attained by the species at the present
day. All the skulls found in the mound were broken, and all but two so
badly decayed that no effort was made to preserve them. These two were
of small size showing the vertical occiput, prominent vertex and large
inter-parietal diameter. There is abundant evidence that the mound had
never been disturbed by Indians.[70]
[Illustration: Stone Pipes from Ohio Mounds.]
One of the best evidences which we have of the systematic government
and habits of the Mound-builders, together with the comparatively
advanced state of the practical arts among them, is found in the
ancient copper mines of the Lake Superior Region so extensively
operated by them at quite a remote period.[71] These were first
discovered by Mr. S. O. Knapp, agent of the Minnesota Mining Company,
in 1848. One excavation explored by this gentleman was thirty feet
deep, filled with clay and a mass of mouldering vegetable matter.
Eighteen feet from the surface he found a mass of copper ten feet long,
three feet wide and two feet thick, weighing over six tons. By digging
around this great lump of metal, he observed that it was resting on “a
cob-work of round logs or skids six or eight inches in diameter, the
ends of which showed plainly the strokes of a small axe or cutting tool
about two and a half inches in width”. The wood, from its exposure to
moisture, had lost all its consistency, and opposed no more resistance
to a knife-blade than would ordinary peat. After having raised the
mass of copper over five feet along the foot wall of the lode on the
timbers by means of wedges, the ancient miners had abandoned the task.
The walls of the mine still show the marks of fire; charcoal and stone
mauls were taken from this and similar excavations. The largest of
these mauls weighed thirty-six pounds and was encircled by a double
groove around its centre. Withes were probably wound in these grooves
by which two men could wield the maul very effectively. The number of
smaller hammers of greenstone and porphyry removed from these works by
Mr. Knapp exceeded ten cart-loads. In one of the pits a rude oak ladder
was found, made by trimming the branches of a tree at a distance from
the trunk to leave a sufficient foothold. Wooden levers, preserved
beneath the water, were also of frequent occurrence. A copper maul,
shaped by pounding in a cold state, and weighing upwards of twenty
pounds, was found in this locality, as well as many well-formed copper
implements designed for various purposes. Upon a mound of rubbish near
one of the excavations, Messrs. Foster and Whitney saw a pine stump ten
feet in circumference—the trunk having been broken fifteen feet from
the ground—which must have grown and died after the earth was thrown
up. Mr. Knapp mentions a hemlock which he found growing on a heap of
rubbish which had 395 rings of annual growth. Fallen and decayed trees
of a previous generation were found lying across the pits. In front
of the Waterbury mine are blocks of stone weighing two and three tons
which had been removed by the ancient miners from the shaft, and when
observed by Colonel Whittlesey, they were covered by a forest growth of
the full size and kind common to the neighboring region. Under a pile
of rubbish the remains of a trough of cedar bark was brought to light
and had been used to carry off water baled from the mine by means of
wooden bowls, some of which were preserved by water in the mines. Mr.
S. W. Hill communicated to Dr. Foster in 1872 the discovery of mining
pits in Isle Royal, measuring fifty feet in depth.[72] In the Ontonagon
region for thirty miles traces of the ancient miners abound. The idea
that the Indians formerly worked these mines was abandoned shortly
after their discovery. They possess no tradition of copper mines, nor
did their ancestors visited by the Jesuit Fathers in the early part of
the seventeenth century obtain any intelligence of mines, though they
penetrated this region in 1660. They often mention the occurrence of
loose masses of copper found in the shape of boulders, but could learn
nothing from the Indians as to their origin. It is quite certain that
no traditions were current among them on the subject. “Instead,” says
Col. Whittlesey, “of viewing copper as an object of every day use, they
regarded it as a sacred Manitou, and carefully preserved pieces of it
wrapped up in skin in their lodges for many years; and this custom has
been continued to modern times.”[73] Father Allouez, in his _Relation_,
has described this custom.[74] Father Dablon, who shortly afterward
visited the Lake Superior tribes, has described their superstitions
concerning an island where the missionaries first met with copper.[75]
That the Mound-builders were these ancient miners, there is abundant
evidence. Col. Whittlesey has described a collection of copper
implements from Carp River containing pieces of native silver, such as
have often been found in the Ohio mounds.[76] We have already referred
to this peculiarity of the Lake Superior copper. The use of copper by
the Mound-builders was very general all the way from Wisconsin to the
Gulf, and the labor involved in a journey of a thousand miles from the
Ohio Valley to the copper regions, the toil of the summer’s mining,
and the tedious transportation of the metal to their homes upon their
backs, and by means of an imperfect system of navigation, indicates
either industry and resolution such as no savage Indian ever possessed,
or a condition of servitude in which thousands occupied a position of
abject slavery.
[Illustration: Aboriginal Stone Axes. Surface Finds.]
[Illustration: Stone Mauls and Hammers. Surface Finds.]
[Illustration: Copper Celts—the smaller from a Mound near Savannah,
Tennessee. (Nat. Mus.)]
No permanent abodes were erected by the miners in this region, no
mounds were constructed, but the indications all point to a summer’s
residence only and a return to the south with the accumulation of
their toil when the severities of winter approached. Frederick von
Hellwald expresses it as his opinion that the Mexicans obtained all
their copper from the Lake Superior mines, and adds that no evidences
exist that copper was mined in Mexico or Central America prior to the
Spanish Conquest.[77] Humboldt affirms that various metals were mined
by the Mexicans, but does not specify copper.[78] Col. Whittlesey and
Prof. Andrews estimate that in the ancient Lake Superior mines worked
by the Mound-builders, the removed metal would aggregate a length of
one hundred and fifty miles in veins of varying thickness. This fact
certainly indicates that great supplies were transported southward.
This remarkable people was evidently possessed of the beginnings of
science; at least if the Davenport and Cincinnati tablets are genuine,
astronomy must have received considerable attention at their hands. In
the former tablet we observe a cycle divided into twelve months (which,
however, is so modern and coincides so strictly with our division
as to excite suspicion of fraud), while in the latter we have the
number 368 as the sum of the products of the longer and shorter lines,
suggestive of an approximation to the number of days in a year. Other
supposed astronomical instruments have been discovered in the mounds
of Ohio, and several of these, _antique tubes, telescope devices_,
were discovered in the course of excavations made in 1842 in the most
easterly of the Elizabethtown group, West Virginia. Mr. Schoolcraft
makes the following statement concerning them: “Several tubes of stone
were disclosed, the precise object of which has been the subject of
various opinions. The longest measured twelve inches, the shortest
eight. Three of them were carved out of steatite, being skillfully cut
and polished. The diameter of the tube externally was one inch and
four-tenths; the bore eight-tenths of an inch. By placing the eye at
the diminished end, the extraneous light is shut from the pupil, and
distant objects are more clearly discerned.”[79] A silver figure found
in Peru represents a man in the act of studying the heavens through one
of these tubes, and Captain Dupaix saw a stone in Mexico bearing the
figure of a man sculptured on its side in the act of using a similar
tube.[80]
[Illustration: Clay Vessels from Mounds in the Mississippi Valley. ¼
Size. (Nat. Mus.)]
[Illustration: Clay Tube from an Ohio Mound. ½ Natural Size. (Peabody
Mus.)]
With reference to the civilization of the Mound-builders, however
much writers may differ, we think the following conclusions may be
safely accepted: That they came into the country in comparatively
small numbers at first (if they were not Autochthones, and there is
no substantial proof that the Mound-builders were such), and during
their residence in the territory occupied by the United States they
became extremely populous. Their settlements were widespread, as the
extent of their remains indicate. The magnitude of their works, some of
which approximate the proportions of Egyptian pyramids, testify to the
architectural talent of the people and the fact that they had developed
a system of government which controlled the labor of multitudes,
whether of subjects or slaves. They were an agricultural people, as the
extensive ancient garden-beds found in Wisconsin and Missouri indicate.
Their manufactures afford proof that they had attained a respectable
degree of advancement, and show that they understood the advantages of
the division of labor.[81] Their domestic utensils, the cloth of which
they made their clothing, and the artistic vessels met with everywhere
in the mounds, point to the development of home culture and domestic
industry. There is no reason for believing that the people who wrought
stone and clay into perfect effigies of animals have not left us
sculptures of their own faces in the images exhumed from the mounds.
[Illustration: Large Clay Vessel from Milledgeville, Georgia. Size 14
Inches High and 13 Inches across Aperture. (Nat. Mus.)]
They mined copper, which they wrought into implements of war, into
ornaments and articles for domestic use. They quarried mica for mirrors
and other purposes.[82] They furthermore worked flint and salt mines.
They probably possessed some astronomical knowledge, though to what
extent is unknown.
Their trade, as Dr. Rau has shown, was widespread, extending probably
from Lake Superior to the Gulf, and possibly to Mexico.[83] They
constructed canals by which lake systems were united, a fact which
Mr. Conant has recently shown to be well established in Missouri.[84]
Their defences were numerous and constructed with reference to
strategic principles, while their system of signals placed on lofty
summits, visible from their settlements and communicating with the
great watercourses at immense distances, rival the signal systems in
use at the beginning of the present century. Their religion seems to
have been attended with the same ceremonies in all parts of their
domain. That its rites were celebrated with great demonstrations is
certain. The sun and moon probably were the all-important deities, to
whom sacrifices (possibly human) were offered. We have already alluded
to the development in architecture and art which marked the possible
transition of this people from north to south. Here we see but the
rude beginnings of a civilization which no doubt subsequently unfolded
in its fuller glory in the valley of Anahuac, and spreading southward
engrafted a new life upon the wreck of Xibalba. Though there is no
evidence that the Mound-builders were indigenous, we must admit that
their civilization was purely such—the natural product of climate and
the conditions surrounding them.[85]
[Illustration: Copper Relics from Wisconsin.
(From photos furnished by Prof. Butler.)]
CHAPTER II.
ANTIQUITY OF MAN ON THE WESTERN CONTINENT.
Antiquity of the Mounds — No Tradition of the Mound-builders —
Vegetation Covering the Mounds — Age of Mound Crania — Probable
Date of the Abandonment of the Mounds — Ancient Shell-heaps —
Man’s Influence on Nature — Supposed Testimony of Geology —
Agassiz on the Floridian Jaw-bone — Remains on Santos River —
The Natchez Bone — Remains on Petit Anse Island — Brazilian
Bone caves — Dr. Koch’s Pretended Discoveries — Ancient Hearths
— Age of the Mississippi Delta — Dr. Dowler’s Discovery at New
Orleans — Dr. Abbott’s Discoveries in New Jersey — Discoveries
in California — Inter-Glacial Relics in Ohio — Crania from
Mounds in the North-west — No Evidences as yet Discovered
Proving Man’s Great Antiquity in America.
At the opening of the preceding chapter we made some allusions to
the supposed antiquity of the Red Indian, a subject of growing
archæological significance, though as yet it affords us rather
unsatisfactory evidence, scientifically considered, relative to
the problem of man’s antiquity on this continent. Quite different,
however, is the estimate which we place on data left us by the people
of the mounds. The question of the antiquity of the Mound-builders
is one which cannot be accurately determined; no chronometric scale
can be applied to the uncertain record which they have left behind
them. Their history is a sealed book, and the approximate date of
their first occupancy of the Mississippi Basin is as uncertain as
the period of man’s origin. However, certain data present themselves
for our consideration which lead us to conclude that a few thousand
years, three or four perhaps, and possibly even less time, is all
that is required in which to account for their growth into a nation
and the moderate advancement which they made toward civilization. As
to when the Mound-builders left this country, is another question,
and can be approximated more closely. It is a well-known fact that
no tradition was ever found among the Indians as to the origin or the
purpose for which the mounds were constructed. They described them as
having been found by their ancestors in the same condition in which
we now see them, and clothed, if not with the same, at least with a
growth of vegetation similar to that which covers them to-day. It is
true the Iroquois, who are supposed to have reached the lake regions
and the Ohio Valley some time previous to the Algonquins, had certain
vague traditions of a people whom they called the “Allighewi;” but
there seems to be nothing in those indefinite allusions which would
associate that unknown people with the mounds. Still, Indian tradition
is nearly valueless in determining this question, since any fact,
however grave, was soon forgotten by a people so savage and unsettled.
The tribes of the lake region, says Dr. Lapham in his _Antiquities_,
so soon forgot the visit of the Jesuit Fathers that their descendants
a few generations later had no tradition of the event. The same is
true of the Indians of the Mississippi Valley with reference to De
Soto’s expedition, “which must,” remarks Dr. Foster, “have impressed
their ancestors with dread at the sight of horses ridden by men, and
the sound of fire-arms, which they must have likened to thunder. Sir
John Lubbock states that the New Zealanders at the time of Captain
Cook’s visit had forgotten altogether Tasman’s visit, made less than
one hundred and thirty years before.”[86] Another argument for the
construction of the mounds at a remote period, and which is certainly
of little more value than Indian tradition, is that which supposes
the Mound-builders to have erected works on the lowest of the river
terraces existing at the time of their occupancy of the country.
Much stress has been laid on the fact that no works have been found
on the lowest-formed of the river terraces which mark the subsidence
of the western rivers. “And as there is no good reason,” remarks Mr.
Baldwin, “why their builders should have avoided erecting them on
that terrace while they raised them promiscuously on all the others,
it follows, not unreasonably, that this terrace has been formed since
the works were erected.”[87] To any one familiar with the great rise
and fall which takes place annually in the water-level of the Ohio
and Mississippi and all of their tributaries, the fallacy of such
an argument is at once apparent. We must at least allow that the
Mound-builders learned by experience, just as animals do, even if we
could deny them a very high order of intelligence. Little time could
have elapsed after their advent to these valleys before they observed
the impracticability of erecting mounds or enclosures on most of the
alluvial bottoms bordering these streams. The raging torrents which
sometimes sweep through the valleys of the central basin, uprooting
the largest trees, carrying away natural embankments, forming immense
deposits of new alluvium, submerging miles of adjacent country, and
in many ways changing its physical conformation, would in a few years
obliterate any traces of earthworks built within their reach.[88] Far
more certain data, however, is furnished in the arborescent vegetation
which covers many of the works, with which to measure part of the
period during which they have remained unoccupied, though we are left
in uncertainty as to the remoteness of their abandonment. The annular
rings of a tree present us indisputable evidence as to its age.[89] It
is evident that the forests which cover these remains have grown up
since they were vacated, as no difference exists between them and the
surrounding vegetation—no break exists in the density of the forests
in the immediate vicinity of the works. The oldest of the trees found
upon the works present eight hundred annual rings, indicating as many
years of growth.[90] This cannot, however, be set down as the limit of
the period of their abandonment, since, as it seems that this country
was open and mostly unwooded in the sections thickly settled by the
Mound-builders, a considerable time would be requisite for the slow
encroachments of a forest, even when the trees which now stand upon
the mounds may have been preceded by trees of other species or by
two or three generations of their own.[91] The age of the trees on
the mound-works in the Ohio Valley or farther north, rarely exceeds
five hundred or six hundred years, and such cases as that cited by Sir
Charles Lyell are the exceptions. Farther south, in the Mississippi
Valley and near the Gulf, they are still younger than those at the
north.[92] So noticeable is this that we are led to think the Gulf
coast may have been occupied by the Mound-builders for a couple of
centuries after they were driven by their enemies from the country
north of the mouths of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers. The condition of
skeletons found in the mounds indicate an antiquity which they furnish
us no means of measuring. It is not to be presumed that all human
remains discovered in excavating the works were interred immediately
previous to the abandonment of the country. Some of them may belong
to the middle or beginning of the period of their residence in the
territory occupied by the United States. Human remains taken from the
mounds, perhaps furnish us better evidence of the long residence of the
Mound-builders in this country than any other data in our possession.
It suffices to say that few Mound-builder crania have been recovered in
a condition to be of any service to science; although of late years,
several valuable collections have been made. The preservation of the
skeletons depends greatly on the composition of the soil in which they
are found. The Loess has afforded well-preserved remains, however,
with the gelatinous matter leached out. The crania of the sandy loam
of river bottoms, on the other hand, are in all cases so far decayed
upon discovery that the greatest precautions fail to prevent them from
crumbling to dust when exposed to the light and air. Mastodon bones,
on the contrary, recovered from peat swamps, and much older than any
of the remains of the Mound-builders, are found to have retained so
much of their gelatinous matter as to furnish a nourishing soup.[93]
To these evidences may be added the testimony derived from the ancient
ruins which points to long-continued occupation and to a considerable
lapse of time since their abandonment.
How long the Mound-builders occupied the country north of the Gulf of
Mexico it is impossible in the present state of science to determine.
Some authors conjecture that they were here two thousand years; that
we think would be time enough, though after all it is but conjecture.
It seems to us, however, that the time of the abandonment of their
works may be more closely approximated. A thousand or two years may
have elapsed since they vacated the Ohio Valley, and a period embracing
seven or eight centuries may have passed since they retired from the
Gulf coast. As an evidence of a large population having existed in this
country at a former period, we have immense shell-heaps artificially
collected, extending along the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to
Florida, on the Gulf coast and up the river valleys through nearly
all of the Southern States. It is difficult to assign the formation
of these vast remains to any definite period or to any particular
people. Though of the same character as the _Kjökken-Möddings_
(Kitchen-Middens) of the Danish, they furnish no indications of so
great an antiquity. This has been shown by Dr. Jeffries Wyman in his
researches in Maine and Massachusetts.[94] Sir Charles Lyell made an
examination of a shell-bank on St. Simon’s Island, near the mouth of
the Allamaha River, Georgia, so extensive that it covers ten acres to
a depth varying from five to ten feet.[95] Dr. Brinton has described
immense accumulations in Florida. On Amelia Island, shells exist to
the depth of three feet over an area 150 yards wide and a quarter of a
mile long. Notable instances of a similar kind are Turtle Mound near
Smyrna—a mass of oyster shells thirty feet thick—and a shell-bank
on Crystal River four miles from its mouth, reaching a height of
forty feet.[96] Dr. Wyman carefully examined many of the fresh-water
shell-heaps of Florida and obtained pretty satisfactory results.[97]
Near the Silver spring upon a shell-heap covering nearly twenty acres,
stand several live-oaks of immense size, the largest of which measured
between twenty-six and twenty-seven feet in circumference. Excavations
under this monster, taken together with its position on the side of
the shell-bank, proved it to be of more recent origin than the latter.
Prof. Wyman, by allowing twelve rings to the inch and granting it a
semi-diameter of fifty inches, estimated that it was not less than
six hundred years old. Of course the shell-bank may have existed a
long time before any vegetation appeared upon it. The crania of
the shell-banks of Florida differ from those of the Mound-builders
in greater thickness as well as greater mean capacity.[98] In his
_Fresh-water Shell-Mounds of the St. John’s River_, and in his memoir
on _Human Remains in the Shell-heaps of the St. John’s River_ (_Seventh
Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 26 _et seq._), Dr. Wyman reports
having discovered the startling fact that cannibalism prevailed among
the barbarous people of the shell-banks. In the Peabody Museum a
collection of human bones taken from the shell-banks by Dr. Wyman are
arranged to illustrate this sad discovery. It is possible that this
people had some relationship to the Caribs. Prof. Forshey has described
in brief the vast extent and proportions of the marine shell-banks of
the Gulf coast, and the shores of the bayous, lakes and lagoons where
Guathodon shells are found. Those of Louisiana, especially near New
Orleans, are remarkable, but have yielded no remains, except broken
pottery, flint flakes and stone hatchets. A shell-bank at Grand
Lake, on the Teche, however, upon which great live-oaks are growing,
situated fifteen miles inland, from which the sea has receded since
its formation, “yielded unique specimens of axes of hæmatitic iron-ore
and glazed pottery.”[99] Probably the most remote shell-bank from
the sea containing marine shells, occurs on the Alabama River, fifty
miles inland.[100] Fresh-water shell-banks, other than those examined
in Florida, furnish evidences of slow accumulation and indicate
a comparatively remote antiquity for their origin. On Stalling’s
Island, in the Savannah River, two hundred miles above its mouth, is
a shell-bank three hundred feet in length by one hundred and twenty
feet in width, with an average depth of over fifteen feet.[101] In
the American Bottom and on many of the tributaries of the Mississippi,
shell-banks occur, composed of varieties of the Unios and Anodons. A
remarkable example of such accumulation is the well-known shell-bank a
mile and a half south of New Harmony, Indiana, and situated on a high
hill 170 feet above the level of an arm of the Wabash River. The bank
covers an area of a quarter of an acre, and has attracted the attention
of eminent scientists like Leasure, Say, Lyell and others, but nothing
of value was developed that would refer the construction of this and
similar banks to any people more ancient than the Mound-builders.[102]
On the Pacific coast, great numbers of shell-banks exist, but contain
nothing different from those in other parts of the country. (See
Researches in the Kjökken Möddings of the Coast of Oregon and of the
Santa Barbara Islands and Adjacent Mainland, by Paul Schumacher.
_Bulletin of U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey_, vol. iii, No. 1.) There can
be little doubt but these strange and vast accumulations indicating the
presence of an extinct population, had a remote beginning, and have
been added to from time to time by different peoples, removed from each
other both by the diversities of race and the lapse of time.
A trifle more than a decade ago the treatment of the subject of this
chapter would have called for a discussion of the antiquity of the
magnificent architectural remains of Southern Mexico, and of the still
older ruins of the Maya civilization in Yucatan, and the branches of
that people in Central America; but the indefatigable labor which has
been bestowed by several eminent antiquarians upon the ancient history
of the civilized nations of the New World previous to its discovery by
Europeans, has transferred this part of the subject to another field;
has elevated it from the uncertain position it occupied in archæology
to a place in the realm of history. It is true that it is difficult
to draw the line between tradition and history, and especially so in
this case; but as tradition does not conflict with archæology in its
bearing on the ancient civilization of Tropical America, it is better
than nothing; certainly archæology thus far has amounted to little
more than nothing in revealing the approximate period of the origin of
these remains. While it has done much towards verifying tradition and
assisted largely in its interpretation, it has not been adequate to the
task of solving the age of these remains. Tradition, on the contrary,
and we might almost say history, carries us back three thousand years,
if not farther, as the period when man—whether the first here or
not—appeared upon the Western Continent. The discussion of this part of
our subject will be given in a future chapter. Too much doubt exists
with reference to the stupendous remains of Peru, especially in the
neighborhood of Lake Titicaca, Tiahuanaco, Old Huanaco, and Grau-Chimu,
as to whether they antedated the arrival of the Incas by a great lapse
of time, to admit of a serious discussion here. Nothing of a scientific
character is available as yet upon which even to base conjecture.
Rivero and Tschudi, it is true, have treated the subject, and their
work has been often quoted, but after all it amounts to but little
more than a description of the remains, which serves the good end of
exciting interest in the subject. The antiquities and legendary history
of the Peruvians have so recently been treated with such ability by Mr.
E. G. Squier, that the South American civilization needs no attention
in this connection.
In considering the question as to how long man has inhabited this
continent, his influence upon nature cannot be overlooked. In the
animal kingdom, certain animals were domesticated by the aborigines
from so remote a period that scarcely any of their species, as in the
case of the lama of Peru, were to be found in a state of unrestrained
freedom at the advent of the Spaniards. In the vegetable kingdom more
abundant testimony of the same nature is presented. A plant must be
subjected to the transforming influences of cultivation for a long
time before it becomes so changed as no longer to be identified with
the wild species, and infinitely longer before it becomes entirely
dependent upon cultivation for propagation. Yet we find that both
of these facts have been accomplished with reference to the maize,
tobacco, cotton, quinoa and mandico plants; and the only species
of palm cultivated by the South American Indians, that known as the
_Gulielma speciosa_, has lost through that culture its original
nut-like seed, and is dependent upon the hands of its cultivators
for its life.[103] Alluding to the above-named plants, Dr. Brinton
remarks: “Several are sure to perish unless fostered by human care.
What numberless ages does this suggest? How many centuries elapsed ere
man thought of cultivating Indian corn? How many more ere it had spread
over nearly a hundred degrees of latitude and lost all resemblance
to its original form?”[104] Certainly this class of evidence, though
furnishing no chronometric scale, points us to an antiquity for man on
this continent more venerable than that suggested either by tumuli or
architectural remains. The peculiar value of this argument rests in the
fact that with the exception of cotton, none of the plants indicated
have ever been cultivated by any other people than the aborigines of
America, and could not have matured their characteristics of dependence
in the old world, and been brought hither through the channel of
immigration.
Back of the age of man’s monuments of an architectural character,
beyond the beginning of the first existing shell-heap, and at a time
probably more remote than the first cultivation of maize, it has been
supposed that man occupied the Western Continent as a contemporary with
the mastodon, megalonyx and other extinct animals. Our information
in this department is entirely dependent upon the revelations of
geological science. Unfortunately very little data which may be termed
truly scientific has been brought to light. While considerable seeming
testimony to man’s antiquity on this continent has been produced
from a geologic quarter, still it mostly has been of an unscientific
character. Fossils and human remains are said to have been discovered
in localities and in associations that if the statements of those who
found them could be relied on, would give man an antiquity here as
great as in the valley of the Somme or in the bone caves of Belgium,
France, and England. In the instances alluded to, it is not so often
feared that the veracity of discoverers is doubtful as that their
general lack of acquaintance with the science should make them liable
to error. Where a competent geologist is not present to examine a
fossil _in situ_, and report intelligently upon its position and
surroundings, the case must remain open to suspicion. Unfortunately
for science, this is precisely the weak point in most of the reputed
“finds” which are cited as evidence in this field. In 1848, Count
Pourtales found in Florida, according to Agassiz, a human jaw and
teeth, and bones of the foot, embedded in a calcareous conglomerate
forming a part of a coral reef. This reef, according to Agassiz, may
be 135,000 years old, and the human remains at least ten thousand
years.[105] This statement has been accepted as reliable by Sir Charles
Lyell,[106] Daniel Wilson,[107] and other noted scientific gentlemen.
Count Pourtales, however, makes a statement which materially alters
the case. He says: “The human jaws and other bones found by myself in
Florida in 1848, were not in a coral formation, but in a fresh-water
sandstone on the shore of Lake Monroe, associated with fresh-water
shells or species still living in the lakes (Paulina, Ampullaria,
etc.). No date can be assigned to the formation of that deposit, at
least from present observation.”[108] Human remains were found a number
of years ago embedded in the solid rock in the island of Guadaloupe.
“But more careful investigation proved the rock to be a concretionary
limestone formed from the detritus of corals and shells.”[109] This
rock was ascertained to have been one of very rapid formation.
Sir Charles Lyell, in his _Travels in America_ in 1842, expressed the
opinion that certain human remains found embedded in the solid rock
near the town of St. Paul on the Santos River, Brazil, were of great
antiquity.[110] Subsequently referring to the memoir of Dr. Meigs on
the shell-heap of which the rock was a part,[111] he expresses the
opinion that shells were brought to the place and heaped up over the
remains, and “were bound together in a solid stone by the infiltration
of carbonate of lime, and the mound may therefore be of no higher
antiquity than those above alluded to on the Ohio.”[112] In a few
instances it has been alleged that the remains of man have been found
associated with the remains of the mastodon and other extinct animals.
More than thirty years ago Dr. Dickson of Natchez discovered the
pelvic bone of a man, the _os innominatum_, mingled with the bones of
extinct animals (megalonyx and mylodon). This discovery was made two
and one-half miles from Natchez, at the bottom of what is known as
Bernard’s Bayou, an immense ravine from thirty to sixty feet deep and
several miles long, formed by the convulsions of the earthquake of
1811–12. This bone is now in the possession of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia. Sir Charles Lyell visited the spot where it
was discovered in 1846, and made a careful examination of the bone
then in the possession of Dr. Dickson, and also explored the “Mammoth
Ravine.” He discusses the case as follows: “It appeared to be quite in
the same state of preservation and was of the same black color as the
other fossils, and was believed to have come like them from a depth of
about thirty feet from the surface. In my _Second Visit to America_ in
1846,[113] I suggested as a possible explanation of this association of
a human bone with remains of a mastodon and megalonyx, that the former
may possibly have been derived from the vegetable soil at the top of
the cliff, where, as the remains of extinct mammalia were dislodged
from a lower position, and both may have fallen into the same heap or
talus at the bottom of the ravine, the pelvic bone might, I conceived,
have acquired its black color from having lain for years or centuries
in a dark superficial peaty soil common in that region. I was informed
that there were many human bones in old Indian graves in the same
district stained of as black a dye.” * * * “No doubt, had the pelvic
bone belonged to any recent mammifier other than man, such a theory
would never have been resorted to; but so long as we have only one
isolated case, and are without the testimony of a geologist who was
present to behold the bone when still engaged in the matrix, and to
extract it with his own hands, it is allowable to suspend our judgment
as to the high antiquity of the fossil”.[114] Both Dr. Joseph Leidy[115]
and Prof. C. G. Forshey,[116] who have examined the case, agree with
the above. A few years ago a fragment of matting composed of the outer
bark of the southern cane (_Arundinaria macrosperma_) was discovered
on Petit Anse Island in Vermillion Bay, Louisiana, in connection with
the remains of a fossil elephant. This island, containing about five
thousand acres, is the locality of an extraordinary mine of rock salt,
discovered and worked considerably during the late rebellion. The salt
is found in nearly all parts of the island at the depth of fifteen or
twenty feet below the surface of the soil. The matting was discovered
near the surface of the salt, and about two feet above it were the
remains of an elephant, including the tusks. Prof. Henry was the first
to call public attention to the matter in a notice based on the verbal
statements of T. F. Cleu, Esq., who presented a specimen of the matting
to the Smithsonian Institution.[117] In 1867, Prof. E. W. Hilgard and
Dr. E. Fontaine, secretary of the New Orleans Academy of Sciences,
examined the locality. We regret to say that the report made by the
latter is so confused in its use of terms and so conflicting in its
statements as to be of no service to science.[118] Prof. Hilgard is, on
the contrary, clear on the subject. He considers the heap in which the
matting, elephant bones, and subsequently pottery in great profusion,
were found, “A mass of detritus washed down from the surrounding
hills.” “The pottery,” he remarks, “at some points form veritable
strata three and six inches thick.” He then adds in a note that “it
is very positively stated that mastodon bones were found considerably
_above_ some of the human relics. In a detrital mass, however, this
cannot be considered a crucial test.”[119] Dr. Foster, after citing the
above, interposes the objection, “That in an island whose area is less
than eight miles square, there would be few floods of sufficient power
to transport such heavy bones as the tusks and molars of mastodons
to any considerable distance.”[120] Certainly the question is an
open one, and in its present unsettled status proves nothing. The
same uncertainty attaches itself to the discoveries of Dr. Lund, the
distinguished Swedish naturalist, made many years ago in the bone caves
of Minas Geraes, Brazil. This indefatigable investigator examined more
than eight hundred caverns, and in only six were human remains found.
In one instance out of the six, the remains were associated with the
bones of animals now extinct, but the original stratification had been
disturbed, and the presumption is that it was a case of comparatively
recent interment.[121]
The most remarkable instance of the supposed, or we might be allowed in
this case to say _pretended_ discovery of human remains in association
with those of extinct animals, is that set forth by Dr. Koch. This
collector of curiosities described his discovery of a _mastodon
giganteus_ in 1839 in Gasconade County, Missouri, at a spot on the
Bourbeuse River, first in a newspaper article of January 1839, and
cited in the _American Journal of Science and Arts_.[122] And a second
time in the St. Louis _Commercial Bulletin_ of June 25, 1839, which
article was also noticed in the above Journal.[123] This article was
signed “A. Koch, Proprietor of the St. Louis Museum.” Subsequently
he published descriptions in pamphlets, which unfortunately did not
always convey the same impressions.[124] Dr. Koch, after referring to
the discovery of a back and hip bone of this remarkable animal, gives
the following description: “I immediately commenced opening a much
larger space; the first layer of earth was a vegetable mould, then a
blue clay, then sand and blue clay. I found a large quantity of pieces
of rocks, weighing from two to twenty-five pounds each, evidently
thrown there with the intention of hitting some object. It is necessary
to remark that not the least sign of rocks or gravel is to be found
nearer than from four or five hundred yards, and that these pieces
were broken from larger rocks, and consequently carried here for some
express purpose. After passing through these rocks I came to a layer
of vegetable mould; on the surface of this was found the first blue
bone, with this a spear and axe; the spear corresponds precisely with
our common Indian spear; the axe is different from any I have seen.
Also on this earth were ashes nearly from six inches to one foot in
depth, intermixed with burned wood and burned bones, broken spears,
axes, knives, etc. The fire appeared to have been the largest on the
head and neck of the animal, as the ashes and coals were much deeper
here than in the rest of the body; the skull was quite perfect, but so
much burned that it crumbled to dust on the least touch; two feet from
this was found two teeth broken off from the jaw, but mashed entirely
to pieces. By putting them together, they showed the animal to have
been much larger than any heretofore discovered. It appeared by the
situation of the skeleton, that the animal had been sunk with its hind
feet in the mud and water, and, unable to extricate itself, had fallen
on its right side, and in that situation was found and killed as above
described; consequently the hind and fore-feet on the right side were
sunk deeper in the mud, and thereby saved from the effects of the fire;
therefore I was able to preserve the whole of the hind foot to the very
last joint, and the fore foot, all but some few small bones that were
too much decayed to be worth saving. Also between the rocks that had
sunk through the ashes, were found large pieces of skin that appeared
like fresh-tanned sole leather, strongly impregnated with the lye from
the ashes; and a great many of the sinews and arteries were plain to
be seen on the earth and rocks, but in such a state as not to be moved
except in small pieces the size of a hand, which are now preserved
in spirits.” “Should any doubts arise in the mind of the reader of
the correctness of the above statement, he can be referred to more
than twenty witnesses who were present at the time of digging.”[125]
Subsequent accounts agree substantially with the above except that
we never again hear of the “large pieces of skin,” the “sinews and
arteries,” “which are now preserved in spirits.” The presumption is
that the author, upon mature reflection, arrived at the conclusion
that in reality he had seen nothing of the kind, and in fact had never
preserved such relics in spirits.
Dr. Koch made a second discovery about one year subsequently in Benton
County, Missouri, in the bottom of the Pomme-de-Terre River, at about
ten miles above its junction with the Osage River. His description is
as follows: “The second trace of human existence with these animals
I found during the excavation of the Missourium. There was embedded
immediately under the femur or hind-leg bone of this animal, an
arrow-head of rose-colored flint, resembling those used by the American
Indians, but of larger size. This was the only arrow-head immediately
with the skeleton; but in the same strata, at a distance of five
or six feet, in a horizontal direction, four more arrow-heads were
found. Three of these were of the same formation as the preceding.
The fourth was of very rude workmanship. One of the last-mentioned
three was of agate, the others of blue flint. These arrow-heads are
indisputably the work of human hands. I examined the deposit in which
they were embedded, and raised them out of their embedment with my
own hands. The original stratum on which this river flowed at the
time it was inhabited by the _Missourium theristocaulodon_ and up
to the time of its destruction, was of the upper green sand. On the
surface of this stratum, and partly mingled with it, was the deposit
of the before-described skeleton. The next stratum is from three to
four feet in thickness, and consisted of a brown alluvium of the
_Eocene_ region, and was composed of vegetable matters of a tropical
production. It contained all the remainder of the skeleton.” “Most of
these vegetables were in a great state of preservation and consisted
of a large quantity of cypress burs, wood and bark, tropical cane,
ferns, palmetto leaves, several stumps of trees, and even the greater
part of a flower of the strelitzia class, which when destroyed was not
full blown. There was no sign or indication of any very large trees;
the cypresses that were discovered being the largest that were growing
here at the time. These various matters had been torn up by their roots
and twisted and split into a thousand pieces apparently by lightning
combined with a tremendous tempest or tornado; and all were involved
in one common ruin. Several veins of iron pyrites ran through the
stratum.” “The next over this formation was a layer of plastic clay
of the _Eocene_ region, also with iron pyrites. It was three feet in
thickness; over this a layer of conglomerate from nine to eighteen
inches in thickness; over this a layer of marl of the Pliocene region,
from three to four feet in thickness; next, a second conglomerate from
nine to eighteen inches in thickness. This was succeeded by a layer of
yellow clay of the Pliocene; over this a third layer of conglomerate
from nine to eighteen inches in thickness, and at last the present
surface, consisting of brownish clay mingled with a few pebbles, and
covered with large oak, maple, and elm trees, which were, as near as I
could ascertain, from eighty to one hundred years old. In the centre
of the above-mentioned deposit was a large spring which appeared to
rise from the very bowels of the earth, as it was never affected by the
severest rain, nor did it become lower by the longest draught.”[126]
The preceding accounts were presented to the St. Louis Academy of
Sciences in a special paper several years later (1857).[127]
Dr. Foster is inclined to believe that Dr. Koch was not mistaken
in his claimed discovery, having arrived at that opinion by
pointedly questioning him on the subject a short time before his
(Koch’s) death.[128] Charles Rau is also of the opinion that he was
truthful.[129] Mr. J. D. Dana, however, discusses the case as follows:
“In the account of the second case above cited Dr. Koch says that
the Missourium was embedded in a brown alluvium of the Eocene region
resting on the ‘upper green sand;’ that next over it was plastic
clay of the ‘Eocene region’ and beds of the ‘Pliocene region.’ He
thus makes his Missourium to have come from the lower tertiary, and
from a bed just above the green sand (cretaceous) when actually from
quartenary beds; and he uses the terms Eocene and Pliocene, as if he
had no familiarity with geological facts or language. The earlier
pamphlet of 1840 avoids this bad geology, ‘the upper green sand,’ in
that being called simply quicksand and the other beds merely beds of
clay and conglomerate. All the pamphlets sustain the conclusion that
Dr. Koch knew almost nothing of geology, and that what he gradually
picked up from intercourse with geologists, he generally made much of
but seldom was able to use rightly.”[130] The same critic says: “In
zoological knowledge he was equally deficient,” and cites the fact of
the discoverer recognizing the resemblance to the mastodon, still makes
the animal an inhabitant of the watercourses like the hippopotamus;
states that his food “consisted as much of vegetables as of flesh,
although he undoubtedly consumed a great abundance of the latter,”
and makes the marvelous revelation that he “_was capable of feeding
himself with his fore-foot after the manner of the beaver or otter_.”
Mr. Dana continues: “He says that one arrow-head lay ‘immediately under
the femur or thigh-bone,’ and he further states in his later article
of 1857, that ‘he carefully thought to investigate the point as to
its having been brought thither after the deposit of the bone’ and
decided against it. The observation and conclusion would have been more
satisfactory had the author been a better observer.” “The descriptions
of the deposits in Gasconade County containing the remains of an
animal the principal part of which was consumed by fire is a still
more unsatisfactory basis for a safe conclusion as to age. But in the
article of 1857, he says that the layer of ashes, etc., ‘was covered
by strata or alluvial deposits consisting of clay, sand and soil,
from eight to nine feet thick, _forming the bottom of the Bourbeuse
(River) in general_,’ which seems to make it almost certain that the
beds were of quite recent origin.”[131] Mr. Dana considers Dr. Koch’s
evidence as “_very doubtful_.”[132] Dr. Foster has figured a fossil
which, for a better name, he has designated as a “stone hatchet,” from
the modified drift of Jersey County, Illinois.[133] He is positive as
to the position in which it was found, but has doubt as to its human
origin. The probabilities are that its peculiar shape is due to its
exposure to atmospheric agents. He remarks, however: “On the whole, I
will not positively assert that this specimen is of human workmanship,
but I affirm that if it had been recovered from a plowed field I should
have unhesitatingly said it was an Indian hatchet.” In the _Proceedings
of the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences_ for July, 1859, Dr. Holmes
describes the occurrence of fragments of pottery in close proximity
with the bones of the mastodon and megatherium, on the Ashley River in
South Carolina. The case, however, has not been considered authentic
by scientific men. Dr. Holmes is possibly mistaken.[134] Col. Charles
Whittlesey, in 1838, saw at Portsmouth, Ohio, on the Ohio River,
remains of ancient fire-places situated eighteen to twenty feet above
low water and about fifteen feet below the surface. He states, “at low
water and thence up to a height of twelve or fifteen feet is a bed of
sand and transported gravel, containing pebbles of quartz, granite,
sandstone and limestone, derived partly from the adjacent Carboniferous
and Devonian rocks and partly from the northern drift, the upper part
much the coarsest. On this is a layer of blue quicksand from one to
five feet thick, in which is a timber-bed including large numbers of
the trunks, branches, stumps and leaves of trees, such as are now
growing on the Ohio, principally birch, black-ash, oak and hickory.
Over the dirt-bed is the usually loamy yellow clay of the valley,
fifteen to thirty feet thick, on which are very extensive works of the
Mound-builders. In and near the bottom of this undisturbed homogeneous
river-loam I saw two places where fire had been built on a circular
collection of small stones, a part of which were then embedded in the
bank.”[135] Near these fire-places the writer of the above found the
membranous covering of common river shells (the Unios). We think that
no geologist familiar with the constant changes of the Ohio River bed,
will consider that the conditions surrounding these ancient fire-places
warrant us in assigning them a much greater antiquity than we attach
to the Mound-builders’ works in the neighborhood. In 1846, Sir Charles
Lyell, when at New Orleans, made an estimate of the time required to
account for the immense annual deposit of the Mississippi River in the
neighborhood of its delta. From a computation based on certain data,
which assumed the area of the alluvial plain which is the result of
those deposits, to equal 30,000 square miles, several hundred feet
thick in some places, he estimated that probably 100,000 years would
be requisite.[136] Subsequently, during the process of excavating for
the New Orleans Gas Works, it was found necessary to cut through four
buried cypress forests. At the depth of sixteen feet and on the fourth
forest level, a human skeleton distinctly of the Indian type,[137] was
found under the roots of a cypress tree, together with burnt wood. Dr.
Dowler, dividing the history of the delta into, 1. The epoch of grasses
or aquatic plants; 2. That of the cypress (_Taxodium distichum_)
basins, and 3. That of the live-oak platform, tabulates the age of the
strata overlying the skeleton as follows:
Epoch of aquatic plants 1,500 years
Epoch of the cypress basin, in which he assumes
only two successive growths 11,400 „
Epoch of live-oak platform 1,500 „
——————
Total 14,400 years
The basis for his estimate of the age of the cypress basins was the
computed age of the trees of the fourth level, ten feet in diameter and
probably reaching 5,700 years.[138] Sir Charles Lyell in a later work,
though still adhering to his former estimate of the time required in
which to form the delta, cannot accept Dr. Dowler’s great antiquity
for the remains.[139] The question in hand of course involves the
question of the antiquity of the deposit where the skeleton was found,
which is well-nigh identical with the vexed question of the age of
the delta. The very diversity of opinion on this subject precludes
the possibility of its consideration here. We will content ourselves
by citing two estimates in addition to those already given. Professor
Edward Hitchcock calculated that the entire delta embraced a bulk
of matter equal to 2,720 _cubic_ miles, for the deposit of which he
thought 14,204 years necessary.[140] Humphries and Abbot think that
both the area and thickness of the deposit have been overstated, and
instead of 30,000 square miles for the former, they claim only 19,450.
As to the latter, they estimate the thickness of the alluvial matter as
but twenty-five feet on the river banks along the St. Francis swamp;
thirty-five along the Yazoo swamp, and continuing of uniform thickness
to Baton Rouge; while the artesian well at New Orleans showed it in
that locality to reach a point forty feet below the level of the Gulf.
These authors base their calculations as to the age of the deposits on
the following ascertained facts: the total yearly contributions of the
river equal a prism two hundred and sixty-eight feet in height, with a
base of one mile square; two hundred and sixty-two feet is the supposed
mean yearly advance of the river; the original mouth of the Mississippi
was near the afflux of the Bayou Plaquemine, and has hence progressed
two hundred and twenty miles since it began to empty its deposits into
the Gulf. Supposing these data to be correct, they estimate that only
four thousand four hundred years have elapsed since that period.[141]
This would give the skeleton alluded to a comparatively recent origin.
We are inclined to believe that the above estimate assigns a period for
the formation of the delta as much too short as that of Sir Charles was
too long. As to the antiquity of the skeleton, probably Dr. Foster’s
solution of the question is as near correct as any that ever may be
proposed: “Thus, then, with these carefully-observed computations
before us, we are not prepared to accept the high antiquity assigned
by Dr. Dowler to the human remains found beneath the surface at New
Orleans. What he regards as four buried forests which once flourished
on the spot, may be nothing more than driftwood brought down the river
in former times which became embedded in the silts and sediments which
were deposited on what was then the floor of the Gulf.”[142]
If all the indications were verified, we should be justified in
assigning man a much greater antiquity in the Rocky Mountain region
and on the Pacific slope than in any other part of North America.
Mr. E. L. Berthoud collected numerous stone implements in what he
considers to be tertiary gravel on Crow Creek and in the region of
the South Platte River, Lat. 40 N., Long. 104 W. Two shells secured
in the same locality by him have been pronounced a _corbicula_ and a
_rangia_ respectively, and are thought to belong to the older Pliocene
or possibly to the Miocene.[143] The evidence in this case is, however,
unsatisfactory, and cannot be admitted to be of scientific value
without further authentication.
In 1857 a portion of a human cranium was found associated with bones
of the mastodon at the depth of one hundred and eighty feet below the
surface in a mining shaft at Table Mountain, California. Dr. C. F.
Winslow sent this fragment to the Boston Natural History Society, but
no importance was attached to it, since no other evidence other than
that furnished by workmen in the mine could be obtained. Subsequently,
when an entire skull was reported to have been found in the gold drift
near Angelos in Calaveras County, in a shaft one hundred and fifty
feet deep, the intelligent portion of the community pronounced the
finder guilty of a scientific fraud, and it is not yet a certainty
that their decision was incorrect. However, Professor Whitney, of the
State Geological Survey, upon hearing of the case examined the mine,
and found that the shaft passed through five beds of lava and volcanic
tufa and four beds of auriferous gravel. It was in one of these beds
that the skull was said to have been found. Some of the cemented gravel
was still adhering to the skull when it came into the Professor’s
possession, and Professor Wyman, to whom it was submitted subsequently,
refers to the difficulty which he had in removing the incrustation.
Professor Whitney, on the testimony of the possessor of the skull,
pronounced it an authentic “find,” and while his decision has been
acquiesced in by a number of scientific gentlemen of repute, Professor
Wyman among them, still the great majority, we believe, are unwilling
to rest their faith on such slender evidence. Though no crack was
apparent through which the skull might have fallen from the surface,
such might have existed at an earlier period. In a region which is the
product of volcanic action there is room for suspicion, especially in
cases like both of these, where, as Sir Charles Lyell has said, no
geologist was present at the moment of discovery to see the fossil
_in situ_ and extricate it with his own hands from the matrix which
contained it.
President Edward Orton, of the Ohio State University, recently called
our attention to the discovery of relics of human workmanship found
many years ago near Waynesville, Ohio, at the depth of over twelve feet
below the surface. Dr. Robert Furnas, a clergyman of the Society of
Friends, courteously furnished us the following statement: “The relic
was obtained about the year 1824. It was in the process of digging a
well for my grandfather. My father, then twenty-one years of age, was
performing the work of excavation, when at the depth of thirteen or
fourteen feet he came to a dark mould about two feet deep, on the top
of which was lying _a thimble and a piece of coarse cloth_ six inches
wide and a yard long. The outer edge containing the fringe showing
the end of the _chain_ or warp at the end of the fabric and point of
fastening in weaving.” “The removal above after passing through the
soil consisted of solid clay of a yellowish-brown color. The farm was
purchased by my grandfather in 1803, and occupied by him to the time
of his death in 1863. He was the pioneer of the place, having settled
there in an unbroken forest. The location is on the top of the hill
on the east side of the Little Miami River forty or fifty feet above
the level of the stream. The cloth soon lost all traces of texture on
coming in contact with the air. The thimble was in a pretty good state
of preservation.”[144] Professor Orton, who has examined the locality
and studied the case in hand, expressed the opinion to us that it was
not only authentic, but (while not amounting to absolute proof) seemed
to associate man’s works with a deposit which has furnished remains
of the mastodon. The Professor considers the dark mould referred to
as that upon which the relics were lying to be of an inter-glacial
vegetable deposit peculiar to Southern Ohio, and once constituting
an ancient surface of the land inhabited with animal life.[145] The
cloth from its coarse character bears a resemblance to that of the
mounds, while its length of just a yard is suggestive of more modern
measurements.[146]
Dr. C. C. Abbott has unquestionably discovered many palæolithic
implements in the glacial drift in the valley of the Delaware River
near Trenton, New Jersey. Among a number of rude implements from the
undisturbed gravel of the region is a spear-head, found six feet from
the surface, on the site of the Lutheran Church, Broad Street, Trenton,
N. J. The circumstances surrounding it were such as to justify the
conclusion that the weapon had not gotten into its position where found
“subsequently to the deposition of the containing layer of pebbles.”
Subsequent investigation has brought to light sixty well finished flint
implements, all of them from what appears to be undisturbed drift.
Some of the relics have as many as from twenty to forty planes of
cleavage, all equally weathered. The specimens are not unlike their
neolithic counterparts taken from the aboriginal graves and stone cists
of Tennessee.[147] Dr. Abbott concludes that the gravel, boulders,
and rude implements associated with them were deposited by ice-rafts
on the descent of a glacier down the valley, and that man more rude
and ancient than the red Indian dwelt at the foot of the glacier,
being driven south by its advance and following it again to the north
upon its return.[148] Professors Shaler and Pumpelly, however, while
considering the deposit as of glacial origin, think it was subsequently
modified by water-action. Dr. Abbott, with great fairness, admits that,
“Inasmuch as such subsequent action may have occurred long after the
final deposition of the gravel, as true glacial drift, the antiquity of
the contained stone implements is proportionately lessened.” Professor
Shaler, after a partial examination of the locality, remarks that “if
these remains are really those of man, they prove the existence of
inter-glacial man on this part of our shore.”[149] Dr. Abbott and Prof.
Aug. R. Grote believe that the Eskimo is the surviving representative
of paleolithic and glacial man in North America. The latter believes
that man reached this continent during the Pliocene, and before the
ice-period had interfered with a warm climate in the north.[150]
Recently Dr. Abbott has said: “It may be that, as investigations are
carried further, it will result not so much in proving man of very
great antiquity, as in showing how much more recent than usually
supposed was the final disappearance of the glacier.”[151] On page
30 we referred to mounds examined in the North-west, N. lat. 47°, W.
long. 98° 38´, by General H. W. Thomas.[152] In these mounds crania
indicating a very low type of intelligence were discovered—in form
resembling skulls of the great Gibbon monkey.[153] From the standpoint
of the development theory (and by this we do not mean evolution, but
that progression which takes place when a savage advances from his
low state toward civilization), the evidences are abundant that man
is older by far on the Western side of the continent and perhaps in
the North-west, than elsewhere in the new world. Though this discovery
by General Thomas does not reach back in antiquity to geologic times,
still it cannot be denied that a considerable period must have elapsed
before low-type crania of the North-west could have developed into the
crania of the Ohio Valley Mounds. Professor James Orton, in commenting
on the investigations of Wilson on the coast of Equador, refers to the
discovery of gold, copper and stone vestiges of a former population
in the system of terraces traced from the coast through the province
of Esmeraldas to Quito. He remarks: “In all cases these relics are
situated below high-tide mark, in a bed of marine sediment, from which
he (Wilson) infers that this part of the country formerly stood higher
above the sea. If this be true, vast must be the antiquity of these
remains, for the upheaval and subsidence of the coast is exceedingly
slow.”[154] The antiquity of man in Europe is an established fact, but
how remote is a question which science as yet fails to answer. When
geologic research opens up Central Asia, no doubt man will be found to
have existed there a long period anterior to his advent in Europe. But
for the decadence of Arabic glory and learning we should now probably
be in possession of a fund of information concerning that region as
well as of man’s early history. Were the discovery of the human skull
in the gold drift of California an authentic case, we should have
strong reasons for supposing a remote intercourse existed between Asia
and the Pacific coast. It is quite certain the crania of the North-west
Mounds, as compared with those of the Mississippi region, clearly point
to that fact. We have seen that as yet no truly scientific proof of
man’s great antiquity in America exists. This conclusion is concurred
in by most eminent authorities.[155] At present we are probably
not warranted in claiming for him a much longer residence on this
continent than that assigned him by Sir John Lubbock, namely, 3,000
years. Future research may develop the fact that man is as old here
as in Europe, and that he was contemporaneous with the Mastodon. As
the case stands in the present state of knowledge, it furnishes strong
presumptive evidence that man is not autochthonic here, but exotic,
having originated in the old world, perhaps thousands of years prior to
reaching the new.
CHAPTER III.
DIVERSITY OF OPINION AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT
AMERICANS.
Conflict of Discovery and Dogmatism — Antipodes — Arabic Learning
in the 8th Century — Spirit of Early Writers on America —
Common Opinion as to the Origin of the Americans — Father Duran
— Lost Tribes of Israel — Garcia — Lascarbot — Villagutierre
— Torquemada — Pineda, etc. — Abbé Domenech — Modern Views —
Pre-Columbian Colonization — Plato’s Atlantis — Kingsborough
— The Book of Mormon — Phœnicians — George Jones — Greek
and Egyptian Theories — The Tartars — Japanese and Chinese
Theories — Fusang — The Mongol Theory — Traces of Buddhism —
White-Man’s Land — The Northmen — The Welsh Claim.
Various perplexing problems presented themselves to the minds of
the discoverers of the new continent for solution, as well as to
their immediate successors, which were greatly intensified by the
dogmatic teaching of the times. The status of science in the Middle
Ages was defined from time to time by some ecclesiastical utterance
without any reference to the phenomena of nature or the revelations
of accidental discovery. We say accidental, for no designed or
systematic investigation was so much as tolerated, much less encouraged
by friendly recognition. This unfortunate antagonism to progress
had its foundation chiefly in ignorance, and its origin in the
misinterpretation and perversion of Sacred Scripture.
Two questions, especially in view of the dogmatic utterances of the
day, presented grave difficulties to the minds of the discoverers and
their successors in the New World. “Is the world a sphere?” “Are the
Inhabitants of the Indias of a common origin with the rest of mankind?”
These were the most serious problems that forced themselves upon
their consideration. As long ago as 280 B. C., the investigations of
Aristarchus of Samos, though not accepted by antiquity, suggested an
affirmative answer to the first question. But the Fathers of the Church
had spoken authoritatively on this subject at quite an early day, and
consequently left no room for speculation. St. Augustine discusses the
question as follows: “But as to the fable that there are antipodes,
that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun
rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours,
that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that
this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific
conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the cavity
of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on
the other; hence they say that the part which is beneath us must also
be inhabited. But they do not remark that although it be supposed or
scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical
form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare
of water; or even though it be bare, does it immediately follow that
it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical
statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false
information; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have taken
ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this world to
the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region
are descended from that one first man.”[156]
Though, during the kalifate of Al-Mamoun (A. D. 813–833) Arabic
learning had well-nigh demonstrated the globular form of the earth
and determined its circumference, according to their measurements,
to be about 24,000 miles, still not a man in Christendom ventured
to advocate the theory for almost half a dozen centuries, such was
the power of the ban put upon investigation which ran counter to the
pre-expressed opinions of a dark age. The theories of Tascanelli and
the observations of Columbus on the polar star prepared the way for the
great triumph achieved by De Gama in 1497–8, in his voyage around the
Cape of Good Hope; and the question of the globular form of the earth
was forever set at rest twenty-two years afterwards by the voyage of
Magellan.[157] When it was definitely determined that America was a
continent of itself and not the eastern extremity of India, the fact
that it was inhabited gave rise to speculations which have since been
often repeated. Through an unaccountable misapprehension, not only
the questions of the origin of the Americans, but the manner of their
separation from the rest of the race, together with the routes they
pursued in reaching the new world—all were thought to be capable of
solution by the light of Scripture. The education of the early writers
enables us to account for the intolerance with which they looked upon
any other solution of the problem than that which alone would conform
to the teachings of the church.[158]
It is true that the natural nobility of character possessed by such
writers as Las Casas, Duran and a few others, tempered the fanaticism
which had been inculcated by education, and enabled them to furnish
invaluable information concerning the real condition and traditions
of the so-called Indians. But, upon the other hand, there were great
numbers of blind, unscrupulous ecclesiastics who either destroyed
outright the manuscripts and picture-writing of the natives, committing
them to the flames, or so warping tradition in order that it might
conform to their mistaken theology, that in many cases the most
precious information is irretrievably lost. Such men could hardly be
expected to have treated calmly and with any degree of liberality
the question before us—one which has so often been asked, but as yet
never satisfactorily answered, and one which in the present state of
knowledge cannot be.[159]
The unanimity with which the most celebrated writers on the Americans
during three centuries following the discovery, fixed upon a solution
of the problem, will be best illustrated in the following pages: One
of the most ingenious and at the same time most calmly expressed
opinions on the origin problem is that recorded by Father Duran, a
native of Tezcuco in Mexico, in his _History of New Spain_, written in
the year 1585.[160] He was convinced that the natives had a foreign
origin, and that they performed a long journey of many years duration
in their migration to the new world. He arrived at these conclusions
on account of several considerations, some of which are as follows:
The natives had no definite knowledge of their origin, some claiming
to have proceeded from fountains and springs of water, others that
they were natives of certain caves, and others that they were created
by the gods, while all admit that they had come from other lands.
Furthermore, they preserved in their traditions and pictures the memory
of a journey in which they had suffered hunger, thirst, nakedness and
all manner of afflictions, “with which,” he adds, “my opinion and
supposition is confirmed that these natives are of the ten tribes of
Israel that Salmanasar, king of the Assyrians, made prisoners and
carried to Assyria in the time of Hoshea, king of Israel, and in the
time of Hezekiah, king of Jerusalem, as can be seen in the fourth
Book of the Kings, seventeenth chapter, where it says that Israel
was carried away from their land to Assyria, etc., from whence, says
Esdras, in Book Fourth, chapter third, they went to live in a land,
remote and separated, which had never been inhabited, to which they
had a long and tedious journey of a year and a half, for which reason
it is supposed these people are found in all the islands and lands of
the ocean constituting the Occident.”[161] The preceding opinion was
concurred in by many Spanish writers; but the first English writer
to support the theory was Thorowgood, in his work entitled, _Jewes in
America_.[162] L’Estrange, who replied to this work, controverted the
theory of the lost tribes of Israel, but concluded that Shem was the
progenitor of the Americans; that he was ninety-eight years old at the
time of the flood, and was not present at the building of Babel.[163]
“Thus far,” he quaintly remarks, “have I offered my week conceptions,
first, how America may be collected to have bin first planted, not
denying the Jewes leave to goe into America, but not admitting them
to be the chief or prime planters thereof, for I am of opinion, that
the Americans originated before the captivity of the ten tribes, even
from Shem’s near progeny.”[164] Garcia presents an argument in favor
of the same theory, based upon the presence of Scripture names in Peru
and Yucatan. He is positive that the word Peru has the same meaning
as Ophir, the name of the grandson of Heber, from whom the Hebrews
derive their name. In Yucatan he also finds the name Ioctan, identical
with that of Ophir’s father.[165] However, with a determination not
to be surpassed by any other theorist who might assume the unity
of the race as the basis of his conjectures, he offers a plan for
populating the new world so comprehensive that no room was left for
originality in any who might follow him in the same field. Hispaniola,
Cuba and neighboring isles, he believed to have been peopled by the
Carthaginians. The natives of other parts proceeded from the ten
lost tribes; others from the people whom Ophir commanded to colonize
Peru; others from the people living in the isle Atlantis; others from
regions adjoining that island, and by means of it passed to America;
others from the Greeks; others from the Phœnicians, and still others
from the Chinese and Tartars.[166] Lescarbot cites five opinions on
the subject, all based more or less on scriptural authority, and adds
his own that the Americans were the descendants of Noah. He thinks it
not impossible for voyagers to have reached the western continent when
Solomon’s ships were sent on voyages of three years’ duration.[167]
Herrera, with characteristic soberness, states that because of the lack
of knowledge concerning the proximity of the continents at the “ends of
the earth” he is unable to say positively from whom the natives were
descended, but it seems most reasonable to him to suppose that they are
the descendants of men who passed to the West Indies by the proximity
of the land.[168] Villagutierre reiterates the same opinion, believing
that Noah’s descendants were able to reach the new world either by land
in some unknown quarter, or by swimming, or by embarking in canoes
and balsas, for short distances. He supposes that animals reached the
new continent in the first two ways.[169] Torquemada, after a long
discussion of the subject, falls in with this view, adding, however,
the opinion that, because of their color, they in all probability
were descended from the sons and grandsons of Ham.[170] Pineda adopts
substantially the preceding opinion, but improves upon it somewhat by
pointing out the particular branch of the family of Ham, to which we
may trace the origin of the first Americans. For some reason, perhaps
no more apparent to himself than us, he designates Naphtuhim, son of
Mezraim and grandson of Ham, as their progenitor. He thinks that the
colonization was accomplished soon after the confusion of tongues, and
may have been effected in any of the numerous ways we have previously
mentioned. He cites the tradition of Votan as a proof.[171] Siguenza
y Gongora and Sister Agnes de la Cruz, according to Clavigero, were
the authors of this opinion, who further designated Egypt as the
starting-point for that important expedition of colonists.[172]
Echevarria y Veitia treats the subject fully, tracing it through the
traditions of the people. He cites their creation and flood myths,
their account of the building of the Tower of Babel and the confusion
of tongues, their dispersion upon the face of the earth, and the
passage of seven families to the new world (to _Hue hue Tlappalan_)
by means of balsas, with which they crossed rivers and arms of the
sea which they encountered in their journey. Though minute in his
details, he does nothing more in this respect than other important
writers to whom we shall refer in a further chapter, except that his
computations by means of the Mexican calendar have enabled him to
assign dates to some of these occurrences, which, though they probably
are not accurate, are at least interesting. His study of the Mexican
paintings convinces him that the natives had a foreign origin.[173]
The same author in a part of his work refers to the giants as the
first inhabitants of the country, but fails to state whether they came
from the old world or not.[174] Ulloa thinks Noah’s long and aimless
voyage in the ark was not without fruit to the science of navigation.
It gave confidence to his immediate descendants, who no doubt were
enterprising enough to construct similar vessels and undertake voyages
in them. These, falling in with adverse winds and treacherous currents,
were driven to strange islands and even to the new world, and being
unable to return, became the first colonists in these remote regions.
He thinks the custom of eating raw fish, common to the American
tribes, was acquired during long sea voyages.[175] The Abbé Domenech’s
opinion has been cited by Mr. Bancroft in his summary of the views of
this class of writers; we presume, however, only for the amusement of
the reader.[176] The Abbé, less than a score of years ago, committed
himself to the ludicrous and antiquated theory that Ophir had colonized
Peru.[177] Clavigero considers the creation, flood, and Babel myths
of the natives sufficient evidence of unity of origin. He, however,
believes that the migration to this continent began at a very early
period.[178]
These few writers pretty well represent the opinions of their numerous
contemporaries who, though they wrote voluminously enough on this
subject, added nothing to what we have noted. The opinions of modern
writers are as diverse as those of Garcia, and only surpass him in the
ingenuity with which they press their favorite theories. Very little
has been done in this field with a true scientific spirit. Each has
been an advocate rather than an inquirer; has had his theory to prove
sometimes at the expense of reason and fact, and it is remarkable that
the majority of works written by such advocates have presented the
familiar anomaly of more learning than of probability. It is scarcely
the province of this work to discuss these well-known productions of
imaginative and too often credulous writers. To more than refer to them
would be to lose sight for the time of the object before us.
The claims for the Pre-Columbian colonization of this continent of
course include most of those already mentioned, and properly are
of two classes: First, those which fix the period of colonization
remote enough to account for the old civilization or some phases of
it. Second, those which avowedly are too recent to have accomplished
that civilization. Of the first-named class there are about a dozen
thoroughly elaborated claims, while of the second there are less
than half that number. Mr. Warden years ago treated them all in a
manner and with a fullness which has not been excelled by any more
recent writer.[179] Though it is due to Mr. Bancroft to say that
never before has the subject been so exhaustively handled in our own
language as by him.[180] As nothing new has been developed in this
field of speculation since Mr. Bancroft, and we might add since Mr.
Warden treated it, and as nothing could be contributed either to
the sciences of ethnology or archæology by a repetition of the old
discussion here, for we have our doubts whether any of the claims can
ever be substantiated at all, we will content ourselves with the simple
enumeration of the theories. A theory which rivals in antiquity, if
Egyptian chronology is reliable, the claims of the Fathers that the
immediate descendants of Noah peopled the new world shortly after the
deluge, is that which seeks to establish the truth of the tradition
told to Solon by the Egyptian priests of Psenophis, Sonchis, Heliopolis
and Sais concerning the ancient island Atlantis. Critias, whose
grandfather had heard the tradition from Solon, communicated it to
Socrates. Plato first committed it to writing, and states that the
events which it described occurred nine thousand Egyptian years before
Solon heard it. After speaking of the “Atlantic Sea,” the priest adds
“that sea was indeed navigable, and had an island fronting that mouth
which you call the Pillars of Hercules; and this island was larger
than Libya and Asia put together, and there was a passage hence for
travellers of that day to the rest of the islands, as well as from
those islands to the whole opposite continent that surrounds the real
sea. For as respects what is within the mouth here mentioned, it
appears to be a bay with a kind of narrow entrance, and that sea is
indeed a true sea, and the land that entirely surrounds it may truly
and most correctly be called a continent.” The priest concludes his
account with the statement that an earthquake in a single night buried
the entire island and its inhabitants. This mysterious island has been
sought for in every quarter of the globe; but the fact that part of
the description seems applicable to the West Indies and the Gulf of
Mexico, has led theorists to place its submerged shores between that
locality and the Cape Verde or Canary groups. It is claimed that this
imaginary land bridge, this backbone of earth and rock, may have once
been the connecting link between the two continents. The claim has had
many champions, but none so celebrated as the lamented Abbé Brasseur
de Bourbourg. The labors of this learned Américaniste are too well
known to require comment.[181] The Codex Chimalpopoca, a Nahua MS. of
anonymous authorship, which served the Abbé as the chief authority
for the Toltec Period of his _Histoire des Nations Civilisées_, is the
basis upon which he rests the advocacy of his “Atlantic Theory.” This
singular Codex, which appears to the eyes of the uninitiated to be
only “A History of the Kingdoms of Culhuacan and Mexico,” he considers
susceptible of an allegorical interpretation, in which he reads the
history and fate of that first of the continents, on whose soil
originated all civilization and whose inhabitants were the genii of the
arts, the origin of which are without even a tradition.[182]
The popularity of the Jewish theory at an early date has been indicated
by our citations from some of the Spanish missionaries. Garcia, after
a seven years residence in Peru, wrote his work for the purpose of
proving conclusively that the Jews had been the chief colonists of
the continent at an early date. He elaborated the argument set forth
by Father Duran,[183] which is founded on passages in Esdras, but
proceeded to prop up this theory with a catalogue of analogies between
the Jews and Americans, some of which are so remote from each other
that the very attempt to assimilate them is simply puerile. Garcia
has had many disciples, some of whom have been no more critical than
himself.[184] The illustrious advocate of the Jewish colonization of
America was that indefatigable antiquary, Lord Kingsborough. No more
masterly, no abler and more exhaustive defence was ever made in behalf
of a hopeless and even baseless claim than his; and as the result, the
historian and antiquary has placed at his disposal fac-simile prints
of most of the important hieroglyphic MSS. of Mexican authorship
deposited in the various libraries of Europe, as well as pictures
of the architecture and stone records common to ancient America.
We must confess that the work itself, with its curious plates, its
maze of notes and references, its masterly and novel discoveries of
analogies, though many of them are imaginary, is to us, after prolonged
examination, as much of a riddle as the great and improbable theory
which it seeks to establish.[185] Closely allied to the theory of the
ten lost tribes, is the claim set forth in that pretentious fraud, the
Book of Mormon, which attributes the colonization of North America,
soon after the confusion of tongues, to a people called Jaredites, who,
by divine guidance, reached our shores in eight vessels, and developed
a high state of civilization on our soil. These first colonists,
however, became extinct about six centuries B.C., because of their
social sins. The Jaredites were followed by a second colony, this time
of Israelites, who left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of
Zedekiah, King of Juda. They reached the Indian Ocean by following the
shores of the Red Sea, where they built a vessel which bore them across
the Pacific to the western coast of South America. Having arrived
in the new land of promise, they separated into two parties, called
Nephites and Laminites respectively, after their leaders. They grew to
be great nations and colonized North America also. Religious strife
sprang up between the two nations because of the wickedness of the
Laminites; the Nephites, however, adhered to their religious traditions
and the worship of the true God. Christ appeared in the new world
and by his ministrations converted many of both peoples to Him. But
towards the close of the fourth century of our era, both Laminites and
Nephites backslid in faith and became involved in a war with each other
which resulted in the extermination of the latter people. The numerous
tumuli scattered over the face of the country cover the remains of the
hundreds of thousands of warriors who fell in their deadly strife.
Mormon and his son Morani, the last of the Nephites who escaped by
concealment, deposited by divine command the annals of their ancestors,
the Book of Mormon written on tablets, in the hill of Cumorah, Ontario
County, New York, in the vicinity of which the last battle of these
relentless enemies took place.[186] The claim, of course, merits
mention only on the ground of its romantic character, and not on
the supposition for a moment that it contains a grain of truth. The
Phœnician and Carthaginian colonization of this continent has been much
discussed and credited by a larger number of Americanists than any
other theory, except that which refers the original population to those
parts of Asia adjacent to Alaska. This claim is based on the maritime
achievements of that nation of navigators. The three-year voyages of
Hiram and Solomon’s fleet to Ophir and Tarshish, has often been made to
do service for this theory. Ophir has most frequently been placed by
its advocates in Hayti or Peru.[187] Such speculations, however, are
incapable of proof, and are scarcely deserving of sober consideration.
The theory itself is one of the few that command respectful attention,
since tradition, history, and many facts in natural science, seem to
point to its probability.[188] Mr. Bancroft refers at some length to
the voyage of Hanno, a Carthaginian navigator, whose exploits beyond
the pillars of Hercules, with a fleet of sixty ships and thirty
thousand men, is recorded in his _Periplus_.[189] With true critical
insight, Mr. Bancroft rejects the opinion that Hanno reached America,
and thinks he only coasted along the shores of Africa.[190] The only
tradition preserved by the Americans is that of the mysterious Votan,
whom some have sought to assign to a Phœnician nativity.[191] Of late
years the theory of the Phœnician colonization has failed to receive
its share of support from new writers. This is owing probably to the
fact that the labors of Mr. George Jones, embodied in his _Original
History of Ancient America Founded on the Ruins of Antiquity; the
Identity of the Aborigines with the People of Tyrus and Israel, and the
Introduction of Christianity by the Apostle St. Thomas_,[192] may have
rendered all such support unnecessary. It is more probable, however,
that the assumption and credulity displayed in this extraordinary
work have discouraged any critical writer from aspiring to the honor
of having his name transmitted to posterity as an advocate of the
Phœnician theory, side by side with that of the author of the Original
History. We have no space to devote to so positive a writer, except
to state that he colonizes America with a remnant of the inhabitants
of Tyre who escaped from their island-city when it was besieged by
Alexander the Great in 332 B. C. They sailed out beyond the Pillars of
Hercules to their colonies in the Canaries, whence the trade-winds bore
them across the Atlantic to the shores of Florida. Ezekiel xxvii. 26,
is quoted as proof: “Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters;
the east wind hath broken thee in the midst of the seas.”[193] The
theory that the ancient Americans descended from the Greeks has been
incidentally advocated by several authors, most of the arguments being
based upon supposed Greek inscriptions. Two advocates of the theory
are, however, quite decided in its defence, namely, Mr. Pidegeon[194]
and Mr. Lafitau.[195] The latter believing that the ancient
inhabitants of the Grecian archipelago were driven from their country
by Og, king of Bashan, supposes the inhabitants of the new world
descended from that people, and cites numerous analogies of a political
and social nature.[196] No claim has been advanced, we believe, which
advocates an actual Egyptian colonization of the new world, but strong
arguments have been used to show that the architecture and sculpture
of Central America and Mexico have been influenced from Egypt, if
not attributable directly to Egyptian artisans. These arguments are
based on the resemblance between the gigantic pyramids, the sculptured
obelisks, and the numerous idols of these pre-historic countries and
those of Egypt. It requires no practised eye to trace a resemblance in
general features, though it must be said that the details of American
architecture and sculpture, are peculiarly original in design.[197]
The principal advocate of the theory, Delafield, has furnished many
comparisons, but we think no argument has been presented sufficiently
supported by facts to prove that American architecture and sculpture
had any other than an indigenous origin.[198] Turning westward our
attention is arrested by the probability of the theory which claims
that this continent was peopled with the Tartars and nations occupying
the regions of North-western Asia. No one can consider the natural
certainty of long-continued communication between the two continents
at Behring’s Straits without being impressed with the truth that that
narrow channel served probably as the first highway between the old
world and the new, and _vice versa_. Certainly a part of the ancient
population of America came upon our soil at that quarter. Mr. Bancroft
remarks: “The customs, manner of life, and physical appearance of the
natives on both sides of the straits are identical, as a multitude
of witnesses testify, and it seems absurd to argue the question from
any point. Of course, Behring’s Strait may have served to admit other
nations besides the people inhabiting its shores into America, and
in such cases there is more room for discussion.”[199] Nearly as
plausible is the theory which claims that if the original population
of this continent were not Japanese, at least a considerable infusion
of Japanese blood into the original stock has taken place from time to
time, either by intentional colonization or by the accidents incident
to navigation. The great number of shipwrecks which are continually
being cast upon our Pacific coast by the Japanese current or Kuro-suvo
are constant and substantial witnesses to the reasonableness of the
claim.[200]
The Chinese colonization theory, unfortunately, does not date far
enough back to account for the oldest American civilization. It is
nevertheless remote enough, were it proven true, to considerably
antedate the Aztec and Inca periods. Upwards of a century ago the
learned French sinologist Deguignes announced that he had found in the
writings of early Chinese historians the statement that in the fifth
century of our era certain adventurers of their race had discovered
a country which they called Fusang.[201] He further expressed it as
his opinion that the country described must be Western America, and
probably Mexico. The original document on which the Chinese historians
base their statements was the report of a Buddhist missionary named
Hoei-Shin, who in the year 499 A. D., claims to have returned from a
long journey of discovery to the remote and unknown east. This report,
whatever may be its intrinsic value, was accepted as true by the
Chinese, and found its way into the history of Li yan tcheon—written
at the beginning of the seventh century of our era. In 1841, Dr.
Neumann, Professor of Oriental Languages and History at Munich, after
a residence of a couple of years at Canton, published a translation of
the narrative of Hoei-Shin with comments upon it.[202] A few of the
most striking passages of the account given by this Buddhist missionary
are as follows: “Fusang is about 20,000 Chinese _li_ in an easterly
direction from Tahan and east of the Middle Kingdom.[203] Many Fusang
trees grow there whose leaves resemble the _Dryanda cordifolia_; the
sprouts, on the contrary, resemble those of the bamboo tree, and are
eaten by the inhabitants of the land. The fruit is like a pear in form,
but is red. From the bark they prepare a sort of linen which they use
for clothing, and also a sort of ornamental stuff. The houses are
built of wooden beams; fortified and walled places are there unknown.
They have written characters in this land, and prepare paper from the
bark of the Fusang. The people have no weapons and make no wars, but
in the arrangement of the kingdom, they have a northern and southern
prison. Trifling offenders are lodged in the southern prison, but
those confined for greater offences in the northern. The name of the
king is pronounced Ichi. The color of his clothes changes with the
different years. The horns of the oxen are so large that they hold
ten bushels. They use them to contain all manner of things. Horses,
oxen, and stags are harnessed to their wagons. Stags are used here as
cattle are used in the Middle Kingdom, and from the milk of the hind
they make butter. No iron is found in the land; but copper, gold,
and silver are not prized, and do not serve as a medium of exchange
in the market. Marriage is determined upon in the following manner:
the suitor builds himself a hut before the door of the house where
the one longed for dwells, and waters and cleans the ground every
evening. When a year has passed by, if the maiden is not inclined
to marry him he departs; should she be willing it is completed. In
earlier times these people lived not according to the laws of Buddha,
but it happened that in the second year—named ‘Great Light’ of Song
(A. D. 458)—five beggar-monks from the kingdom of Kipin went to this
land, extended over it the religion of Buddha, and with it his early
writings and images. They instructed the people in the principles of
monastic life, and so changed their manners.”[204] Dr. Neumann does
not claim that the Chinese Fusang tree is identical with the Maguay
plant, but that the resemblance between it and the great numbers of
the latter found in Mexico suggested a name for the country to the
discoverer. The uncertainty as to the distance, arising out of our
inability to determine what was considered the length of a Chinese _li_
in the fifth century, is of course an obstacle to the satisfactory
solution of the question. The amusing and preposterous statement as
to the size of the horns of oxen is no argument against the general
truth of the narrative, since we have no data from which to determine
the capacity of the measure, the name of which is here translated
bushel, since the widest possible difference exists between the
ancient and modern Chinese tables of measurement. The references to
horses and oxen are perplexing, and give the narrative the air either
of imposture or mistake, since both were brought to America first by
the Spaniards.[205] The argument by the opponents of this theory that
Fusang was Japan stands on a very slender foundation, since at a very
early period, centuries before our era, Japan afforded naval stations
for Chinese ships.[206] Klaproth, and later Dr. E. Bretschneider,
designated the island of Tarakai, known as Saghalien on our maps, as
the Fusang of Hoei-Schin.[207] M. D’Eichthal and Professor Neumann
have both made able arguments in defence of the authenticity and
reasonableness of this claim, but there are too many uncertainties
about it to admit of its unqualified acceptance. We are more disposed
to give credence to the theory that the Chinese discovered America at
a very early day, than to attach much importance to the particular
account of that discovery by Hoei-Shin. The theory is a good one,
with an abundance of geographical and ethnological testimony in its
favor.[208]
Closely allied to the Chinese theory is that so enthusiastically
advocated by Ranking, who maintains that the Mongol emperor Kublai
Khan, in the thirteenth century sent a large fleet against Japan, but
that the vast armada was destroyed by a tempest, and a portion of
its ships were wrecked on the shores of Peru.[209] The first Inca he
believes was the son of Kublai Khan. It is a well-known fact that the
Mongol fleet was dispersed by a storm, but there are grave objections
to the opinion that any of the vessels were cast upon the shores of
South America. No tradition was found among the Peruvians only three
centuries later concerning the Incas or any other people having reached
their shores by the accident of shipwreck, or who could be identified
as of Asiatic origin. It is true the Incas may have designed to keep
their human origin as well as their misfortunes a secret, that they
might the better set up their claim to imperial and divine honors among
the people whom they sought to subjugate by that most powerful ally to
ambition—superstition. Mr. Ranking wrote a very plausible book, but
often fell into errors of credulity and unrestrained enthusiasm which
leaves many of his statements open to suspicion. The theory cannot be
accepted without additional and more satisfactory proof.[210] Should
it prove to be true, it certainly cannot throw light upon the origin of
the population, but only on a phase of civilization. Humboldt, Tschudi,
Viollet-le-Duc, Count Stolberg and other writers have pointed out
striking analogies between the religion of Southern Asia, especially
of India and that of Mexico.[211] If the argument from analogy is to
be relied on, there is abundant reason to believe that Buddhism in a
modified form had permeated the religious systems of the new world with
its mystic element besides grafting upon them some of its better and
more humane institutions.
These are all the colonization claims worth mentioning, which date back
far enough to account for the ancient civilization. Of the second class
(those too recent to have made much impression on the existing state of
things) there are three. The earliest of these as to date, is the claim
which credits the Irish with the colonization of the Atlantic coast
from North Carolina to Florida. “White-Man’s Land,” so often located
in this country, is no doubt imaginary. The obscure and unsatisfactory
chronicle which forms the basis of this claim destroys its own
authority by the statement that White-Man’s Land was six days’ sail
from Ireland.[212] Another legend set forth by Broughton, which claims
that St. Patrick preached the Gospel in the “Isles of America,” carries
its own refutation upon its face by the use of the word America in
its text.[213] The Scandinavian discovery of America is a well-known
fact, and requires no discussion here. The _Codex Flatioiensis_, as
expounded by the learned Prof. Rafn in the _Antiquitates Americanæ_,
has, no doubt, set at rest the whole matter. Humboldt, in reviewing
the evidence upon which the claim is founded, sums it up in these
words: “The discovery of the northern part of America by the Northmen
cannot be disputed. The length of the voyage, the direction in which
they sailed, the time of the sun’s rising and setting, are accurately
given. While the caliphate of Bagdad was still flourishing under the
Abbassides, and while the rule of the Samanides, so favorable to
poetry, still flourished in Persia, America was discovered about the
year 1000 by Lief, son of Eric the Red, at about 41½° north latitude.”
No evidence of a substantial character has been produced to show that
the Scandinavians left any impress upon the American civilization. It
is true, Brasseur de Bourbourg, when he first began his labors in the
field of American archæology expressed such an opinion, but we believe
he never repeated it in the latter years of his life.[214] The learned
Abbé was guilty of many contradictions, and this may be considered
one of them. The most positive claims in this direction are advanced
by two recent authors, M. Gravier[215] and Prof. Anderson,[216] the
former attributing the Aztec civilization to Norse influence. He cites
the discovery in Brazil of an ancient city near Bahia, in which was
found the statue of a man pointing with his forefinger to the North
Pole; of course, according to M. Gravier, he was a Northman.[217]
Several authorities for the discovery of Norse remains in the United
States might be cited, but the unwarrantable arguments of most of them
add nothing to the already established fact of Norse colonization
in the tenth century of our era. Another Pre-Columbian claim to the
discovery of America is that which declares Madoc-Ap-owen and his Welsh
countrymen to have reached this continent in 1170 A. D. The chronicle
on which the claim is based, is wanting in authority. A translation
of it, taken from a history of Wales by Dr. Powell, was published by
Hakluyt, in 1589. As this claim can have no relation to our subject,
we refrain from a discussion of it here.[218] The only remaining
theory, and probably the most important of all, because of its purely
scientific character, which presents itself for our consideration, is
that which not only considers the civilization of ancient America to
have been indigenous, but also claims the inhabitants themselves to
have been autochthonic; in a word, that by process of evolution or
in some other way, the first Americans were either developed from a
lower order in the animal kingdom or were created on the soil of this
continent. As the latter theory involves a denial of the unity of the
race, it requires a separate and critical examination.
CHAPTER IV.
THE ORIGIN OF THE AMERICANS AS VIEWED FROM THE
STANDPOINT OF SCIENCE.
Origin Theories — Indigenous Origin — Separate Creation Theory —
Dr. Morton’s Theory — Agassiz’s Views — Dr. Morton’s Cranial
Measurements Classified — Prof. Wilson’s Measurements —
Dr. Morton’s Theory of Ethnic Unity Groundless — Ethnic
Relationships — Typical Mound-skull — Crania from the River
Rouge — Dr. Farquharson’s Measurements — Crania from Kentucky
— Researches in Tennessee by Prof. Jones — Measurements —
Prof. Putnam’s Collection of Crania from Tennessee Mounds —
Low Type Crania from the Mounds — Development Observable in
Mound Crania — Head-Flattening Derived from Asia — Diseases
of the Mound-builders — Physiognomy of the Ancient Americans
— Languages — Evolution and its Bearing on the Origin of the
American — Darwin and Hæckel on the Indigenous American — The
Autochthonic Hypothesis Groundless — Unity of the Human Family
— Accepted Chronology Faulty.
The want of evidence for the theories which designate particular
nations as the first colonizers of the Western Continent, long ago
produced a feeling of distrust, which led some to repudiate all claims
for the foreign origin of the first inhabitants of this continent. This
theory, which claims for the most ancient inhabitants an autochthonic
origin, has had from time to time among its advocates some of the
most respectable ethnologists. The character of their attainments,
and in many cases their arguments in behalf of this most remarkable
hypothesis, command the respect of all who are interested in this
fascinating field of speculation.
At first it was maintained that the Creator had placed an original
pair of human beings here, as Scripture teaches that He did in the old
world.[219] Other writers equally confident that the first ancestors
of the American race were indigenous, have not so definitely expressed
themselves as to the manner of their origin.[220] The most recent phase
of the autochthonic theory is that which designates evolution as the
means by which the continent was populated with human beings, developed
from its own fauna. This latter question is now the most absorbing
of all that occupy the attention of the American Anthropologists.
But to go back to the separate creation view, we find it expressed in
general and unscientific utterances at first, mostly based on the hasty
observation of travellers who, in many cases, had little knowledge
of anthropologic or ethnic principles. In fact, the subject was not
fairly discussed and its advocacy based on satisfactory investigation
until the justly celebrated Dr. Samuel G. Morton, of Philadelphia,
issued his _Crania Americana_, containing the results of the most
diligent researches on the skulls of the Mound-builders, Mexicans,
Peruvians, and many of the known tribes of the Red Indians. In the face
of abundant proof among the crania of his own splendid collection, and
contrary to the testimony of his numerous measurements, which have
often since been used against his theory, this diligent investigator
arrived at the conclusion that the Americans were a distinct race,
originated in this continent, having a uniform cranial type (excepting
only the Eskimo), from the Arctic Circle to Patagonia.
A division, however, of this supposed homogeneous race was made by this
author into Toltecan and Barbarous nations; the former appellative
comprising all the semi-civilized peoples, while the latter embraced
the wild tribes. All were believed to have had the same origin and to
belong to the same cranial type. “It is curious to observe, however,”
remarks Dr. Morton, “that the Barbarous nations possess a larger brain
by five and a half cubic inches than the Toltecans; while, on the
other hand, the Toltecans possess a greater relative capacity of the
anterior chamber of the skull in the proportion of 42.3 to 41.8. Again
the coronal region, though absolutely greater in the Barbarous tribes,
is rather larger in proportion in the semi-civilized tribes; and the
facial-angle is much the same in both, and may be assumed for the race
at 75°.”[221] In conclusion, the author is of the opinion that the
facts contained in his work tend to sustain the following propositions:
(1) “That the American race differs essentially from all others, not
excepting the Mongolian; nor do the feeble analogies of language, and
the more obvious ones in civil and religious institutions and the
arts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial communication with
the Asiatic nations; and even these analogies may perhaps be accounted
for, as Humboldt suggested, in the mere coincidence arising from
similar wants and impulses in nations inhabiting similar latitudes.”
(2) “That the American nations, excepting the Polar tribes, are one
race and one species, but of two great families which resemble each
other in physical, but differ in intellectual character.” (3) “That
the cranial remains discovered in the mounds, from Peru to Wisconsin,
belong to the same race and probably to the Toltecan family.”[222]
Among the several ethnologists and naturalists who accepted without
question the conclusions reached by Morton, the chief was Agassiz,
who adopted them as auxiliary to his theory of the correspondence of
human life with certain associations in the animal kingdom.[223] They
served as a sure foundation, so far as this continent is concerned,
for his opinion that the races originated in nations. “We maintain,”
says the eminent naturalist, “that, like all organized beings, mankind
cannot have originated in single individuals, but must have been
created in that numerical harmony which is characteristic of each
species. Men must have originated in _nations_, as the bees have
originated in swarms, and as the different social plants have covered
the extensive tracts over which they have naturally spread.”[224]
This view has been enlarged upon by Messrs. Nott and Gliddon, who
argue that, “if it be conceded that there were two primitive pairs of
human beings, no reason can be assigned why there may not have been
hundreds.”[225] The uniqueness of the so-called American race not only
fails of proof, but is positively disproven by the measurements of
crania accompanying Morton’s plates, and any thoughtful person cannot
avoid surprise that so distinguished a scholar as Agassiz should
have committed himself to a theory without first submitting it to a
crucial test. That there is a great variety of type observable among
the crania figured by Morton, even a superficial examination will
show, while a more careful classification presents several facts of
interest. For this classification we consider the simple division of
the crania into long and short skulls sufficient. The question of other
divisions has been often discussed, but with Mr. Huxley we content
ourselves with the simplest classification. Referring to a particular
instance, he says, “taking the antero-posterior diameter as 100, the
transverse diameter varies from 98 or 99 to 62. The number which
thus expresses the proportion of the transverse to the longitudinal
diameter of the brain-case is called the _cephalic index_. Those
people who possess crania with a cephalic index of 80 and above are
called _brachycephali_ (short-skulled), those with a lower index are
_dolichocephali_ (long-skulled).”[226] Dr. Meigs, while accepting the
classification into long and short skulls, admits that it is open to
the objection that it forces into either and opposite classes crania
closely related to each other in type and measurement.[227] Yet it must
be admitted, that in proportion as arbitrary divisions are increased,
these difficulties are multiplied, and that this simple, twofold
classification presents the fewest.[228] In the following tables, which
contain all the measurements accompanying the plates in the _Crania
Americana_, the _cephalic index_ is placed in the left-hand column.
That a wide difference of type is apparent between the extremes of the
dolichocephalic and brachycephalic measurements, certainly cannot be
denied.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| (_A_) DOLICHOCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION |
| LESS THAN 80 TO 100. |
| |
| KEY: |
| A. _Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the |
| Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100)._ |
| B. _No. of Plate in Morton’s Work._ |
| C. _Longitudinal Diameter._ |
| D. _Parietal Diameter._ |
| E. _Vertical Diameter._ |
| F. _Frontal Diameter._ |
| G. _Extreme Length of Head and Face._ |
| H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._ |
| I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._ |
| J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._ |
| K. _Horizontal Periphery._ |
| L. _Interior Capacity._* |
| M. _Cap. of Anterior Chamber._* |
| N. _Cap. of Posterior Chamber._* |
| O. _Cap. of Coronal Region._ |
| P. _Facial Angle._ |
| |
|*In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. |D. |E. |F. |G. | H. |I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| 66. | II |6.9 |4.6|4.3|3.7|7.5|... |...| ...| ...|64. |17. |
| 72.6| IV |7.3 |5.3|5.3|4.3|8.2|14. |4.3|15. |19.8|81.5|31.5|
| 67. | V |6.7 |4.5|4.1|4.1|8.8|11.5|3.6|14.2|18. |65.5|19.7|
| 75.2| XVIII |6.9 |5.2|5.4|4.2|...|14.5|4.1|14. |19.2|78. |30. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 78.9| XXIII |7.1 |5.6|5.5|4.7|...|15. |4.1|14.8|20.3|89. |52.?|
| 73.6| XXV |7.2 |5.3|5.3|4.3|...|14.1|4.5|14.7|19.1|82. |35. |
| 79.4| XXVII |6.8 |5.4|5.5|4.3|...|15. |4.4|14.3|20.1|81.5|... |
| 78. | XXVIII|7.3 |5.8|5.5|4.8|...|15.1|4.6|14.2|20.9|94. |43. |
| 75.3| XXX |7.3 |5.5|5.5|4.3|...|14.6|4.6|14.9|21. |90. |33.5|
| 73. | XXXIV |7.8 |5.7|5.3|4.4|...|16.8|4. |15.8|22.1|98. |35.5|
| 72.4| XXXIII|6.9 |5. |5.3|4.2|...|14.3|3.9|14.4|19.8|71. |26. |
| 78.5| XXXII |7. |5.5|5.1|4.6|...|14.4|4.2|14.5|20. |78.5|33. |
| 65.4| XXXV |7.8 |5.1|5.4|4.2|...|14.2|4.5|15.5|20.8|93.5|35. |
| 72. | XXXVI |7.5 |5.6|5.8|4.1|...|14.4|4.3|14.9|20.8|92.5|36. |
| 73.6| XXXVII|7.2 |5.8|5.5|4.3|...|15. |4.4|14.2|19.8|74. |32.5|
| 76. | XL |7.1 |5.4|5.1|4.3|...|13.8|4.3|14. |19.9|77. |38.?|
| 79.4| LI |7.3 |5.8|5.4|4.4|...|14.6|4.2|14.1|20.3|86.5|... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 74.6| LII |7.1 |5.3|5.5|4.8|...|14.6|4.2|14.6|20. |85.5|... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 79.7| LXI |7.1 |5.6|5.5|4.6|...|15.5|4.1|15. |20.2|87. |... |
| 75.7| LXIV |7. |5.3|5.1|4.8|...|14.6|4. |14. |20.2| |... |
| 79. | LXV |7.2 |5.7|5.1|4.5|...|... |...| ...| ...| ...|... |
| 78.2| LXVI |6.9 |5.4|5.4|4.1|...|15. |4.1|14.2|19.5|84.5|32.5|
| 74.7| ... |7.1 |5.3|5.2|4.3|...|14.4|4.2|14.5|19.9|82.6|32.8|
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
| A. | B. | N. | O. |P. | REMARKS. |
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
| 66. | II |47. |... |...|Peruvian Child from Atacama (ancient).|
| 72.6| IV |50. |16.2|73°|Ancient Peruvian Cemetery near Arica. |
| 67. | V |45.7|12.7|61°|Ancient Peruvian. |
| 75.2| XVIII |48. |14.2|76°|Female Skull from Acapacingo, Mexico. |
| | | | | | Supposed Ancient Tiahuica. |
| 78.9| XXIII |37.?|19.?|78°|Seminole Warrior from Florida. |
| 73.6| XXV |47. |12.2|77°|Cherokee Warrior. |
| 79.4| XXVII |... |... |75°|Uchee. |
| 78. | XXVIII|51. |14.7|84°|Chippeway (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 75.3| XXX |56.5|13.5|75°|Miami Chief (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 73. | XXXIV |62.5|19. |80°|Potowatamie (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 72.4| XXXIII|45. | |80°|Naumkeag from Massachusetts. |
| 78.5| XXXII |45.5|16.2|76°|Female Lenapé or Delaware. |
| 65.4| XXXV |58.5|11.5|78°|Cayuga Chief 150 years old (Iroquois).|
| 72. | XXXVI |56.5|18.4|74°|Oneida (Iroquois). |
| 73.6| XXXVII|41.5| 9.5|78°|Huron Chief. |
| 76. | XL |44.?|18.2|78°|Black Foot. |
| 79.4| LI |... |... |76°|Supposed Mound-builder, Circleville |
| | | | | | Mound. |
| 74.6| LII |... |... |79°|Supposed Mound-builder from a |
| | | | | | Mississippi River Mound. |
| 79.7| LXI |... |... |80°|From Ancient Tomb, Ottumba, Mexico. |
| 75.7| LXIV |... |... |70°|Charib of Venezuela. |
| 79. | LXV |... |... |...|Charib of St. Vincent. |
| 78.2| LXVI |52. |19. |76°|Arucanian Chief, Chili. |
| 74.7| ... |49.2|15.3|76°|Mean. |
+-----+-------+----+----+---+--------------------------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| (_B_) BRACHYCEPHALIC CRANIA, SCALE OF CLASSIFICATION, 80 AND |
| UPWARDS TO 100. |
| |
| KEY: |
| A. _Cephalic Index, proportion of the Parietal to the |
| Longitudinal Diam. (the latter assumed as 100)._ |
| B. _No. of Plate in Morton’s Work._ |
| C. _Longitudinal Diameter._ |
| D. _Parietal Diameter._ |
| E. _Vertical Diameter._ |
| F. _Frontal Diameter._ |
| G. _Extreme Length of Head and Face._ |
| H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._ |
| I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._ |
| J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._ |
| K. _Horizontal Periphery._ |
| L. _Interior Capacity._* |
| M. _Cap. of Anterior Chamber._* |
| N. _Cap. of Posterior Chamber._* |
| O. _Cap. of Coronal Region._ |
| P. _Facial Angle._ |
| |
|*In cubic inches, the remaining measurements in lineal inches. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. |D. |E. |F. |G. |H. |I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| 80. | III |6.5 |5.2|5.1|4.3|8.3|14.5|4. |13.8|18.5|72.5|26. |
| 83. | VI |6.5 |5.4|5.2|4.4|...|14.6|4. |14.4|19.5|67.5|28.5|
|100. | VII |5.4 |5.4|4.6|4. |...|... |...|... |... |61. |... |
| 98. |VIII & |6.8 |5.7|5.1|4.4|...|14.5|4.1|12.7|18.4|71.7|28.7|
| | IX | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 98.3| XI |6.1 |6. |5.5|4.7|...|16. |4.5|14.1|19.5|83. |33.5|
| 89.5| XI A |6.7 |6. |5.6|4.5|...|16.2|4.5|14.5|20.2|89. |34. |
| 92. | XI B |6.3 |5.8|5.3|4.5|...|15. |4. |13.2|19. |76.5|30. |
| 98.3| XI C |6. |5.9|5. |4.4|...|15.5|4. |13.2|19. |77. |28. |
| 81.6| XI D |6.5 |5.5|5.6|4.6|...|14.8|4.5|13.6|19.5|68.5|33. |
| 80. | XVI |7.1 |5.7|5.2|4.4|...|15.9|4. |14. |20.5|83. |39. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80. | XVII |6.8 |5.5|6. |4.6|...|15.6|4.4|14.6|19.9|89.5|33.5|
| 80. |XVII A |6.6 |5.3|5.2|4.3|...|14.6|4.1|13.6|19. |74. |28. |
| 89. | XVIII |6.4 |5.7|5.4|4.5|...|14.6|4.5|13.5|20.2|77. |30. |
| 80. | XIX |6.9 |6.6|5.9|4.2|...|15.5|4.3|14. |20. |85. |39.2|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80. | XXII |7.3 |5.9|5.8|4.6|...|15.9|4.4|15.3|20.7|93. |35.5|
| 84.3| XXIV |7. |5.9|5.8|4.5|...|14.7|4.6|14.2|20.5|91.5|44. |
| 81.4| XXVI |7. |5.7|5.3|4.6|...|15.3|4.5|14.4|20.8|94.7|42.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 82.3| XXIX |6.8 |5.6|5.5|4.2|...|14.7|4.1|14.1|19.9|86.5|36.5|
| 81.3| XXXI |7. |5.9|5.5|4.7|...|15.3|4.7|14.2|20.9|91.5|40. |
| 81.8|XXXVIII|6.6 |5.4|4.9|4.4|...|13.7|4.3|13. |19.1|70.5|31. |
| 85. | XXXIX |6.7 |5.7|5.4|4.2|...|14.7|4.4|13.5|19.8|85. |36. |
| 90. | XLI |6.5 |5.9|5.3|4.6|...|15.1|4.1|13.4|19.5|83. |37.5|
| 80.5| XLII |6.7 |5.4|5.3|4.4|...|14. |4.2|14. |19.4|74. |33. |
| 88. | XLIII |6.7 |5.9|4.6|4.7|8.3|14.2|4. |12.9|20. |69. |32.5|
| 96. | XLIV |6.2 |6. |5.3|4.6|...|14.4|4.2|13.4|19. |70. |30. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 91.3| XLV |6.9 |6.3|4.8|4.9|8.5|15.7|4. |14. |21. |92. |34. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 89.2| XLVI |6.7 |6. |4.5|5. |8.3|14.9|4.2|13. |19.8|78. |26. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 92.6| XLVII |6.8 |6.3|4.9|5.2|8.8|14.8|4.3|13. |20.4|87. |35.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 87.8|XLVIII |6.6 |5.8|5. |4.8|7.9|14.2|4.2|13. |19.5|79. |36.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 87. | XLIX |7. |6.1|4.1|4.9|8.8|13.9|4. |12.7|20.2|75. |28. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 99.9| LIII |6.6?|6. |5. |...|...|... |...|... |... |... |... |
|111.8| LIV |5.9 |6.6|5.1|4.4|...|15.6|4.4|12.4|19.6|80. |... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 84.5| LV |6.6 |5.6|5.6|4.1|...|15.2|4.4|14. |19.5|87.5|... |
| 87. | LVI |6.2 |5.4|4.9|4.3|...|14.6|3.8|13.3|18.5|74.5|30. |
| 81.1| LVII |6.9 |5.6|5.1|4.4|...|15.3|4.3|14. |19.7|79. |29.5|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 86.1| LVIII |6.5 |5.6|5. |4.5|...|14.7|3.8|13.2|19.2|76.5|34. |
| 84. | LIX |6.3 |5.3|5.4|4.4|...|14.3|4.2|13.5|19.2|74. |... |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 89.3| LX |6.6 |5.3|5.4|4.4|...|14. |4. |14. |19.3|76. |... |
| 80.6| LXII |6.7 |5.4|5.5|4.3|...|14.5|4.1|14. |19.3|81. |35.2|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| 80.6|LXVIII |6.7 |5.4|4.9|4.7|...|14.2|4.9|13.4|19.5|77. |32. |
| 87. | ... |6.8 |5.7|5.1|4.5|...|14.6|4.2|13.9|19.5|79.5|37.1|
+-----+-------+----+---+---+---+---+----+---+----+----+----+----+
| Forty Skulls. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----+-------+----+----+---+---+-------------------------------------+
| A. | B. | N. | O. | P. | REMARKS. |
+-----+-------+----+----+-------+-------------------------------------+
| 80. | III |46.5|14.7| 68° |Ancient Peruvian from Lake Titicaca. |
| 83. | VI |39. |10.2| 76° |Chimuyan, Peru. |
|100. | VII |... |... | ... |Inca Peruvian Child. |
| 98. |VIII & |43. |11.4| 75° |Inca Peruvian Female from Temple of |
| | IX | | | | Sun, near Lima. |
| 98.3| XI |49.5|15.7| 81° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 89.5| XI A |55.5|20.5| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 92. | XI B |46.5|12.2| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 98.3| XI C |49. |11.3| 80° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 81.6| XI D |35.5|... | 75° |Inca Peruvian from Temple of the Sun.|
| 80. | XVI |44. |17.5| 72° |Ancient Mexican from Cerro de |
| | | | | | Quesilas. |
| 80. | XVII |56. |19.5| 80° |Ancient Mexican from Tacuba. |
| 80. |XVII A |46. |11.5| 77° |Mexican Indian from Pamas tribe. |
| 89. | XVIII |47. |... | 78° |From an Ancient Tomb near Mexico. |
| 80. | XIX |45.7|13.2| 71° |Chetimaches from Cemetery in St. |
| | | | | | Mary’s parish, Louisiana. |
| 80. | XXII |57.5|25. | 72° |Seminole Warrior. |
| 84.3| XXIV |47.5|18.1| 81° |Seminole. |
| 81.4| XXVI |52.2|15.6| 72° |Skull of the Chief of the Creek |
| | | | | | Indians. |
| 82.3| XXIX |50. |15.5| 79° |Menominee Female (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 81.3| XXXI |51.5|12.7| 82° |Ottogamie (Algonquin-Lenapé). |
| 81.8|XXXVIII|39.5|10.6| 75° |Pawnee Female from the Platte River. |
| 85. | XXXIX |49. |16.6| 77° |Dakota Warrior. |
| 90. | XLI |45.5|14.1| 77° |Osage. |
| 80.5| XLII |41. |14. | 76° |Chinouk (natural form). |
| 88. | XLIII |36.5| 9.9| 72° |Chinouk (artificially flattened). |
| 96. | XLIV |40. |... | 70° |Klalstonl of Oregon, (artificially |
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 91.3| XLV |58. |19.3| 73° |Killemook Chief. Oregon (artificially|
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 89.2| XLVI |59. | 8.7| 70° |Clalsap, Columbia River (artificially|
| | | | | | flattened). |
| 92.6| XLVII |51.5|11.2| 68° |Kalapooyah, on Oregon River |
| | | | | | (artificial). |
| 87.8|XLVIII |42.6|... | 70° |Clickitat from Columbia River |
| | | | | | (artificially flat). |
| 87. | XLIX |47. | 6.2| 66° |Cowalitek, Columbia River |
| | | | | | (artificially flattened). |
| 99.9| LIII |... |... | 78° |Grave Creek Mound. |
|111.8| LIV |... |... | 72° |From an Alabama River Mound. Supposed|
| | | | | | Natchez (flattened). |
| 84.5| LV |... |... | 80° |Skull from a Mound in Tennessee. |
| 87. | LVI |44.5|14.5| 71° |Skull from a Mound at Santa Peru. |
| 81.1| LVII |49.5|14.1| 72° |Skull from a Tumulus in the Valley of|
| | | | | | Rimac, Peru. |
| 86.1| LVIII |42.5|13.7| 74° |Mound Skull, Valley of Rimac, Peru. |
| 84. | LIX |... |... | 76° |From an Ancient Tomb at Ottumba, |
| | | | | | Mexico. |
| 89.3| LX |... |... | 77° |From Ancient Tomb, Ottumba, Mexico. |
| 80.6| LXII |45.7|18. | 76° |Skull from a Cave at Golconda, |
| | | | | | Illinois. |
| 80.6|LXVIII |45. |11.9| 72° |Arucanian Chief from Chili. |
| 87. | ... |45. |14.2|75° 31´|Mean. |
+-----+-------+----+----+-------+-------------------------------------+
| Forty Skulls. |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
It will be observed that the widest range is found between the
proportions of the skull of the Cayuga chief 100 years old (Plate XXXV)
with a cephalic index of only 65.4, and those of some of the Peruvian
crania having a cephalic index of over 98. The supposed Natchez skull
(Plate LIV) is so artificially flattened as to exclude it from the
calculation. The mean cephalic index of each of the tables exhibits a
well-defined type of the long and the short skull respectively. The
former 74.7 and the latter 87 are both far enough removed from the
dividing line (80) to leave no doubt that the types are distinct and
separate. Additional data, materially strengthening the conclusion of
the variety of types found among American crania, has been furnished by
that eminent authority Dr. Daniel Wilson.[229] The following table of
measurements in inches is based upon his extensive researches:
+-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+
|_No. of| | _Mean | _Mean | |
|Crania | |Longitudinal| Parietal |_Cephalic|
|in each| _Description of Crania._ | Diameter._ |Diameter._| Index._ |
|Class._| | | | |
+-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+
| 8 |Mound Crania (two from Morton, four| | | |
| | undoubtedly from the mounds) | 6.54 | 5.67 | 86.7 |
| 12 |Cave Crania | 6.62 | 5.78 | 85.7 |
| 29 |Peruvian Brachycephalic Crania | 5.97 | 5.12 | 85.7 |
| 16 |Peruvian Dolichocephalic Crania | 6.49 | 4.95 | 76.2 |
| 8 |Mexican Dolichocephalic Crania | 7.05 | 5.41 | 76.7 |
| 7 |Mexican Brachycephalic Crania | 6.56 | 5.51 | 84.0 |
| 31 |Dolichocephalic Crania of Am. | | | |
| | Indians | 7.24 | 5.47 | 75.5 |
| 22 |Brachycephalic Crania of Am. | | | |
| | Indians | 6.62 | 5.45 | 82.3 |
| 12 |Living Algonquins, Brachycephalæ | 7.25 | 6.00 | 82.7 |
| 39 |West Canadian Hurons (male) | 7.39 | 5.50 | 74.4 |
+-------+-----------------------------------+------------+----------+---------+
It requires no careful examination of these figures to observe that the
type of skull among the American aborigines, ancient or modern, was in
no sense constant, since among the same tribes long and short skulls
occur in almost equal numbers. This fact is especially true among the
savage Indians. Among the semi-civilized nations, however, as among the
Peruvians and Mexicans, the long and short skulls mark the successive
existence and destruction of distinct peoples having physiological
characteristics peculiar to themselves. The Peruvian elongated crania
are always found with large-boned skeletons having strong hands, while
the short or rounded crania accompany very small bones, such as were
unable to endure labor like the building of pyramids and the erection
of such edifices as are found in Peru.[230]
It is with the utmost deference to the genius, and with full
recognition of the valuable researches of Dr. Morton, that we disagree
with his conclusions and pronounce his theory without foundation in
fact. There is no evidence furnished by the measurement of crania
that an American race, as unique in itself and distinct from the rest
of mankind, ever existed.[231] One of the most interesting studies
connected with these tables, as well as other measurements made
more recently, is the question of relationship between the various
semi-civilized peoples of the ancient period. First and most naturally
the type of the mound crania attracts attention, and calls for
comparisons with the Indian type and with that of the remarkable people
of the more southern civilization.
The “Scioto Mound” skull figured by Dr. Davis in Plates xlvii and
xlviii of _The Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, was
pronounced by Dr. Morton in Dr. Meigs’ catalogue of the human crania in
the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, as
“perhaps the most admirably formed head of the American race hitherto
discovered.”
The most important measurements are as follows:
Longitudinal diameter 6.5 inches.
Parietal „ 6.0 „
Vertical „ 6.2 „
Inter-mastoid arch 16.0 „
Horizontal circumference 19.8 „
————
Cephalic index 92.3 „
The chief features as pointed out by the above-named author, are: the
elevated vertex, flattened occiput, great inter-parietal diameter,
ponderous bony structure, salient nose, large jaws and broad face.
These he pronounces to be characteristics of the American cranium. Dr.
Wilson has shown that Dr. Morton has contradicted his own previous
definition of what that type is as well as the description given by
Humboldt.[232] The propriety of selecting any single cranium as typical
of the Mound-builders would be as questionable in this connection as
it was for Dr. Morton and the authors of the _Types of Mankind_ to
designate the Scioto Mound skull as a type of the American cranium.
Until within a few years but few genuine mound skulls were accessible,
and considerable suspicion was reasonably attached to the genuineness
of several, including three or four of the so-called mound skulls in
the _Crania Americana_. Recent explorations have brought to light a
large number, of unquestioned genuineness. The Peabody Museum alone
possesses 300, and of these 200 were exhumed by Prof. F. W. Putnam.
From a number of measurements only is it possible for us to approximate
the type of the mound skull. We have already referred to the low
type skulls secured by Gen. H. W. Thomas from a mound in Dakota
Territory.[233] Unfortunately we are without measurements, but from
the description we observe that the forehead is decidedly receding,
and the orbital ridges are excessively developed. The inferior
maxillary is of unusual prominence and much more massive, as is the
entire bony structure, than in the common Indian cranium. Another
cranium of similar characteristic was exhumed from the great mound on
the River Rouge near its junction with the Detroit River, Michigan,
by Mr. Henry Gillman. From this mound several crania were taken, of
which one (though evidently adult) presented the hitherto, I think I
may say, unprecedented feature of its capacity being only fifty-six
cubic inches. The mean given by Morton and Meigs of the Indian cranium
is eighty-four cubic inches, the minimum being sixty-nine cubic
inches. This cranium, forwarded with other relics to the Peabody
Museum, presents (though in no wise deformed) the further peculiarity
of having the ridges for the attachment of the temporal muscle only
.75 of an inch apart, in this respect resembling the cranium of the
chimpanzee. It is rarely that in human crania those ridges approach
each other within a distance of two inches, while they vary from that
to four inches apart.[234] Eight crania were exhumed by Mr. Gillman
from the great mound on Rouge River, which furnished him the following
measurements:
DIMENSIONS, ETC., OF CRANIA EXHUMED FROM THE GREAT MOUND,
RIVER ROUGE, MICHIGAN.
KEY:
A. _Capacity (Approximate)._[235]
B. _Circumference._
C. _Length._
D. _Breadth._
E. _Height._
F. _Breadth of Frontal._
G. _Index of Breadth._
H. _Index of Height._
I. _Index of Foramen Magnum._
J. _Frontal Arch._
K. _Parietal Arch._
L. _Occipital Arch._
M. _Longitudinal Arch._
N. _Length of Frontal._
O. _Length of Parietal._
P. _Length of Occipital._
Q. _Zygomatic Diameter._
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| _No._ | A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. |
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| 1.[236]|18.65|19.00|7.30|6.00|5.35|4.02|.822| .733|.465|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 2.[237]|18.10|19.50|7.30|5.20|5.60|3.60|.712| .767|.547|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 3. |18.00|19.50|7.00|5.40|5.60|3.95|.777| .800|.500|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 4. |18.47| |7.20|5.40|5.77|4.07|.763| .801|.479|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 5.[238]|16.54|18.50|6.90|4.70|4.94|3.74|.681| .716| |
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 6.[239]|18.23|22.40|6.80|5.80|5.63|4.63|.853| .828|.397|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 7.[240]|18.82| |7.60|5.62|5.60|4.01|.739| .736|.473|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| 8. |15.93|18.00|5.35|5.03|5.55|4.08|.940|1.037|.605|
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
| Means. |17.84|19.48|6.93|5.40|5.50|4.01|.786| .802|.495|
+--------+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| _No._ | J. | K. | L. | M. | N. | O. | P. | Q. |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| 1.[236]|12.15|12.00|11.65|14.00|5.50|4.40|4.10| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 2.[237]|11.80|12.75|11.50|15.35|4.95|5.50|4.90|4.20|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 3. |12.65|12.20|10.30|14.60|5.00|4.75|4.85| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 4. |12.10|12.00|11.10|13.45|4.75|5.40|4.30| |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 5.[238]|11.20|10.25|11.30|13.95|4.50|4.75|4.70|5.00|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 6.[239]|11.10|13.15|11.00|14.85|5.40|4.60|4.85|5.00|
| | | | | | | | | |
| 7.[240]|11.50| | | |5.10| | | |
| | | | | | | | | |
| 8. |11.90|12.80|11.30|13.90|4.90|4.90|4.10| |
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
| Means. |11.80|12.16|11.16|14.30|5.01|4.90|4.54|4.93|
+--------+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+----+
NOTE.—The fragments of a cranium, consisting chiefly of a very
retreating frontal, and presenting traits of a low and brutal
character, reminding one of the Neanderthal skull, were found
underneath the above tabulated crania.
We observe that only three of these crania are brachycephalic, while
the remaining five, and the mean of all, fall under the class of
dolichocephalic crania, according to our classification. Mr. Gillman
would call some of them Orthocephalic, and the mean of the eight crania
giving a cephalic index of .786 and .802 as an index of height might
properly be so classified. The same gentleman exhumed from an ancient
mound on Chambers Island, Green Bay, Wisconsin, six crania, which as
to type were equally divided into long and short skulls, while the
mean cephalic index, .817, assigned them to the brachycephalic class.
The long skulls were not far removed, however, from the dividing line
between the classes (.80). The energetic and intelligent labors of
Dr. R. J. Farquharson of the Davenport, Iowa, Academy of Sciences,
has placed within our reach measurements upon twenty-five mound
crania.[241] The following are the most important measurements in
inches:
Key:
A. CRANIA.
B. _Horizontal Circumference._
C. _Longitudinal Diameter._
D. _Transverse Diameter._
E. _Internal Capacity._
F. _Cephalic Index or Ratio of Diameter._
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
| A. | B. |C. | D. | E. | F. |
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
|Mean of Nine Crania from Albany, Ill.|19.8 |6.8|5.1 |68. |.768|
|Mean of Eleven from Rock River, Ill. |20.15|7.0|5.4 |74.48|.771|
|Mean of Four from Henry County, Ill. |19.5 |7.0|5.2 |74.47|.743|
|One from Davenport |19.5 |7.0|5.25|76.20|.752|
+-------------------------------------+-----+---+----+-----+----+
This table introduces a new feature into the investigation in hand;
the brachycephalic or the near approximation to the short skull is
displaced by a mean cephalic index of .758, indicating the well-marked
dolichocephalic type. The mean internal capacity 73.3 inches falls
considerably below the mean of mound crania as measured by Squier and
Davis, Wilson and others, from localities farther south.
The mean results of Dr. Farquharson’s measurements[242] show a greater
vertical than transverse diameter, a peculiarity of most Mississippi
mound skulls, distinguishing them from Peruvian crania. In the Ohio
Valley the brachycephalic type is quite decided, though the general
features of high receding forehead, flattened occiput, and great
transverse diameter, establish their relationship to all other North
American mound crania yet discovered. Three Ohio Valley mound skulls,
as to the genuineness of which no suspicion can be entertained,
namely the Scioto Mound cranium and two crania from the Grave Creek
Mound, give the following measurements in the mean: Longitudinal
diameter, 6.5 inches; parietal diameter, 6 inches; vertical diameter,
5.5 inches, and 90.7 as their cephalic index. The mean internal
capacity, though not obtainable with any degree of accuracy, in this
instance is no doubt from eight to ten cubic inches greater than in
the Davenport crania. With the general characteristics alike, minor
differences may in most instances be attributed to artificial pressure.
A valuable collection of mound crania was made in Kentucky for the
Smithsonian Institution and the Peabody Museum, by Mr. S. S. Lyon,
and is thoroughly reliable as a basis for measurements. Professor
Wyman, in the _Fourth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_, describes
them as follows: “The twenty-four crania measured (Table VIII) show a
mean capacity of 1313 cubic centimetres, which is greater than that
of the Peruvians, but less than that of the North American Indians
generally (viz., 1376 cubic centimetres, or 84 cubic inches). They
differ also from those of the ordinary Indians in being lighter, less
massive, in having the rough surface for muscular attachments less
strongly marked. * * * In proportions they present a very considerable
variation among themselves. Assuming the length of the skull to be
1.000, the breadth ranges from 0.712 to 0.950 of the length. The
average proportion is 0.857, which places them in the short-headed
group.”
We have already called attention to the extensive and thorough
work performed by Professor Joseph Jones in Tennessee, the report
of which was published in 1876 by the Smithsonian Institution in a
“contribution” entitled _Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of
Tennessee_. Professor Jones secured above a hundred mound and stone
grave crania, mostly in the valley of the Cumberland and on the banks
of the Big Harpeth River. Some of the skeletons accompanying these
crania were of gigantic stature, a fact which is at variance with
the opinion that they were related to the diminutive race of Inca
Peruvians.[243] On the contrary, however, a strong argument for the
relationship between the Mound-builders and the Peruvians is found in
the frequent occurrence of the Inca-bone (_os inca_) so-called, on the
mound crania.[244] Mr. Henry Gillman found this same bone in one of the
crania exhumed by him from the great mound of Rouge River, Michigan,
with a disposition to its formation in several others.[245] Professor
Jones is convinced of the unity of the mound race throughout the entire
Mississippi Basin. The following table of measurements, published in
the _Antiquities of Tennessee_, is one of the most valuable which has
yet been prepared:
Key:
A. _Number of Cranium._
B. _Facial Angle in Degrees._
C. _Internal Capacity in Cubic Inches._
D. _Longitudinal Diameter in Inches._
E. _Parietal Diameter._
F. _Frontal Diameter._
G. _Vertical Diameter._
H. _Inter-Mastoid Arch._
I. _Inter-Mastoid Line._
J. _Occipito-Frontal Arch._
K. _Horizontal Periphery._
L. _Diameter of Head and Face._
M. _Zygomatic Diameter._
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | I. | J. | K. | L. | M. |
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
| 1 |76.5| 75. | 6.3|5.4 |4.3 |5.5 |15. |5. |13.5 |19. | 7.5| 5.1|
| 2 |80. | 78. | 6. |5.6 |4.4 |5.4 |14.6|5.1 |13.2 |18.9| 7.2| 5.2|
| 3 |75. | 78. | 6.1|5.7 |4.3 |5.6 |15. |5.2 |13. |19. | 7.3| 5.3|
| 4 | | 82. | 6.2|5.7 |4.1 |5.5 |15.2|5.4 |14. |19. | | 5.2|
| 5 |77. | 84. | 6.5|5.8 |4.4 |5.8 |15.5|5.2 |14.3 |19.9| 7.4| 5.3|
| 6 |76. | 68. | 6.4|4.9 |3.9 |5.5 |13.9|4.5 |13.8 |18.2| 7.1| 4.6|
| 7 |81. |103. | 7. |5.9 |4.8 |6.4 |16.8|5.3 |15.7 |20.8| 7.8| 5.5|
| 8 |80. | 80. | 6.6|5.6 |4.3 |5.5 |15. |4.6 |13.8 |19.3| 7.2| 5.2|
| 9 |78. | 79. | 7. |5.2 |3.9 |5.8 |14.7|4.6 |15.2 |19.5| 7.4| 5. |
| 10 |81. | 76. | 6.3|6. |4.4 |5.4 |15.7|4.6 |13.8 |19.4| 6.8| 5.3|
| 11 |80. | 90. | 6.9|5.6 |4.3 |6. |15.7|4.8 |14.8 |20.3| 7.6| 5.5|
| 12 |77. | 80. | 6.8|5.2 |4.1 |5.8 |15. |4.7 |14.4 |19.5| 7.8| 5.2|
| 13 |82. | 81. | 6.9|5.5 |4.3 |5.7 |15. |4.8 |14. |19.6| 7.8| 5. |
| 14 | | 92. | 6.1|6.4 |4.4 |6. |16.5|5.4 |13.8 |19.8| | |
| 15 | | 79. | 6.1|5.8 |4.6 |5.5 |15. |4.8 |13.4 |18.9| | |
| 16 | | | 7.2|5.7 |4.6 |5.9 |16. |4.6 |15.2 |20.8| | |
| 17 | | | 6.1|5.5 |4.1 |4.5 |14. | |13.6 |19. | | |
| 18 | | | 6.5|5.8 |4.5 |4.6 |15. | | |19.4| | |
| 19 |82. | 79.2 | 6.7|5.5 |4.2 |5.5 |15. |4.4 |13.5 |19.1| 7.8| 5.2|
| 20 |75. | 81.4 | 6.5|5.7 |4. |5.6 |14.4|5. |13.3 |19.2| 7.1| 5.3|
| 21 |82. | 80.5 | 6.4|5.9 |4.6 |5.7 |15. |4.9 |14. |19. | 7.3| 5.4|
|Max.|82. |103. | 7.2|6.4 |4.8 |6.4 |16.8|5.4 |15.7 |20.8| 7.8| 5.5|
|Min.|75. | 68. | 6. |4.9 |3.9 |4.5 |13.9|4.4 |13. |18.2| 6.8| 4.6|
|Mean|78.8| 81.44| 6.5|5.68|4.21|5.56|15.0|4.57|13.88|19.8| 7.4| 5.2|
+----+----+------+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+----+----+----+
The most noticeable feature in the table aside from the mean cephalic
index .874 is the great internal capacity of cranium No. 7, which was
found in a stone grave in a mound near Nashville, with a skeleton over
six feet long. The occiput is but slightly flattened, and the general
contour of the head is symmetrically oval. Morton gives as the mean
internal capacity of fifty-two Caucasian skulls 87 cubic inches; the
largest of the series measured 109 cubic inches, and the smallest 75
cubic inches. This remarkable cranium gives an internal capacity of 103
cubic inches, vastly above the mean European skull, and only falling
six cubic inches below the largest measured by Morton. As we observed
a considerable increase in capacity in the Scioto Mound cranium,
with its ninety cubic inches, over the crania of the north-west and
north, of Michigan and Davenport, so here a most remarkable advance
upon the capacity of the Scioto cranium is presented. The evidence of
considerable development in the size of the cranium in this same race
is clear; and taken with other testimony, such as the great improvement
in art and architecture, indicates probably a movement from north to
south, and that the mound race was older in the former region than in
the latter.
In September, 1877, Prof. F. W. Putnam and Mr. Edwin Curtiss exhumed
sixty-seven crania from stone graves located in the neighborhood of
Nashville, Tennessee. These crania were measured by Miss Jennie Smith
and Mr. Lucian Carr, and the latter has tabulated and described them in
the _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_ (pp. 361 _et seq._,
Cambridge, 1878). As some interesting features occur in the tables,
we insert here Mr. Carr’s mean measurements. It will be observed that
the classification in this instance is threefold, besides the distinct
position assigned to the “much flattened” crania.
MEAN MEASUREMENTS OF SIXTY-SEVEN CRANIA FROM STONE GRAVES IN TENNESSEE.
Key:
A. _Number of Crania._
B. _Capacity._
C. _Length._
D. _Breadth._
E. _Height._
F. _Index of Breadth._
G. _Index of Height._
H. _Width of Frontal._
I. _Index of Breadth._
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
| | |A.| B. |C. |D. |E. | F. | G. |H.| G. |
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
| | | | 2 | 5 | 5 | 3 | | | 5| |
|1|Dolichocephali| 5|1325|184|132|142|.716|.775|94|.730 and under.|
| | | | 6 | 18| 16| 11| | |18| |
|2|Orthocephali |18|1346|172|134|141|.775|.819|89|.740 @ .800 |
| | | | 15 | 29| 28| 18| | |29| |
|3|Brachycephali |29|1284|165|141|142|.856|.865|90|.800 @ .900 |
| | | | 7 | 15| 15| 8 | | |15| |
|4|Much Flattened|15|1461|156|152|145|.973|.907|93|.900 and over. |
+-+--------------+--+----+---+---+---+----+----+--+---------------+
Mr. Carr calls attention to the fact that while the classified crania
as a whole are brachycephali, still from twenty-three to thirty-three
per cent. of the whole cannot be considered as falling within that
group. Whether the five dolichocephali in the table belonged to the
same race cannot be determined. They were buried together, for Prof.
Putnam found a long and a short skull side by side in the same grave.
Mr. A. J. Conant (see _Commonwealth of Missouri_, St. Louis, 1877, 8vo,
pp. 106–7) discovered in a mound in South-eastern Missouri two crania
belonging to skeletons buried in regular order, with a large number of
other skeletons at the bottom of the mound, which differed strangely
from all others found in that locality. The forehead was entirely
wanting, and the contour of the top of one of the skulls was almost
flat. It closely resembles the Neanderthal skull. Mr. Conant thought
it at first to be an intrusive burial, but careful examination proved
it to have been placed in position before the building of the mound,
and to have been interred with as much care as was bestowed upon any of
the other occupants of the mound. Vases, drinking vessels and food-pans
accompanied it as they did all the other skeletons.
Mr. Carr thinks such crania as he has pointed out belonged to
individuals who were conquered in war, or adopted or introduced into
the tribe by intermarriage. Mr. Conant considers that the low type
cranium which he discovered belonged to a very ancient race, the
predecessors of the Mound-builders, and not far removed from the
palæolithic races of Europe.
The mound skulls are readily distinguishable from those of the Red
Indian. Only in the Davenport crania and the five dolichocephali
from Tennessee do we see any approximation as to form. However, the
remaining characteristics of the Davenport crania establish the fact
that they belonged to people of the mounds. In our classification of
Dr. Morton’s measurements, it will be observed that only two _supposed_
mound skulls appear among the dolichocephali (long skulls, A), and
too much doubt is attached to their genuineness to admit of their use
in drawing inferences. All the remainder belong to the savage tribes
except three Peruvians of the ancient race of the region of Titicaca.
In the table of brachycephali but few of the savage tribes are
represented, except those which practice artificial compression to the
extent of deformity. The mound skull as compared with the Inca Peruvian
presents few resemblances, except that both generally belong to the
brachycephalic class, and the singular and important fact already
mentioned that the Inca bone has been found in North American mound
crania. It is possible that when more extensive research is made, this
distinguishing feature may lead to the conclusion that the races were
one or closely related. On the other hand, the massive bony structure
of some of the mound crania does not correspond with the facial bones
of the Inca crania, which are very light and delicate. Prof. Wilson
has pointed out the additional fact that the vertical diameter of the
Peruvian short crania is not so great as that of the mound and Mexican
short skulls, but a reference to the Professor’s own tables shows that
the mean difference amounts only to thirty-seven-hundredths of an inch,
altogether too small a variation to serve as the basis for ethnic
generalizations.[246] Few if any similarities can be traced between
the dolichocephali of Peru and the brachycephalic Mound-builders, the
only resemblances being the heavy bony structure possessed in common
by both races. The crania of the dolichocephali of Peru are pronounced
of a Mongol cast and form, and are in every respect unlike the mound
crania. Turning our attention, however, to the ancient Mexican crania,
we find, so far as we are able to judge from the limited number
of skulls which have come into the possession of ethnologists, a
parallelism in measurements and resemblance in the various distinctive
features, such as flattened occiput, broad transverse diameter,
retreating forehead, strong bony structure, and a remarkable agreement
in vertical diameter with those of the mounds of the Mississippi Basin,
which point unmistakably to the closest relationship. Seven Mexican
brachycephali measured by Prof. Wilson in the Boston and Philadelphia
collections previously referred to, gave a mean vertical diameter
of 5.55 inches.[247] Four Mound-builder crania measured by the same
investigation gave precisely the same result, while the remaining
measurements varied from each other but slightly. In confirmation of
this result it is worthy of notice that the mean vertical diameter of
the twenty-one mound and stone grave crania from Tennessee varied from
that of the Mexican crania by only one one-hundredth of an inch (5.56).
When Dr. Morton began his investigations, he was disposed to recognize
the existence of distinct races, represented by the dolichocephalic
and brachycephalic crania of Peru.[248] But in later years, and at
a period subsequent to the issue of his justly celebrated work,
he concluded that the Peruvian elongated head was the product of
artificial compression and not the distinguishing mark of an ancient
race which long antedated the Incas.[249] Prof. Wilson has thoroughly
discussed this subject, and from a series of investigations, conducted
on a much more extensive scale than those of Dr. Morton, he has
shown conclusively that the distinguished craniologist was quite
mistaken as to the facts upon which he based his later views.[250]
Much valuable information was afforded Prof. Wilson by the researches
and collections of John H. Blake, Esq., made during that gentleman’s
residence in Peru, as well as the extensive collection of Dr. J. C.
Warren of Boston. Prof. Wilson points out the essential difference
between the compressed and the naturally dolichocephalic cranium in
these words: “Few who have had extensive opportunities of minutely
examining and comparing normal and artificially formed crania, will,
I think, be prepared to dispute the fact that the latter are rarely,
if ever, symmetrical. The application of pressure on the head of the
living child can easily be made to change its natural contour, but it
cannot give to its artificial proportions that harmonious repetition
of corresponding developments on opposite sides which may be assumed
as the normal condition of the unmodified cranium. But in so extreme
a case as the conversion of a brachycephalic head averaging about 6.3
inches longitudinal diameter by 5.3 inches parietal diameter into a
dolichocephalic head of 7.3 by 4.9 inches diameter, the retention
of anything like the normal symmetrical proportions is impossible.
Yet the dolichocephalic Peruvian crania present no such abnormal
irregularities as could give plausibility to the theory of their form
being an artificial one, while peculiarities in the facial proportions
confirm the idea that it is of ethnic origin and not the product
of deformation.” Besides these differences there are peculiarities
of a structural nature sufficient in themselves to distinguish the
Peruvian long from the short crania. The former is small, narrow and
decidedly long; the forehead is low and retreating, and two-thirds
of the brain-cavity lies behind the occipital foramen. The superior
maxillary is protruding and holds the incisor teeth obliquely. The
weight of the bony structure also exceeds that in the brachycephalic.
Though both classes are found artificially compressed, yet they are
always distinguishable from each other. One of the best illustrations
of this fact, and one already used by Prof. Wilson, is afforded in
contrasting two dolichocephalic crania, both obtained by Mr. Blake
in his explorations of the ancient cemeteries of Arica and Atacama.
Both are evidently of children; one is in its normal condition,
symmetrical, and when viewed from above presents the outlines of a
graceful oval form, while the other was subjected to such compression
as to throw the volume of the brain backward and to greatly deform the
frontal bone.[251] A slight tendency to assume the dog-shaped head of
the Chinooks of the Columbia River is manifest, where deformation is
carried to such an extent as to produce monstrosities. However, even
then, the normal brachycephalic type of skull of the Chinooks is not
transformed to the dolichocephalic, since the base of the cranium
remains comparatively unaffected while distension takes place in a
posterior and upward direction. Mr. Squier in his _Peru_ (p. 580,
Appendix), has shown that circular compression produces a symmetrical
effect in the same direction.
The custom of artificially flattening the head has, upon investigation,
been shown not to be peculiar alone to the aborigines of America,
but to have been practised by many of the semi-civilized peoples of
antiquity in different parts of Europe and Asia. Hippocrates, in
his treatise _De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis_, has described this savage
practice among a people whom he calls _Machrocephali_, supposed to have
inhabited the region near the Palus Mæotis, in the vicinity of the
Caucasus. He says, “The custom stood thus: as soon as the child was
born, they immediately fashioned its soft and tender head with their
hands, and by the use of bandages and proper arts, forced it to grow
lengthwise, by which the spherical figure of the head was prevented
and the length increased.” Strabo refers to a people occupying a
portion of Western Asia, who were addicted to the same custom and
had foreheads projecting beyond their beards.[252] Pliny places them
in Asia Minor,[253] while Pomponius Mela places the Machrocephali on
the Bosphorus.[254] Blumenbach has figured in his first decade, a
compressed skull obtained by him from Russia and probably originally
from one of the tumuli of the Crimean Bosphorus, where it is supposed
to have been exhumed during the Russian occupation. In 1843, Rathke
figured and described in Müller’s _Archiv für Anatomie_, another
example of the compressed human crania, obtained from an ancient
grave near Kertsch in the Crimea. In 1820, Count August von Brenner
obtained on his estate at Fuersbrunn near Grafenegg in Austria, a
skull of similar characteristics. This was, upon examination, decided
to have belonged to an Avarian Hun. Prof. Retzius described it in
the _Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Stockholm in
1844_, adducing arguments to strengthen that supposition. Dr. Tschudi,
however, conceived the idea that it might have been a Peruvian skull
which had been brought to Europe as a curiosity during the reign of
Charles V. and afterwards thrown aside. His communication appeared in
Müller’s _Archiv für Anatomie_. The opinion of the learned traveller
was, however, subsequently reversed by the discovery at Atzgersdorf,
near Vienna, of another and similar cranium. More recently others have
come to light at the Village of St. Roman in Savoy, and in the Valley
of the Doubs near Mandense. Dr. Fitzinger has probably investigated
this subject with more thoroughness than any other writer, and has
shown in his articles in the _Transactions of the Imperial Academy of
Vienna_, that this custom was native to the Scythian region in the
vicinity of the Mœtian Moor, and prevailed in the Caucasus and along
the shores of the Black and Caspian seas and the Bosphorus. Among the
most interesting relics cited as sustaining his views is an ancient
medal struck in commemoration of the destruction of Aquileia by Attila
the Hun in A. D. 452, and bearing the bust of that “Scourge of God.”
The head represented in profile is of precisely the same shape as those
of the other Avir skulls, having a flattened form in a vertical and
oblique direction. Thierry in his _Attila_ has traced the origin of
the custom of flattening the skull, to the Huns, who, descending from
their home upon the steppes of Northern Asia, left their remains upon
many a field in Europe. One of these deformed skulls was discovered in
1856 by J. Hudson Barclay, in a large cavern near the Damascus Gate
at Jerusalem. The skeleton was of unusually large size and decayed,
but the skull, which was pretty well-preserved, was brought to this
country and is preserved in the collection of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia.[255] Dr. J. Atkinson Meigs concluded, upon
careful examination, that its occiput had been flattened by pressure
during childhood. The testimony of Dr. Tschudi, rendered undesignedly,
amounts to the best of evidence of the transition of this custom from
the eastern shores of Asia to Peru, and this isolated instance has been
strengthened beyond question or doubt by the abundant proof which has
been brought to light since attention was directed to the subject.[256]
In referring to the methods by which artificial compression was
brought about in America, Prof. Wilson remarks: “Trifling as it may
appear, it is not without interest to have the fact brought under our
notice by the disclosures of ancient barrows and cysts, that the same
practice of nursing the child and carrying it about, bound to a flat
cradle-board, prevailed in Britain and the North of Europe long before
the first notices of written history reveal the presence of man beyond
the Baltic or the English Channel, and that in all probability the
same custom prevailed continuously from the shores of the German Ocean
to Behring Straits.”[257] Dr. L. A. Gosse testifies to the prevalence
of the same custom among the Caledonians and Scandinavians of the
earliest times,[258] and Dr. Thurman has treated the same peculiarity
of the early Anglo-Saxon.[259] It is a matter of no little surprise
to the inquirer in this field to learn that this system of skull
distortion introduced into Southern Europe by the Asiatic hordes which
overran it in the fifth century has been perpetuated, though somewhat
modified, and at present is in vogue in the south of France.[260] The
distinguished Dr. Foville, in charge of the Asylum for Insane in the
Department Seine-Inférieure and Charenton, has figured this process in
his work on the _Anatomy of the Nervous System_, as well as a number
of skulls which have striking Peruvian resemblances. The artificial
form in this case is produced by the use of peculiar head-dresses
or bandages.[261] The Egyptians placed a pillow under the neck and
not for the head; hence the elongated crania characteristic of the
race, and it is not a little remarkable that the Feejee Islanders
have the same custom at the present day. The Kankas of the Sandwich
Islands produce the flattened occiput by supporting the infant’s head
always in the palm of the hand.[262] The South Sea Islanders have a
flattened occiput, as Pickering describes it, projecting but slightly
beyond the line of the neck.[263] Prof. Wilson comments upon this fact
as follows: “Traces of purposed deformation of the head among the
islanders of the Pacific, have an additional interest in their relation
to one possible source of the South American population by Oceanic
migration, suggested by philological and other independent evidence.
But for our present purpose the peculiar value of these modified skulls
lies in the disclosures of influences operating alike undesignedly,
and with a well-defined purpose, in producing the very same cranial
conformation among races occupying the British Islands in ages long
anterior to earliest history, and among the savage tribes of America
and the simple islanders of the Pacific in the present day.”[264] It
is a well-known fact that flattening the skull has prevailed from the
earliest times in most parts of the American Continent, especially on
the Pacific coast. From the extreme north to Southern Peru, flattening
the skulls was regarded as an artistic improvement on nature and was
practised with a maternal solicitude, if we judge from the customs
of the modern Chinooks, deserving of a higher aim. More centrally
and toward the Atlantic border the custom was not so carefully and
generally practised, unless we may except the case of the Natchez, who
carried it to almost the extreme reached at present by the Columbia
River tribes. The object of this strange transformation is believed
to have been twofold, “to give,” as Torquemada supposes, in referring
to the Peruvians, “a fierce appearance in war,” and to obtain the
mark of a royal and dominant race, a fashion which seems to have
been transmitted without a variation, from its Mongol source. The
Chinooks consider it the mark of superiority, and will not permit the
tribes subject to them to practise it. Mr. Paul Cane, has illustrated
this subject with drawings made during his visit to the Columbia
and Vancouver’s Island, while Dr. Pickering, Mr. Hale and others,
have described the hideous and beastly aspect of the singular people
practising the deformation. Skull flattening among the American tribes
may be classified as intentional and unintentional. To the class of
intentionally flattened skulls we may assign those of the twenty or
more tribes of the North-west coast, the Natchez, the ancient Mayas,
the Peruvians, and some of the more central and eastern South American
tribes. The North-western flatheads subject the head of a child during
the first eight or ten months of its life to pressure produced by means
of a cradle or cradle-board, provided with a board which rests upon
the forehead and tied down upon it by means of cords extending to the
foot of the cradle, while the other end is connected to the head of the
cradle with a hingelike attachment.
[Illustration: Chinooks (Flat-heads), After Catlin.]
The Natchez produced the artificial form by bandaging the infant’s head
to a well-cushioned cradle-board by means of strips of deer-skin.[265]
The Caribs bandaged the head with pieces of wool, and gave it a very
quadrangular shape. The Choctaws produced artificial compression by
means of a bag of sand.[266] The unintentional flattening of the
skull arose from the quite general use of the cradle-board without
any board for pressure, or the custom common among many American
tribes of the mother suckling the child over her shoulder, a practice
widely prevalent in Africa and among savage nations. In the former
instance it is but reasonable to suppose that the form of a tender and
pliable skull would be modified more or less by the shape of the hard
cradle-board, and by the position in which it was placed upon its rest.
This fact accounts for the slight occipital compression of the mound
skulls and also for the irregularity of the flattening in many cases.
The latter process, that of nursing the child from its position on the
shoulder or back would no doubt subject the head to a slight pressure,
perhaps in most cases in a lateral direction.
The general prevalence of the unnatural custom of flattening the skull
on the eastern border-land of Europe and among the numerous tribes of
the western coast of America, together with its presence in Polynesia
as a connecting link, we think justifies us in concluding that it
originated among the wild hordes of the northern steppes of Asia, from
which centre it spread in lines of radiation until it reached the
remote localities in which recent research has found it.[267] This fact
is suggestive of a remote intercourse between peoples separated by seas
and mountains, if it does not serve as an argument for the unity and
common origin of the human family.
A careful examination of the remains of the pre-historic races other
than the measurement of crania has contributed largely to our fund of
information concerning their life and habits. Science has rendered us
pretty familiar with some of the diseases to which they were subject.
Dr. Farquharson has described a singular manifestation of disease of
the cervical vertebræ, shown in a peculiar roughening of the articular
surfaces, and also by a true or bony anchylosis of these points. He
concludes that the people of the mounds must have been possessed of a
considerable degree of civilization and facilities for the care of the
sick during a long period, in order to have effected the cure which
the condition of the bones indicate had taken place.[268] One of the
most alarming discoveries, however, is that which apparently shows
the general prevalence of syphilis. That this loathsome disease was
common among the various tribes of Equinoctial America is attested to
by the discoverers and their successors, and has been much commented
upon, and held by some authors to have been of American origin. The
most recent supporter of this view is Professor Jones, to whom we have
already referred.[269] He found in most of the mounds which he explored
in Tennessee bones bearing syphilitic nodes, and believes them to be
the oldest traces of the disease in existence. Dr. Farquharson made
similar discoveries in the Iowa and Illinois mounds. Prof. Putnam,
however, attributes the nodes to other diseases. That flattening of the
leg-bone or tibia, peculiar to pre-historic man in Europe, and perhaps
the result of rugged exertion in climbing mountains and traversing
the country with that rapidity which the chase required where the
horse is wanting, is more noticeable in the remains of some of the
Mound-builders than in any other people. This peculiarity of the tibia
called platycnemism, is probably a provision of nature, securing a
firmer and better defined process upon which the muscles of the leg
could fasten themselves, and its prominence among the people of the
mounds indicates the possession of great pedestrian powers.[270]
The singular custom of perforating the skull after death (and possibly
during life) is shown to have been in vogue by the discovery of a
number of crania at the River Rouge Mound in Michigan with artificial
apertures. No light as yet has been thrown upon the significance
of this strange practice.[271] The nearest approach to the natural
condition and characteristic physiognomy of the pre-historic
inhabitants of this continent, is observable in the Peruvian mummies
collected in latitude 18° 30´ S., on the shore of the Bay of Chacota,
near Arica, by Mr. Blake, and transferred by him to Boston. Many
others have since been exhumed, and though embalmed and buried in a
climate which preserves the brightest colors of the garments with
which they were enshrouded, still the shrivelled condition of the
corpses furnishes us the assurance that their type of features can
never be truly recovered from nature. Dr. Morton has figured the head
of one of these mummies in Plate I of the _Crania Americana_, from
which the physiognomy may be partially restored by the aid of a vivid
imagination. Notwithstanding the temptation which presents itself, and
one which has been sufficiently indulged already, it would certainly
be idle to speculate as to what that type might have been. However,
one feature of the Peruvian mummies has been preserved true to life,
and is of the greatest value in determining ethnic relations. The
silicious sand and marl of the plain southward of Arica, where the
most remarkable cemeteries are situated, is slightly impregnated with
common salt as well as nitrate and sulphate of soda. These conditions,
together with the dry atmosphere rivalling that of Egypt, and in which
fleshy matter dries without putrefaction, the human hair has been
perfectly preserved, and comes to us as one of the best evidences of
the diversity of the American races yet produced. In general it is a
lightish brown, and of a fineness of texture which equals that of the
Anglo-Saxon race.[272] Straight, coarse, black hair is universally
characteristic of the Red Indians, and is known to be one of the last
marks of race to disappear in intermarriage with Europeans. The ancient
Peruvians appear, from numerous examples of hair found in their tombs,
to have been an auburn-haired race. Garcilasso, who had an opportunity
of seeing the body of the king Viracocha, describes the hair of that
monarch as snow-white.[273] Haywood has described the discovery at
the beginning of this century of three mummies in a cave on the south
side of the Cumberland River, near the dividing line of Smith and
Wilson Counties in Tennessee. They were buried in baskets, as Humboldt
has described some of the Peruvians to bury, and the color of their
skin was said to be fair and white, and their hair auburn and of a
fine texture.[274] The same author refers to several instances of the
discovery of mummies in the limestone and saltpetre caves of Tennessee
with light yellowish hair.[275] Prof. Jones supposes that the light
color of these so-called mummies of Tennessee and Kentucky was due to
the action of lime and saltpetre.[276]
We have every reason to believe that the men of the mounds were
capable of executing in sculptures reliable representations of
animate objects. The perfection of the stone carvings, as well as the
terra-cotta moulded figures of animals and birds obtained from the
mounds, have excited the wonder and admiration of their discoverers.
It was evidently a favorite pastime for those primitive artists to
reproduce the human features, for effigies and masks have often been
exhumed together with other sculptures. The perfection of the animal
representations furnish us the assurance that their sculptures of the
human face were equally true to nature.[277] The accompanying figures
of sculpture and masks together with those found in the sculpture
of the Mayas and Nahuas, shown in a future chapter, furnish us with
a twofold argument: first, that an American type of physiognomy as
such did not exist; that, upon the contrary, it was as variable
and diversified as can now be found among the peoples of Europe or
elsewhere; second, that a strong resemblance between some of the
sculptures of the mounds and those of Mexico exist. It is a remarkable
fact that those of Palenque furnish the most striking likeness to
those of the Mississippi Valley.[278] There is, perhaps, no means of
ascertaining of what color the pre-historic Americans were, certainly
not of the Mound-builders; but judging from the great variety of tints
and shades that prevail among the wild tribes of North America alone,
we may conclude that no argument in favor of an _American_ race can be
based upon color.[279]
[Illustration: Mound Sculptures: upper left-hand figure from a
shell-heap near Mobile, Ala., the others from Tennessee mounds.]
The Menominees, sometimes called the “White Indians,” formerly occupied
the region bordering on Lake Michigan, around Green Bay. The whiteness
of these Indians, which is compared to that of white mulattoes, early
attracted the attention of the Jesuit missionaries, and has often been
commented upon by travellers.[280] While it is true that hybridity
has done much to lighten the color of many of the tribes, still the
peculiarity of the complexion of this people has been marked from the
first time a European encountered them. Almost every shade, from the
ash color of the Menominees, through the cinnamon red, copper and
bronze tints, may be found among the tribes formerly occupying the
territory east of the Mississippi—the remnants of some of which are now
in the Indian Territory and others in the North-west—until we reach
the dark-skinned Kaws of Kansas, who are nearly as black as the negro.
The Indians in Mexico are known as the “black people,” an appellation
designed to be descriptive of their color. Viollet le Duc is of the
opinion that the builders of the great remains in Southern Mexico
and Yucatan belonged to two different branches of the human family,
a light-skinned and dark-skinned race respectively.[281] The variety
of complexion is as great in South America as among the tribes of the
northern portion of the continent.
Probably one of the most incontrovertible arguments against American
ethnic unity is that which rests upon the unparalleled diversity of
language which meets the philologist everywhere. The monosyllable and
the most remarkable polysyllables known to the linguist; synthetic and
analytic families of speech, simplicity and complexity of expression,
all seem to have sprung up and developed into permanent and in some
cases beautiful and grammatical systems side by side with each other
until the Babel of the Pentateuch is realized in the indescribable
confusion of tongues. The actual number of American languages and
dialects is as yet unascertained, but is estimated at nearly thirteen
hundred, six hundred of which Mr. Bancroft has classified in his
third volume of the _Native Races of the Pacific States_. It is true
that the American languages present a few features quite peculiar to
themselves (which will be treated hereafter), but as language is never
constant, is not a pyramid with its unchanging architectural plan, but
is a plant which passes through such transitions in the process of its
growth as to lose entirely some of the elements which it possessed
at first, so we may as reasonably expect that in the course of time
certain peculiarities incident to certain climatic conditions, certain
phases of nature and certain types of civilization, should develop
themselves as distinguishing features of the speech of the continent.
The very fact that language is unstable—is a matter of growth—renders
the argument that these peculiarities indicate unity of the American
race valueless; while, on the other hand, the fact that here we have
a greater number and variety of languages than is to be found in any
of the other grand divisions of the earth, is strong evidence of a
diversity more radical than that which simply arises from tribal
affiliations. In view of the wide differences existing between the
native Americans themselves in every feature which admits of being
subjected to a scientific test, we are forced to the conclusion, solely
resting on the evidence in the case, that the theory of American ethnic
unity is a delusion, an infatuating theory which served only to blind
its advocates as to the plain facts, and led them into grave errors
which will become all the more palpable as scientific investigation
progresses.
As yet no substantial reason for considering the ancient occupant
of this continent as peculiar in himself, and as unlike the rest
of mankind, has been set forth. Nothing in the American’s physical
organization points to an origin different from that to which each
of the species of the _genus homo_ may be assigned. Whatever truth
there may be in the diverse origin of the black and white race, the
separate creation theory, in so far as it maintains that the Creator
originated upon the soil of this continent a peculiar and separate
race of men, must in the eyes of this age of criticism lack evidence,
and be assigned to its place with thousands of others which from time
immemorial have been contributing to the construction of a foundation
reef which will ultimately rise like a bold headland above the dark
waters of uncertainty into the realm of truth.
A few students of American Anthropology have solved the question of
the origin of the ancient population upon the hypothesis of its having
developed from a lower order in the animal kingdom, itself indigenous
to the Western Continent. One of the most distinguished representatives
of this school, perhaps, is Frederick von Hellwald of Vienna, who
states his views as follows: “I am unable to give in my adhesion to the
theory which assumes that the original seat of the human races must be
sought in higher Asia or somewhere else, whence mankind are supposed to
have spread themselves gradually over the whole globe; an assumption
which is contradicted in the most decisive manner by the peopling of
the new world. It is impossible to enter here into all the hypotheses
which have been framed for the explanation of a fact so perplexing to
the Biblical students of the sixteenth century, and of course later
times; it is enough to say that thus far not one of them have been
found to correspond even approximately to the demands of science, and
that theory is probably in every point of view the most tenable and
exact which assumes that man, like the plant, a mundane being, made
his appearance generally upon earth when our planet had reached that
stage of its development which unites in itself the conditions of man’s
existence. In conformity with this view, I regard the American as an
Autochthon.”[282] This subject resolves itself into two questions:
(1) Is the origin of the human race by the processes of development
from a lower order of animal an ascertained fact? (2) If so, does
the American continent furnish any species of ape or any known fauna
from which man could have developed? It is taken for granted that
the reader is fully familiar with Darwinism (the origin of species
by means of natural selection, the joint result of the independent
researches of Darwin and Wallace) and Lamarckism (the theory of man’s
descent from the ape),[283] both of which have been so enthusiastically
advocated by Spencer, Huxley, Hæckel and many others. Their works and
the magnificent array of facts which their patient researches have
accumulated command our admiration, even if full assent cannot be given
to all their conclusions.
The first question: _Is the origin of the human race by the processes
of development from a lower order of animal an ascertained fact?_
would at first seem to require a lengthy discussion at our hands. But
in a special work on a subject altogether foreign to the question,
such a discussion would certainly be out of place. Even if this were
not true, the above question as stated requires no discussion. We
believe that no advocate of the hypothesis of evolution could be found
so sanguine or so unguarded, who would come forward and answer the
question in the affirmative. On the contrary, we believe the question
would call forth an honest negative from the great body of scientists
who hold to the hypothesis of evolution. Obstinacy alone could deny
that the groups of facts which have been brought to our knowledge, the
occasional well-marked transitional forms[284] which are turning up,
the unquestionable tendency in species to vary, and possibly of their
varieties slowly to form new species under modified surroundings,
point to a principle, a law in nature, which may be characterized
as the law of development or evolution. But on the other hand, the
hypothesis that such a law exists, or, if you please, the fact that it
exists, does not imply that it is _universal in its application_ or
that it has _extended through all the realm of nature_. Indeed, pure
justice to the advocates of the hypothesis requires the statement that
they have never made such a claim.[285] The fact that such eminent
scientists as Mivart and Wallace deny the development of man from a
lower order, is sufficient evidence that the hypothesis in its widest
bearing is not accepted by all, much less is an ascertained “fact.”
It appears, therefore, that the first question being unsettled, and
as yet incapable of solution, the argument turns upon the second
question: _Does the American Continent furnish any species of ape or
any known fauna from which man could have developed?_ Before answering
the question in the light of present knowledge, it will be of interest
to note the reply made by the late Professor Joseph Henry to the view
of Frederick von Hellwald, quoted on a preceding page. His estimate of
the probabilities of man developing from the lower orders of animals
in more than one locality on the globe is expressed as follows:
“The spontaneous generation of either plants or animals, although a
legitimate subject of scientific inquiry, is as yet an unverified
hypothesis. If, however, we assume the fact that a living being will
be spontaneously produced when all the physical conditions necessary
to its existence are present, we must allow that in the case of man,
with his complex and refined organization, the fortuitous assembly of
the multiform conditions required for his appearance would be extremely
rare, and from the doctrine of probabilities could scarcely occur more
than at one time and in one place on our planet; and further, that
this place would most probably be somewhere in the northern temperate
zone. Again, the Caucasian variety of man presents the highest physical
development of the human family; and as we depart either to the north
or south, from the latitude assumed as the origin of the human race
in Asia, we meet with a lower and lower type until at the north we
encounter the Esquimaux, and at the south the Bosjesman and the Tierra
Fuegian. The derivation of these varieties from the original stock
is philosophically explained on the principle of the variety in the
offspring of the same parents, and the better adaptation and consequent
chance of life of some of these to the new conditions of existence in
a more northern or southern latitude.”[286] As a direct answer to the
question, however, we can do nothing more than refer to the opinions of
the two greatest advocates of evolution. “In order to form a judgment
on this head,” says Mr. Darwin, “with reference to man, we must glance
at the classification of the Simiadæ. This family is divided by almost
all naturalists into the Catarhine group, or old world monkeys, all
of which are characterized (as the name expresses) by the peculiar
structure of the nostrils, and by having four pre-molars in each jaw;
and into the Platyrhine group or new world monkeys (including two very
distinct sub-groups), all of which are characterized by differently
constructed nostrils and by having six molars in each jaw. Some
other small differences might be mentioned. Now man unquestionably
belongs, in his dentition, in the structure of his nostrils, and in
some other respects, to the Catarhine or old world division; nor does
he resemble the Platyrhines more closely than the Catarhines in any
characters, excepting in a few of not much importance and apparently
of an adaptive nature. Therefore, it would be against all probability
to suppose that some ancient new world species had varied, and had
thus produced a man-like creature with all the distinctive characters
proper to the old world division, losing at the same time all its own
distinctive characters. There can, consequently, hardly be a doubt
that man is an offshoot from the old world Simian stem, and that under
a genealogical point of view he must be classed with the Catarhine
division.”[287] Such was Mr. Darwin’s opinion in 1871; and that the
views of evolutionists have not changed since that time as to this
question, we call attention to the words of the distinguished Professor
Hæckel in his _History of Creation_, which are as follows: “Probably
America was first peopled from North-eastern Asia by the same tribe
of Mongols from whom the Polar men (Hyperboreans and Esquimaux) have
also branched. This tribe first spread in North America, and from
thence migrated over the isthmus of Central America down to South
America, at the extreme south of which the species degenerated very
much by adaptation to the very unfavorable conditions of existence.
But it is also possible that Mongols and Polynesians emigrated from
the west and mixed with the former tribe. In any case the aborigines
of America came over from the old world, and did not, as some suppose,
in any way originate out of American apes. Catarhine or narrow-nosed
apes never at any period existed in America.”[288] The same argument
holds good if it be ascertained that both man and apes developed from
a common ancestor. With these authoritative utterances from the most
celebrated representatives of the development school, we shall rest the
fanciful hypothesis of the autochthonic origin of the ancient American
population. Some who may not concur in our opinion as to the question
of man’s development from lower animal forms, may be willing to admit
that the Americans had an old world origin, which certainly, in the
light of facts, is the only rational view.[289] The unity of the human
family is a theory, if not a fact, which is supported by a mass of
testimony of the most diversified character. The habits and customs,
the sympathies, the wants and fears, the simpler arts, as well as most
bodily proportions, point to a relationship which finds its easiest
explanation in a unity of origin. It is chiefly, however, in the ruder
arts that this correspondence of style or type is observable. No better
illustration of this offers itself than the similarity of form or
forms in which flint arrow-heads are found in all parts of the world.
It would be impossible for the most expert archæologists to assign a
promiscuous collection of flint weapons to the various quarters of the
globe from which they may have been gathered, simply on the ground of
characteristic forms.[290] The common methods of producing fire by
means of friction, employed with but slight variation among people
the most remotely separated,[291] is an inexplicable fact, except on
the ground of an early community of residence or identical inventive
genius. The universality of certain architectural forms such as the
pyramid, and the singular fact that they have generally been used for
places of sepulture, offers an argument in the same direction. The
fact indicates either an early community of residence or identity of
mental organization. The physical resemblances of all races in certain
stable features which have never been known to change, indicate a
divergence from a common centre—from one type. The slight differences
in the type of skull which characterize some nations from others, is
no argument against original unity, since those peculiarities are
certainly of more recent origin than the unknown events which at a
remote period scattered men over the face of the earth.[292] Probably
no difference between the races of men has been considered so essential
as that of color, for none has furnished such reasonable ground for
the views of polygenists as the marked contrast between the African
and Caucasian types. Years ago the view that color was the result of
tropical climate was abandoned,[293] for the Eskimo and Lapps are
almost as dark as many Africans, and their residence under the arctic
circle has continued from a remote antiquity. Upon the other hand every
variation in color, from the darkest to the lightest possible shades,
exist among African tribes. The antiquity of the negro type as we
now see it, is unquestionably considerable. As proof of this we have
the oft-referred to argument from Egyptian paintings. In a temple at
Beyt-el-Welee, in Nubia, constructed in the reign of Rameses II, is a
painting which has been reproduced by Bonomi, in which a negro kneels
at the feet of Sethos I, father and predecessor of Rameses II. All the
peculiarities of the Negroid type are conspicuous; the blackness of the
color, the thickness of lips, flatness of nose and woolliness of hair
which pertain to the African of to-day are unquestionably present.[294]
The painting representing this remarkable ethnic fact is 3200 years
old, dating from 1400 years before Christ. The Duke of Argyll, on the
authority of Prof. Lepsius, states that in earlier representations of
the negro, referable to the “Twelfth Dynasty” or about 1900 B. C., the
negro color is strongly marked, but not the negro features.[295] It
is a question whether this fact indicates a transition from one type
to another, or whether the painting is a true representation of the
Nubians, who are known not to have flat noses or projecting lips. It
is supposed also that the unskillfulness of the artists may account
for the absence of the typal lines.[296] Hieroglyphic writings have
been found dating about 2000 years B. C., in which mention is made of
the employment of Negro or black troops by an Egyptian king in the
prosecution of a great war.[297] At that remote period, when Abraham
was almost the sole representative of the Jewish race, the negro type
had multiplied and developed into strong tribes, which were important
factors in the military contests of the oldest of powers—the Egyptian.
Notwithstanding this seeming permanence of type, it is well known that
of all physical conditions, color is the most liable to change in
every organism. Many animals under domestication change their color
entirely.[298] In our Southern States it was observed that house-slaves
of the third generation presented quite a markedly different appearance
from field slaves.[299] This was owing as much, no doubt, to different
food and different habits of life as to protection from the sun, though
many different races have quite the same color while their habits of
life are as different as well could be imagined. Of this class, the
Eskimo, Chinese, and Fuegeans are examples. However, the fact that
color is variable even in a slight degree, indicates that considerable
if not radical changes might be brought about during a great length
of time. Mr. Darwin has furnished the most rational solution of the
question, which he describes briefly as follows: “Various facts which
I have elsewhere given, prove that the color of the skin and hair is
sometimes correlated in a surprising manner with a complete immunity
from the action of certain vegetable poisons and from the attack
of parasites. Hence it occurred to me that negroes and other dark
races might have acquired their dark tints by the darker individuals
escaping during a long series of generations from the deadly influence
of the miasmas of their native countries.”[300] This doctrine of the
survival of only the fittest, while all the weaker and perhaps lighter
complexioned individuals of a race gradually succumbed to the deadly
influence of climate, no doubt will explain the origin of the dark
races, known to enjoy a special immunity against yellow and other
fevers.[301] At all events, the formation of the distinctive features
of races requires a great lapse of time. The geologist asks for time
in which to account for the formation of strata, and the intelligent
world now grants it to him without limit, and just as reasonably may
the ethnologist ask for time in which to account for the formation of
racial types.[302] Nor need the most literal interpreter of Genesis
object to this demand on the ground of any conflict with the letter
even of the historic narrative of the Pentateuch. The accepted
chronology, based on Archbishop Usher’s interpretation, is no part of
the text of Genesis. It is purely the product of his inadvertence and
the blindness of many others of his school of Biblical chronologists.
It is evident that the rules of interpretation applied to the tenth
chapter of Genesis, according to which the names of the descendants
of Noah’s sons are taken to represent individuals only, cannot hold.
The probabilities are that they represent considerable tribes or
nations. This probability is an established fact in the sixteenth
and subsequent verses. In the fifteenth verse we learn that Canaan,
the grandson of Noah, “begat Sidon, his first-born, and Heth.” Here
the writer seems to refer to individuals, but it is probable that he
alludes even to the origin of tribes. In the sixteenth verse we are
not left in doubt on the subject, for there he no longer speaks of
individuals or generations but of the growth of nations. He immediately
adds after the above quotation, “and [begat] the Jebusite, and the
Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the
Sinite,” etc., etc.[303] The account makes no pretensions at chronology
or at furnishing data for any system, and the constructions put upon
its condensed account of the origin and growth of nations during an
indefinite lapse of time by short-sighted interpreters, are unwarranted
and certainly do injustice to the oldest of our histories. When we
go back of the birth of Christ two thousand years—to the time of
Abraham—this is as far as we can tread with certainty in the light of
History. This period has been aptly designated by the Duke of Argyll as
“Time absolute.” But when we go back of 2000 B. C., we are compelled
to walk in a twilight glimmer, with only the dim rays from occasional
cuneiform inscriptions, and the condensed accounts contained in
Genesis, falling across our uncertain pathway. This period the above
able writer has chosen to call “Time relative,” and the probabilities
are that its measure is double if not treble that of the portion of
“Time absolute” which precedes the Christian Era. An additional fact in
this connection which strengthens the preceding is, that the three most
ancient versions of the Pentateuch—the Hebrew, the Samaritan and the
Septuagint—vary considerably in their statements as to the ages of many
of the patriarchs at the birth of their sons. So wide is the difference
in this respect between the Hebrew and Septuagint versions that their
chronologies cannot be reconciled at all, the latter allowing a period
of eight hundred years more than the former from Adam to Abraham; such
being the case, it is impossible to arrive at the time of the flood or
the origin of the race. These contradictions in versions, however, do
not in any way impeach the historic authority of the Pentateuch, since
it is in no sense a chronology any more than it is a work on geographic
or astronomic science. The known antiquity of Egypt and China, to say
nothing of the facts revealed by geology concerning man’s antiquity,
can never be reconciled with Usher’s system, which is in no sense the
true chronology of any known version of the Pentateuch.[304]
In this chapter we have seen that there is nothing to indicate that the
Americans owe their origin to a special act of creation, and further,
if they originated by the process of development (for which there is no
sufficient evidence), that it was not upon the American continent. We
are supported in these conclusions by the most respectable writers on
American Ethnology[305] and Antiquities. That the American population
is of old world origin there can be little doubt; but from whence it
came, and to what particular people or peoples it owes its birth, is
quite another question.[306] That view seems open to least objections
which maintains that the Western Continent received its population at
a comparatively early period in the history of the race, before the
peoples of Western Europe and Eastern Asia had assumed their present
national characteristics or fully developed their religious and social
customs.[307]
CHAPTER V.
TRADITIONAL HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE MAYA NATIONS.
Ancient Civilization of Tabasco and Chiapas — The Tradition of
Votan — The First Emigrants to America — City of Nachan —
The Votanic Document — Ordoñez — Brasseur and Cabrera on the
Tzendal Document — The Empire of the Chanes — The Oldest
Civilization — The Earliest Home of the Mayas — The Quichés —
Their Origin Tradition — The Quiché Cosmogony — The Creation
of Man — The Quiché Migration — Tulan — Mt. Hacavitz — Human
Sacrifices instituted — Four Tulans — Association of the Mayas
and Nahuas — Heroic Period of the Quichés — Xibalba and its
Downfall — Exploits of the Quiché Chieftains — War of the Sects
— Xibalba and Palenque the same — Mayas of Yucatan and their
Traditions — Culture-Heroes — Zamna and Cukulcan — Christ Myth.
The most ancient civilization on this continent, judging from the
combined testimony of tradition, records, and architectural remains,
was that which grew up under the favorable climate and geographical
surroundings which the Central American Region southward of the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec afforded. The great Maya family with its
numerous branches, each in time developing its own dialect if not its
own peculiar language, at an early date fixed itself in the fertile
valley of the River Usumasinta, and produced a civilization which was
old and ripe when the Toltecs came in contact with it. Here in this
picturesque valley region in Tabasco and Chiapas we may look for the
cradle of American civilization. Under the shadow of the magnificent
and mysterious ruins of Palenque a people grew to power who spread into
Guatemala and Honduras, northward toward Anahuac and southward into
Yucatan, and for a period of probably twenty-five centuries exercised a
sway which, at one time, excited the envy and fear of its neighbors. We
are fully aware of the uncertainty which attaches itself to tradition
in general, and of the caution with which it should be accepted in
treating of the foundations of history; but still, with reference to
the origin and growth of old world nations, nothing better offers
itself in many instances than suspicious legends. The histories of the
Egyptians, the Trojans, the Greeks, and of even ancient Rome rests on
no surer footing. It is certain that while the legendary history of any
nation may be confused, exaggerated, and besides full of breaks, still
there are some main and fundamental facts out of which it has grown,
and this we think is especially true of the new world traditions.
Clavigero says: “The Chiapanese have been the first peoplers of the new
world, if we give credit to their traditions. They say that Votan, the
grandson of that respectable old man who built the great ark to save
himself and family from the deluge, and one of those who undertook the
building of that lofty edifice which was to reach up to heaven, went
by express command of the Lord to people that land. They say also that
the first people came from the quarter of the north, and that when they
arrived at Soconusco, they separated, some going to inhabit the country
of Nicaragua and others remaining in Chiapas.”[308] The tradition
of Votan, the founder of the Maya culture, though somewhat warped,
probably by having passed through priestly hands, is nevertheless one
of the most valuable pieces of information which we have concerning
the ancient Americans. Without it our knowledge of the origin of the
Mayas would be a hopeless blank, and the ruins of Palenque would be
more a mystery than ever. According to this tradition, Votan came from
the East, from Valum Chivim, by the way of Valum Votan, from across
the sea, by divine command, to apportion the land of the new continent
to seven families which he brought with him. It appears that he had
been preceded in America by two others named Igh and Imox, if the
researches of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg can be relied upon. In
the Tzendal calendar, Votan’s name appears as that of the third day,
while Igh and Imox are the first and second respectively. If, as is
supposed, the names represent the true succession of the Maya chiefs,
there is some ground for the Abbé’s view.[309] The doubtful portions of
the tradition which may be interpolations are the ambiguous assertions
that he saw the Tower of Babel, and was present at the building of
Solomon’s temple. Probably the remains only of the former structure may
be referred to.
With these contradictions we have nothing to do, as they do not in any
way affect the subsequent history of the Votanites, or interfere with
the probability of their old world origin. To attempt to designate the
point from which Votan started or the means by which he reached the new
world, would be the height of folly. Votan is said to have made four
journeys to the land of his nativity. His achievements in the new world
were, however, as great as those of any of the heroes of antiquity. His
great city was named “Nachan,” (city of the serpents), from his own
race, which was named Chan, a serpent. This Nachan is unquestionably
identified with Palenque. The date of his journey is placed at 1000
years B. C.[310] The kingdom of the serpents flourished so rapidly
that Votan founded three tributary monarchies whose capitals were
Tulan, Mayapan, and Chiquimula.[311] The former is supposed to have
been situated about two leagues east of the town of Ococingo; Mayapan
is well-known to have been the capital of Yucatan, and Chiquimula is
thought to have been Copan in Honduras.[312] One of the great works
of this hero was the excavation of a tunnel or ‘snake hole’ from
Zuqui to Tzequil. He also deposited a great treasure at Huehuetan, in
Soconusco, which he left under the vigilant care of a guard, directed
by one of the most honorable women of the land. Finally, he wrote a
book in which he recorded his deeds and offered proof of his being a
Chane (or serpent). This ancient document, which is claimed to have
been written by one of Votan’s descendants, of the eighth or ninth
generation and not by himself,[313] was in the Tzendal language, a
dialect or branch of the Maya, spoken in Chiapas and around Palenque.
Its history is, however, quite checkered, and the information which it
contained comes very indirectly. For generations the Votanic document
was scrupulously guarded by the people of Tacoaloya, in Soconusco,
but was finally discovered by Francisco Nuñez de la Vega, Bishop of
Chiapas. In the preamble of his _Constituciones_, § xxx,[314] he
claims to have read this document, but it is probable that only a
copy, still in the Tzendal language but written in Latin characters,
had come into his possession.[315] He fails to give any definite
information from the document except the most general statements with
reference to Votan’s place in the calendar, and his having seen the
Tower of Babel, at which each people was given a new language. He
states that he could have made more revelations of the history of
Votan from this document but for bringing up the old idolatry of the
people and perpetuating it. With the zeal of a true Vandal, the bishop
committed the dangerous documents, together with the treasure which he
claims Votan to have buried in the dark-house, to the flames in 1691.
There seems to have been other copies, however, of this remarkable
manuscript, for about the close of the eighteenth century, Dr. Paul
Felix Cabrera was shown a document in the possession of Don Ramon de
Ordoñez y Aguiar, a resident of Ciudad Real in Chiapas, which purported
to be the Votanic memoir.[316] Ordoñez, at the time, was engaged
upon the composition of his work on the “_History of the Heaven and
Earth_.”[317] It appears that Cabrera was admitted to the confidence
of Ordoñez, and availed himself of a few facts communicated to him by
the latter, which he supplemented by drawing from his imagination for
the rest of his account.[318] Brasseur de Bourbourg accuses Cabrera
of seriously misrepresenting Ordoñez and of warping his account.[319]
The following, which is Cabrera’s account may be of interest to the
reader: “He (Votan) states that he conducted seven families from
Valum Votan to this continent and assigned lands to them; that he is
the third of the Votans; that having determined to travel until he
arrived at the root of Heaven, in order to discover his relations,
the Culebras, and make himself known to them, he made four voyages to
Chivim (which he expressed by repeating four times from Valum Votan to
Valum Chivim, from Valum Chivim to Valum Votan); that he arrived in
Spain, and that he went to Rome; that he saw the great house of God
building; that he went by the road which his brethren, the Culebras,
had bored; that he marked it, and that he passed by the houses of
the thirteen Culebras. He relates that in returning from one of his
voyages he found seven other families of the Tzequil nation who had
joined the first inhabitants, and recognized in them the same origin as
his own, that is, of the Culebras. He speaks of the place where they
built the first town, which, from its founders, received the name of
Tzequil; he affirms the having taught them refinement of manners in
the use of the table, table-cloth, dishes, basins, cups, and napkins;
they taught him the knowledge of God and of his worship; his first
ideas of a king and of obedience to Him; that he was chosen captain
of all those united families.” It is not necessary for us to point
out the hand of the interpolator in this account; it is sufficiently
apparent. However, its obnoxious prominence need not destroy our
faith in the general facts of the account. The interpretation of the
document we submit to the reader with the simple reminder that the
symbol of life and power among the Central Americans and Mexicans has
ever been a serpent, a fact which may have derived its significance
from the meaning of the name of the Votanites together with the power
attained by Palenque.[320] Votan’s followers were called Tzequites by
their predecessors, probably by the descendants of Igh and Imox, the
signification of which term is ‘men with petticoats.’ The Tzendal
traditions refer always to the city of Nachan as the capital of the
kingdom of the Chanes or Serpents, and the most significant feature
of the traditional names of this people is the fact that the name
Culhua, applied by the Nahua nations and especially by the Toltecs
to a powerful people who had preceeded them at the south, is the
exact equivalent of Chanes; the same is true of Culhuacan.[321] The
Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg obtained a copy of the fragmentary MS. of
Ordoñez, which he informs us was written in two separate parts in
quarto, at different times. The first or mythological part exists in
a copy owned by the Abbé.[322] The second or historical part, if ever
written, has never reached the light, and from the description of its
contents found in the first part, we should think that the author
might have made a rather imaginative historian.[323] While some of
the details of the Votanic tradition are not worthy of a moment’s
consideration, it is quite certain that in the general facts we have
a key to the origin of what all Americanists agree in pronouncing the
oldest civilization on this continent, one which was gray and already
declining when the Toltecs entered Mexico. There is not the slightest
evidence that it originated in any other place than in Chiapas, where
it is found, and extended itself into Guatemala, Yucatan, and possibly
branched northward in a colony as remote as Culhuacan. Sr. Orozco y
Berra has found fifteen languages or dialects to be related to the Maya
language, a fact which indicates the age and extent of that remarkable
civilization.[324] Sr. Orozco is convinced from linguistic and other
researches, that the inhabitants of Cuba and others of the West India
Islands were Mayas, and points out the intermediate location of Cuba
between Florida and Yucatan. He thinks the earliest home of the Mayas
on this continent was on the Atlantic coast of the United States, from
whence they emigrated to Cuba and thence to Yucatan.[325] Though we
are not fully satisfied that the Mayas ever occupied Florida, it is
quite likely that the islands of the Gulf were inhabited by them at an
early day. The culture hero Votan is a mystery, and to arrive at his
true character or office is simply an impossibility. For those disposed
to speculate, there is abundant opportunity.[326] The most interesting
traditionary history which has been discovered is that of the Quichés
of Guatemala. By the name Quiché, in this immediate connection, we do
not mean to speak of that people after they became amalgamated with
the Nahua nations from Central Mexico, but as a branch of the great
Maya monarchy, in all probability located at first at Tulha or Tula,
which, it is believed, was situated near Ococingo. At first, we think,
the Quichés developed their own institutions, dialects, etc., as one
of the allied powers associated with the capital city Nachan, but
gradually assumed an individuality which became distinctive, until a
rivalry between the capital and its allied neighbor sprang up, which
ultimately ended in the overthrow of the former. Sr. Pimentel, on
the authority of an ancient author, states that the name Quiché was
applied to the first empire of Palenque and signified _many trees_. It
was employed by the “innumerable families of different nations which
composed it, to symbolize its various branches.”[327] The tradition of
their origin states that they came from the far East, across immense
tracts of land and water; that in their former home they had multiplied
considerably and lived without civilization, and with but few wants;
they paid no tribute, spoke a common language, did not bow down to wood
and stone, but lifting their eyes toward heaven, observed the will of
their Creator, they attended with respect to the rising of the sun,
and saluted with their invocations the Morning Star; with loving and
obedient hearts they addressed their prayers to Heaven for the gift
of offspring. “Hail, Creator and Maker! regard us, attend us. Heart
of Heaven, Heart of the Earth, do not forsake us, do not leave us.
God of Heaven and Earth, Heart of Heaven, Heart of Earth, consider
our posterity always. Accord us repose, a glorious repose, peace and
prosperity, justice, life and our being. Grant to us, O Hurakan,
enlightened and fruitful, Thou who comprehendest all things great
and small.”[328] In the _Popol Vuh_, the sacred book of the Quichés,
we are enabled to arrive more closely at the cosmogony and worship
of that remarkable people.[329] The reader may not be prepared for
the irreconcilable contradictions and for the obscure and figurative
language in which this work abounds; but with the remembrance that
all nations of antiquity delighted in the use of figures, parabolic
disguises and personifications under which the truth was couched, we
may be able to profit by even the seeming foolishness and confusion
of the Quiché record. The strange, wild poetry of the Quichés, can
only be fully enjoyed by pursuing the unabridged accounts for which we
regret we have not space.[330] In the order of the Quiché creation, the
heavens were first formed and their boundaries fixed by the Creator
and Former, by whom all move and breathe, by whom all nations enjoy
their wisdom and civilization. At first there was no man or animal
or bird or fish or green herb—nothing but the firmament existed,
the face of the earth was not yet to be seen, only the peaceful sea
and the whole expanse of heaven. Silence pervaded all; not even the
sea murmured; there was nothing but immobility and silence in the
darkness—in the night.[331] The Creator, the Former, the Dominator—the
feathered serpent—those that engender, those that give being, moved
upon the water as a glowing light. Their name is Gucumatz, heart of
heaven—God. “Earth,” they said, and in an instant it was formed and
rose like a vapor cloud; immediately the plains and mountains arose
and the cypress and pine appeared. Then Gucumatz was filled with joy,
and cried out, “Blessed be thy coming, O Heart of Heaven, Hurakan,
thunderbolt!”[332] Animals were next formed, but because they could
not praise their Maker they were doomed to become objects of prey.
Four creations of men then followed. The first man was made of clay,
but he had no intelligence and he was consumed in the water. Upon a
second trial a man and a woman were made of a sort of pith, but they
too were unsatisfactory experiments; though they had life and peopled
the earth, they were very inferior, living like beasts and forgetting
the Heart of Heaven. The Creator then destroyed them with a flood of
resin, allowing only a few to escape, that now exist as little apes
in the woods. The persons of the Godhead, enveloped in the darkness
which enshrouded a desolated world, counseled concerning the creation
of a more perfect order, and as a result they formed four perfect men
named: Balam-Quitzé, Balam-Agab, Mahucutah, and Iqi-Balam. These men
were miraculously formed of white and yellow maize, and the Creator
was content with his labors. “Verily, at last, were there found men
worthy of their origin and their destiny; verily, at last, did the gods
look upon beings who could see with their eyes and handle with their
hands and understand with their hearts, grand of countenance and broad
of limb, the four sires of our race stood up under the white rays of
the morning star—sole light as yet of the primeval world—stood up and
looked. Their great clear eyes swept rapidly over all; they saw the
woods and rocks, the lakes and the sea, the mountains and the valleys,
and the heavens that were above all; and they comprehended all and
admired exceedingly. Then they returned thanks to those who had made
the world and all therein was: we offer up our thanks, twice—yea,
verily, thrice; we have received life, we speak, we walk, we taste, we
hear and understand, we know both that which is near and that which
is far off, we see all things, great and small, in all the heaven and
earth. Thanks, then, Maker and Former, Father and Mother of our life,
we have been created—we are.”[333] These four creatures were considered
too perfect by the gods, and in order that their omniscience might be
destroyed, they breathed a cloud of mist over their vision. To each of
these men wives were made while they slept. A fourth creation seems to
have taken place by which the ancestors of other races were formed.
The account which the _Popol Vuh_ furnishes of the migrations of the
ancient Quichés is somewhat confused, and it is scarcely possible
to hope that the locations named should ever be fully identified.
Their worship was at first purely spiritual. “Only they gazed up into
heaven, not knowing what they had come so far to do.” In their original
home, wherever that might have been, they grew weary of this kind of
service—of watching for “the rising of the sun”—by which it seems they
meant the coming of temporal power. The four men then forsook their
abode and journeyed to Tulan-Zuiva, the seven caves or seven ravines.
Here they found gods; to each of the four men a different deity was
assigned. To Balam-Quitzé the god Tohil was given; to Balam-Agab the
god Avilix; and to Mahucutah, the god Hacavitz; and though the fourth
man Iqi-Balam also received a god, no special account is taken of him,
since the latter of the four men left no progeny. The journey to Tulan
is said to have been a very long one. Doubtless in this account we have
an allusion to one of those modifications in religious notions which
seems to have often attended a change of residence in early times. The
abstract worship of the Creator is supplanted by the more material
and ceremonial worship of intermediate deities (demi-gods). Tulan
is described as a much colder climate than the eastern and tropical
land which they had forsaken, and the god Tohil came to their relief
by the creation of fire. But incessant rains, accompanied with hail,
extinguished all their fires, which were again kindled repeatedly
by the fire-god. Tulan was an unfavorable locality for permanent
abode—rains, extreme cold, dampness, famine prevailed, and the peculiar
misfortune of the confusion of tongues there befell them. No longer
were the brother propagators of the race able to communicate with each
other. “At Tulan there was as yet no sun,” is the significant but
perplexing language of the narrative. At last Tulan, the mysterious
land of the “seven-caves,” was forsaken, and under the leadership
of Tohil the people began a migration which was attended with
indescribable hardships and famine itself. Their way led through dense
forests, over high mountains, a long sea passage, and by a rough and
pebbly shore. We are, however, told that the sea was parted for their
passage. Their tribulations were at an end when at last they arrived at
a beautiful mountain, which they named after their god Hacavitz. Here
they were informed that the sun would appear, and, as a consequence,
the four progenitors of the race and all the people rejoiced. Here
was everything beauteous and gladdening. The morning star shed forth
a resplendent brightness, and the sun itself at last appeared, though
then it had not the warmth which it possessed at a later day. Before
the light of the sun, however, the gods Tohil, Avilix and Hacavitz,
together with the tiger and lion and reptiles, were changed into stone.
To interpret this paragraph, which is greatly condensed, is a difficult
undertaking, still there are certain facts which seem to serve as the
basis of intelligent speculation. The language is extremely figurative
throughout the entire narrative, and especially so here. Their worship
of the morning star at an early period seems to connect them with the
Mediterranean peoples of the old world. The allusions to the sun not
yet having come may be retrospective, indicating that the worship of
the sun had not been adopted at that early day, or it may indicate
that the period of national strength had not dawned. The fact that the
morning star shone more brilliantly on Mt. Hacavitz than at Tulan (the
seven caves), may mean either that the worship of the star was more
splendidly celebrated, or it may have reference to an astronomical
fact, that the star itself was more luminous, and furnish evidence in
harmony with the statements of the narrative that Mt. Hacavitz was a
more southern location than the tempestuous Tulan. The petrifaction
of the three tribal gods may have been the result of an age of peace
and prosperity which offered an opportunity for developing their
cultus; or, upon the other hand, if the coming of the sun refers to
the advent of a new religion, that which is known to have prevailed
among the Nahuas, the old gods may have been sculptured in stone,
that their national character and deeds might not be forgotten before
the increasing importance of the new faith. There they instituted
sacrifices of beasts to the three stone gods Tohil, Avilix and
Hacavitz; they even drew blood from their own bodies and offered it
to them. Finally, not content with these, the first four men, led by
Balam-Quitzé, instituted human sacrifices. Captives were taken from
neighboring tribes, kidnapping was practised extensively, until the
hostility of their neighbors broke forth into open war. The contest,
however, resulted favorably to the Quichés, and the surrounding tribes
became subject to the victorious power. In Hacavitz they composed
a national song called the Kamucu (“we see”)—a memorial of their
misfortunes in Tulan—a lament for the loss of so many of their people
in that unfortunate locality. This loss is described as occasioned by a
portion of their race being left behind, rather than as the result of
the misfortunes which attended them there. At last, at the noon-day of
their national glory, it came to pass that the ancestors of their race,
Balam-Quitzé, Balam-Agab, Mahucutah and Iqi-Balam, died—the men who
came from the east, from across the sea, died—and their remains were
enveloped in a great bundle and preserved as memorials of the ancestors
of the race.[334] Then the Quichés sang the sad Kamucu, and mourned the
loss of their leaders and that portion of their race which they left
behind them in Tulan.
The definite location of Tulan is almost out of the question; it may
only be conjectured. We have already stated, on the authority of
Ordiñez, that there was a Tulan near Ococingo.[335] The Cakchiquel
MS., known only through the writings of Brasseur de Bourbourg, but
evidently a document containing the same facts as those stated in the
_Popol Vuh_, gives the following information concerning Tulan: “Four
persons came from Tulan, from the direction of the rising sun—that is
one Tulan. There is another Tulan in Xibalbay, and another where the
sun sets, and it is there that we came; and in the direction of the
setting sun there is another, where is the god; so that there are four
Tulans; and it is where the sun sets that we came to Tulan, from the
other side of the sea where this Tulan is; and it is there that we were
conceived and begotten by our mothers and our fathers.”[336] From this
it appears that two of these Tulans were not upon the continent at all;
one in the east across the sea, the birthplace of the race; another
an imaginary locality somewhere toward the region of the setting sun,
where the deity dwells; another Tulan is pretty certainly located in
Chiapas near the capital of Xibalba; with this place, however, they
do not state that they had any relationship, but another Tulan where
the sun sets is designated as the locality to which they came from
across the sea. Mr. Bancroft confounds the Tulan of their misfortunes
with that which was located near Xibalba; but this view is plainly
wrong, since the climatic surroundings of the Chiapan Tulan are quite
the opposite of those described as prevailing at that Tulan where
fire was so necessary. In the Tulan to which they journeyed they
suffered from cold, and their god Tohil, whom they received there,
gave them fire. Señor Orozco y Berra quite positively identifies this
Tulan with the Toltec capital Tollan, north of Anahuac, and certainly
with reason.[337] There their tongues were changed, there the Nahua
language was encountered. No doubt that in the first period of the
Toltec power in Tollan, the Maya-Quichés who had migrated northward
from some locality in the Usumacinta region and intermingled with the
Nahuas, sharing in their worship and appropriating certain elements of
language, migrated southward to the elevated regions of Vera-Paz and
founded a Quiché power in Guatemala.
Upon the downfall of the Toltec monarchy in the eleventh century, no
doubt many noble Toltec families forsook the unfortunate and fallen
capital and founded in Guatemala the Quiché-Cakchiquel monarchy,
composed of Maya and Toltec elements, which spread itself southward
in colonies and branches into various parts of Central America, and
flourished with such power and fame at the time of the Conquest. It
is not the province of this work to take up the annals of this or any
other people, but only to treat of their most primitive period. The
gap in Quiché history between that which we have been treating and the
period of the Annals is considerable, and no document has yet been
discovered which will fill it with the wanting record. Mr. Bancroft
has placed the annals within the reach of the English reader in his
fifth volume. Mt. Hacavitz was the point at which the scattered tribes
collected and formed the nucleus of the subsequently powerful monarchy
in Guatemala of which Utatlan was the capital. The two places may
have been identical. Several facts point to the early association of
the ancestors of the Quichés with the Nahuas who subsequently figure
so conspicuously as Toltecs and Aztecs. The tribes which migrated
northward were called Yaqui (according to the _Popol Vuh_), and the
name ethnographically has the same meaning as Nahuatl.[338] The Quichés
applied the name to the inhabitants of Mexico. The god Tohil was
called by the Yaqui tribes Yolcuat Quitzalcuat while the Quichés were
in Tulan. Quetzalcoatl, of whom we shall speak more fully hereafter,
was the greatest of the Nahua divinities.[339] The Aztecs and Toltecs
as well as the Quichés came from the “Seven Caves,” that Tulan which
seems to have been the early home of the two great families speaking
radically different languages—the Maya and the Nahua. The statement so
often met with that Tulan was across the sea is perplexing. Can we look
for it upon some of the islands of the Gulf or Caribbean Sea? or are
we to look upon the reference to the sea passage as an earlier event
in the history of both peoples, which because of the lack of records
has been confounded with some of the adventures of the march toward
the northern Tulan, which was undertaken at least by the Mayas and
possibly by the Nahuas from their common home in the Usumacinta valley?
We are inclined, in the light of a large margin of testimony, to accept
the latter view, and consider the Tulan of the Chiapan region to have
been the early home of both peoples—the primitive one of the Mayas
and the adopted one of the Nahuas—after leaving Hue Hue Tlappalan,
the accidental centre to which in their wanderings they converged,
and in which they met; here in an age of simpler manners they lived
in the enjoyment of peace, preserving each their own institutions and
language, though considerably influencing each other’s customs. The
Tulan of this Central American region may have been confounded in name
and characteristics with the original home of each race “across the
sea.”
The Quiché record furnishes us with the account of an epoch in the
early Quiché history which we are justified in characterizing as
their heroic period. It occupies the same place in their history as
the Trojan war in the history of Greece. The tradition of the fall of
Xibalba, the terror of its neighbors, the power which by its enemies
was called infernal, is a heroic composition founded on a combination
of events as mysterious and wonderful as those contained in the Iliad
itself. To locate the events in their proper place, to assign them
their true period, is attended with as many difficulties as attend the
Homeric history. The authorities differ as to the proper chronologic
order of the record. The _Popol Vuh_, both in the Ximinez and Brasseur
editions, give the narrative to which we have reference immediately
after the destruction of the men made of pith or wood—the result of the
first creation. Mr. Bancroft is somewhat indifferent about the order
and follows the narrative. Brasseur de Bourbourg, however, considers
that chronologically the narrative follows the third creation, that
of the four founders of the Quiché race.[340] If we look upon the
so-called creations as simply tribal origins and not as mythical
accounts of the origin of man, there is room for the heroic period
before the days of the four ancestors of the Quichés; but if, on the
contrary, the two creations preceding that of Balam-Quitzé and his
associates are mythical, are the legendary accounts of a fancied order
in creation and not the origin of tribes, the view taken by the Abbé is
the only one which can be accepted. The question cannot at present be
definitely settled. If we resort to the latter view, that of the Abbé,
it is necessary for us to suppose that the long reign of Balam-Quitzé,
Balam-Agab, Mahucutah and Iqi-Balam is that of a line, a dynasty, and
not of individuals—which is altogether probable. Brasseur supposes
the time of which the tradition speaks to have been about fifteen
centuries before the Spanish conquest, and thinks Copan was the capital
of a province called Payaqui (“in the Yaqui,” which we have seen was
the name of the Nahuas), and that this capital, otherwise known as
Chiquimula, owed its origin to a warrior known as Balam, who introduced
human sacrifices. His authority is the _Isagoge Historico MS._ cited
by Pelaez, to whose work we have already referred.[341] To attempt to
determine upon the time definitely would be a hopeless undertaking.
The mysterious tradition with its confused statements and allegorical
allusions we will attempt to condense into intelligible shape. This
has already been accomplished by Mr. Bancroft, and his version greatly
facilitates our efforts in the same direction.
The second division of the _Popol Vuh_ contains the account of two
attempts at the overthrow of the great Xibalban monarchy, founded
by Votan. The first of these proved unsuccessful and fatal to the
enemies of the great power; the second, undertaken by the descendants
of the defeated chieftains, resulted in the downfall of the empire
of the Serpents or Votanites, and in the revenge of the death of
the unsuccessful warriors. The account is provokingly figurative;
different allies of each of the powers being spoken of as owls, wild
beasts, rabbits, deer, rats, lice, ants, etc., a custom which has
always prevailed among savage and semi-civilized nations. Savages of
the forests are usually referred to as wild beasts in early tradition.
Xibalba is so hated by its enemies that its usual title is the
“infernal regions.”[342] Torquemada refers to it as _hell_, and its
king as the king of the “shades.”[343] The hatred was intense, and
the worst invectives were mild in the estimation of the enemies of
the no doubt oppressive power. We have already given the account of
creation in which Gucumatz (the Plumed Serpent) figured conspicuously.
He, however, is seen to have acted at the word of Hurakan (“Heart
of Heaven”). The closing paragraphs of the first division of the
_Popol Vuh_ give some of the exploits of the young heroes Hunahpu and
Xbalanque, who figure as the defendants of the worship of the Heart of
Heaven. A certain Vucub-Cakix, who assumed to be the sun and god of
the people, and who in his pride offended the Heart of Heaven, fell at
their avenging hands. His sons Zipacna and Cabrakan, whose pride was
as offensive to Hurakan as had been their father’s, shared the same
fate; though the brothers lost four hundred of their allies in the
undertaking, by Zipanca toppling over a house upon them while they were
rejoicing at his supposed death in a pit in which they had buried him.
The second division of the account reverts to events which preceded
those in the closing paragraphs of the first division by one or
more generations. The exploits of the ancestors of the brothers are
narrated. Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, grandparents of the sun and moon,
had two sons, Hunhunahpu and Vukub Hunahpu. The former of these sons
married, and to him were born also two sons, Hunbatz and Hunchouen,
who grew up to be wise and skillful and great artists. With all
these persons Hurakan, the Heart of Heaven, communicated through his
messenger Voc. At last Hunhunahpu and Vukub Hunahpu undertook a journey
toward Xibalba, playing ball as they went, by which we understand that
they set out upon a march of conquest. Upon hearing of their approach,
Hun Came and Vukub Came, kings of Xibalba, sent them a challenge to
a game of ball by four messengers who were called owls. From the
ball-ground of Nimxab Carchah (now the name of an Indian town in Vera
Paz), they followed the messengers down the steep road to Xibalba,
crossing rivers and ravines and a bloody stream. After arriving at
the royal palace, and during the process of arranging for the contest
in which their strength should be tried, they were so unfortunate as
first to be made the subjects of ridicule for the whole court, then
put to torture, and afterwards were cruelly and it seems treacherously
murdered. The head of Hunhunahpu was hung upon a tree, which at once
became overgrown with gourds so as to hide the head of the unfortunate
chief. Notwithstanding the royal decree that no one should approach
the tree, Xquiq, a virgin princess, a Xibalban, determined to taste
its forbidden fruit, and in an hour of solitude was in the act of
reaching forth to pluck it, when Hunhunahpu spat into her hand and she
immaculately conceived. Her condition was discovered by her father, who
delivered her to the owls, the royal messengers, to be put to death. By
bribing her executioners she escaped and went to the dwelling of the
old grandmother Xmucane, who upon the death of Hunhunahpu’s wife had
taken charge of his sons, the youthful Hunbatz and Hunchouen. Xquiq,
by miraculous performances, satisfied Xmucane that Hunhunahpu was the
father of her unborn children, and was received into her home. The
Xibalban virgin brought forth twin sons in the house of the enemies
of her country. These she named Hunahpu and Xbalanque. From the very
first their lot with their great-grandmother was a hard one. Their
half-brothers Hunbatz and Hunchouen treated them harshly, but in time
the twins revenged themselves by changing the former into monkeys, and
succeeding to their artistic skill and musical fame.
Various exploits of the twin brothers are narrated, chiefly—as we would
interpret the figurative language—with the more savage tribes of the
forests and mountains. From one of their captives whom they call a rat,
they learned of the expedition of their father and uncle, and were
brought into possession of their ball implements. The old ball-ground
(probably battle-ground) of their fathers was resorted to by Hunahpu
and Xbalanque, and when the Xibalban monarchs, Hun Came and Vukub Came,
heard of their purposes, they were angered and sent a challenge to
them as they had done to their ancestors. The message was delivered
at the great-grandmother’s home, and the two chieftains, upon being
acquainted with the news, returned to bid both mother and grandmother
farewell. Before taking final leave, they planted in the centre of
the house (probably the court) each a cane, which was endowed with
the singular attribute of revealing to the family the fortunes of
each of the brothers. The life and fate of each cane was inseparably
connected with that of Hunahpu and Xbalanque. On their route to Xibalba
the bloody river was passed and a stream called Papuhya; but, more
wise than their predecessors, they took cunning precautions not to be
deceived and sacrificed by the Xibalban monarchs. For this purpose, it
is said, they sent an animal called Xan before them, equipped with a
hair from Hunahpu’s leg, with which he pricked the princes and by their
exclamations learned their names. Thus they detected the artificial
wooden men whom we are told deceived their ancestors and made them the
objects of ridicule.
By this strange personification we think we may understand that the
father and the uncle of the two young heroes had treated with a couple
of irresponsible Xibalbans who had been sent out to meet them, with
the pretence that they were the kings, and when they had induced their
enemies to enter the city, the true monarchs seized them and repudiated
the action of the so-called wooden men, avowing no responsibility for
their pledges. Hunahpu and Xbalanque avoided two other artifices of
which their ancestors were the victims; one of these was a seat on a
red-hot stone under the pretence that it was the seat of honor; the
other was an ordeal in the “House of Gloom.”[344] The angry Xibalban
kings then met them in a game of ball, but suffered a defeat. Hun Came
and Vukub Came then requested the victors to give them four bouquets of
flowers, which request was granted, the fortunate brothers themselves
bearing them to the defeated kings. At their instance, however, the
guards of the royal gardens committed Hunahpu and Xbalanque to the
house of lances—the second of five ordeals common at Xibalba. Scarcely
had this been done before a swarm of ants—allies of the brothers—came
to their rescue, entered the royal gardens, bribed the lancers,
released their leaders and punished the owls—guards of the Xibalban
kings—by splitting their lips. The defeated monarchs began to realize
the seriousness of the contest which was being waged against them.
Hunahpu and Xbalanque were then subjected to ordeals in the houses of
cold, of tigers, and of fire respectively, but without suffering harm.
As we proceed, the account becomes more figurative than ever. In the
next ordeal in the house of bats, we are told that Hunahpu’s head was
cut off by the ruler of the bats, who, it seems, was recognized as of
super-terrestrial origin. Strange to say, this violent proceeding did
not prove fatal to Hunahpu; the animals assembled, came to the heroes’
relief, and by the strategic skill of the turtle and rabbit, at a
great game of ball, the brothers came out of all the Xibalban ordeals
unharmed.
The next act was designed as the beginning of the end of the great
struggle. Xibalba had failed because the brutes were not its allies.
The brothers were determined to show the haughty rival their personal
greatness, and resorted to the use of their magical arts. After
proper instructions to their sorcerers, Xulu and Pacam, Hunahpu and
Xbalanque mounted a funeral pyre and endured a voluntary death. But
their ashes and bones which were thrown into a river, rose instantly
into life, assuming the shape of young men. Five days subsequent to
this wonderful event they appeared in the form of man-fishes; and on
the day following, the sorcery was complete, for the brothers now
presented themselves in the form of “ragged old men, dancing, burning
and restoring houses, killing and restoring each other to life, and
performing other wonderful things. They were induced to exhibit their
skill before the princes of Xibalba, killing and resuscitating the
king’s dog, burning and restoring the royal palace. Then a man was
made the subject of their art. Hunahpu was cut in pieces and brought
to life by Xbalanque. Finally the monarchs of Xibalba wanted to
experience personally the temporary death; Hun Came the highest was
first killed, then Vukub Came, but life was not restored to them.”[345]
The twin sons of the unfortunate Xibalban virgin, an outcast from her
home, triumphed, their father and uncle were avenged, the warlike
Xibalbans—the fierce, frightful-looking, owl-like, faithless,
hypocritical tyrants, black and white, and with painted faces, as they
are described—were overthrown forever. The ancestors of the victorious
chieftains were then deified and given places in the sun and moon;
while their allies, the enemies of Xibalba, were made stars in the
firmament.
To interpret fully this figurative account requires further knowledge,
which it is hoped ultimately may come to light. The beheading of
Hunahpu in the house of bats may signify the loss of the most important
division of his army; for when the “animals” came to his relief—by
which we understand the less civilized tribes of the country—he
obtained a victory. The closing paragraphs of the account indicate that
a long and tiresome warfare brought the brothers repeated victories,
but not the entire overthrow of Xibalba; and that stratagem was
resorted to—a stratagem no more improbable or difficult to understand
than that of the wooden horse said to have been used by the Greeks
at Troy. The stratagem was at last successful, and Xibalba, of the
Votanites—we suppose the empire of the Chanes—fell. The war seems to
have been one of religion in part, for Hurakan, “Heart of Heaven,”
inspired the contest, and Gucumatz, “the Plumed Serpent,” one of
his associate though minor deities, was the god of Hunahpu and
Xbalanque. The wicked Xibalbans were puffed up against the Heart of
Heaven, would not accept the true faith, and hence their overthrow
before the advancing power of a new religion.[346] It is certain that
the conquerors of Xibalba (which was no doubt Palenque) were near
neighbors, who had been closely allied to the great power. Bancroft is
of the opinion that they were the Tzequiles, who arrived during Votan’s
absence and introduced new ideas of government and religion among his
people.[347] Garcia Pelaez, in his _Memorias_, agrees with Juarros in
calling them Carthaginians, and states that they arrived in that region
about four hundred years before Christ, founded Tulan, the present
Ococingo, and overthrew ancient Culhuacan or Palenque.[348] Brasseur
de Bourbourg says that the Nahuas, coming into Mexico by sea at the
south [_i. e._, in the south central region] slowly moved toward the
north, to the regions bordering on California, and also spreading their
civilization across the Usumacinta River, went into Yucatan and even
Guatemala. This he thinks occurred in the year 174 of our era; Xibalba
was at the height of her power, but was overthrown in the revolution
and conquest.[349] While we do not attach much certainty to the
Abbé’s date, still we think that the fall of Xibalba was due to Nahua
influences brought to bear upon the ancestors of the Quichés. The old
religion and civilization of the Votanites were compelled to yield to
the vigorous and warlike power which brought with it a religion which
has ever commended itself to the senses and impulses of semi-civilized
peoples. The worship of the sun-symbol of the Heart of Heaven was
destined to supplant all other faiths.
It will be remembered that Quetzalcoatl was the leader and deity of the
Nahuas, and that in their language his name signified “plumed serpent,”
while Gucumatz, leader and patron deity of the Xibalban conquerors
has precisely the same significance in the Quiché language. Utatlan
upon the Guatemalian highlands was doubtless the point from which the
allied forces under the brothers descended the precipitous road to
the Usumacinta region below. It is probable that the Nahuas had lived
for some time in the country, had reached it in their migrations by
water along the Gulf coast, and spread their population to quarters
both north and south of the point at which they entered. They may
have been permitted to settle in the country without molestation, and
in time to have united their forces with the rivals of Xibalba for the
overthrow of a power which was the dread of the entire Central American
region. The crumbling though wonderful ruins of Palenque are the sole
vestiges which are left to us of a grand capital and noble empire,
and these offer us nothing but the sealed histories which are graven
in hieroglyphics upon its walls. Subsequently the Maya-Quiché nations
divided and extended their language in three directions; one division
journeyed toward Guatemala, another toward Mexico, and another into
Yucatan; the latter region has ever remained a peculiarly Maya country.
Las Casas states that some of the Guatemalians had a legend of their
origin, to the effect that a divine pair of beings had thirteen sons
(but by comparison with other authors, namely, Roman in Garcia, and
Bancroft, vol. iii, pp. 74–5, it is clear that the writer designed
to write three—_tres_—instead of thirteen—_trece_), or rather three
sons. The eldest was puffed up in his own conceit, and attempted to
create man against the will of his parents, but failed, except that
he was able to produce vessels of the meaner sort. The younger sons,
who exhibited quite a different spirit, were granted the privilege,
and after creating the sun and moon and stars, created the first man
and woman, the progenitors of the human race.[350] Las Casas adds,
“They have among them knowledge of the flood and of the end of the
world. They call it ‘butic,’ a name which signifies a flood of many
waters. They also believe that another ‘butic’ and judgment will come,
not of water but of fire. They hold that certain persons who escaped
from the flood populated their land; these were called the Great
Father and Great Mother.”[351] In Yucatan the origin traditions point
directly to an eastern and foreign source for the population. The
early writers report that the natives believed their ancestors to have
crossed the sea by a passage which was opened for them.[352] It was
also believed that part of the population came into the country from
the West. Lizana says that the smaller portion of the population, the
“little descent,” came from the East, while the greater portion, “the
great descent,” came from the West.[353] Cogolludo disagrees with this
view, and considers the eastern colony as the larger; a view which is
not likely to be true. The author himself is not quite certain as to
what he thinks upon the subject, and contradicts himself squarely on
the same page, as to the direction from which Zamna, the Yucatanic
culture-hero, is said to have come.[354] Señor Orozco y Berra, thinks
that the Yucatanic population came from the north-east (from Florida),
by way of Cuba and the islands adjacent.[355] The culture-hero, Zamna,
the author of all civilization in Yucatan, is described as the teacher
of letters and the leader of the people from their ancient home. His
relation to the people and his office of priest and deity combined—the
fact that he was the leader of a colony from the East, that he named
all the divisions of the land, all the towns, coasts, bays and
rivers—identifies him with Votan or rather with one of his disciples
or associates. Cogolludo’s statement, first that he came from the
West, may be true of the direction from which he came into Yucatan; and
the statement that he came from the East, may refer to the original
migration by which he in company with Votan reached Chiapas and from
thence entered the peninsula on the north-east. He was the founder of
the capital city of Mayapan, and after a long life died and was buried
at Izamal.[356] This became a shrine for pilgrims and was visited for
centuries afterwards by religious devotees in large numbers. Zamna is
supposed to have founded the oldest royal house in Yucatan—that of the
Cocomes.[357] The second culture-hero, of whom mention is made by all
the early writers, was Cukulcan (meaning plumed serpent, precisely
the same as Quetzalcoatl), who entered the country from the West and
settled at Chichen-Itza.[358] Landa is not certain whether he preceded
or followed the Itzas. His celibacy, general purity of morals, and the
advanced character of his teachings, seem to identify him with the
Nahua culture-hero, Quetzalcoatl, and it is believed, with reason,
that he appeared in Yucatan after his mysterious disappearance in
the province of Goazacoalco. For some unknown reason, Cukulcan left
Chichen-Itza after a residence there of ten years. Herrera states that
he had two brothers who remained in Chichen-Itza, while Cukulcan went
to Mayapan. He describes all as practising the purest asceticism. After
the disappearance of Cukulcan, temples were erected to his memory and
he was worshiped as a god.[359] The date of his residence in Yucatan
is a matter of considerable dispute, Cogolludo placing it in the
twelfth century, Herrera in the ninth, Brasseur de Bourbourg in the
eleventh, and Bancroft in the second. To fix dates on no better data
than such legends is folly. It is probable, however, that Cukulcan
was the culture-hero Quetzalcoatl, who was the teacher of the Nahua
nations and figured as the introducer of the fine arts, of purity of
morals, of confessional ceremonies and a humane and enlightened system
of religion at Cholula, and afterwards disappeared toward the East
upon the waters of the Gulf. With the rule of the Cocomes and the
annals of that remarkable branch of the Chiapan family, composed of
Maya and Nahua elements known as the Tutul Xius, we have nothing to do
in this work.[360] Las Casas, in examining the doctrine of Hunab Ku,
“the only God” among the Yucatecoes, who is described as the father
of Zamna, discovered a most striking Christ myth; one which conforms
so closely to the gospel account of Christ’s birth and ministry that
we must conclude that either some foreigner must have been cast upon
the coast after the Christian era began, bringing the gospel with him,
or that one of two views is true, namely, that the Fathers fabricated
the story, or that the natives, expecting favor of their conquerors,
endeavored to harmonize their belief with that which was being taught
them. Las Casas tells us of their belief in a Trinity consisting of
Izona, the Father; Bacab, the Son, and Echuah, the Holy Ghost.[361]
The Son was born of the Virgin Chibirias, and was rejected of men, was
scourged and crucified on a tree with cross-arms; he descended into
the regions of the dead, but rose again on the third day, and finally
ascended to heaven. In fact the story is the Apostles’ Creed without
the “Credo,” and is probably as much the work of the credulous and
imaginative Spanish Fathers as of the designing natives. The story
ought to be repudiated without question. It only remains for us to
submit the question to the reader, whether the Maya peoples are not of
transatlantic origin, as we believe the facts in this chapter indicate.
CHAPTER VI.
TRADITIONAL HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE NAHUA NATIONS.
The Early Inhabitants of Mexico — Quinames — Miztecs and Zapotecs
— Totonacs and Huastecs — Olmecs and Xicalancas — The Nahuas —
The Cholula Pyramid — Its Origin Explained in the Duran MS. —
No Relation to a Flood — Ixtlilxochitl’s Deluge Tradition — The
first Toltecs — The Codex Chimalpopoca Account — The Discovery
of Maize — Sahagun’s Origin of the Nahuas — They came from
Florida — Their Settlement in Tamoanchan — Their Migrations
— Hue Hue Tlapalan — Its Location, according to the Sources
— Not Identical with Tlapallan de Cortés — Not in Central
America — Probably in the Mississippi Valley — Beginning of the
Toltec Annals — The Chichimecs not Nahuas — The Nahuatlacas —
The Aztecs — Aztlan — As Described by Early Writers — Aztec
Migration — Aztec Maps — Señor Ramirez on Migration Maps — The
Seven Caves — Three Claims for the Location of Aztlan — The
Culture Hero — Quetzalcoatl.
In considering the origin of the Nahua nations, especially of the
Toltecs and Aztecs, it is common to look upon the former as the first
inhabitants of Mexico. Such a conclusion is, however, erroneous, since
the Toltecs were preceded in Central-Southern Mexico, and even in
Anahuac, both by people of different extraction from themselves and
by scattering tribes of their own linguistic family, the Nahua. Of
the former class, the most conspicuous are the so-called Quinametin
(or Quinames), otherwise known as giants. These fierce and powerful
people were encountered by the Olmecs, the first Nahuas to colonize
the region north of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. All the early writers
refer to them in terms which indicate that they were disposed to accept
the existence of a race of giants as a fact. Veytia and Clavigero,
however, are convinced that the report is not to be accepted literally.
The widest possible difference of opinion as to their origin and
relationship to existing tribes prevails with different authors. All
agree, however, that they were the first inhabitants of the country.
These cruel monsters, addicted to the most disgusting vices, the
terror of the immigrating peoples, at last met their fate, according
to Ixtlilxochitl, in a great convulsion of nature which shook the
earth and caused the mountains and volcanoes to swallow up and kill
them.[362] It is probable that this account was figurative. Duran
says they were destroyed by the Tlascaltecs while eating.[363] Veytia
attributes the destruction to the Olmec chiefs, who made a feast for
their enemies and when they were stupid and drunken fell upon them
and slew them. We think that in this allusion to the giants, “the
first inhabitants of the land,” we see the Votanic colonists from
Xibalba that are supposed to have penetrated Anahuac at an early
day. They may not have carried any special degree of refinement with
them from their old home, and if they did, they probably lapsed into
a state of semi-barbarism. Their power as a people, their enmity to
the immigrants, and their traditional connection with the hated and
all-powerful Xibalba, may have won for them the name of giants because
of the fear that was entertained of them; or, as Mr. Bancroft thinks,
they may not have been savages at all, but a civilized branch of the
Xibalbans, carrying on the warfare in the North which had been waged
farther South.[364] It is quite probable that we have here a figurative
allusion, from a Nahua standpoint, to the fall of the Xibalban power
itself—the new-world Babylon, which, like the old, may have met its
fate during a drunken revel.[365]
To the tribes which figured conspicuously in Mexico prior to the
Toltecs and not related to the Nahuas, we may add the Miztecs and
Zapotecs, whose language, though not Maya, is in some respects similar
to it, while the architectural remains and traditional origin of
this people associates them with the Nahuas. Their civilization in
Oajaca rivalled that of the Aztecs in its degree of advancement.[366]
The Totonacs were formerly, according to Torquemada, of Nahua
extraction; but the authority in the face of linguistic difficulties
is doubtful.[367] According to Torquemada’s claim, they were the
builders of the temple of the sun and moon at Teotihuacan near Lake
Tezcuco.[368] The Huastecs of northern Vera Cruz were a Maya branch
of the power at the south; they mark the most northern point reached
by the Maya tongue. Of the Nahua predecessors of the Toltecs in
Mexico the Olmecs and Xicalancas were the most important. They were
the forerunners of the great nations which followed. According to
Ixtlilxochitl, these people—which are conceded to be one—occupied the
new world in the third age; they came from the East in ships or barks
to the land of Potonchan, which they commenced to populate, and on
the shores of the River Atoyac, between the Ciudad de los Angeles and
Cholula, they found some giants who had escaped the calamity which
overtook that race in the second age of the world.[369] Here then comes
the destruction of the giants referred to above. The first settlement
of the Olmecs and Xicalancas in Mexico is supposed to have been on the
site of the ancient city of Xicalanco at the point which still bears
the name, at the entrance of the Laguna de Terminos, while a second
city, built probably a little later, was situated on the coast a short
distance below Vera Cruz; the entire region bore the name of Anahuac
Xicalanco.[370] The first great exploit of the Olmec chiefs, the
destruction of the giants, we observe was performed at some distance
from their earliest settlement. The state of Puebla became their chosen
ground, and quite soon after the above achievement they undertook the
building of the famous tower of Cholula, which is so closely allied in
its traditional history with the Tower of Babel. Several authors state
that the erection of the pyramid of Cholula was done in memory of the
erection of the tower of Babel, at which it is claimed the ancestors
of the Olmec chiefs were present. Boturini is probably one of the
most sanguine advocates of this view.[371] Others consider that the
knowledge which the ancestors of this people transmitted to them with
reference to Babel, in time became associated with the Cholula edifice
and confounded with its history.
The Toltecs possessed a deluge tradition, which we will notice
hereafter, which unquestionably had reference to a very general and
devastating flood; perhaps the scriptural one, but it is clear, as we
think we have the authority to show, that the Cholula pyramid and its
origin had no relation to that tradition, though so often confounded
with it and the tower referred to by the Nahua chroniclers. The
generally accepted origin of the pyramid is as follows: from the great
cataclysm which destroyed the giants, seven of that race of monsters
escaped by shutting themselves up in a mountain cavern. After the
waters subsided, Xelhua, one of their number, went to Cholula and began
the construction of this pyramid “to escape a second flood, should
another occur,” according to Kingsborough, or as a “memorial of the
mountain called Tlaloc which had sheltered him,” according to Pedro
de los Rios. The bricks which were manufactured at the foot of the
Sierra de Cocotl were transported to Cholula by being passed through
the hands of a file of men extending between the two localities. But
the angered gods seeing the presumption of mortals, smote both the
tower and its architects with thunderbolts and stopped their work.[372]
Lord Kingsborough so intimately connects the erection of the tower
with the Toltec deluge legend as to derive Xelhua, the builder of
the tower, from the Toltecs rather than from the race of giants, by
claiming that he escaped from the deluge with Paticatle the Mexican
Noah in an ark, and adds that when the tower was destroyed and the
tongues of the builders confounded, Xelhua led a colony to the new
world. This last will serve as a specimen of how the Cholula legend
has been misunderstood and confounded with the tower of Babel. Father
Duran in his MS.,[373] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España_, 1585 A.
D., quotes from the lips of a native of Cholula, over an hundred years
old, a version of the legend which assigns quite a different object
for building the Pyramid, one which shows that it never was erected
as a memorial of Babel nor ever had any reference to an escape from
any flood either past or in anticipation. It is as follows: “In the
beginning before the light of the sun had been created, this land
was in obscurity and darkness and void of any created thing; all was
a plain without hill or elevation, encircled in every part by water
without tree or created thing; and immediately after the light and the
sun arose in the east, there appeared gigantic men of deformed stature,
and possessed the land, who desiring to see the nativity of the sun as
well as his occident, proposed to go and seek them. Dividing themselves
into two parties, some journeyed toward the West and others toward
the East; these travelled until the sea cut off their road, whereupon
they determined to return to the place from which they started, and
arriving at this place (Cholula), not finding the means of reaching the
sun, enamored of his light and beauty, they determined to build a tower
so high that its summit should reach the sky. Having collected material
for the purpose, they found a very adhesive clay and bitumen, with
which they speedily commenced to build the tower, and having reared
it to the greatest possible altitude, so that they say it reached to
the sky, the Lord of the Heavens, enraged, said to the inhabitants of
the sky, ‘Have you observed how they of the earth have built a high
and haughty tower to mount hither, being enamored of the light of the
sun and his beauty? Come! and confound them; because it is not right
that they of the earth, living in the flesh, should mingle with us.’
Immediately at that very instant the inhabitants of the sky sallied
forth like flashes of lightning; they destroyed the edifice and divided
and scattered its builders to all parts of the earth.”[374] This
account, the most ancient on record, makes no reference to a flood,
and is quite distinct from the Mexican deluge tradition. Its value as
an interpreter of the tendency of the American tribes not only of the
United States and Mexico, but of both Americas, to erect mounds and
truncated pyramids is not inconsiderable, since it confirms the opinion
long entertained that they were connected with sun-worship. The great
culture-hero, Quetzalcoatl, the white saintly personage from the East,
said to have been the leader of the Nahuas, appeared during the Olmec
rule, and to his honor the Cholulans erected a temple upon the pyramid
which their countrymen or predecessors had failed to complete.[375]
Quetzalcoatl was, however, no tribal hero, but was so intimately
identified with the institutions and civilization of the entire Nahua
race that we purposely defer a consideration of his character at
present in order that we may hasten to the traditional origin of the
Toltecs.
It is not our purpose to go back to the several traditions of the
creation of man, preserved in as many localities in Mexico, each with
its own variations, but simply to take up tradition where it first
relates to the Toltec families. We are fully aware of the wide range
of opinion with reference to what properly constitutes this tradition,
and of the irreconcilable variations in dates and numeric details
among the several Spanish writers. Probably all will agree that the
native writer Ixtlilxochitl, who inherited the rich collection of royal
archives and hieroglyphic paintings belonging to his ancestors (and
which fortunately escaped the wholesale vandalism of the conquerors),
though both contradictory and negligent, has furnished us the most
reliable narrative which has yet been brought to light. Without
attempting to correct or unravel his chronology, we simply translate
his account of the origin of the Toltecs. Speaking of the first age
of the world, the pre-diluvial period, he says: “It is found in the
histories of the Toltecs that this age and first world as they call
it, lasted 1716 years; that men were destroyed by tremendous rains and
lightning from the sky, and even all the land without the exception of
anything, and the highest mountains, were covered up and submerged in
water ‘caxtolmoletlti,’ or _fifteen cubits_, and here they add other
fables of how men came to multiply from the few who escaped from this
destruction in a ‘toptlipetlacali,’ that this word nearly signifies a
close chest; and how after men had multiplied they erected a very high
‘zacuali,’ which is to say a tower of great height, in order to take
refuge in it, should the second world (age) be destroyed. Presently
their languages were confused; and not able to understand each other,
they went to different parts of the earth. The Toltecs, consisting
of seven friends with their wives, who understood the same language,
came to these parts, having first passed great land and seas, having
lived in caves, and having endured great hardships in order to reach
this land, which they found good and fertile for their habitation; and
relate that they wandered one hundred and four years through different
parts of the world before they reached Hue hue Tlapalan, which was in
Ce Tecpatl, five hundred and twenty years after the flood. Seventeen
hundred and fifteen years after the flood, there was a terrible
hurricane that carried away trees, mounds, houses and the largest
edifices, notwithstanding which many men and women escaped principally
in caves and places where the great hurricane could not reach them.
A few days having passed, they set out to see what had become of the
earth, when they found it all covered and populated with monkeys. All
this time they were in darkness without seeing the light of the sun
nor the moon that the wind had brought them. The Indians invented a
fable which says that men were changed into monkeys. * * * One hundred
and fifty-eight years after the great hurricane and 4994 from the
creation of the world, there was another destruction of this land,
which was of the Quinametin, giants who lived in New Spain, which
destruction was a great trembling of the earth, which swallowed up and
killed them, the mountains and volcanoes burst upon them, that for a
certainty none should escape. At the same time many of the Toltecs
perished and the Chichimecs their neighbors. That was in the year Ce
Tecpatl; and this age they call Tlachilonatnip, that is to say, sun [or
age] of earth.”[376] Here follows an account of the construction of
the calendar by the assembly of Lords in Hue hue Tlapalan in the year
5097 of the creation of the world and 104 after the destruction of the
giants.
The singular agreement of this account with the Mosaic description,
in some of its details, such as the height attained by the waters
above the mountains, the escape of certain persons in an ark, and
the erection of a high tower, together with the subsequent confusion
of tongues, Lord Kingsborough is convinced furnishes proof that the
Toltecs were of Jewish descent.[377] While we are not prepared to
believe the sanguine speculations of that eminent author in this
case, still one of two views must be true: either the Toltecs were
of old world origin, and at a remote period treasured up among their
traditional histories notices of the Mosaic deluge, traditions of
which are so generally current among the Asiatic nations, or the
Mexican traditions of local inundation were warped by the teachings
of the Spanish priests in a degree beyond any precedent in history
or reasonable expectation, and that within a comparatively few years
after the conquest. Our authority in this case is a native of Tezcuco,
a son of the queen; and because of his acquaintance with both the
hieroglyphic writings and the Castilian, served as interpreter to
the viceroy. His _Relacions_ were composed from the archives of
his family and compared with the testimony of the oldest and best
informed natives. It does not seem to us that the sense of historic
integrity cultivated to so nice a point at Tezcuco, where the censorial
council, just prior to the advent of the conquerors, punished with
death any who should willfully pervert the truth, could have so
sadly degenerated that Ixtlilxochitl and the venerable natives who
were conscious of the representations contained in his work, should
proclaim a falsehood which would not meet with contradiction.[378] We
are aware that this author’s chronology is an inextricable maze of
contradictions which cannot be unravelled or reconstructed. The Toltec
families, seven in number, are, however, said to have reached Hue hue
Tlapalan five hundred and twenty years after the flood. The journey,
however, occupied only one hundred and four years of that time. Their
wanderings, attended with severe experiences, nakedness, and hunger and
cold, were over many lands, across expanses of sea and through untold
hardships.[379]
The date of the migration to Hue hue Tlapalan cannot be approximated
from available data, but it is evident that Ixtlilxochitl fixes it
at 520 years after the flood, or 2236 years after the creation—a
period which must have antedated the Christian era by a score of
centuries or more, even if we accept his chronology, which (on p.
322 of his _Relacions_), implies that more than five thousand years
elapsed between the creation and the birth of Christ. The _Codex
Chimalpopoca_, a Nahua record written in Spanish letters, which
occupies probably the same relation to early Mexican history that
the _Popol Vuh_ does to the Maya history, has been made known to us
through the writings of Brasseur de Bourbourg, but as yet it has not
been published. Ixtlilxochitl was the copyist of this document, and of
course used it in composing his _Relacions_. Mr. Bancroft has attempted
to collect from scattered passages, taken from the _Codex Chimalpopoca_
and found in Brasseur’s writings, a continuous narrative, but with
little success. “The division of the earth,” by the sun, “six times
four hundred, plus one hundred, plus thirteen years ago to-day, the
twenty-second of May, 1558;” in other words, in the year 955 B. C., is
a date obtained which seems to refer to the division of the land among
the followers of Votan.[380] In the _Popol Vuh_, Gucumatz (whose name
signifies plumed serpent) is described as going in search of maize,
while the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ describes Quetzalcoatl, whose name is
identical in meaning with that of Gucumatz, as entering upon the same
undertaking, though under somewhat different circumstances, and states
that when he had found it, he brought it to Tamoanchan.[381] We shall
see hereafter that Sahagun locates Tamoanchan in Tabasco, a fact of
considerable value in studying the Toltec migration. The reader will
not, however, associate Quetzalcoatl with the above date, since such
is not the purport of the record. The _Chimalpopoca_ implies that
Quetzalcoatl afterwards becoming obnoxious to his companions forsook
them, a statement noted by Mr. Bancroft, though its full value does
not seem to have been observed by that author.[382] The account
clearly refers to the role of Quetzalcoatl among the Quichés, when he
was known as Gucumatz, and prior to his appearance among the Olmec
(Nahua) tribes. It indicates that the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ account of
the discovery of maize is purely Quiché, and has no reference to the
Nahuas whatever. The search for maize by the plumed serpent, call
him by either his Quiché or Nahua name if you wish, was prior to the
advent of that remarkable personage among the Nahuas. The reputed
discovery we consider nothing more than a figurative allusion to
the introduction of agriculture by this culture-hero, the knowledge
of which he afterwards communicated to the Nahuas at Tamoanchan. If
these inferences are true, the _Codex Chimalpopoca_, so far as we
are acquainted with its contents, can render us no assistance with
reference to the question in hand. We will now return to the beginning
of the subject and cite additional authorities, chief among them
Sahagun. In the introduction to his _Historia General_, in speaking
of the origin of this people, he expresses the opinion that it is
impossible to definitely determine more than that they report “that all
the natives came from seven caves, and that these seven caves are the
seven ships or galleys in which the first populators of the land came.”
He adds, “The first people came to populate this land from towards
Florida, and came coasting and disembarked at the port of Pánuco, which
they called Panco, which signifies a place to which they come who pass
the water. This people came in quest of the terrestrial paradise, and
were known by the name Tamoanchan, by which they mean, ‘we seek our
home.’ They settled around the highest mountains that they found. In
coming toward the midday to find the terrestrial paradise, they did
not err, because it is the opinion of the knowing that it is under the
equinoctial line.”[383] The above account is rendered more definite
in the following passage from his third volume:[384] “Countless years
ago the first settlers arrived in these parts of New Spain—which is
nearly another world—coming with ships by sea, approached a port at
the North, and because they disembarked there, it is called Panutla or
Panaoia, place where they arrive who come by the sea; at present it
is corruptly called Pantlan. From that port they commenced to journey
by the shores of the sea, ever beholding the snow-capped Sierras and
the volcanoes, until they came to the province of Guatemala, being
guided by their priest who carried with him their god, with whom he
always counseled concerning what he should do. They settled down in
Tamoanchan, where they were a long time, and never ceased to have their
wise men or prophets, called Amoxoaqui, which signifies ‘men learned
in the ancient paintings,’ who, although they came at the same time,
did not remain with the rest in Tamoanchan, for leaving them there,
they re-embarked and took with them all the paintings of the rites
and mechanic arts which they had brought.” The account continues by
stating that the priests informed their companions before leaving them,
that their God had made them masters of the land, and that they should
inhabit it and await his return. The priests then departed towards
the East with their idol wrapped in blankets. Whereupon the people
invented judicial astrology and the art of interpreting dreams. They
there also constructed the calendar which was followed during the time
of the Toltecs, Mexicans, Tepanecs and Chichimecs. The first migratory
movement was to Teotihuacan, where they erected two mountains in honor
of the sun and moon. Here they elected their rulers and buried their
princes, erecting mounds over their graves. This seems to have become
their holy city. The main power which had remained for a long time in
Tamoanchan was changed to Xumiltepec. From this latter place they,
however, at the instance of their priests, started again on their
migrations. First going to Teotihuacan in order to choose their wise
men. Notwithstanding the remarks of Sahagun that the seven caves were
the seven ships in which the first settlers came to New Spain, he here
affirms that in the course of their migration they came to the valley
of the seven caves. How long they remained in this national centre
we have no means of knowing, but eventually their god told them to
retrace their steps, which they did, going to Tollancingo (Tulancingo)
and finally to Tulan (Tollan). Ixtlilxochitl, if he can be relied
upon (and if he is unreliable we might as well give up the task of
tracing the early history of this or any other Mexican people) shows
clearly that the ancestors of the Toltecs were possessed of certain
traditions which point to an Asiatic origin; that at a remote period
they set out from that common home of so many peoples, possessing the
same traditions, in search of a suitable country in which to live;
that after one hundred and four years occupied in traversing broad
lands and seas, they arrived in a country called Hue hue Tlapalan.
This event, according to his chronology, must have occurred upwards
of twenty centuries before Christ. He tells us also that in Hue hue
Tlapalan, the Toltecs regulated their calendar. Sahagun says that
countless years ago the first inhabitants of the country (Mexico)
came by sea from the direction of Florida on the North, and landing
at Pánuco, journeyed down the coast to Guatemala (which is supposed
to have embraced Chiapas and perhaps Tabasco, though such is only the
conjecture of an earnest advocate of the Southern location of Hue hue
Tlapalan, _i. e._, Mr. Bancroft) where they established a city called
Tamoanchan—there the calendar was regulated or corrected. Whether this
was the same construction of the calendar referred to by Ixtlilxochitl
as having taken place in Hue hue Tlapalan is questionable. If positive
proof of the identity of these occurrences could be produced, the
identity of Tamoanchan and Hue hue Tlapalan would be complete, and the
disputed location of the latter would be fixed in the Chiapan region or
the country of the Xibalbans. The fact that Quetzalcoatl brought maize
to Tamoanchan seems to indicate a comparative proximity of that country
to the Southern region where that culture-hero figured so conspicuously
under the Quiché name of Gucumatz. If no other testimony need be
introduced the disputed locality might be fixed as above indicated.
However, the contradictory records of Ixtlilxochitl, which we are now
about to cite, unsettle this conclusion. The Toltec migration from Hue
hue Tlapalan is briefly as follows: Three hundred and thirty-eight
years after Christ a revolt occurred among the Toltecs in Hue hue
Tlapalan, in which two rebel princes attempted to depose the legitimate
successor to the throne. These rebel chiefs, named Chalcatzin and
Tlacamihtzin respectively, were unsuccessful, and together with five
other chiefs and their numerous allies and people, were driven out of
their city Tlachicatzin in Hue hue Tlapalan. After a journey of sixty
leagues, they arrived at a place which they called Tlapallanconco, or
Little Tlapalan. Their departure from their old home did not occur till
they had withstood a contest of eight years—or, according to Veytia,
thirteen years—duration.[385] At Tlapallanconco they lived three years,
at the end of which time there arose among them a great astrologer,
named Hueman or Huematzin, who counseled them to forsake the land of
their misfortunes and journey toward the rising sun, where there was
a happy land formerly occupied by Quinames, but now depopulated. This
advice seeming good they set out on their journey at the end of the
three years, or eleven years after leaving Hue hue Tlapalan. After
traveling twelve days and accomplishing seventy leagues they arrived
at Hueyxalan, and remained there four years. From thence a twenty days
journey toward the East, or according to Veytia, toward the West, and
of one hundred leagues in length, brought them to Xalisco, near the
sea-shore. Here they remained eight years. Twenty days journey and 100
leagues more brought them to Chimalhuacan on the coast opposite certain
islands, where they resided five years. Eighteen days or 80 leagues
traversed toward the East, and they arrived at Toxpan, where they
dwelt five years more. Proceeding eastward twenty days’ journey or 100
leagues, they came to Quiyahuitztlan Anahuac, situated on the coast.
Here they were obliged to pass inlets of the sea in boats. During a
six years’ sojourn at this point, they suffered many hardships. An
eighteen days’ journey or 80 leagues brought them to Zacatlan where
they dwelt seven years. From thence they journeyed eighty leagues to
Totzapan and dwelt there six years. They next journeyed to Tepetla,
distant twenty-eight days, or 140 leagues, where they dwelt seven
years. Eighteen days’ journey or 80 leagues brought them to Mazatepec,
where they remained eight years, and a similar journey brought them
to Ziuhcohuatl where they tarried also eight years. Turning northward
from this unknown point, they journeyed twenty days or 100 leagues
and halted at Yztachuexucha, where they dwelt twenty-six years.
At last, after a journey of eighteen days or eighty leagues, they
arrived at Tulancingo (Tulantzinco, or Tollantzinco) a name already
familiar to us. Here the Toltecs emerge from what has been to us an
unknown wilderness without geographic guide-post or even a polar
star by which to reckon. Their itinerary, full of so many gaps and
inconsistencies, its frequent omission of the directions traversed,
with its starting-point so indefinitely located, is meaningless and
confusing, and so far as the reader is concerned, practically begins
nowhere and ends in nothing. At Tulancingo they remained eighteen
years, living in a house sufficiently large to accommodate them all.
Their knowledge of architecture must have been quite advanced to have
enabled them to construct such an edifice. The third year after their
arrival at Tulancingo, marked a Toltec age of 104 years from the time
they left their home in Hue hue Tlapalan. Finally, eighteen years
having elapsed, they transferred the capital to Tollan, afterwards the
centre of the Toltec empire. Tollan is stated to have been eastward
of Tulancingo (in all probability a mistake).[386] In this migration
we have a distance of 1150 leagues traversed; the first two moves,
aggregating 130 leagues, is in an unknown direction; the next advance
is 100 leagues in an easterly direction, according to one author, and
westerly according to another; however, it is agreed that the point
was on the sea-shore. The next move of 100 leagues is still along the
sea-shore, but the direction is not stated. We then have two advances
amounting to 180 leagues, in an easterly direction. The confusion
is completed in the following advances, aggregating 460 leagues in
unknown directions. Of the remaining 180 leagues, 100 were traveled in
a northern direction, while the remaining 80 leagues were taken toward
an unknown quarter. It is quite plain to any one, that the distances
traversed in the directions stated could not be traced consistently
with the geography of Mexico and Central America, upon the assumption
that Tamoanchan and Hue hue Tlapalan are identical and situated in the
Rio Usumacinta region. The itinerary would carry the emigrants far
out upon the Gulf of Mexico. It is evident that a broader territory
than that of Southern Mexico and Central America is required for the
realization of such distances. The account of the migration is no doubt
faulty; but even if we disregard the gaps, it presents insuperable
difficulties when applied to the South-Mexican region. It is manifest
that Sahagun and Ixtlilxochitl refer to different migrations. The
former to the Olmecs, who came by sea to Pánuco and thence to Tabasco,
from which they migrated north to Teotihuacan. The latter narrates the
wanderings of the Toltecs who subsequently came into Mexico by land.
If this distinction is borne in mind, much of the obscurity attending
the subject is cleared away. We are inclined to think that the accounts
of the two distinct migrations have become confused, and the details
of one substituted for the details of the other. Every one familiar
with the study of traditional histories is aware of this danger, or
even more, this tendency among semi-civilized peoples. No better
illustration of this fact can be presented than the sad confusion which
has been wrought by nearly every writer who has attempted to describe
the two distinct personages in Mexican history, known by the name of
Quetzalcoatl. Only Sahagun of all the early writers has seemed to have
any clear conception of their individual and independent attributes.
The demi-god, and the Toltec king, and the achievements of each, have
been made to change places so often by Spanish writers, that the result
has, with each new treatment of the subject, been confusion worse
confounded. Sahagun’s account of the arrival of the Nahuas in ships,
from the direction of Florida, their landing in Pánuco, their journey
toward Guatemala, their residence in Tamoanchan (probably somewhere
in the Chiapan region) and their subsequent migration northward to
Teotihuacan with its well-known pyramids, and finally their removal
to Tollan, north of the City of Mexico, by the way of Tolancingo,
is a straightforward account which finds support in the best of
evidence, both of a material and linguistic character. Sr. Orozco y
Berra has clearly shown by linguistic testimony that the Nahua nations
entered the country somewhere between the nineteenth and twenty-first
degrees of north latitude, on the Gulf coast, migrated southward to
a point seventeen and one-half degrees north latitude, almost to the
Chiapan region, and then retracing their steps northward, almost to a
point opposite Vera Cruz, they crossed Mexico to the Pacific coast,
along which they extended their language northward nearly to the
twenty-seventh degree north latitude.[387] Sahagun says nothing of Hue
hue Tlapalan in his account of the migration from Tamoanchan to Tollan
or from Chiapas to Anahuac, for his account refers to the Olmecs, the
first Nahuas to reach Mexico.
Mr. John H. Becker, of Berlin, in an able paper addressed to the
Congrès des Américainistes at Luxembourg (_Compte Rendu de la Seconde
Session_, tom. i, pp. 325–50), after offering plausible arguments for
the identification of Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés, Hue hue Tlapalan of
the Toltecs, Amaquemecan of the Chichimecs, and Oztotlan of the Aztecs,
with the region of the upper Rio Grande del Norte and Rio Colorado—the
land of the ravines, of grottoes, and of cañons—attempts to trace the
Toltec migration as given by Ixtlilxochitl. His interesting solution
of the difficult problem is as follows: “The Toltecs driven out of Hue
hue Tlapalan by civil wars (towards the end of the fourth century of
our era?) move in a westerly direction sixty leagues to Tlapalanconco
(northern Sinaloa and Sonora on the Rio Yaqui, where distinct traces
of the Nahua language exist?); thence, after eleven years, they go
to Hueyxalan, seventy leagues distant (perhaps the northern part of
Durango, where the Tepehuana language shows strong Nahua affinities);
thence to Xalisco on the coast, one hundred leagues distant; thence
to Chimalhuacan Atenco on the coast opposite some islands, one
hundred leagues (opposite the islands in the southern end of the Gulf
of California)? In that case they did undoubtedly suffer a reverse
in Xalisco (where they touched upon the more thickly populated and
civilized country, and by which they were forced to retire); thence
eastward eighty leagues to Toxpan (in the neighborhood of the Laguna
de Tlahuila and on the upper Sabina River). In that country there is
even now a tribe of Tochos, and the Tarahumara language there spoken,
shows distinct affinities to the Nahua tongue; thence eastward one
hundred leagues to Quahuitzlan Anahuac, on the coast with inlets—the
coast-land of the state of Tamaulipas, on the Gulf of Mexico? About
this locality there can scarcely be a doubt, since this eastern coast
country and the eastern plateau bore the general name Quetzalapan or
Huitzilapan, until the Nahuas took possession of them, when the plateau
was designated as _Huitznahuac_, and the name above given would be
the natural one to apply to the coast, since while _nahuac_ (_an_)
means simply the Nahualand, _Anahuac_ (_an_) means the ‘Nahua land on
the water,’ while Quahuitzlan is the old name retained in order to
distinguish this Anahuac on the Gulf coast from the Anahuac around the
Mexican lakes. Here they ‘suffered great hardships,’ and finally went
westward eighty leagues to Zacatlan (the northern part of the State
of Zacatecas?); from there eighty leagues to Totzapan, probably again
in the neighborhood of Toxpan before mentioned (where the Tusanes are
located even to-day); thence one hundred and forty leagues to Tepetla
(the extraordinary distance shows that at last they gained a decisive
victory, and broke through the frontier of the more civilized country
which they had hitherto felt). Tepetla, mountainland, must consequently
be sought in the neighborhood of the high mountains of Anahuac; thence
eighty leagues to Mazatepec (the mountain of the Mazahuas, skirting
the valley of Mexico towards north and west); thence eighty leagues to
Ziuhcohuatl, where they probably suffered another defeat, for they move
full one hundred leagues northward to Yztachuechucha, and stop there
twenty-three years, a sufficient time to raise another generation of
warriors; thence eighty leagues to Tollantzingo, and then finally to
‘Tollan,’ the capital of their future empire, which if Ixtlilxochitl’s
dates can be trusted, they built about 500 B. C., on the site of a
former city of the Otomis.” This ingenious and thoughtful review of the
route commends itself to all who are interested in this subject. Mr.
Becker considers that one great argument for the correctness of the
starting-point which he has chosen is “the fact that even the distances
as given by Ixtlilxochitl agree with the actual situation of the
various localities here indicated.” Ixtlilxochitl, obscure as he is,
gives in another part of his work an additional account, besides the
one we have already quoted, which greatly strengthens our conviction
that the Toltecs came into Mexico from the north, and confirms the
investigations of both Mr. Becker and of Sr. Orozco. The account is
as follows: “In this fourth age there came to this land of Anahuac,
which is at present called New Spain, those of the Toltec nations who,
according to the accounts of their histories, were expelled from their
land, and after having navigated and coasted on the South Sea along
various lands as far as the present California, they came to what is
called Huitlapalan, that which at present they call after Cortés. This
locality they passed in the year called Ce Tecpatl, which was in the
year 387 of the incarnation of our Lord. Having coasted the land of
Xalisco, and all the coast of the south, they set out from the port
of Huatulco, and went through various lands as far as the province of
Tochtepec, situated on the coast of the North Sea, and having traversed
and viewed it they came to stop in the province of Tulantzinco, having
left some people in most of their stopping-places in order to populate
them.”[388]
It will be observed that in this migration part of the same general
route above referred to, along the Pacific coast nearly opposite the
extremity of the California peninsula, and then returning southward
and inland, is clearly marked out. The Pacific ocean, called the South
Sea, seems to have facilitated their movements northward. Xalisco
was coasted, and the entire width of Mexico traversed, the Gulf of
Mexico reached (Sea of the North), and finally Tolancingo chosen as a
suitable home. It will be observed that the Huitlapalan named above is
not identical with Hue hue Tlapalan, the earliest home of the nations.
Mr. Bancroft has apparently confounded the two names, and endeavors to
find in the Tlapallan de Cortés (so named because of Cortés’ expedition
to a Tlapallan) the ancient Hue hue Tlapalan.[389] The Abbé Brasseur
de Bourbourg attempts precisely the same thing. The investigations of
both these writers on this point are interesting, though without any
result, unless unintentionally to strengthen the above distinction
between Huitlapalan and Hue hue Tlapalan. Substantially the facts are
as follows: Pedro de Alvarado, writing from Santiago or old Guatemala
to Cortés in 1524, refers to Tlapallan as fifteen days march inland,
and Mr. Bancroft thinks that the name must have been applied to a
region corresponding to either Honduras, Peten or Tabasco. Cortés’ name
was affixed to a Tlapallan said to lie towards Ihueras or Ibueras, the
former name of Honduras, because of his expedition to that country.
The Abbé says the name was applied to a region between the tributaries
of the Rio Usumacinta and Honduras. Finally, the fact that the second
Quetzalcoatl, when he embarked on the Gulf coast near the Goazacoalco
River, announced his intention of going to Tlapallan, is cited as
proof that the name was applied to a southern locality.[390] The
entire argument is perfectly satisfactory in locating a Tlapallan in
the Usumacinta region, but it does not have the slightest value in
proving that Hue hue Tlapalan was identical with that locality. On
the other hand, Cabrera, in referring to the ancient country of the
Toltecs, calls it Hue Hue Tlapalan, and states that the simple name was
Tlapallan, but that it was called Hue hue—old—to distinguish it from
three other Tlapalans which they founded in the new districts which
they came to inhabit. This statement is confirmed by Torquemada.[391]
It is therefore probable that Bancroft’s and Brasseur’s investigations
were all expended on one or more of these three Tlapalans. The
undoubted residence of a tribe of the Nahuas (Olmecs) in the Tabasco
region for a considerable period—one which is measured relatively in
the language of Sahugun between the “countless years ago when they
arrived from towards Florida” and their departure towards Anahuac in
the fourth or fifth century—has led many writers to suppose that they
were of southern origin, notwithstanding the statement of Sahagun,
Ixtlilxochitl and all the early writers to the contrary. Supposing
that the sweeping assumption of the northern origin so persistently
adhered to by native and Spanish writers is nothing but a priestly
fabrication, be admitted, simply that our attention may be turned to
other testimony, still the evidence is against the southern origin
theory. The material relics of Honduras and Nicaragua absolutely
disprove the positive supposition that they were ever the work of the
people who figured in Anahuac, and no transition from one style of
sculpture to the other has ever been discovered, nor could be imagined.
An examination of the first few chapters of Mr. Bancroft’s fourth
volume and the works from which it has been drawn will fully satisfy
the reader of this fact. The evidence from the linguistic standpoint is
even more satisfactory, since the Nahua language as spoken in Central
America, in the states of San Salvador and Nicaragua, is dialectic,
indicating a fragmentary migration southward.[392]
It has been the common custom of Spanish writers and those who
followed them down to the middle of this century, to locate Hue hue
Tlapalan on the Californian coast. Vater and Humboldt from their
standpoints of investigation fell in with this view. The former,
basing his convictions on seeming linguistic affinities in the
north-west, which, while they are quite significant, indicative of
Nahua influences if not of Nahua residence, are too few to prove any
lengthy sojourn. Humboldt based his opinion chiefly on the traditions
and certain ethnological and geographical facts. Buschmann[393] has
completely overthrown the arguments of Vater in his series of works
on American languages, while Mr. Bancroft has shown conclusively that
there are no material remains assignable to the Toltecs to be found on
the Californian coast or the adjoining region.[394] When he asserts,
however, that there are no remains farther north than California, he
overlooks a well-known fact. We refer to the mounds of Oregon and
their extension eastward into the Yellowstone and North Missouri River
region. The most reasonable conjecture as to the locality of Hue hue
Tlapalan is that which places it in the Mississippi Valley, and assigns
the works of our Mound-builders to the Nahua nations. In previous
chapters we have shown the close resemblance of the mound crania to
the ancient Mexican, and have pointed out the gradual transition from
the rude and simple mounds of the north to the truncated pyramid of
the south, constructed on strict geometrical principles, having one
or more graded ways, and so closely resembling the Mexican teocallis.
Besides the testimony of Sahagun that the first settlers of Mexico
came from towards Florida, and the universal report of a northern
origin prevalent among the Aztecs at the time of the conquest, there
are other evidences of a racial identity common to Mound-builders and
Mexicans, such as pottery, sculptured portraitures of the facial type,
indications of commercial intercourse between the two countries, such
as the discovery of Mexican obsidian in the mounds of the Ohio Valley,
and the probability that both worshipped the sun and offered human
sacrifices.[395]
With the Toltec annals proper we have nothing to do; only the most
primitive period of the growth of this people concerns us here, and
that period is conceded to have closed with the establishment of the
great capital at Tollan, on the site of the present village of Tula,
thirty miles north-west of the city of Mexico. Seven years after the
arrival of the Toltecs in Tollan, the government was a theocratic
republic, with the seven chiefs who had conducted them thither acting
as their rulers, under the advice of the venerable Huemen. Finally,
in the beginning of the eighth century, somewhere between 710 and 720
A. D., the republic was changed into a monarchy and the throne given
to the son of their dreaded enemies and former neighbors, the warlike
Chichimecs, as a peace-offering, on condition that the Toltecs should
always be a free people and in no way tributary to the Chichimecs. The
history of the Toltec monarchy during the three and a half centuries
of its duration to the final overthrow of Tollan (1062 A. D.) as well
as the power of the remarkable people who built the ancient capital,
has often been sketched, and for us to repeat what has been recorded
in almost every language of modern Europe, would add nothing to the
cause of science. This part of ancient American history, so replete
with the romantic and marvellous, so confusing at times, because of our
ignorance of many geographic and archæologic features entering into
it (which, in time, will probably be brought to light), so saddening
because of its stories of wholesale misfortunes to a people whose
civilization rivalled that of Europe in the middle ages; and yet, after
all, so fresh and novel, must continue to receive increased attention,
if only as a means of recreation to the student of history, wearied
with the beaten paths from Rome to Greece, and from Greece to Rome. Mr.
Bancroft has given an excellent _resumé_ of the annals of the Toltec
period, accompanying it with an ample literary apparatus in the notes.
During the last century of the Toltec power, Anahuac was overrun by
the incursions of a fierce and dreaded people—the Chichimecs. These
semi-barbarians, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in
the Toltec monarchy, became a powerful factor, either on their own
part or in the hands of the enemies of Tollan, in the overthrow of
the empire. In the Toltec traditions we read of the Chichimecs being
their neighbors in Hue hue Tlapalan.[396] In the annals as given
in Ixtlilxochitl, Torquemada and many writers, the Chichimecs are
represented as having pursued and annoyed the Toltecs, to have followed
them up in their wanderings. This probably is not literally true, but
their arrival upon the borders of Anahuac, soon after its occupation
by the Toltecs, is quite certain. It has been common to consider the
Chichimecs as a Nahua people, and even so critical a writer as Mr.
Bancroft adopts this popular error. As long ago as 1855, Sr. Francisco
Pimentel undertook to show the mistake into which many had fallen, and
in his _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_ (published in 1862), has furnished
conclusive proof that the Chichimecs originally spoke a different
language from the Nahua nations, but subsequently adopted the Nahua
tongue, on the principle set forth by Balbi: “It is not the language
of the conquering people that invariably dominates, but that which
is most regular and cultured.” On the testimony of Torquemada,[397]
Ixtlilxochitl[398] and Juan Bautista Pomar,[399] Sr. Pimentel shows
that the Chichimec language was once distinct and different from the
Nahua, and that these people came under the civilizing influences of
the Toltecs during their golden age, but in their declining period
availed themselves of the opportunity of possessing their country and
advanced civilization.[400] If the Chichimecs were the neighbors of the
Toltecs in Hue hue Tlapalan, it is reasonable to expect some light on
the situation of that disputed locality in the Chichimec traditions;
but in this expectation we are disappointed. There is no mention of
that ancient home of the Nahuas, nor of any route pursued in their
migrations. Amaquemecan is the only name which is applied to their
most primitive land or history; one of the cities which they occupied
at some remote period seems to have borne the name. When the Toltecs
sent to the Chichimecs for their first king, they were, according to
Ixtlilxochitl, in the neighborhood of Panuco. Panes describes them as
having passed the sea, and, according to their reckoning, in the year
Five Tolti to have arrived at the seven caves. Thence they journeyed
to Amacatepeque, and certain persons left that province to go to
Tepenec, which is to say “the Mountain of Echo.”[401] Ixtlilxochitl
and some other authors derive them from Chicomoztoc, a rendezvous
of the nations, which has been located by Clavigero at about twenty
miles south of Zacatecas but is considered by Duran and Acosta as
identical with Aztlan in the region of Florida.[402] It is impossible
to determine either the starting-point or route of this people, who
subsequently became amalgamated with the scattered Toltecs after the
fall of Tollan, and whose rule in Anahuac may properly be dated from
the (1062) middle of the eleventh until nearly the middle of the
fifteenth (1431) century.
A few years after the Chichimec power was established there came
from the North (at least their last move is admitted to have been
from that quarter) six tribes of Nahuatlacas, who arrived in the
country adjoining Tollan. There were altogether seven tribes, namely,
the Xochimilcos, Chalcas, Tepanecs, Tlahuicas, Acolhuas, Tlascatecs
and Aztecs or Mexicans. The latter people, however, had separated
themselves from the remaining six tribes at Chicomoztoc and did
not reach Anahuac until about 1196 A. D. These people all acted as
tributary to the Chichimecs at first; and of the seven tribes, two
eventually arose to great political importance, the Tlascatecs who
founded an independent republic, and the Aztecs whose empire has been
the wonder of students of antiquity and the subject of histories
as romantic as the purest fiction. Some authors add a number of
tribal names to those already given as belonging to fragments of
the Nahuatlaca family, but the probability is that these minor and
unimportant tribes were offshoots from the others, after their
arrival on the central plateau. The representative branch of all the
Nahuatlacas was the Aztec nation, who separated from their brethren
in Chicomoztoc, and whose arrival at the Lake region of Mexico, is
dated subsequent to that of the other tribes. All of these tribes
are said to have come from the unknown Aztlan, their early home. The
question of its locality has been as much a subject of controversy
as the location of Hue hue Tlapalan, since, in fact, the question is
possibly one and the same, for the Nahua speaking people who migrated
into Mexico at intervals, extending over a period of a thousand years,
must have had a common origin. Aztlan is described by Duran as a most
attractive land and the presumption is that the Nahuas were forcibly
driven from their fair heritage by the gradual encroachments of their
enemies. The account of this delightful country given by Cueuhcoatl to
the elder Montezuma, is as follows: “Our fathers dwelt in that happy
and prosperous place which they called Aztlan, which means “whiteness.”
In this place there is a great mountain in the middle of the water,
which is called Culhuacan, because it has the point somewhat turned
over toward the bottom, and for this cause it is called Culhuacan,
which means “crooked mountain.” In this mountain were some openings,
or caves or hollows, where our fathers and ancestors dwelt for many
years; there, under this name Mexitin and Aztec, they had much repose;
there they enjoyed a great plenty of geese; of all species of marine
birds and water fowls; enjoyed the song and melody of birds with yellow
crests; enjoyed many kinds of large and beautiful fish; enjoyed the
freshness of trees that were upon those shores, and fountains enclosed
with elders, and savins (junipers) and aldertrees, both large and
beautiful. They went about in canoes, and made furrows in which they
planted maize, red-peppers, tomatoes, beans and all kinds of seed that
we eat.”[403] The location of Aztlan is not a philosophical question
for our consideration, since scarcely sufficient data of a definite
character are available on which to base a process of reasoning. The
report common among the Aztecs was that they had come from the North,
and this was no doubt true of the final move prior to their settlement
in Anahuac, but whether it was true of their starting-point and the
general course of the Aztec migration, is a question which cannot
be satisfactorily answered. Most Spanish writers and others of the
earlier school, locate Aztlan directly north of the present boundary
line of Mexico,[404] others again California,[405] while some favor
the North-western Mexican States.[406] A recent school of Americanists
assign Aztlan a southern location, placing it in the Central American
region.[407] Duran and Brasseur de Bourbourg, both celebrated
authorities, on the other hand locate Aztlan in the United States; the
former in Florida, by which we are to understand the region of the Gulf
States,[408] while the latter simply expresses the conviction that
Aztlan was situated to the north-east of California.[409]
The Aztec migration and the itinerary as generally accepted demands
consideration before forming any judgment on the location of Aztlan.
In this primitive abode we are told that each year the Aztecs crossed
a great river or channel to Teo-Culhuacan for the purpose of offering
sacrifices in honor of their god Tetzauch. But it happened that a
bird appeared to Huitziton, one of the greatest of their chiefs (whom
Bancroft thinks was identical with Mecitl or Mexi—hence the name
Mexicans), and constantly reiterated the word _tihui_, _tihui_, meaning
“let us go, let us go.” This singular occurrence was interpreted by
Huitziton as a command from the gods for them to seek a new country,
and after persuading the chief Tecpatzin to his view, the divine oracle
was announced to the people. Accordingly, in the year 1064, according
to some authors,[410] or in 1090 according to others,[411] or a century
later than the first-named date according to some of the interpreters
of the Aztec migration maps, the Nahuatlaca tribes left their ancient
home and entered upon one of those strange and aimless journeys so
characteristic of semi-civilized and superstitious peoples. The Aztec
migration as given by several authorities is scarcely more satisfactory
than that of the Toltecs, nor can any additional light be thrown on
the route pursued until Sr. Orozco y Berra publishes the results of
his critical examination of the subject.[412] The unimportance of
the itinerary in the solution of any question is apparent, since it
contributes but little to our knowledge of the location of Aztlan.
Mr. Bancroft has greatly facilitated the comparison of the lists of
stations as given by different authors, in a note of great length
on pp. 322–4, thus presenting to the eye at a glance the diversity
of opinion which meets the reader of this subject. As an example,
we select two or three of the itineraries, simply to show the wide
range that opinion has taken on the subject. According to Veytia, the
tribes left Aztlan in I Tecpatl, 1064 A. D., and one hundred and four
years afterwards reached Chicomoztoc, where they dwelt nine years;
the subsequent stations and the duration of their sojourn in each as
follows: Cohuatlicamac three years, Matlahuacallan six, Apanco five,
Chimalco six, Pipiolcomic three, Tollan six, Cohuactepec (Coatepec)
three, Atlitlalacayan two, Atotonilco one, Tepexic five, Apasco three,
Tozonpanco seven, Tizayocan one, Ecatepec one, Tolpetlac three,
Chimalpan four, Cohuatitlan two, Huexachtitlan three, Tecpayocan three,
Tepeyacac (Guadalupe) three, Pantitlan two, and thence to Chapultepec,
arriving in 1298, after a journey of one hundred and eighty-five
years, reckoning an additional forty-nine years for their stay at
Michoachan.[413] According to Tezozomoc, the stations are as follows:
Aztlan, Culhuacan, Jalisco, Mechoacan, Malinalco (Lake Patzcuaro),
Ocopipilla, Acahualcingo, Coatepec (in Tonalan), Atlitlanquin, or
Atitalaquia, Tequisquiac, Atengo, Tzompan, Cuachilgo, Xaltocan, and
Lake Chnamitl, Eycoac, Ecatepc, Aculhuacan, Tultepetlac, Huixachtitlan,
Tecpayuca (in two Calli), Atepetlac, Coatlayauhcan, Tetepanco,
Acolnahuac, Popotla (Tacuba), Chapultepec in two Tochtli.[414]
Clavigero states that they left Aztlan in 1160, crossed the Colorado
River, stayed three years in Hucicolhuacan, went east to Chicomoztoc,
reached Tula in 1196, and finally Chapultepec in 1245.[415] Acosta,
Herrera and Duran state that Nahuatlaca tribes left Aztlan in 820 A.
D., and eighty years later reached Mexico; that the Aztecs, however,
did not start until 1122 A. D.[416] Duran identifies Aztlan with
Teo-Culhuacan, and locates it towards our Mississippi Valley. He
in common with other writers identifies Chicomostoc with the seven
caves.[417]
The Tarascos, though speaking a different language, are said to have
separated from the Nahuatlacas at Michoacan. They describe the route
to the seven caves as across a sea, which they passed in balsas and
the trunks of trees.[418] This statement may be of some value in
locating that disputed rendezvous of so many tribes; and certainly
is more important than a mass of groundless speculation. The next
source of interest in this connection is the much perverted and sadly
misunderstood migration map first published by Gemelli Carreri, in
Churchill’s collection of voyages (vol. iv). Humboldt has given an
interpretation which, with the exception of that part which connects it
with a deluge and Colhuacan, “the Ararat of the Mexicans,” is generally
received.[419]
Gemelli Carreri, Humboldt and many others were quite certain that
they could read in this map the account of the Mosaic deluge.[420] Don
José Fernando Ramirez, of the Mexican Museum, however, pointed out the
fact that the Gemelli Carreri map, copied from one owned by Sigüenza,
and published by Humboldt, Clavigero and Kingsborough, was in each
case incorrectly represented, and states that the copy contained in
the _Atlas_ of Garcia y Cubas is the first correct reproduction of the
original presented to the public.[421] Sr. Ramirez explains away the
illusion of the Mexican Ararat and deluge in a manner both simple and
conclusive.[422] The dove with commas proceeding from its beak, is not
talking, nor giving tongues, but is repeating the word _tihui_, “let
us go,” referring to the legend already cited, of the bird in Aztlan
incessantly uttering this word in the hearing of Huitziton the chief.
A little bird called _tihuitochan_ is still heard in Mexico, having
a note which is interpreted by the common people to mean the same as
their ancestors interpreted it in Aztlan. Sr. Ramirez is convinced that
the map referred to is only a record of the wanderings of the Aztecs
among the lakes of the Mexican Valley, and that it has no reference
whatever to any deluge, not even to one of the former traditional
destructions of the world found in the Nahua cosmogony. Mr. Bancroft
has added the valuable argument that the story of Cox-cox and the
deluge is only the product of false interpretation, or else some of
the earlier writers would have been acquainted with the legend. On
the contrary, Olmos, Sahagun, Motolinia, Mendieta, Ixtlilxochitl, and
Camergo are all silent with regard to it. The mountain and boat and
their several adjuncts are found to be nothing but hieroglyphics for
proper names.
Chalco Lake is, in the opinion of Señor Ramirez, the point of
departure for the fifteen chiefs at the end of their first cycle. His
interpretation of the Boturini map of the migration results in the same
conclusion. The fifteen chiefs left their island home, passing through
Coloacan (Colhuacan, according to Gondra’s interpretation) as their
second station. It appears that the first move and point of departure
are both unknown, and no satisfactory solution of the question has yet
been offered. The prevailing tradition that it is in the north has
been perplexing, since no material remains undoubtedly attributable
to the Aztecs are found north of the central plateau of Mexico, nor
indeed in the territories of the United States. If we adopt the general
theory that the Aztecs came from the Mississippi Valley, possibly the
original home of the Nahuas, occupied by the Olmecs prior to their
arrival at Panuco and their descent into the Chiapan region, and by
the Toltecs before their migration to Anahuac, we have a theory which
agrees with the testimony of Duran and Sahagun, and seems to find
support in the pyramidal mounds of the Lower Mississippi, which we
have already seen are almost as perfect in their plan and construction
as those found in Mexico, which do not furnish evidence of as great
antiquity as those of the Ohio and Missouri Valleys. According to most
accounts, a considerable period elapses between their departure and
their arrival at Chicomoztoc—the seven caves. According to Veytia it
was 104 years, but Brasseur adopts twenty-six years, which is also
the opinion of the majority of writers. Chicomoztoc has some features
which remind us of the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés—their seven caves,
from which so many tribes derived their origin. Chicomoztoc is the
point at which the six Nahuatlaca tribes separated from the Aztecs, and
thence proceeded to the Mexican lake region. It is quite probable that
a considerable distance may have been traversed in this interval of
twenty-six years, a distance which could have brought the Aztecs from
a comparatively northern latitude to the Chiapan region. Opposed to
this, however, is the fact that the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés was in a
cold, inhospitable region, no doubt at the North. Mr. Bancroft suggests
that the first part of the migration tradition may refer vaguely
back to the events which followed the Toltecs’ destruction.[423] We
have already referred to the tendency to confusion in histories that
are chiefly traditional. In opposition to the view that Aztlan and
Chicomoztoc were remote from each of these, we have the statement of
Duran[424] that these caves are in Teo-Culhuacan, otherwise called
Aztlan, which implies that both Teo-Culhuacan and Chicomoztoc were
points in the region of Aztlan. Every year it was the custom of the
Aztecs, while in Aztlan, to cross a river or channel to Teo-Culhuacan
in order to sacrifice to their god Tetzauh, and after their arrival
at Chicomoztoc they continued the occupation of boatmen, which they
had followed while in Aztlan.[425] By way of summary, then, we may
venture the following: 1. Viewed from the standpoint of Sr. Ramirez,
Aztlan may be located somewhere not far distant from Chalco Lake. The
islands which it encircles may correspond to the description of the
ancient home of the Aztecs, given by Duran as quoted on page 257 and
described as Culhuacan. Teo-Culhuacan, where the Aztecs sacrificed
yearly, may be the city of Culhuacan situated in that neighborhood. As
additional testimony we have the fact that most of the stations named
in the migrations can be located in the Central Mexican region. The
report that they came from the north may refer only to the scattering
of the Nahua or Toltec people from Tollan, just north of the valley.
2. The statements of all the writers that the Aztecs came from the
north, the fact that Duran and Sahagun assign the primitive Nahua home
to the region of Florida, and the prevalence of mounds and shell-heaps
in great numbers in the Gulf States, together with the extension of
those mounds through Texas into Mexico, may warrant the opinion that
Aztlan was in the Mississippi Valley, or, looking in another direction,
the rock or cave dwellings recently discovered in Southern Utah and
the Rocky Mountain region (of which we shall give a description in
the next chapter) may indicate the locality of the ancient and
much-sought-for land. The identity in meaning of Chicomoztoc (seven
caves) and Tulan Zuiva (seven caves) together with the fact that both
places in Quiché and Nahua history were the point of separation for
many tribes, is a singular coincidence, if they are not one and the
same. In the preceding chapter we have seen that Tulan Zuiva of the
Quichés was in a northern or at least a colder climate, where they
suffered greatly for want of fire, a fact of no little significance. On
the other hand Teo-Culhuacan, the place of yearly sacrifice, may have
been a city of the Chiapan region, since Sahagun located Tamoanchan the
first city of the Nahuas (Olmec) after their arrival from Florida in
Mexico, somewhere in the Usumacinta Valley. It is possible that a large
number of the immigrants remained behind the company which migrated
northward to Teotihuacan and thence to the seven caves, subsequently
uniting with the Toltecs at Tollan. This view has had quite a number
of advocates.[426] We will not undertake, in the present state of
knowledge on the subject, to decide which of these three claims is the
true one, if either one of them is correct. Our only wish is to furnish
the reader a margin for his choice. It seems to us that it would be
unscientific to attempt to decide a question based upon such slender
and contradictory data.
It is unnecessary for us to follow the Aztecs farther in their
history. The magnificent empire of the Montezumas, with its advanced
civilization, but at the same time cursed with its horrid worship, in
which thousands of human victims bathed the altars of Mexico yearly
with their life-blood, has been described and its glory handed down to
history by that most graceful and romantic of American writers, William
H. Prescott. We cannot, however, dismiss this the most primitive period
of the growth of the Nahua nations without a reference to the reputed
author of the higher phases of their civilization. We refer to that
semi-mythical and semi-divine personage, Quetzalcoatl. The numerous
legends concerning this culture-hero, scattered chronologically over
hundreds of years of Nahua history, may have originated in the life and
character of some noted personage—the leader and civilizer of the most
ancient branches of the Nahua family, or in the personification of an
ideal deity, a nature-god whose chief attribute, whose distinguishing
office, was the fertilization of the earth, the revivification of the
slumbering forces in nature and consequently the author of prosperity,
agriculture, and the arts of peace. In either case the name of the
original Quetzalcoatl, were he either man or deity, was eventually
inherited by a line of individuals who became the priests of his
worship, or the representatives of his teachings, and the inculcators
of the most humane and noble principles which entered into the ancient
civilization. Without entering into a lengthy discussion of the
probabilities in the case, we give the substance of the traditions,
arranged in what appears to us not only the most consistent, but also
the proper order. We have already acquainted the reader with the
meaning of Quetzalcoatl, namely, “plumed serpent.”
From the distant East, from the fabulous Hue hue Tlapalan, this
mysterious personage came to Tulla, and became the patron god and
high-priest of the ancestors of the Toltecs.[427] He is described
as having been a white man, with a strong formation of body, broad
forehead, large eyes, and flowing beard. He wore a mitre on his head,
and was dressed in a long, white robe, reaching to his feet, and
covered with red crosses. In his hand he held a sickle. His habits were
ascetic; he never married, was most chaste and pure in his life, and
is said to have endured penance in a neighboring mountain, not for its
effects upon himself, but as an example to others. Some have here found
a parallel for Christ’s temptation. He condemned sacrifices, except
of fruits and flowers, and was known as the god of peace; for when
addressed on the subject of war, he is reported to have stopped his
ears with his fingers.[428]
Quetzalcoatl was skilled in many arts, having invented gem-cutting
and metal-casting. He furthermore originated letters and invented the
Mexican calendar. The legend which describes the latter states that the
gods, having made men, thought it advisable that their creatures should
have some means of reckoning time, and of regulating the order of
religious ceremonies. Therefore two of these celestial personages, one
of them a goddess, called Quetzalcoatl to counsel with them, and the
three contrived a system which they recorded on tables, each bearing
a single sign. That sign, however, was accompanied with all necessary
explanations of its meaning. It is noticeable that the goddess was
assigned the privilege of writing the first sign, and that she chose a
serpent as her favorite symbol.
Some accounts represent that Huemac was the temporal king, or at least
associated with Quetzalcoatl in the government; the latter occupying
the priestly as well as the kingly office. Sahagun calls the associate
ruler Vemac. At all events, Quetzalcoatl had an enemy, the deity
Tezcatlipoca, whose worship was quite opposite in its character to
that of Quetzalcoatl, being sanguine and celebrated with horrid human
sacrifices. A struggle ensued in Tulla (Tollan) between the opposing
systems which resulted favorably to the bloody deity and the faction
who sought to establish his worship in preference to the peaceful and
ascetic service of Quetzalcoatl.
Tezcatlipoca, envious of the magnificence enjoyed by Quetzalcoatl,
determined upon his destruction. His first appearance at Tulla was in
the _rôle_ of a great ball-player, and Quetzalcoatl, being very fond
of the game, engaged in play with him, when suddenly he transformed
himself into a tiger, occasioning a panic among the spectators, in
which great numbers were crowded over a precipice into a river, where
they perished. Again the vicious god appeared at Tulla. This time he
presented himself at the door of Quetzalcoatl’s palace in the guise of
an old man, and asked permission of the servants to see their master.
They attempted to drive him away, saying that their god was ill. At
last, because of his importunities, they obtained leave to admit him.
Tezcatlipoca entered, and seeing the sick deity, asked about his
health, and announced that he had brought him a medicine which would
ease his body, compose his mind, and prepare him for the journey which
Fate had decreed that he must undertake.[429] Quetzalcoatl received the
sorcerer kindly, inquiring anxiously as to the journey and the land of
his destiny. His deceiver told him that the name of the land was Tullan
Tlapalan, where his youth would be renewed, and that he must visit it
without delay. The sick king was moved greatly by the words of the
sorcerer, and was prevailed upon to taste the intoxicating medicine
which he pressed to his lips. At once he felt his malady healed, and
the desire to depart fixed itself in his mind.
“Drink again!” exclaimed the old sorcerer; and again the god-king
pressed the cup to his lips, and drank till the thought of departure
became indelible, chained his reason, and speedily drove him a wanderer
from his palace and kingdom.
Upon leaving Tulla, driven from his kingdom by the vicious enmity
of Tezcatlipoca, he ordered his palaces of gold, and silver, and
turquoise, and precious stones, to be set on fire. The myriads of
rich-plumed songsters that made the air of the capital melodious with
song accompanied him on his journey, pipers playing on pipes preceded
him, and the flowers by the way are said to have given forth unusual
volumes of perfume at his approach.
After journeying one hundred leagues southward, he rested, near a city
of Anahuac, under a great tree, and as a memorial of the event, he cast
stones at the tree, lodging them in its trunk.[430]
He then proceeded still farther southward in the same valley, until he
came to a mountain, two leagues distant from the city of Mexico. Here
he pressed his hands upon a rock on which he rested, and left their
prints imbedded in it, where they remained visible down to a very
recent date. He then turned eastward to Cholula, where he was received
with greatest reverence.[431] The great pyramid was erected to his
honor. With his advent the spirit of peace settled down upon the city.
War was not known during his sojourn within it. The reign of Saturn
repeated itself. The enemies of the Cholulans came with perfect safety
to his temple, and many wealthy princes of other countries erected
temples to his honor in the city of his choice.[432]
Here the silversmith, the sculptor, the artist, and the architect, we
are led to believe, from the testimony of both tradition and remains,
flourished under the patronage of the grand god-king.
However, after twenty years had elapsed, that subtile, feverish draught
received from the hand of Tezcatlipoca away back in Tulla, like an old
poison in the veins, renewed its power. Again his people, his palaces,
and his pyramidal temple were forsaken, that he might start on his
long and final journey.[433] He told his priests that the mysterious
Tlapalla was his destination, and turning toward the East, proceeded
on his way until he reached the sea at a point a few miles south of
Vera Cruz. Here he bestowed his blessing upon four young men, who
accompanied him from Cholula, and commanded them to go back to their
homes, bearing the promise to his people that he would return to them,
and again set up his kingdom among them. Then, embarking in a canoe
made of serpent-skins, he sailed away into the East.[434]
The Cholulans, out of respect to Quetzalcoatl, placed the government in
the hands of the recipients of his blessing. His statue was placed in
a sanctuary on the pyramid, but in a reclining position, representing
a state of repose, with the understanding that it shall be placed upon
its feet when the god returns. When Cortés landed, they believed their
hopes realized, sacrificed a man to him, and sprinkled the blood of the
unhappy victim upon the conqueror and his companions.[435]
Father Sahagun, when on his journey to Mexico, was everywhere asked
if he had not come from Tlapalla.[436] No wonder when the fleet of
Cortés hove in sight on the horizon, almost in the same place where
Quetzalcoatl’s bark had disappeared, that the Mexican, who had been
waiting centuries for the prince of peace to return, believed his
waiting to be at an end. No wonder that he inquired of the distant and
mysterious Tlapalla. In this state of expectancy we find a most natural
and fruitful soil for the operations of the Spanish conquerors.
Such is the form into which the mass of legends concerning
Quetzalcoatl have been woven. There is scarcely a doubt, however, that
it is a matter of growth—is the accumulation of several centuries.
The name Quetzalcoatl (Nahua), Gucumatz (Quiché) and Cukulcan (Maya),
translated “feathered” or “plumed” or “winged” serpent, may originally
have been applied to an intelligent princely foreigner who was cast
upon the shores of the Central American region, and who introduced the
art of casting metals, and especially taught agriculture. His doctrines
of peace and virtue may have been sufficiently wide-spread to have
brought about the prosperity which is ascribed to his age. From this
standpoint we would consider him at first to have cast his lot among
the descendants of Votan, otherwise known as the “Serpents,” from which
occurrence he may have received his name of “Feathered Serpent.” On
pages 241–42 we referred to the statements of the Codex Chimalpopoca,
that Quetzalcoatl, becoming obnoxious to his companions, who seem to
be Quichés, forsook them. The account also states that he afterwards
brought maize to Tamoanchan (the city of the Nahuas). Our next account
of him describes him as figuring among the Olmecs at Cholula. This
realistic view of the tradition applies to the first Quetzalcoatl,
who may have been an actual man. While entertaining this view, we
must not forget that centuries prior to this period (which we may as
well assign to the first or second century as to any other date), the
Quichés possessed the ideal of such a personage whom they considered
a deity, who figures so actively in their cosmogony under the name of
Gucumatz. This deity was the vivifying force in nature, the bringer of
the gentle south winds, the god of the harvest and of the air. He was
best symbolized to the mind of the savage by the vernal shower and the
return of spring.
The serpent was everywhere considered an emblem of the vernal shower,
and was thought to be in some way instrumental in bringing it, together
with its refreshing and fructifying influences. So here, in the name of
Quetzalcoatl, we find a progressive step indicated in the workings of
the mind, an advance from the lower figure of the serpent alone to that
of an aërial combination, which, while it contained all the virtues of
the serpent, is lifted to a higher element—that from which the shower
falls. The feathery vapor-clouds of summer are but the plumes or wings
of the shower which the serpent symbolized.
At last when a teacher of agriculture and the mechanic arts, so
conducive of prosperity and plenty, appeared—an individual who
discovers maize and directs the process of its reproduction and guards
an improvident people against want and famine, the attributes of the
god are recognized as dwelling in him, the ideal vaguely represented
by the vernal shower is concreted, is become incarnate, is presented
in a shape more comprehensible to the untaught mind, and at once the
name, reverence and worship of the god are attached to the man, the
culture-hero. This we believe to be the simplest interpretation of the
origin of the worship of Quetzalcoatl. A priesthood appears to have
been founded who perpetuated the doctrines of this deified man. That
part of the legend which relates to Tulla (Tollan) with the expulsion
of the king and that which followed, properly belongs to Ceacatl,
surnamed Quetzalcoatl, Toltec king of Tollan, who ascended the throne
about 873.[437] The father of this monarch had been cruelly murdered,
and in his early boyhood Ceacatl is said to have wreaked a terrible
vengeance on the murderer of his father, after which he concealed
himself for about twenty years. At about the above-named date he
reappeared, and established his claims to the throne. He espoused the
religion of Quetzalcoatl, and the peace which followed brought great
prosperity. Human sacrifices were forbidden, and a golden age seemed
to dawn in which Tollan exceeded all the cities of the Mexican valley
in importance and wealth. But a rivalry at once sprang up between the
priests of the bloody god Tezcatlipoca, worshipped in Culhuacan and at
Teotihuacan, and those of the peaceful and humane Quetzalcoatl, which
resulted in the voluntary departure of the Pontiff king, to whom the
name of his god was attached. The contest between the two sects is
symbolized in the legend by the tricks of Tezcatlipoca. Quetzalcoatl
was received at Cholula, where he remained some years, but was at last
driven away before the leader of the Tezcatlipoca faction, namely,
King Huemac, who advanced upon the peaceful king with a strong army.
Quetzalcoatl again voluntarily withdrew, rather than occasion the
bloodshed of his subjects. It is probable that he ultimately reached
Yucatan and figured there in his old character under the name of
Cukulcan.[438]
CHAPTER VII.
THE ANCIENT PUEBLOS AND CLIFF-DWELLERS.
Casas Grandes of Chihuahua — Ruins in the Casas Grandes and
Janos Valleys — Casa Grande of the Rio Gila — Ruins in the
Gila Valley — Also in the Valley of the Rio Salado — Ruins
in the Cañon of the Colorado — In the Valley of the Colorado
Chiquito — Pueblos of the Zuñi River — Zuñi and the “Seven
Cities of Cibola” — “El Moro” — Pueblos of the Chaco Valley
— Cliff-Dwellers — Mr. Jackson’s Discoveries in the Valley
of the Rio San Juan — Cliff Houses of the Rio Mancos —
Cliff-Dwellings on the McElmo — Traditional Origin and Fate
of the Cliff-Dwellers — Ancestors of the Moquis — Remarkable
Discoveries by Mr. Holmes — The Seven Moqui Towns — The
Montezuma Legend.
In the State of Chihuahua, Mexico, and in our Territories of Arizona,
New Mexico, Utah and the State of Colorado, a class of remains are
found, wholly unlike those of the Mayas, Nahuas, or Mound-builders,
though in some instances they are associated with earthworks resembling
those of the latter race. The style of architecture is unlike that of
any other people on either continent, and though varying considerably
in its individual examples, still present certain marked and general
features which leave little room for doubt that the peoples of the
Pueblos and the Cliffs were the same. The earliest discovered of
this class of remains are known as the Casas Grandes, situated at
about half a mile from the modern town of the same name, in the
fertile valley of the Casas Grandes or San Migual River in Northern
Chihuahua. These ruins have often been described second-hand and their
nature is well-known to persons interested in this field of inquiry.
Of the above-named class of descriptions, the latest and best is
by Mr. Bancroft, who has added a bibliographical apparatus to his
account.[439] We will, therefore, confine our discussion of this group
of remains to the essential facts as given by Mr. J. R. Bartlett, whose
account of his researches is quite full and satisfactory.[440] These
facts we will give as briefly as possible, preferring to devote our
space to the new material composing the latter part of the chapter.
Several of the early writers refer to the Casas Grandes as one of the
Aztec stations; but a little intelligent study of the characteristics
of the ruins, especially in the light of recent explorations in
the Territories, is likely to dissipate such an opinion. The first
examination of the ruins of which any reliable record is left, was by
Sr. Escudero, in 1819, published in his _Noticias Estadísticas del
Estado de Chihuahua_. A contributor to the _Album Mexicano_ (tom. i,
pp. 374–5) furnished a good account of the ruins as he found them in
1842. None of the hasty sketches subsequently made by several writers
are worth a reference until we come to the excellent description
written by Mr. Bartlett in 1851, while acting as United States
Commissioner, in fixing the United States and Mexican boundary line.
The Casas Grandes, according to Mr. Bartlett, are built of adobe or
mud, in large quadrangular blocks measuring about twenty-two inches
in thickness by three feet or more in length. The irregularity of the
length of the blocks, however, seemed to indicate that they had been
formed on the wall, _in situ_, by means of a box open at the ends,
which, when the block dried, was moved along to mould a fresh block.
The mud is filled with coarse gravel from the plateau, which gives
greater hardness to the material. The Casas face the cardinal points
and consist of erect and fallen walls, ranging from five to thirty
feet in height. The accumulation of rubbish is, however, considerable,
and if the highest standing walls rest upon a common level with the
lowest, they will measure from forty to fifty feet in height. The
edifice was discovered in ruins by the conquerors, and could not have
been occupied for a century, at the least calculation, prior to its
discovery. It is, therefore, reasonable to presume that all the walls
now standing were originally much higher than at present. It appears
that the outer portions of the edifices were the lowest, and not more
than one story in height, while the central ones were from three to
six stories. The central or inner walls are better preserved, partly
by their greater thickness—five feet at the base—and partly by the
heaps of ruined walls which have fallen around them. Once prostrate,
the blocks absorb the water, and in a few years are reduced to a mass
of mud and gravel. It was with difficulty that Mr. Bartlett traced all
the outlines of the buildings; but close examination revealed the fact
that three lofty edifices were connected into one by means of a low
range of buildings, one storey high, which may have merely inclosed
intervening courts. The total length of this continuous edifice was
at least 800 feet by 250 feet wide. A regular and continuous wall was
observed on the south side, while the eastern and western fronts, with
their projecting walls, were very irregular. The question of the exact
number of stories is not capable of solution, as no vestige of timbers
or wood now remains. The explorer could not even detect a trace of
any cavities where the floor-timbers had been inserted in the walls,
so decayed and washed was their condition. Many doorways remained,
but the lintels having decayed, the tops had fallen in. Clavigero
states that the edifice had “three floors with a terrace above them
and without any entrance to the under floor, so that a scaling ladder
is necessary.” García Condé confirms this statement as to the three
stories besides a roof,[441] while both authors consider this to have
been a station on the Aztec migration. Certainly, no architectural
analogies with the remains farther south justify this opinion. Mr.
Bartlett was unable to obtain but a partial plan of the Casas Grandes.
One class of apartments, however, attracted his especial attention,
from the fact that they were evidently designed for granaries. They
were arranged along one of the main walls, and measured twenty feet in
length by ten in breadth. They were connected by doorways “with a small
inclosure or pen in one corner, three or four feet high.” Numerous long
and narrow apartments, too contracted for sleeping or dwelling-rooms,
lighted by circular apertures in the upper walls, are supposed to have
been devoted to the same use. Large inclosures, too extensive in their
dimensions ever to have been roofed, evidently were used as courts.
Two hundred feet west of the Casas, on the plateau, are the remains of
a building about 150 feet square, divided into compartments, as shown
in the accompanying plan: Between this edifice and the main building,
are three mounds of loose stones about fifteen feet high, which the
explorers did not have time to open. For a distance of twenty leagues
and covering an area of ten leagues wide along the Casas Grandes and
Janos Rivers, according to García Condé, are ruins resembling small
mounds, from which jars, pottery in various forms, painted with white,
blue and scarlet colors, corn-grinders (metates), and stone-axes have
been taken. If this region was ever occupied by the Aztecs, even
temporarily, this latter class of remains might more properly be
attributed to them, than the Casas Grandes. Innumerable fragments of
pottery, superior to that now manufactured by the Mexicans, are strewn
everywhere in the neighborhood of the Casas Grandes. The decoration is
in black, red or brown, on a white or reddish ground. Several graceful
and highly artistic vases have been collected about the ruins, and
stone metates, nicely hewn, have been recovered in perfect condition.
On the summit of the highest mountain, ten miles south-west of the
ruins, stands an ancient fortress of stone, the walls of which are said
by the writer in the _Album Mexicano_ to have been from eighteen to
twenty feet thick. The fort, which is attributed to the occupants of
the Casas Grandes, was two or three stories, and in the centre had a
high mound for the purposes of observation. Clavigero, who describes
the fort and all of the ruins from hearsay, falls into the error of
supposing the Casas to have also been constructed of stone. A short
distance from the point where the 111° (meridian) of longitude crosses
the Gila River, in Southern Arizona, in the valley occupied farther
westward by the Pima villages, stands the most famous ruin of all
the Western remains. The Casa Grande, otherwise named the Casa de
Montezuma, has attracted the attention of and furnished a fruitful
subject for most writers on Mexican antiquity, the majority of whom,
however, have contributed nothing to our knowledge of the history or
uses of the edifice. Of describers at second-hand, Mr. Bancroft has
cited thirty-four authors, according to our reckoning, and to this
number the reader must add that author’s account and ours. This fact
is an admonition to us to confine ourselves to the briefest possible
statement of facts, for certainly the thirty-sixth repetition of
the accounts furnished by two or three original explorers would be
altogether inexcusable, were it not for the inseparable relation of the
Gila Casas to the remains to be described farther on. Mr. Bancroft has
treated the bibliography of the subject in his usually comprehensive
manner,[442] and it only remains for us to refer the reader to the
original descriptions. The first of these was written by Padre Mange,
the secretary of Padre Kino, on the latter’s tour of visitation to
the missions of the region in 1697.[443] Lieutenant C. M. Bernal, of
the same expedition, adds also a description.[444] Padre Sedelmair,
who visited the ruin in 1744, copies literally Mange’s description
in his account of the Casas.[445] Father Font, who, in company with
Father Garcés, made an expedition conducted by Captain Anza to the
Gila and the missions farther north, left a diary—now preserved in
the original, in the archives at Guadalajara—from which Mr. Bartlett
translated and published an extensive description of the Casas.[446]
Of later writers, only four wrote from personal observation, namely,
Emory[447] and Johnston,[448] of General Kearney’s Military Expedition
to California in 1846; Bartlett[449] in 1852, and Ross Browne in
1863.[450] These are the only original sources of information on the
Casa Grande of the Gila, of which Bartlett’s account may be said to
be the best. However, Bancroft has contributed much to facilitate the
study of the subject by his addition of a full literary apparatus.
[Illustration: Part of Ground Plan of Casas Grandes Chihuahua.]
[Illustration: Ground Plan of One of the Casas Grandes at Chihuahua.]
From all of these we draw the facts without further citation. Two and
a half miles south of the Gila, on a slightly elevated plateau, stands
the remains of the Casa Grande surrounded with a growth of mesquite
trees. The ascent from the river bottom is so slight and gradual that
its former inhabitants had constructed acequias between the river and
the buildings. Mr. Bartlett found three edifices within a space of
one hundred and fifty yards. The larger one only was in a fair state
of preservation. Its four outer walls and most of the inner ones were
standing. Three storeys were plainly marked by the ends of the beams
remaining in the walls or by the cavities which they once occupied. No
doubt the building was one story, at least, higher than this indicated,
as the upper walls have crumbled away considerably and filled the first
story with disintegrated adobe and a mass of rubbish. The central
portion or tower furthermore rises eight or ten feet higher than the
outer walls, and may have formed another story above the main building.
At their base, the walls are between four or five feet in thickness,
rising perpendicular on the inside, but on the outside tapering towards
the top in a curved line.
[Illustration: Ground Plan.]
The material of the walls consists of blocks of adobe, prepared as in
the Casas Grandes of Chihuahua, in position on the walls, probably
in boxes two feet high and four feet long; after the mud had dried
sufficiently, the box was moved further along the walls and refilled.
Some difference of opinion has existed as to the color of the mud
employed, though all admit it to be that of the surrounding valley.
Mr. Bancroft gives some attention to this point, and observes that
Bernal pronounced it “white clay,” and that according to Johnston it
is also white with an admixture of lime from the vicinity. Mr. Hutton,
a civil engineer who had thoroughly examined them, reported to Mr.
Simpson that the surrounding earth was of a reddish color, but the
admixture of pebbles with the mud gave the Casa a whitish appearance in
certain reflections. Mr. Bancroft seeks by this argument to identify
this building with Castañeda’s Chichilticale, which is described as
having been built of red earth.[451] The outer sides of the walls were
finished with a plaster similar to that which composed the blocks,
but the inner side was covered with hard finish of such fine quality
that when visited they still retained their polish after centuries of
exposure. It is estimated that the edifice must have stood a hundred
years at least prior to its discovery by the Spaniards. The inner walls
are slightly thinner than the outer ones, and divide the building
into five apartments, as shown in Mr. Bartlett’s ground plan. The
building measures fifty feet in length by forty in width. The three
central rooms indicated are each about eight by fourteen feet, while
those at each end of the edifice are ten by about thirty-two feet. The
doorways indicated in the plan are three feet wide by five feet high,
except that in the western façade, which is only two feet wide and
seven or eight feet high. The main part of the edifice was probably
thirty feet high, while the tower rose still ten feet higher. Padre
Kino found a floor in an adjoining ruin still perfect, the supporting
timbers of which were round and about five inches in diameter, while
the floor proper was formed by placing cross-sticks on the joist and
covering them with a layer of adobe. Mr. Browne observed the marks of
a blunt axe still plainly visible in the timbers of cedar or sabine
which had been thus employed, while their charred ends furnish the
only clue to the cause of the ruin of the edifice, a fact suggestive
of the ravages of the savage Apaches. No stairways or other means of
ascent were discovered, and it is inferred that ladders were employed
upon the outside as among the modern Pueblos. Near the main building,
to the south-west, Mr. Bartlett discovered another Casa in ruins,
and with difficulty traced its ground plan; while a third was so
completely decayed as to leave no certain outline of its form. To the
north-west about two hundred yards, was a circular embankment eighty
or one hundred yards in circumference, which Mr. Bartlett supposes to
have been used as a stock inclosure. A few yards farther north Mr.
Johnston observed a terrace, two hundred by three hundred feet and
five feet high, and having a summit platform seventy-two feet square,
from which an excellent view of the valley is afforded. This monument
is unlike any other found among the New Mexican remains. The entire
valley is strewn with heaps of rubbish and ruined adobe edifices, which
indicate that once the whole region was thickly populated by this
remarkable people. Mr. Bartlett found broken metates (corn-grinders),
and innumerable fragments of pottery painted tastefully with red,
white, lead color, and black. The figures were geometrical, and many
of the vessels had been decorated on the inside—a practice not in
vogue with the modern peoples of the Gila Valley. The finish was also
far superior to that of modern pottery. The Casa Grande, when last
observed by Mr. Browne, was fast going to pieces, the moisture having
undermined some parts of the outer walls, which were only kept erect by
their great thickness. In 1873, Mr. Bancroft learned that the edifice
was still standing, but it is evident that it must soon share the fate
of its fallen neighbors. It is certain that this Pueblo civilization
spread itself over a large tract of country north of the Gila Valley
in the basin of the Rio Salado or Salinas, the principal tributary of
the Gila. Numerous buildings similar to those previously described,
have been noticed by different writers on the Rio Salado and its
tributaries. The ruins of large edifices surrounded by smaller ones are
described by Sedelmair (discovered in 1744) as standing between the
Gila and Salado.[452]
[Illustration: Casa Grande of the Gila Valley.
(As sketched by Ross Browne in 1863.)]
Velarde has also cited the remains of similar structures at the
junction of Salado and Verde and of the Salado and Gila.[453] We cannot
refer to all of the remains reported in this region, especially
since most of them are indescribable and shapeless heaps of ruins.
One edifice, however, was observed by Mr. Bartlett, two hundred feet
in length by sixty or eighty feet in width; and from the accumulation
of debris, it is estimated that the edifice must have been three or
four stories in height. This was but one of several similar heaps
of ruins observed in the immediate vicinity. This locality, distant
thirty-five miles from the river’s mouth, was evidently at one time
the site of a populous city. The remains of numerous works, probably
of a public character, such as irrigating canals—one of which is now
more than twenty feet wide and four feet deep and several miles long,
in the construction of which it was necessary to cut down the bank
of the plateau—occur in considerable numbers. The whole region is
strewn with fragments of broken pottery of fine workmanship.[454] M.
Leroux, in 1854, discovered on the Rio Verde ruins of stone houses and
regular fortifications which did not appear to have been occupied for
centuries. The walls were of solid masonry of rectangular form, usually
from twenty to thirty paces in length, and the style of architecture
similar to that of the Casa Grande of the Gila. Still there was
sufficient resemblance to the Pueblos of the Moquis to indicate a
transition from the southern to the northern style of Pueblo dwelling.
The sudden change in the material employed—that from adobe to stone in
large blocks, well hewn—is rather remarkable. The ruins are found with
more or less continuity between Fort McDowell and Prescott.[455] Mr.
Bancroft, after citing the above, expresses regret at his inability
to secure information in the possession of officers in the Arizona
service.[456]
Lieutenant Whipple describes extensive ruins on the small streams
forming the head-waters of the Rio Verde. Both stone and adobe
structures were numerous, and the walls usually were found to be about
five feet thick.[457] Emory has described some Pueblo buildings
of singular structure on the upper Gila and its tributaries; most
interesting of these is one with a labyrinthine plan of inner circular
walls. The region also abounds in rock inscriptions of a rude though no
doubt conventional character.[458] It is quite natural to suppose that
remains of this ancient people would have been found extensively on
the greatest river of the region—the Colorado. Mr. Bancroft passes the
subject with the statement that “no relics of antiquity are reported by
reliable authorities,” and fitly explains that it is unlikely, in view
of the peculiarity of the region, that none will ever be found in the
immediate vicinity of the river.[459] Whipple and his associates state
that “upon the lower part of the Rio Colorado no traces of permanent
dwellings have been discovered.”[460]
Since the publication of Mr. Bancroft’s fourth volume, the public
has been made acquainted with the details of Major J. W. Powell’s
exploration of the Grand Cañon of the Colorado.[461] The descent of the
river was accomplished by the Major and his companions in the summer
of 1869, amid dangers so appalling and privations so distressing,
that we need not hesitate in pronouncing it an exhibition of heroism
having few parallels in the history of exploration. The Major has since
repeated his perilous journey of which we have enjoyed the pleasure
of a verbal description in part from the explorer himself. Groups
of ruins were discovered in the gloomy depths of the Grand Cañon at
three different points. In referring to them we will reverse the order
in which they were discovered. A hundred or more miles (for we are
unable to estimate the distance from the account) above the Virgen
River, where the granite walls rise perpendicularly from the water’s
edge thousands of feet, the cañon widened somewhat and a considerable
group of ruined buildings were discovered on a terrace of trap. There
had evidently been quite a village in that solitary spot, shut in
by hundreds of miles of granite walls either up or down the river’s
course. Mealing stones and fragments of broken pottery were scattered
about the ruins, and so many beautiful flint chips that the discoverers
conjectured that it might have been the home of an ancient arrow-maker.
Major Powell found on a natural shelf in the rock, back of the ruin,
a globular basket, badly broken, and so decayed that when taken up it
fell to pieces.[462] Some distance farther up the river, the grim walls
of more than a mile in height parted to admit the clear waters of a
stream named by the explorers “Bright Angel River.” In a little gulch
above the creek the foundations of two or three Pueblo houses were
discovered. They were built of irregular cut stones, laid in mortar.
An old, deeply-worn mealing stone and a great quantity of pottery were
found, and old trails were observed worn into the rock.[463]
It cannot fail, however, to excite the wonder of the reader to learn
that Major Powell found ruined pueblos hundreds of miles farther up
that dismal, almost subterranean river. Not far below the foot of the
Cataract Cañon, and a considerable distance above Escalante River, in
Southern Utah, the explorers discovered on a wall two hundred feet
above the river, but removed from the water by a narrow plain, an old
stone house of good masonry. The stones were laid in mortar with much
regularity. It had been a three-story building, the first of which
still remained in good condition, the second being much broken, and
but little being left of the third. Flint chips, beautiful arrow-heads
and broken pottery abounded in the vicinity. The faces of the cliffs
were also covered with etchings. Fifteen miles farther down the river
another group was discovered, the principal building of which was in
the shape of an L, with five rooms on the ground floor; one in the
angle and two in each wing. In the centre of the angle there was a deep
excavation, doubtless an underground chamber for religious services,
known as an Estufa. Major Powell considers these remains the work of a
branch of the people now occupying the province of Tusayan in northern
Arizona. These Moqui peoples will be noticed farther on. In the
neighborhood of the last-named ruin, the Major found a tall, pyramidal
work of nature, formed by smooth rock-mounds, rising one above another.
On climbing this he observed that this natural eminence had been used
as an outlook by the people of the Pueblo. A stairway cut in the rock
by human hands and an old ladder resting against a perpendicular rock
were discovered.[464]
The Colorado Chiquito and its tributaries flows through the very heart
of the Pueblo country. One hundred miles above its junction with the
Rio Colorado, Whipple, Sitgreaves and others, found numerous ruins,
crowning nearly every prominent point in the valley. The pottery of
the region is unlike that usually met with, in that it is ornamented
with impressions and raised work, instead of being painted.[465] Forty
miles farther up the river colossal ruins were discovered standing on
the summit of a sandstone bluff. The walls, such as remained standing,
were ten feet thick, while the building measured 360 feet in length by
120 in width.[466] With the exception of the remains of stone-houses,
at the junction of the Rio Puerco with the Colorado Chiquito, the
only aboriginal remains reported are pottery, scattered arrow-heads
and numerous rock inscriptions. The next tributary of the Colorado
Chiquito—the Zuñi River—is celebrated because of its ancient and modern
Pueblo structures. For fifty miles from the mouth of the Zuñi, the
antiquarian who could, might read the history of this ancient people,
spread out upon the imperishable cliffs—the parchment of Nature’s
children. Within eight miles of the inhabited Pueblo towns, numerous
ruins are encountered.[467] Here, within a few miles, the almost
mythical “seven cities of Cibola,” described by Coronado in 1540, and
by Marco de Niça the year previous, are demonstrated to have been
situated.[468] Zuñi itself is the Granada of the devoted and romantic
conquerors. In the centre of a plain upon a commanding eminence, stands
the inhabited Pueblo of Zuñi. Its frontage is upon the river of the
same name, while but a short distance in the background, the mesa
terminates in tall cliffs of metamorphic rock several hundred feet
high. The town is built in blocks, with terrace-shaped houses, usually
three stories high, in which the lower stories do service as the
platform for those immediately following them. Access is obtained by
means of ladders reaching to the roof or terrace, formed upon the first
story of each of the houses. The town is very compactly built, many
of the streets passing under the upper stories of houses. The whole
is divided into four squares, and the houses in each are continuously
joined together. The building material employed is stone, plastered
with mud.[469] A little more than two miles south-east of Zuñi, the
ancient ruined Pueblo of the same name is situated on an elevated
mesa of a mile in width, the precipitous descent from which, upon all
sides, measures a thousand feet. The ruins of old Zuñi are surrounded
with a growth of cedars, and cover several acres of ground. The walls,
constructed of small sandstone blocks laid in mud-mortar, are only
eighteen inches thick and are sadly dilapidated from age, only twelve
feet marking their highest point of present elevation. Still, there
is a deeper mystery about this antiquated ruin, for beneath the walls
now standing, others are found of a more ancient city, whose walls
were six feet thick, which perished either of age or by the hand of
the destroyer, before the present was begun. The ascent to the ruin
is a winding and difficult path, guarded with stone battlements at
different points. At a sacred spring near Zuñi, Whipple found vases
standing inverted upon an adobe wall. “Many of these were white,
well-proportioned, and of elegant forms. Upon their inner and outward
surfaces they were curiously painted to represent frogs, tadpoles,
tortoises, butterflies, and rattlesnakes.” The tufted snakes on one
of the vases are pronounced almost unique in America.[470] Twelve
miles above Zuñi, at Ojo del Pescado, four or five ruined towns are
found, but so badly decayed as to furnish little clue to their plan.
Two of them, however, are constructed elliptically around a spring,
and present a circumference of about 800 to 1000 feet. Two-thirds of a
mile down the river, ruined pueblos in a fair state of preservation,
with two stories standing, are described as covering an area of
150 by 200 yards. At the time of Möllhausen’s visit, the roofs and
fire-places were in quite good condition.[471] A square estufa, still
under roof, and numerous rock inscriptions, were observed. In this
instance we are furnished with abundant evidence that the destruction
of this people never was a wholesale one, but that gradually they are
succumbing to their unpropitious surroundings—a land which is fast
becoming a howling wilderness, with its scourging sands and roaming
savage Bedouin—the Apaches. One more locality in this region merits
attention. Eighteen miles south-east of the sources of the Zuñi River,
stands a sandstone rock three hundred feet high, which at a distance
resembles a Moorish fortress. The Spaniards named it El Moro. It is
also known as “Inscription Rock,” because of the Spanish and Indian
inscriptions which cover its smooth face. Simpson has copied some of
them, which is quite fortunate, since later explorers have found many
of them almost effaced. The ruins of two buildings are found on the
summit, which is reached by a difficult path. The large group is in
the form of a rectangle, measuring 307 by 206 feet. The walls, faced
with sandstone blocks, remain standing to the height of six and eight
feet. The other group is separated from the first by a deep ravine,
and is found upon the very brink of the outer precipice. A circular
estufa thirty-one feet in diameter was also noticed. Cedar timbers
were found in the walls, and broken pottery in abundance.[472] About
one hundred miles in a north north-easterly direction from Zuñi, in
longitude 108° and latitude 36°, the most remarkable of the pueblo
ruins are situated. These are on the north bank of the Chaco River,
a tributary of the Rio San Juan, a stream the affluents of which are
noted for a greater number of pueblo and cliff-dwellers’ ruins than
are found elsewhere. Lieutenant Simpson has described the ruins of the
Chaco, eleven in number, occurring within a distance of twenty-five
miles. The first of these met with in coming from the south is called
at present (we presume in the absence of the knowledge of the true
name) the Pueblo Pintado. The most remarkable feature of this great
structure is the beauty and precision of the masonry. The fine, hard
gray sandstone blocks are quite uniformly three inches in thickness and
are laid without mortar, always breaking joints. The crevices between
the ends of the blocks are filled with very thin pieces of stone, not
over a quarter of an inch thick. The walls of the pueblo now standing,
are at their greatest height, thirty feet, and furnish evidence from
the marks of the floor-timbers that the building was three stories. The
walls are between two and three feet thick at the base, though this is
diminished with each succeeding story by a jog of a few inches, upon
which the flooring timbers rest. These are from six to eleven inches in
diameter, always of uniform size in the same room. On these beams small
round sticks are laid transversely, and these in turn covered with thin
cedar strips, lying transversely of the round sticks. In some rooms the
chinks in the floor were filled with small stones and the whole covered
with a layer of mortar. One room, however, had a floor of smooth cedar
boards, seven inches wide and three-quarters of an inch thick. The
edges and ends were squarely cut, and their smooth surfaces indicate
that they were polished by being rubbed with flat stones. The size of
these ruins may be better understood when we state that five buildings
measured in circumference respectively 872, 700, 1700, 1300 and 1300
feet; while the number of rooms, still well-defined on the ground
floor of each, is 72, 99, 112, 124 and 139. Some of these buildings
undoubtedly had as high as a thousand rooms, while the smallest of them
probably contained half that number. The smallest apartments are five
feet square, while the largest are eight by fourteen feet. The ground
plan of the buildings of this valley have three tiers of rooms, while
one building, the Pueblo Bonito, has four tiers of apartments. The
usual form of the buildings corresponds to three sides of a rectangle,
with the fourth (one of the long sides of the figure) left unbuilt
(except that in some cases it was inclosed by a semicircular stone
wall), thus affording a partially enclosed court of large dimensions.
The exterior walls are in all cases perpendicular, thus differing from
the pueblos farther south. The terracing in the Chaco structures is
upon the inside (court side) of the buildings.
In some of the buildings, however, the angles of the quadrangle are
rounded, and in one instance—that of the Peñasca Blanco—the structure
is elliptical. From the nature of the plan of any of these buildings
it is evident that many of the apartments on the ground floor were
dark, and were probably used for granaries and store-rooms. There are
no doors whatever in the outer walls, and no windows except in the
upper stories. Windows and doors opening into the courts are, on the
contrary, numerous in all the stories but the first. The doors are
quite small, in many cases not exceeding two and a half feet square.
The lintels of the doors and windows are in most cases stone slabs, but
in some instances are small round timbers tied together with withes. A
remarkable feature of the construction is the presence of the Yucatan
arch formed of overlapping stones, illustrations of which may be seen
in our next chapter. Dr. Hammond, a companion of Lieutenant Simpson,
has minutely described a room of very perfect finish.[473] Each edifice
was provided with the sacred estufa, and some of the houses had as
many as seven, circular in form, excavated several feet deep in the
earth and enclosed with circular walls. One in the Pueblo Bonito was
of remarkable size, having been sixty feet in diameter, extending
twelve feet below the surface and rising two or three stories high.
Lieutenant Simpson found in close proximity to one of the ruins an
excavation in the cliff which had been enclosed with a front wall of
well-laid stone and mortar, thus associating one of the simplest of
the cave-dwellings to which we shall refer presently, with one of the
most extensive and perfect of the Pueblo buildings; a fact of no little
value in identifying the architects of both as one and the same.[474]
This introduces us to another class of ruins, which, with a couple of
exceptions, were not discovered prior to the summer of 1874. We refer
to the cliff-dwellings, the most remarkable habitations ever occupied
by man. The descriptions of them seem more suitable to form parts of
the most romantic works of fiction than of sober and scientific memoirs
from the pens of government explorers. One hundred miles westward from
the ruins of the Chaco lies the Chelly Valley or Cañon. The Chelly is
one of the tributaries of the Rio San Juan from the south, having its
source in the Navajo country. The Chelly Cañon is described as from
one hundred and fifty to nine hundred feet wide, with perpendicular
sides between three hundred and five hundred feet high. Simpson in 1849
found several caves built up in front with stone and mortar in a side
cañon. About four miles from its foot or mouth he observed on a shelf
fifty feet high, accessible only by ladders, a stone ruin, the plan of
which resembles that of the Chaco Valley pueblos, except that it was
constructed on a considerably smaller scale. Three miles further up the
cañon a double ruin of an extraordinary nature was discovered. At the
base of the cañon stood an ancient pueblo in ruins, but with parts of
the first and second stories still erect. Fifty feet in a perpendicular
line, above and immediately back of the first edifice, in a shelf, or
in the mouth of a cavern in the cañon’s walls, stood another building
constructed of sandstone and mortar, and measuring one hundred and
forty-five by forty-five feet, with walls eighteen feet high still
standing. Broken pottery was plentiful, as around all the ruins we have
described. The building was lighted by square windows and provided with
a circular estufa.[475]
The most surprising results in all the history of archæological
exploration in this country were obtained in September, 1874, by a
party connected with the United States Geological and Geographical
Survey Corps. This party was composed of only three persons, Mr. W.
H. Jackson and Mr. Ingersoll with their guide, Captain John Moss, a
resident of La Plata, who possessed both a knowledge of the country and
an acquaintance with the language of the Indians. In the south-western
corner of Colorado, the cañons of two of the tributaries of the San
Juan were examined, namely, the valleys of the Rivers Mancos and
McElmo.[476] The former stream rises among the western foothills of the
Sierra La Plata, and flows south-westerly through fertile valleys to
a great table-land known as the “Mesa Verde,” thence to the San Juan
near the crossing of the boundary lines of the four territories. In
the upper valley of the Mancos, between the mountains and the mesa,
groups of undistinguishable ruins were discovered in great numbers.
An examination of the shapeless heaps revealed foundations composed
of great square blocks of adobe. The great multitude of these heaps
of masonry overgrown with pines indicates a general and unsparing
destruction of the houses of the people who once inhabited the valley,
at the hands of their enemies. The cañon through the Mesa Verde is
quite uniformly two hundred yards wide, with perpendicular walls of
grayish cretaceous sandstone ranging from six hundred to one thousand
feet in height. Numbers of the mounds of ruined adobe were met with at
each advance into the cañon, and upon promontories jutting out towards
the stream, remains of stone walls were seen as high as fifty feet
from the river’s bed. Every step revealed great quantities of broken
pottery, and with this statement we will let the subject of these
fragmentary relics of the by-gone civilization rest for the present.
One of the first cliff houses discovered by the explorers is a most
interesting structure, the position of which, over six hundred feet
from the bottom of the cañon in a niche of the wall, furnishes a
significant commentary on the straits to which this sorely-pressed
people were driven by their enemies. Five hundred feet of the ascent
to this aërial dwelling was comparatively easy, but a hundred feet of
almost perpendicular wall confronted the party, up which they could
never have climbed but for the fact that they found a series of steps
cut in the face of the rock leading up to the ledge upon which the
house was built.
[Illustration: Cliff-House in the Cañon of the Mancos.]
This ledge was ten feet wide by twenty feet in length, with a a
vertical space between it and the overhanging rock of fifteen feet.
The house occupied only half this space, the remainder having been
used as an esplanade, and once was inclosed by a balustrade resting
on abutments, built partly upon the sloping face of the precipice
below. The house was but twelve feet high and two-storied. Though the
walls did not reach up to the rock above, it is uncertain whether it
ever had any other roof. The ground plan showed a front room of six
by nine feet in dimensions, in the rear of which were two smaller
rooms, each measuring five by seven feet. The left-hand room projected
along the cliff, beyond the front room, in the form of an L. The rock
of the cliff served as the rear wall of the house. The cedar beams
upon which the upper floor had rested had nearly all disappeared.
The door opening on the esplanade was but twenty by thirty inches in
size, while a window in the same story was but twelve inches square.
A window in the upper story, which commands an extended view down the
cañon, corresponded in dimensions and position with the door below.
The lintels of the window were small straight cedar sticks laid close
together, upon which the stones rested. Opposite this window was
another and smaller one, opening into a semicircular cistern, formed by
a wall inclosing the angle formed by the side wall of the house against
the rock, and holding about two and a half hogsheads. The bottom of the
reservoir was reached by descending on a series of cedar pegs about
one foot apart, and leading downward from the window. The workmanship
of the structure was of a superior order; the perpendiculars were
true ones and the angles carefully squared. The mortar used was of
a grayish white color, very compact and adhesive. Some little taste
was evinced by the occupants of this human swallow’s nest. The front
rooms were plastered smoothly with a thin layer of firm adobe cement,
colored a deep maroon, while a white band, eight inches wide, had been
painted around the room at both floor and ceiling. An examination of
the immediate vicinity revealed the ruins of half a dozen similar
dwellings in the ledges of the cliffs, some of them occupying positions
the inaccessibility of which must ever be a wonder, when considered as
places of residence for human beings. Half-way down the cañon, one of
Mr. Jackson’s party discovered a rather remarkable watch-tower, which,
because of the accumulations of débris, he was not able to accurately
measure, though approximate figures were given. Since his visit, the
tower has been thoroughly examined by Mr. W. H. Holmes, to whose work
in this field we will refer on a future page. Mr. Holmes’ measurements
and ground-plan are, therefore, substituted for those of Mr. Jackson.
The diameter of the outer wall is forty-three feet, that of the inner,
twenty-five feet. The outer wall is still standing to the height of
twelve feet at one point, and is in a fair state of preservation,
with a thickness of twenty-one inches, and has the stones dressed to
the curve. The ring-shaped space between the inner and outer wall is
estimated to have contained ten compartments, two of which at present
have complete walls. No door or window was observed in the outer wall,
and it is supposed that access was obtained by means of a ladder. Two
nearly rectangular openings were found connecting the outer apartments
with the central part of the tower, which no doubt was used as an
estufa.[477] Mr. Jackson, after leaving the tower which Mr. Holmes has
so fully described (of which the above is but a condensed account), saw
similar towers on a somewhat smaller scale. His next discovery in the
face of the vertical rock, which here ran up from the bottom of the
cañon and at a height of from fifty to one hundred feet, were a number
of nest-like habitations, one of which is figured in the cut.
[Illustration: Ground Plan of Tower in the Mancos Cañon.]
[Illustration: Cliff-dwelling of the Mancos Cañon.]
The cliff-house in this case was reached by its occupants from the
top of the cañon. The walls are pronounced as firm as the rock upon
which they were built. The stones were very regular in size, and the
chinking-in of small chips of stone rendered the surface of the wall
remarkably smooth and well finished. The dwelling measured fifteen
feet in length, five feet in width, and six feet in height. A short
distance below this little dwelling, five or six cave-like crevices
were found walled up in front with very perfect walls, rendered smooth
by chinking. Three miles farther down the cañon, the party discovered
at heights ranging from six hundred and eight hundred feet above their
heads, some curious and unique little dwellings sandwiched in among
the crevices of the horizontal strata of the rock of which the bluff
was composed. Access to the summit of the bluff, a thousand feet
high, was obtained by a circuitous path through a side cañon, and the
houses themselves could only be reached at the utmost peril—of being
precipitated to the bottom of the dizzy abyss—by crawling along a
ledge twenty inches wide and only high enough for a man in a creeping
position. This led to the wider shelf on which the houses rested. The
perfection of the finish was especially noticeable in one of these
houses, which was but fifteen feet long and seven feet high, with a
side wall running back in a semicircular sweep. In every instance the
party found the elevated cliff-houses situated on the western side of
the cañon with their outlook toward the east, while the buildings at
the bottom of the cañon were indiscriminately built on both sides of
the river.
[Illustration: Cliff-Dwelling of the Mancos Cañon.]
A circular watch-tower, which may be said to serve as a fair type of
others met with at irregular intervals, is shown in the cut (p. 300).
The tower remained standing to a height of twenty feet. Its diameter
measured twelve feet and the thickness of the walls sixteen inches,
the stones being of uniform size and smoothly dressed to the curve of
the circle. A rectangular structure, divided into two apartments, each
about fifteen feet square, once joined the tower, but now is in ruins,
all but the foundation. It is supposed that this edifice was built over
a large subterranean keep or place of defence. The exploring party here
emerged from the cañon, and could discern, as they glanced down the
valley of the Rio Mancos, which now turned towards the west, mounds of
shapeless ruins at short distances from one another as far as the eye
could reach.
Bearing around the Mesa to the west, the party encamped upon the
site of the most extensive mass of ruins yet found in United States
territory, “known as the Aztec Springs.” As Mr. Jackson’s description
is but partial, we defer the treatment of this locality until we take
up the explorations of Mr. Holmes, already mentioned. Four miles
distant from “Aztec Springs,” the party reached a river-bed, dry during
most of the year, and known as the McElmo, which, when it flows at
all, empties into the San Juan farther to the west. On the _mesa_,
above this river-bed, a tower resembling that first met in the Mancos
was observed, but of much greater size, having a diameter of fifty
feet. Adjoining the tower were the ruins of large subdivided buildings
resembling the community dwellings of the Moquis and the old ruins of
the Chaco. This group of ruins was very extensive and complicated,
literally occupying all the available space in the vicinity.
[Illustration: Watch-Tower of the Cañon of the Mancos.]
Half a dozen miles down the cañon of the McElmo, several of the little
nest-like dwellings peculiar to the Mancos were seen perched forty or
fifty feet above the valley. A couple of miles beyond these, the tower
shown in the cut (p. 301) was discovered standing on the summit of a
great block of sandstone forty feet high, and detached from the bluff
back of it.
[Illustration: Square Tower on the McElmo.]
The building which surmounts this rocky pedestal is square and about
fifteen feet high at present. Windows open toward the north and east,
the directions from which the enemies of this people, according to
tradition, came down upon them. A wall at the base of the rock is
mostly in ruins and covered with débris from the building above.
Immediately beyond this point the boundary line into Utah was crossed,
and two or three miles distant the party came upon a very interesting
group, a historic spot in the career of this ancient race. In the
centre of the widening valley stands a solitary butte of dark-red
sandstone, upon a perfectly smooth floor of the same, dipping gently
towards the centre of the valley. This butte or _cristone_ is about
one hundred feet high and three hundred feet in length, of irregular
form. All around the rock are remains of stone walls which indicate
an extensive structure and complicated system of walls and towers. At
the back of the rock two remains attract special attention. One wall
forming the corner of a building near the base of the rock, seems to
have served as an approach to the larger house up in the side of the
butte. This structure is about eighteen feet in length and twelve feet
in height, nearly reaching to the top of the rock. Part of the walls
have fallen, but those standing show a finish surpassing those of any
structure previously discovered in the region. In front is a single
aperture eighteen by twenty-four inches. On top of the rock are remains
of masonry, but too badly ruined to indicate their original form. All
the crevices and irregularities in the faces of the butte had been
smoothly walled up; it is supposed, to make its ascent impossible. In
the vicinity a tower with a rounded corner and twelve feet in diameter
by twenty feet high stood in a dry creek bed.
[Illustration: Cliff House in the Cañon of the McElmo.]
We remarked that this was a historic locality, as certainly it was if
the legend obtained by Captain Moss from an old man among the Moquis is
reliable. Mr. Ingersoll has rendered it in the _New York Tribune_ for
November 3d, 1874, as follows: “Formerly, the aborigines inhabited all
this country we had been over as far west as the head-waters of the San
Juan, as far north as the Rio Dolores, west some distance into Utah,
and south and south-west throughout Arizona and on down into Mexico.
They had lived there from time immemorial—since the earth was a small
island, which augmented as its inhabitants multiplied. They cultivated
the valley, fashioned whatever utensils and tools they needed very
neatly and handsomely out of clay and wood and stone, not knowing any
of the useful metals; built their homes and kept their flocks and
herds in the fertile river-bottoms, and worshipped the sun. They were
an eminently peaceful and prosperous people, living by agriculture
rather than by the chase. About a thousand years ago, however, they
were visited by savage strangers from the North, whom they treated
hospitably. Soon these visits became more frequent and annoying. Then
their troublesome neighbors—ancestors of the present Utes—began to
forage upon them, and, at last, to massacre them and devastate their
farms; so, to save their lives at least, they built houses high upon
the cliffs where they could store food and hide away till the raiders
left. But one summer the invaders did not go back to their mountains as
the people expected, but brought their families with them and settled
down. So, driven from their homes and lands, starving in their little
niches on the high cliffs, they could only steal away during the night,
and wander across the cheerless uplands. To one who has traveled
these steppes, such a flight seems terrible, and the mind hesitates
to picture the suffering of the sad fugitives. At the _Cristone_ they
halted and probably found friends, for the rocks and caves are full
of the nests of these human wrens and swallows. Here they collected,
erected stone fortifications and watch-towers, dug reservoirs in the
rocks to hold a supply of water, which in all cases is precarious in
this latitude, and once more stood at bay. Their foes came, and for
one long month fought and were beaten back, and returned day after
day to the attack as merciless and inevitable as the tide. Meanwhile,
the families of the defenders were evacuating and moving south, and
bravely did their protectors shield them till they were all safely a
hundred miles away. The besiegers were beaten back and went away. But
the narrative tells us that the hollows of the rocks were filled to the
brim with the mingled blood of conquerors and conquered, and red veins
of it ran down into the cañon. It was such a victory as they could not
afford to gain again, and they were glad, when the long fight was
over, to follow their wives and little ones to the south. There, in
the deserts of Arizona, on well-nigh unapproachable isolated bluffs,
they built new towns, and their few descendants, the Moquis, live in
them to this day, preserving more carefully and purely the history and
veneration of their forefathers than their skill or wisdom. It was from
one of their old men that this traditional sketch was obtained.” In a
side cañon, a tower eighteen feet high was seen perched on a huge block
of sandstone which had fallen from the top of the _mesa_ and lodged on
a projecting shelf of rock, midway from top or bottom. Eight or ten
miles westward of the McElmo, Mr. Jackson and his party discovered on
a stream known as the Hovenweep, the ruins of a city. Mr. Jackson’s
description is as follows: “The stream referred to sweeps the foot of a
rocky sandstone ledge, some forty or fifty feet in height, upon which
is built the highest and better-preserved portion of the settlement.
Its semicircular sweep conforms to the ledge, each little house of
the outer circle being built close upon its edge. Below the level of
these upper houses some ten or twelve feet, and within the semicircular
sweep, are seven distinctly marked depressions, each separated from
the other by rocky débris, the lower or first series probably of small
community houses. Upon either flank, and founded upon rocks, are
buildings similar in size and in other respects to the large ones on
the line above. As paced off, the upper or convex surface measured one
hundred yards in length. Each little apartment is small and narrow,
averaging six feet in width and eight feet in length, the walls being
eighteen inches in thickness. The stones of which the entire group is
built are dressed to nearly uniform size and laid in mortar. A peculiar
feature here is in the round corners, one at least appearing upon
nearly every little house. They are turned with considerable care and
skill, being true curves solidly bound together.”
[Illustration: Ruins of the Hovenweep.]
[Illustration: Niche Stairway of Chelly Cañon]
Here the labors of Mr. Jackson’s party ended for the year 1874, but
the work was again resumed in July of the following year with even
richer results. Two parties were put in the field by the Government
Surveying Corps, one headed by Mr. Jackson and the other by Mr. W. H.
Holmes, geologists of the San Juan division of the survey for 1875.
I am indebted to Prof. Hayden, United States geologist-in-charge,
for the memoirs prepared by these gentlemen, with the accompanying
illustrations.[478] The reader has already become acquainted with the
general character of the remains of the cliff-dwellers, and it will not
be necessary to repeat the descriptions of buildings or ruins similar
to those already described in these pages. We shall therefore cite only
the more remarkable ruins discovered by the above-named explorers.
Mr. Jackson was accompanied on his second tour, by Mr. E. A. Barber,
naturalist and correspondent of the _New York Herald_, with Harry Lee
as guide and interpreter. The party resumed their labors in the arid,
waterless region around the Hovenweep, and in fact the same barren
characteristics are peculiar to the whole basin of the San Juan. The
whole region is rapidly drying up and fast becoming a desert. Down
the cañon from the pueblo of the Hovenweep, broken towers and rock
shelters were passed in rapid succession. Seven miles distant from
their starting-point, they found on the western side of the valley
three elevated benches ranging one above another in the face of a
jutting promontory, each of which contained houses (see illustration,
page 307). The first bench was reached by climbing over a sloping
mass of débris to a height of one hundred feet from the base of the
cliff, while the upper benches were only accessible by means of a niche
stairway similar to the one shown in the figure.
[Illustration: Cliff-House of the Hovenweep.]
Ruins and masses of charcoal were found at the base of the rock.
Numerous adobe foundations, probably of wooden buildings, always
circular in form and ranging from fifteen to twenty-five feet in
diameter, were met with a short distance down the cañon. Near the
junction of the Hovenweep and McElmo cañons an inscription covers sixty
feet of the face of a large rock. The figures are those of men, goats,
lizards, and hieroglyphic signs. As the party proceeded in the cañon
they met rock shelters and enclosures, the latter on the top of the
mesa in which slabs of stone three by five feet in size were set on
end. Mr. Jackson reports that a party connected with the survey corps
discovered near the head of the Hovenweep, on a ledge three hundred
feet long by fifty feet wide, one-third of the distance from the top
of the cañon, some forty houses crowded along the shelf all in a row.
On the San Juan west of the mouth of the Montezuma Cañon, upon a bench
fifty feet high, Mr. Jackson found a quadrangular structure of peculiar
design, as shown in the cut on page 308.
“We see that it is arranged very nearly at right angles to the river,
its greatest depth on the left, where it runs back one hundred and
twenty feet; the front sweeps back in a diagonal line, so that the
right-hand side is only thirty-two feet in depth. The back wall is
one hundred and fifty-eight feet long, and at right angles to the two
sides. In the centre of the building, looking out upon the river, is
an open space seventy-five feet wide, and averaging forty feet in
depth, its depressed centre divided nearly equally by a ridge running
through it at right angles to the river. We judged it to have been an
open court, because there was not the least vestige of a wall in front,
or on the ridge through the centre, while upon the other three sides
they were perfectly distinct; although it is difficult to explain why
it should have been hollowed out in the manner shown in the plan. Back
of this court is a series of seven apartments of equal size, springing
in a perfect arch from the heavy wall facing the court, leaving a
semicircular space in the centre, forty-five feet across its greatest
diameter. Each one is fifteen feet in length, and the same in width
across its centre, the walls somewhat irregular in thickness, but
averaging twenty inches, compact, and well laid. On the left are three
rooms extending across the whole width of the building, each averaging
forty-five by forty feet square; on the right only one was discernible.
Back of the circle, our impression was that the walls diverged in the
manner shown in the plan, although there is so much confusion resulting
from the heaping up of the débris that much must be left to conjecture.
There is also a slight shadow of doubt in regard to the wall facing the
river on the right; it is barely possible that it extended somewhat
farther out, although there is here a steep inclination to the
brink of the bluff, and that it has become entirely obliterated by
its foundations giving way. The remains of the wall above, however,
led us to believe that it had been originally built in the way it is
shown in the plan. Extreme massiveness is indicated throughout the
whole structure by the amount of débris about the line of the walls,
forming long rounded mounds four to five feet high, with the stone-work
cropping out, twenty to twenty-four inches in thickness.”
[Illustration: RUINS UPON THE RIO SAN JUAN]
[Illustration: Rock-Shelters of the San Juan Cañon.]
In the face of the bluff immediately under this ruin and upon
a recessed bench three hundred feet long was a row of little
rock-shelters, with just enough room on the ledge in front of them
to admit of a promenade the entire length of the shelf. All down the
valley of the San Juan, rock shelters and dwellings similar to the
group shown in the cut, were met with.
In this instance the houses were situated sixty feet above the trail
without any visible means of access. If ladders were used, they were
made of timber taller than any of the trees now growing in the valley.
Twelve miles below the Montezuma the party discovered really one of
the most picturesque and wonderful of all the cliff-dwellings. On the
opposite side of the river, where the bluff was two hundred feet high,
near the top of the cliff, they observed a deeply receding cave with
an opening nearly circular “two hundred feet in diameter, divided
equally between the two kinds of rocks, reaching, within a few feet,
the top of the bluff above and the level of the valley below. It runs
back in a semicircular sweep to a depth of one hundred feet; the
top is a perfect half dome, and the lower half only less so from the
accumulation of débris and the thick brushy foliage, the cool dampness
of its shadowed interior, where the sun never touches, favoring a
luxuriant growth. A stratum of harder rock across the central line of
the cave has left a bench running around its entire half circle, upon
which is built the row of buildings which caught our attention half a
mile away.”
[Illustration: Row of 11 Rooms, one story in height, from 4 to 10 feet
in width, by 130 feet.
HORIZONTAL SECTION
of the
GREAT ECHO CAVE
on the
RIO SAN JUAN]
“It will be seen that the houses occupy the left-hand or eastern half
of the cave, for the reason, probably, that the ledge was wider on
that side, and the wall back of it receded in such a manner as to give
considerable additional room for the second floor, or for the upper
part of the one-story rooms. It is about fifty feet from the outer edge
in to the first building, a small structure sixteen feet long, three
feet wide at the outer end, and four at the opposite end; the walls,
standing only four feet on the highest remaining corner, were nearly
all tumbled in. Then came an open space eleven feet wide and nine deep,
that served probably as a sort of workshop. Four holes were drilled
into the smooth rock floor, about six feet equidistantly apart, each
from six to ten inches deep and five in diameter, as perfectly round
as though drilled by machinery. We can reasonably assume that these
people were familiar with the art of weaving, and that it was here
they worked at the loom, the drilled holes supporting its posts. At
_b_, in this open space, are a number of grooves worn into the rock in
various places, caused by the artificers of the little town in shaping
and polishing their stone implements. The main building comes next,
occupying the widest portion of the ledge, which gives an average width
of ten feet inside; it is forty-eight feet long outside, and twelve
high, divided inside into three rooms, the first two thirteen and a
half feet each in length, and the third sixteen feet, divided into
two stories, the lower and upper five feet in height. The joist holes
did not penetrate through the walls, being inserted about six inches,
half the thickness. The beams rested upon the sloping back-wall, which
receded far enough to make the upper rooms about square. Window-like
apertures afforded communication between each room, all through the
second story, excepting that which opened out to the back of the cave.
There was also one window in each lower room, about twelve inches
square, looking out toward the open country, and in the upper rooms
several small apertures not more than three inches wide were pierced
through the wall, hardly more than peep-holes. The walls of the large
building continued back in an unbroken line one hundred and thirty
feet farther, with an average height of eight feet, and divided into
eleven apartments, with communicating apertures through all. The
first room was nine and a half feet wide, the others dwindling down
gradually to only four feet in width at the other extremity. The rooms
were of unequal length, the following being their inside measurements,
commencing from the outer end, viz.: 12½, 9½, 8, 7½, 9, 10, 8, 7, 7,
8, 31 feet; the ledge then runs along, gradually narrowing, fifty feet
farther, where another wall occurs across it, after which it soon
merges into the smooth wall of the cave. The first of these rooms had
an aperture leading outward large enough to crawl through; the wall
around it had been broken away so that its exact size could not be
determined; all the others, of which there were about two to each room,
were mere peep-holes, about three inches in diameter, and generally
pierced through the wall at a downward angle.” The apartments were well
plastered, and in one or two places even the delicate lines on the
thumbs and fingers of the plasterers had been plainly retained. At one
point an entire hand had left its impress in the cement.
[Illustration: Great Echo Cave.]
All these marks indicated that the hands of these people were much
smaller than those of the explorers, and it is supposed that they were
those of women and children. A circular hollow place, all begrimed
and blackened by smoke, seemed to indicate the locality of a common
kitchen. The surroundings of this little community of that ancient
people indicated that they were well-to-do, and were probably the lords
of the neighboring country. From their home in this elevated gallery,
under nature’s arching roof of rock, they were in a position to give
defiance to their enemies and enjoy the pursuit of their pastoral
occupations. This unique residence was named by the explorers the
Casa del Eco. Over the plateau westward, the remains of this ancient
people were numerous and of the same general character as already
described. The party after reaching the Cañon of the Chelly (the stream
flowing, as already stated, into the San Juan from the south) found
several circular caves averaging about one hundred feet in diameter and
containing the ruins of old houses.
[Illustration: Cave-Village in the Valley of the Rio Chelly.]
About five miles southward from the San Juan, and in a valley of the
Chelly, a cave-village of considerable extent was discovered, perched
upon a recessed bench about seventy feet above the valley, and overhung
by a solid wall of massive sandstone, extending up over two hundred
feet farther. Mr. Jackson describes it in detail as follows: “The
left-hand side of the bench supporting the buildings sweeps back in a
sharp curve about eighty feet under the bluff, and then gradually comes
to the front again until, on the extreme right hand, the buildings are
built upon a mass of débris, but partially protected overhead. The
total length over the solidly built portion of the town is five hundred
and forty-five feet, with a greater width in no place of more than
forty feet. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of seventy-five
rooms upon the ground-plan, with some uncertainty existing as to many
of the subdivisions on the right; but in the cave-built portion every
apartment was distinctly marked. Midway in the town is a circular
room of heavily and solidly built masonry, that was probably meant
for an estufa or council-hall; that is, if we can reasonably assume
any similarity in the methods of building or worship to those of the
pueblos of New Mexico. Starting from this estufa is a narrow passage
running back of the line of houses on the left to a two-story group,
where it ends abruptly, further access being had through the back
row of rooms, or over the roofs of the lower front row, probably the
latter, for it is likely that these roofs served as a platform from
which to enter the rooms back of it. At the extreme end a still higher
ledge occurs, with the overhanging wall coming down close over it, its
outer edge enclosed by a wall, and a little store-room in its farther
corner; it was reserved, probably, as an out-door working-room. All
the buildings of this half are of one story, with the exception of one
group, the residence probably of the chief or of some other important
family in the community. The rooms just back of it are the store-rooms
of the family, where the corn and squashes were put away for the
winter’s consumption. Near these store-rooms, there are two half-round
enclosures of stone-work, that are very likely the remains of small
reservoirs or springs. The rock back of them is dug out beneath, and
had, even in the dry season, when we were there, a damp appearance, as
though water was not far removed, and might easily be coaxed to the
surface. The front line of wall of this left side of the town is built
upon a steep angle of smooth rock, with the interior of the apartments
filled up with earth so as to make their floors level, bringing them a
little below the passage-way. In two or three instances the front wall
has given way, precipitating all but the back wall to the bottom of the
cliffs. Holes have been drilled into the rock in a few places beneath
the walls, evidently to assist in retaining them in their places.
The whole front of this portion of the town is without an aperture,
save very small windows, and is perfectly inaccessible, both from the
solidity of the wall and the precipitous nature of the foundation-rock
beneath it. Admittance was probably gained from near the circular
building in the centre, by ladders or any other well-guarded approach
over the rocks.”
Two miles down the Cañon of the Chelly, below the mouth of the fertile
Cañon Bonito Chiquito, the house figured on page 306 was found with its
niched stairway cut in the face of the rock. The house is two-storied,
twenty feet in height, the lower story of which is eighteen by ten feet
square, divided into two rooms. A natural reservoir of water was found
in the rock only twenty rods distant. Eight miles up the Chelly they
came to the cave Pueblo, seen by Simpson and mentioned on page 293.
From this point it was but forty miles to the inhabited Moquis town
Tegua. The explorers after visiting that interesting place returned
northward again to the San Juan, reaching Epsom Creek, a tributary of
the same from the north, a short distance from the mouth of the Chelly
Cañon. Among a number of remains found in the Cañon of Epsom Creek,
one in particular is of interest; this was the remnant of a square
tower, of most perfect masonry, built upon a point of rock entirely
inaccessible to the explorers.
[Illustration: Elevated Tower on Epsom Creek.]
A few miles farther up the Epsom Valley, the ruins of quite a town
were discovered. “It lay upon both sides of a small, dry ravine, some
twenty or thirty rods back from the bed of the creek, and consisted
of a main rectangular mass sixty by one hundred feet, occupying quite
an elevation, dominating all the others. Just below it and close
upon the edge of the ravine, was a round tower, twenty-five feet in
diameter; and seventy-five below that, and also close to the ravine,
was a square building, twenty-feet across, nearly obscured by a
thicket of piñon-trees, growing about it. On the opposite bank were
two small round towers, each fifteen feet in diameter, with two oblong
structures between, twelve by fifteen feet square; at right angles to
these four, which were arranged in a straight line, another square
building occurred, the same size as the one just opposite on the other
bank.” The surroundings of this ancient village are described as truly
picturesque and the valley fertile, contrasting considerably with
the Chelly Cañon. The exploring party followed the Epsom to a point
thirty miles above the San Juan, and in the head cañons between it and
the Montezuma found themselves in the midst of ruins which mark the
former presence of a dense population. No ruins were found near the
Sierra Abajo nor in the great basin lying between it and the Sierra
La Sal. In the deep cañon of the Montezuma (fifteen hundred feet
deep), cliff-dwellings and other remains were found in great numbers.
Cave-shelters, with the orifice of the oval and circular crevices
in the rocks walled up with neat masonry and accessible by means of
niche-steps for the hands and feet, leading up the perpendicular cliff
to the little nest-like houses above, were especially numerous. In one
of these a skeleton was found, but examination proved it to be that of
a Navajo, and quite certainly not that of one of the ancient residents.
At different points midway down the cañon, narrow promontories jut out
into the valley a hundred yards or more, ranging from twenty to one
hundred feet in height. Within a distance of sixteen miles, eighteen
of these were observed, covered with ruins of massive stone-built
structures. They were rectangular in form, ranging from one hundred
by two hundred feet, down to thirty by forty feet in size. We cannot
devote further attention to the vast number of ruins found by Mr.
Jackson and party in the Montezuma Valley, except to note the curious
little house shown in the cut.
[Illustration: Cave-Dwelling in the Montezuma Valley.]
Among a colony of these cave-dwellings, occurring at the first bend
of the West Montezuma, a dozen miles above its junction with the
east fork, this one commands attention as much for the neatness and
perfection of its masonry as for the snug little cave in which its
architect lodged it. A block of sandstone resting on the edge of the
mesa bench fifty feet above the valley, had a deep oval hole worn in it
by the winds and sands. This was occupied by the little house, ten feet
long, six feet high and five feet deep; a space, however, was reserved
at one end to serve as a platform from which to enter.
In addition to the explorations of Mr. Jackson and party, Mr. W. H.
Holmes of the Geological and Geographical Survey, was also assigned
the duty of examining ancient remains in the valley of the Upper San
Juan, during the summer of 1875.[479] Mr. Holmes and party examined
an area of nearly six thousand square miles, chiefly in Colorado on
the San Juan and its tributaries. Most of the ruins met with were of
the same general character and description as those examined by Mr.
Jackson, and to repeat in detail the majority of descriptions contained
in Mr. Holmes’ memoir, would be to weary the reader with repetitions
without affording additional advantage. However, a few remarkable ruins
described by Mr. Holmes command our attention. The first of these which
may be pronounced unique in this section of the country, and quite
unlike anything met with thus far in the exploration, is situated on
the Rio La Plata, about twenty-five miles above its junction with
the San Juan. The remains of an extensive village with structures of
various forms, are scattered upon a terrace some twenty feet above
the river-bed. The distribution of the works viewed in connection
with plans upon which they were constructed are suggestive of the
remains of the mound-builders of the Ohio valley. The forms are chiefly
rectangular and circular, one or two seem to have been elliptical while
a number have consisted of irregular groups of apartments. All now
lie in ruins with their outlines marked by ridges of débris composed
of earth, water-worn pebbles, and small fragments of sandstone. The
walls of the main structure are still prominently defined, while those
of a circular enclosure, used probably as an estufa, are standing to
the height of four feet. Three hundred feet directly north of this
enclosure is a truncated rectangular mound nine feet high, measuring
fifty by eighty feet. In one of the angles of the east end are the
remains of what may have been a tower rising above the platform of the
mound. One hundred feet north of this mound is a rectangular enclosure
measuring sixty by one hundred feet. Its wall ranges from four to six
feet in height. The ruins of a wall extending between the mound and the
enclosure, indicate that they were once connected. A system of works
joined these to a range of low hills, lying to the north. Southward
from the large central circle are earthworks and ruins covering an
area of fifteen thousand square feet. A large number of small circles
and mounds occupy the southern extremity of the terrace. It is
impossible to account for the sudden change in the plan of works so
contiguous to those of a well-marked pueblo origin. On the San Juan
River, thirty-five miles below the mouth of the La Plata and ten miles
above the Mancos, Mr. Holmes observed an interesting combination of
cave-shelters and towers united in a system for giving signals upon the
approach of the enemy. In the face of a vertical bluff thirty-five feet
high and about half way from the trail below, caves had been quarried
or weathered in considerable numbers in the shales which constitute one
of the strata in the bluff. A hard platform of rock formed the floor,
and afforded sufficient protection for a narrow platform in front of
these openings. Immediately above these caves upon the summit of the
bluffs, a system of ruined circular towers, enclosed by semicircular
walls with the open side of the semicircle facing the precipice, was
observed. The caves were accessible from the valley below only by means
of ladders, and the towers in turn only by ladders from the caves
through the open side of their semicircular enclosures. The walls of
these enclosures presented no openings to the plateau above, and it is
inferred that the towers which they enclosed served as outlooks from
which the sentinel could signal the people who were engaged in tilling
the valley below to flee to their cave-shelters at the approach of the
enemy, and when too closely pressed by an enemy upon the plateau the
sentinel himself could make his retreat by means of his ladder to the
caves beneath.
The most remarkable cliff-dwellings, discovered by Mr. Holmes, are
shown in the cut.
[Illustration: Cave-Fortresses of the Rio Mancos.]
These extraordinary fortresses, lodged in caves eight hundred feet
above the level of the valley, are situated in the cañon of the Mancos,
a few miles from its mouth. The first five hundred feet of the ascent
from the level of the stream, is over a rough cliff-broken slope, the
remainder of massive sandstone, full of niches and caves. The upper
house is situated in a deep cavern with overhanging roof about one
hundred feet from the cliff’s top. The front wall of the house is
built upon the very edge of the giddy precipice. The larger house is
lodged in a niche or cave thirty feet below. The lower house was easily
accessible. The wall was built flush with the precipice and remained
standing to a height of fourteen feet at the highest point, though
other portions had crumbled away considerably. The house occupied the
entire floor of the niche, which measures sixty feet long by fifteen
feet wide. Mr. Holmes described these structures as follows; of the
first he says:
“The arrangement of the apartments is quite complicated and curious,
and will be more readily understood by a reference to the ground-plan
(figure 1). The precipice line or front edge of the niche-floor,
extends from _a_ to _b_. From this the broken cliffs and slopes reach
down to the trail and river, as shown in the accompanying profile
(figure 3). The line _b c d_ represents the deepest part of the recess,
against which the walls are built. To the right of _b_, the shelf
ceases, and the vertical face of rock is unbroken. At the left, beyond
_a_, the edge is not so abrupt, and the cliffs below are so broken that
one can ascend with ease. Above, the roof comes forward and curves
upward, as seen in the profile.
[Illustration:
_FIG. 1._
_FIG. 3._]
“The most striking feature of this structure is the _round-room_,
which occurs about the middle of the ruin and inside of a large
rectangular apartment. * * * Its walls are not high and not entirely
regular, and the inside is curiously fashioned with offsets and
box-like projections. It is plastered smoothly, and bears considerable
evidence of having been used, although I observed no traces of fire.
The entrance to this chamber is rather extraordinary, and further
attests the peculiar importance attached to it by the builders, and
their evident desire to secure it from all possibility of intrusion. A
walled and covered passage-way, _f_, _f_, of solid masonry, ten feet
of which is still intact, leads from an outer chamber through the
small intervening apartments into the circular one. It is possible
that this originally extended to the outer wall, and was entered from
the outside. If so, the person desiring to visit the estufa would have
to enter an aperture about twenty-two inches high by thirty wide,
and crawl, in the most abject manner possible, through a tube-like
passage-way nearly twenty-feet in length. My first impression was that
this peculiarly-constructed doorway was a precaution against enemies,
and that it was probably the only means of entrance to the interior of
the house; but I am now inclined to think this hardly probable, and
conclude that it was rather designed to render a sacred chamber as
free as possible from profane intrusion. The apartments _l_, _k_, _m_,
_n_, do not require any especial description, as they are quite plain
and almost empty. The partition walls have never been built up to the
ceiling of the niche, and the inmates, in passing from one apartment
to another, have climbed over. The row of apertures indicated in the
main front wall are about five feet from the floor, and were doubtless
entered for the insertion of beams, although there is no evidence that
a second floor has at any time existed. In that part of the ruin about
the covered passage-way, the walls are complicated, and the plan can
hardly be made out, while the curved wall enclosing the apartment _e_
is totally overthrown. * * * * The rock-face between this ruin and
the one above is smooth and vertical, but by passing along the ledge
a few yards to the left a sloping face was found, up which a stairway
of small niches had been cut; by means of these, an active person,
unincumbered, could ascend with safety. On reaching the top, one finds
himself in the very doorway of the upper house (_a_, figure 2) without
standing-room outside of the wall, and one can imagine that an enemy
would stand but little chance of reaching and entering such a fortress
if defended, even by women and children alone. The position of this
ruin is one of unparalleled security, both from enemies and from the
elements. The almost vertical cliff descends abruptly from the front
wall, and the immense arched roof of solid stone projects forward
fifteen or twenty feet beyond the house (see section, figure 3). At the
right the ledge ceases, and at the left stops short against a massive
vertical wall. The niche-stairway affords the only possible means of
approach.
“The house occupies the entire floor of the niche, which is about one
hundred and twenty feet long by ten in depth at the deepest part. The
front wall to the right and left of the doorway is quite low, portions
having doubtless fallen off. The higher wall _f g_ is about thirty feet
long, and from ten to twelve feet high, while a very low rude wall
extends along the more inaccessible part of the ledge, and terminates
at the extreme right in a small enclosure, as seen in the plan at _c_.
“In the first apartment entered, there were evidences of fire, the
walls and ceiling being blackened with smoke. In the second, a member
of the party, by digging in the rubbish, obtained a quantity of beans,
and in the third a number of grains of corn; hence the names given.
There are two small windows in the front wall, and doorways communicate
between rooms separated by high partitions.
“The walls of these houses are built in the usual manner, and average
about a foot in thickness.
“The upper house seems to be in a rather unfinished state, looking as
if stone and mortar had run short. And when one considers that these
materials must have been brought from far below by means of ropes, or
carried in small quantities up the dangerous stairway, the only wonder
is that it was ever brought to its present degree of finish.”
[Illustration: Triple-Walled Tower on the McElmo.]
The ruins of a triple-walled tower with fourteen sectional apartments
between the outer and second walls were examined near the McElmo. One
of these sectional apartments was still standing to the height of
twelve feet.
We have already referred to the group of ruins at Aztec Springs near
the divide between the McElmo and the lower Mancos tributaries. “These
ruins,” says Mr. Holmes, “form the most imposing pile of masonry yet
found in Colorado. The whole group covers an area of about four hundred
and eighty thousand square feet, and has an average depth of from
three to four feet.” The accompanying plan, with the measurements and
dimensions indicated upon it, precludes the necessity of a detailed
description.
[Illustration:
RUINS
at
AZTEC SPRING
SOUTH WEST COLORADO
_W. H. Holmes_]
The walls are twenty-six inches thick, and in some cases are built
double. The whole resembles in plan one of the ruined pueblos of the
Chaco, with the addition that it was designed to be an impregnable
fortress.
The plate from Mr. Jackson’s memoir shows specimens of pottery
collected during his explorations among the cliff-dwellings. The pieces
_a_ and _b_ are of modern make, and were obtained among the Moquis of
Tegua. The ware and finish of both these vessels are far inferior as
compared with the ancient fragments.
We have quoted on a previous page Mr. Ingersoll’s rendering of the
romantic legend which tells in few words the sad history of the ancient
architects of these aërial abodes. We have observed that, according to
this account, the remnant of this people who escaped the destruction
visited upon the cliff-dwellers by the warlike Utes fled to the
South—to the deserts of Arizona—and built the present Moqui towns. We
have already stated that Mr. Jackson’s party found it necessary to
travel forty miles due southward from the ruins of the Chaco Cañon in
order to reach Tegua, the nearest of the Moqui settlements.
It may be a matter of some interest to the reader, after having studied
the cliff architecture, to be introduced into one of the habitations
now occupied by the descendants of that remarkable people. Lieutenant
Ives, who visited the Moqui towns in 1858, has furnished an interesting
account of their general characteristics, from which we take condensed
extracts: “As the sun went down,” says Lieutenant Ives, “and the
confused glare and mirage disappeared, I discovered with the spy-glass
two of the Moqui towns eight or ten miles distant, upon the edge of a
high bluff overhanging the opposite side of the valley. They were built
close to the edge of the precipice. The outlines of the closely-packed
structures looked in the distance like the towers and battlements of a
castle, and their commanding position enhanced the picturesque effect.”
“The face of the bluff, on the summit of which the town was perched,
was cut up and irregular. We were led through a passage that wound
among some low hillocks of sand and rock that extended half-way to the
top. It did not seem possible, while ascending through the sand-hills,
that a spring could be found in such a dry-looking place; but presently
a crowd was seen collecting upon a mound before a small plateau, in
the centre of which was a circular reservoir fifty feet in diameter,
lined with masonry and filled with pure cold water. The basin was fed
by a pipe connecting with some source of supply upon the summit of the
mesa. Continuing to ascend, we came to another reservoir, smaller, but
of more elaborate construction and finish. From this the guide said
they got their drinking water, the other reservoir being intended for
animals. Between the two the face of the bluff had been ingeniously
converted into terraces. These were faced with neat masonry, and
contained gardens, each surrounded with a raised edge so as to retain
water upon the surface. Pipes from the reservoir permitted them at any
time to be irrigated. Peach trees were growing upon the terraces and in
the hollow below. A long flight of stone steps with sharp turns that
could be easily defended was built into the face of the precipice,
and led from the upper reservoir to the foot of the town. The scene,
rendered animated by the throngs of Indians in their gayly-colored
dresses, was one of the most remarkable I had ever witnessed.” “Without
giving us time to admire the scene, the Indians led us to a ladder
planted against the centre of the front face of the pueblo. The town is
nearly square and surrounded by a stone wall fifteen feet high, the top
of which forms a landing extending around the whole. Flights of stone
steps led from the first to a second landing, upon which the doors of
the houses open. Mounting the stairway opposite to the ladder, the
chief crossed to the nearest door and ushered us into a low apartment,
from which two or three others opened towards the interior of the
dwelling.” “The room was fifteen feet by ten; the walls were made of
adobes; the partitions of substantial beams, the floor laid with clay.
In one corner were a fireplace and a chimney. Everything was clean and
tidy. Skins, bows and arrows, quivers, antlers, blankets, articles of
clothing and ornament, were hanging from the walls or arranged upon
shelves. Vases, flat dishes, and gourds filled with meal or water,
were standing along on one side of the room. At the other end was a
trough divided into compartments, in each of which was a sloping stone
slab two or three feet square, for grinding corn upon. In a recess of
an inner room was piled a goodly store of corn in the ear. I noticed,
among other things, a reed musical instrument with a bell-shaped end
like a clarionet and a pair of painted drum-sticks tipped with gaudy
feathers.”
[Illustration: Cliff and Moqui Pottery.]
“We learned that there were seven towns; that the name of that which
we were visiting was Mooshahneh. A second smaller town was half a mile
distant; two miles distant was a third. * * * Five or six miles to the
north-east a bluff was pointed out as the location of three others; and
we were informed that the last of the seven, Oraybe, was still further
distant on the trail towards the great river.”
[Illustration: Moqui (Wolpi), one of the Seven Pueblos.
(From a photo taken by the U. S. exploring party in 1875.)]
“Each pueblo is built around a rectangular court, in which we suppose
are the springs that furnish the supply to the reservoirs. The exterior
walls, which are of stone, have no openings, and would have to be
scaled or battered down before access could be gained to the interior.
The successive stories are set back one behind the other. The lower
ones are reached through trap-doors from the first landing. The houses
are three rooms deep, and open upon the interior court. The arrangement
is as strong and compact as well could be devised, but as the court is
common and the landings are separated by no partitions, it involves a
certain community of residence.”
In describing the gardens of Oraybe, distant eight or nine miles, he
remarks:
“At the foot [of the bluff] was a reservoir and a broad road
winding up the steep ascent. On either side the bluffs were cut
into terraces, and laid out into gardens similar to those seen at
Mooshahneh, and like them irrigated from an upper reservoir. The
whole reflected great credit upon Moqui ingenuity and skill in the
department of engineering. The walls of the terraces and reservoirs
were of partly-dressed stone, well and strongly built, and the
irrigating pipes conveniently arranged. The little gardens were
neatly laid out. * * * The walls of the terraces and the gardens
themselves are kept in good order and preservation. The stone and
earth for construction and repairs they carry in blankets upon
their shoulders from the valley below.”[480]
Mr. Bancroft has furnished the reader descriptions of several of the
New Mexican group of pueblos, which he has extracted from the reports
of various travelers. We do not consider it necessary to repeat
accounts so generally accessible.[481] The New Mexican group, situated
on the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries, is the most numerous
in inhabited pueblos, but as they differ little if at all from those
of the Moquis, further treatment of them is unnecessary. The pueblos
which are and have been inhabited during the nineteenth century number
about twenty, some of which are well known to have been occupied by
the ancestors of their present inhabitants when first visited by the
Spaniards. The best specimen of inhabited pueblos is that of Taos,
situated on one of the northern forks of the river which gives it its
name. There are two large houses, each between three and four hundred
feet long by one hundred and fifty wide, situated on opposite sides of
a small creek, and tradition states that formerly they were connected
by a bridge. They are five and six stories high.
Besides the inhabited towns there are a number now unoccupied and fast
going to decay. The names of these are given with slight variations
by different writers; the following, however, are generally agreed
upon: Pecos, Quivira, Valverda, San Lázaro, San Marcos, San Cristóbal,
Socorro, Senacu, Abó, Quarra, Rita, Poblazon, old San Filipe, and old
Zuñi.[482] The most important of all these ruins is Pecos, one of the
sacred cities of the pueblos. Here the everlasting fire dedicated to
their god Montezuma was kept burning from time immemorial down to the
abandonment of the town, which occurred some time during the second
quarter of the present century. The reader will remember, however,
that the culture-god of the Pueblos and the Aztec monarch are in no
sense to be associated with each other, since it is quite certain that
they were not confounded in the mythology of the worshippers of the
deity. Whether the Pueblos, Cliff-dwellers, etc., were ever in any way
related to the Aztecs or any Nahua people is difficult to determine.
Certainly there is no architectural nor traditional evidence that they
were. When the Spaniards under Coronado traversed the region in 1540 A.
D., no reports of inter-communication between the two peoples seem to
have been current. Father Escalante, who in 1776 visited many of the
pueblos, and mentions many ruins not since located, as well as many
inhabited towns now in ruins, found nothing to really substantiate the
“Aztec theory.”[483] On the contrary, substantial arguments can be
presented for the intimate relationship of the Nahuas and some of the
Pueblos.
In the tenth chapter of this work will be found the basis of linguistic
affinities between the Nahua and Moqui languages, though none is
claimed between the Nahua and New Mexican Pueblos. Mr. Becker, in his
memoir addressed to the _Congrès des Américanistes_ at Luxembourg,
refers to Camergo’s account of the migration of the Teo-Chichimecs,
the allies of the Toltecs, and to his statement that they came from
_Amaquetepic_ (“the mountains of the Amaques”), and expresses the
belief that the words Amaques and Moquis are identical. Mr. Becker
considers the “A” prefix of the former to be an abbreviation of the
Nahua “atl” water, and Amaqui would mean the Maqui or Moqui living by
the water, just as Acolhuas means Culhuas near the water and Anahuac,
the Nahua land on the water. The tradition of the Moquis distinctly
states that they formerly lived on the river at the north-east of
their present home. The reader will remember that the Quichés called
the Nahuas _Yaqui_, the name of a river of Sinaloa and Sonora where
marked traces of the Nahua language are found, and the supposed
locality of the first Toltec station. Is it not possible that _Yaqui_
is a dialectic modification of Maqui or Moqui? It has been observed
in the pages of this chapter that in more than one instance ruined
pueblos were composed of either red adobe or had been painted, a
circumstance which had won for them such a designation as “Red-house”
or “Pueblo-pintado,” etc. Furthermore, the red glare of the desert
north of the Moqui settlements has received the name of the “Painted
desert.” The fact that Hue hue Tlapalan signifies “old red land” is
suggestive that this locality may have been the mysterious rendezvous
of the Toltecs. The Moquis like the Nahuas are sun-worshippers, though
the ceremonial of both people differ considerably.
Besides the mound-works observed on the upper San Juan by Mr. Holmes
associated with the work of the Cliff-dwellers, recent exploration has
shown that combinations of mound and pueblo features of architecture
exist in Utah. Dr. C. C. Parry found in a mound on the St. Clara River
in Southern Utah very fine specimens of Pueblo pottery, and other
articles which clearly identify its architects with the people of the
cliffs or with the village builders at the South.[484] The recent
exploration of several mounds in southern Utah by Dr. Edward Palmer
fully confirms this conclusion. In Kane County, Utah, the same explorer
discovered among a number of articles of apparent Moqui make in a
cave-shelter, a shovel of horn having a blade fourteen inches long by
five inches wide. Among the articles was a pair of shoes made of the
fibre of the _Yucca_, which in style, shape, manner of braiding, etc.,
closely resemble shoes made of the leaves of the _Typa_ found by Prof.
F. W. Putnam in a cave in Kentucky.[485]
The mound examined by Mr. Barrand on the west fork of the Little Sioux
of Dakota, and found to contain a large interior circular chamber,
probably was the work of the ancestors of this western branch of the
mound-building people.[486] The circular chamber was much like an
estufa.
The many-sided culture-hero of the Pueblos, Montezuma, is the centre of
a group of the most poetic myths found in Ancient American Mythology.
The Pueblos believed in a supreme being, a good spirit, so exalted
and worthy of reverence that his name was considered too sacred to
mention, as, with the ancient Hebrews, Jehovah’s was the “unmentionable
name.” Nevertheless Montezuma was the equal of this great spirit, and
was often considered identical with the sun. The variety of aspects
in which Montezuma is presented to us is due to the fact that each
tribe of Pueblos had its particular legends concerning his birth and
achievements. Many places in New Mexico claim the honor of his nativity
at a period long before those village builders were acquainted with the
arts of architecture, which have since given them their distinguishing
name. In fact, this culture-god was none other than the genius who
introduced the knowledge of building among them.[487] Some traditions,
however, make him the ancestor and even the creator of the race;
others, its prophet, leader and lawgiver. Mr. Bancroft says, “Under
restrictions, we may fairly regard him as the Melchizedek, the Moses,
and the Messiah of these Pueblo-desert wanderers from an Egypt that
history is ignorant of, and whose name even tradition whispers not. He
taught his people how to build cities with tall houses, to construct
_Estufas_, or semi-sacred sweat-houses, and to kindle and guard the
sacred fire.” It has been aptly remarked by Mr. Tyler, that Montezuma
was the great “somebody” of the tribe to whom the qualities and
achievements of every other were attributed.
Fremont gives an account of the birth of the hero, in which his mother
is declared to have been a woman of exquisite beauty, admired and
sought for by all men. She was the recipient of rich presents of corn
and skins from her admirers, yet she refused the hands of all her
suitors. A famine soon occurred, and great distress followed. Now the
fastidious beauty showed herself to be a lady of charitable spirit
and tender heart. She opened her granaries, in which all her presents
had been stored, and out of their abundance relieved the wants of
the poor. The offerings of love were made to perform their mission a
second time. At last, when the pure and plenteous rains again brought
fertility to the earth, the summer shower fell upon the Pueblo goddess,
and she gave birth to a son, the immortal Montezuma. The intelligent
chief of the Papagoes, whose people occupy the territory between the
Santa Cruz River and the Gulf of California, related a legend of the
origin and offices of Montezuma, which, while it surprises the reader
with its close resemblances to some leading points in the Hebrew and
Chaldean genesis and deluge accounts, still is conspicuous for its
inconsistencies, and in its closing statements for the absence of any
knowledge of time or order.[488]
In substance it is as follows: The Great Spirit, having made all
things—sky, earth, and the living creatures which inhabit it—descended
into the earth for the purpose of creating man also. Digging in the
earth, he found clay, such as a potter uses; this he carried back with
him to his celestial abode, and dropped it again from the sky into the
pit from which he had dug it. Instantly Montezuma, the genius of life,
sprang from the pit, and became a partner in the creation of other men.
The Apaches were the next formed, and were so wild that they severally
ran away as fast as created. Those were golden days which followed the
birth of the race; the sun was very much nearer the earth than now,
and his grateful presence rendered clothing useless. A common language
between all men, shared even by beasts, was one of the strongest
possible bonds of peace.
But at last this paradisiacal age was ended by a great deluge in
which all men and living creatures perished. Only Montezuma and his
friend, the coyote—a prairie-wolf—escaped. This wonderful animal, with
semi-divine attributes, plays a remarkable part in the religion of many
of the Pacific tribes, and furnishes us a parallel in our Occidental
mythology with the half-human, half-brute combinations of Greco-Roman
mythology. The coyote, gifted with prophetic powers, had foretold the
approach of this great calamity, and Montezuma, heeding the warning,
had built him a boat, which he kept in readiness on the summit of Santa
Rosa. His sagacious friend, the coyote, also escaped in an ark made
from a gigantic cane which grew by a river’s side; having gnawed it
down and crawled into it, he stopped up the ends with gum, and escaped.
When the waters subsided, the two met again on dry ground. Montezuma
then employed the coyote on several wearisome excursions in order to
discover the extent of the land, which developed the fact that upon the
east and south and west the water yet remained. Only on the north was
there land.
The Great Spirit and Montezuma again created men and animals, and the
former committed to his partner in the work the duties of governing
the new race. These were, however, neglected by Montezuma, who became
puffed up with pride, and permitted all manner of wickedness to
prevail. The Great Spirit remonstrated with him, even descending
to the earth for the purpose of moving his faithless and haughty
vicegerent to restore order, but with no avail. Then, returning to
his abode in heaven, he pushed the sun back to a remote part of the
sky as a punishment on the race. At this, Montezuma became enraged,
collected the tribes around him, and set about the construction of a
house which should reach heaven. The builders had already completed
several apartments, lined with gold and silver and precious stones,
and progressed to a point which encouraged all to believe that their
defiant purpose would be accomplished, when the Great Spirit smote it
to the earth amid the crash of his thunder. Here the account becomes
very confused—a great leap is made from Montezuma the culture-hero to
Montezuma the emperor, and the two become confounded.
The legend states that upon the defeat of his rebellious scheme,
Montezuma still hardened his heart, and caused the sacred images to
be dragged through the streets for the derision of the villagers; the
temples were desecrated, and defiance to the Supreme declared. As a
punishment, the Great Spirit caused an insect to fly toward the east to
an unknown land, to bring the Spaniards, who utterly destroyed him.
The post-diluvian part of this story presents the hero in quite another
light than that generally accepted by most of the Pueblo tribes, in
which he is represented as having been the very model of goodness and
beneficence—the founder of their cities, of which Acoma was the first
and Pecos the second. Before taking his departure from his people,
he prophesied that they should suffer from drought and from the
oppressions of a strange nation, but promised them to return as their
deliverer. He then planted a tree upside down, and bade them preserve
the sacred fire notwithstanding their misfortunes, until the tree fell,
at which time he would return with a white race, who would destroy all
their enemies and bring back the fertile showers.
It is said that this tree fell from its place as the American army
entered Santa Fé, in 1846. In the cramped, subterranean estufa, the
Pueblo fed the sacred fire burning in the basin of a small altar. It
was a warrior’s vigil, for by turns their heroes descended into its
suffocating atmosphere, thick with smoke, and charged with carbonic
acid, to wait often for two successive days and nights without
refreshment, often even until death relieved the guard.[489]
For generations these strange architects and faithful priests have
waited for the return of their god—looked for him to come with the sun,
and descend by the column of smoke which rose from the sacred fire. As
of old the Israelitish watcher upon Mount Seir replied to the inquiry,
“What of the night?” “The morning cometh,” so the Pueblo sentinel
mounts the house-top at Pecos, and gazes wistfully into the east for
the golden appearance, for the rapturous vision of his redeemer, for
Montezuma’s return; and, though no ray of light meets his watching eye,
his never-failing faith, with cruel deception, replies, “The morning
cometh.”[490]
• • • • •
EXPLORATIONS AMONG THE PUEBLOS.—In the summer of 1879 the
Smithsonian Institution undertook a thorough and extensive
examination of the Pueblo civilization of New Mexico and Arizona.
Major Powell sent an expedition to New Mexico in charge of Mr.
James Stevenson, and a large collection illustrative of the
manners and customs of the Pueblos was made. Mr. F. H. Cushing was
especially fortunate in obtaining minute information concerning
their traditions, rites, and ceremonies. The work of investigation
is still in progress, and at this writing (September, 1881) an
expedition is in the field. A full report will ultimately be
published. During the latter half of the year 1880 Mr. Baudelier,
the eminent Mexican scholar, visited Taos, and prepared a paper
on that interesting locality for the Archæological Institute of
America, under whose patronage his exploration was conducted.
During a residence of two months in the Pueblo of Cochití, occupied
by a branch of the Queres tribe, Mr. Baudelier made a thorough
study of the institutions of that interesting people. See Second
_Ann. Report of Arch. Inst. of Amer._
CHAPTER VIII.
ANCIENT AMERICAN CIVILIZATION AND SUPPOSED OLD WORLD
ANALOGIES—ARCHITECTURE, SCULPTURE AND HIEROGLYPHICS.
Analogies, Real and Fancied — MAYA ARCHITECTURE — The American
Pyramid — The Palace of Palenque — The French Roof at Palenque
— The Trefoil Arch — Yucatanic Architecture — Uxmal — The Casa
de Monjas — Kabah — Casa Grande of Zayi — QUICHÉ ARCHITECTURE
— Copan — Circus of Copan — Description by Fuentes — Utatlan —
NAHUA ARCHITECTURE — Remains in Oajaca — Mitla — Grecques at
Mitla — Remains in the State of Vera Cruz — Cholula — Pyramid
of Xochicalco — The Temple of Mexico — Teotihuacan — Los
Edificios of Quemeda — Maya and Nahua Architecture Compared —
Old World Analogies — SCULPTURE — Of the Mounds — At Palenque
— At Uxmal — At Chichen-Itza — On the Isla Mujeres — Of the
Nahuas — Ancient American Art and its Old World Analogies —
Egyptian Tau at Palenqué — Serpent Sculpture — Nahua Symbolism
probably Asiatic — HIEROGLYPHICS — Maya MSS. and Books —
Landa’s Alphabet — The Attempts at the Interpretation of Maya
MSS. by Bollaert, Charencey, and Rosny — Rosny’s Classification
of the Hieroglyphics — Hopes that a Key has been Discovered —
The Mexican Picture-writing — Aztec Migration Maps.
Without pretending to furnish an exhaustive treatment of the subject
proposed for this chapter, we desire to make observations on some
phases of the development of American civilization in the Pre-Historic
period. One of the most natural fruits of the study of the arts and
customs of any people, is a disposition on the part of the investigator
to institute a comparison with corresponding features of civilization
in all parts of the world. Unfortunately this disposition has led many
writers on America into wild and fanciful speculations, which tend only
to deceive the reader and add nothing to true investigation. In a few
instances pronounced old world analogies have been proven to exist in
ancient American institutions and arts, but their number bears a small
ratio to the multitude of fancied analogies which never existed, except
in the imaginations of their discoverers. To discuss the subject in
hand without transcending the limits of the period which is treated in
previous chapters, namely, the Primitive period—that which antedates
the era of the annals of those ancient peoples, is a somewhat difficult
task, since the question of dates is a very uncertain one in the
absence of any sufficient key to the hieroglyphic and picture records.
The customs and political organization, together with the Aztec
civilization, have been often treated, and by none better than our own
Prescott and Bancroft. The repetition of their labors here would be
highly superfluous. We shall, however, ask the attention of the reader
to some considerations upon the following divisions of the subject:
1. ARCHITECTURE. 2. SCULPTURE and HIEROGLYPHICS. 3. CHRONOLOGICAL and
ASTRONOMICAL KNOWLEDGE. 4. RELIGIOUS ANALOGIES.
_Architecture._—The works of the Mound-builders and Pueblos have
already been described and their transitional forms or stages noted.
To seek for parallelisms or analogies between the Mound-builders and
the people of Asia because mounds are common to both continents, or
to seek to identify them with the people of Northern Europe because
the shell-heaps of our sea-board resemble those of Denmark, would
certainly be an unjustifiable use of the imagination, in anything
like a serious discussion of the question. We have no disposition
to speculate on this subject, since such speculation cannot furnish
any satisfactory results. Certain resemblances between American and
Hindoo-mounds have been supposed to exist, but the resemblance, if
any, proves nothing.[491] That more fruitful and wonderful field of
ancient architecture in Central America, Yucatan and Mexico, furnishes
abundant opportunity for the discussion of our subject. Detailed
descriptions of the remains found in different localities have been
given by travelers, artists and authors, the latter availing themselves
of several accounts and instituting comparisons between the statements
of different explorers. Such works, savoring somewhat of the critical,
cannot be underrated, since their development of the true facts has
contributed largely to our knowledge of the subject. It has been
generally the rule for writers to undertake the description of remains
in a particular locality and treat them in detail, thus presenting to
the mind a pleasant picture of the whole, together with the relation
of parts. This is certainly a satisfactory plan to many readers,
but it seems to us that such a course is unnecessary, after it has
been once pursued by the explorer. By repetitions nothing is gained,
unless the work of classification (by which certain architectural
forms and methods are woven into a style and their variations noted)
receives attention. In preceding chapters we have treated of the Maya,
the Quiché, and the Nahua peoples, and in this, it is our purpose
to briefly note the main features of their styles of architecture,
sculpture, etc., as indicated in the divisions above laid down.
_Maya Architecture_ furnishes evidence of growth, and may be classified
into the Chiapan or ancient and the Yucatanic or modified styles.
The Chiapan or ancient style is exhibited in the imposing remains of
Palenque, with which the reader is supposed to be already familiar,
from the descriptions of several explorers.[492] Palenque is situated
in the Usumacinta River region in Chiapas, on a small stream sometimes
called the Otolum, a tributary of the Tulija, which is itself a branch
of the Usumacinta. The ruins are situated in a small valley of the
foothills, from which rise the high table-lands of the interior. They
are known as the Palace, with a pyramidal base measuring two hundred
and sixty by three hundred and ten feet and forty feet high; Temple of
the three Tablets; Temple of the Beau Relief; Temple of the Cross, and
Temple of the Sun. The most conspicuous feature of the architecture
employed, and seen in most of the Central American structures, is the
massive pyramidal foundation. The sides of the pyramid of the Palenque
palace are faced with regular blocks of hewn stone, with extensive
flights of stairs, upon the east and north leading to its summit.[493]
Mr. Bancroft has analyzed the structure of the American pyramid in a
philosophical way, and no doubt has in part explained its object. “I
think,” he remarks, “that perhaps with a view to raise this place or
temple above the waters of the stream, four thick walls, possibly more,
were built up perpendicularly from the ground to the desired height;
then, after the completion of the walls, to strengthen them, or during
the progress of the work to facilitate the raising of the stones, the
interior was filled with earth, and the exterior graded with the same
material, the whole being subsequently faced with hewn stone.”[494]
[Illustration: Mode of Constructing Pyramid.]
In the above cut Mr. Bancroft illustrates his opinion. Stephens
and Waldeck, who excavated from the summit downwards, imply that
the interior D is of earth. Twenty years later Charnay found a
perpendicular wall on the eastern side, quite contrary to the
observations of all previous travelers. Mr. Bancroft accounts for this
on the supposition that the stone facing, loosened by the growth of
trees which covered it, had fallen from B to F, and that the earth
which filled the sides at E E had been washed away by the rain and left
the perpendicular wall exposed at B. Such a supposition we consider
to be perfectly probable in view of the rapid dilapidation of the
ruins since Dupaix’s visit in 1806. The ancient model thus established
in the construction of this, perhaps oldest of existing American
cities, may have determined the style of many similar edifices. A
plan of the palace has been furnished by several authors.[495] The
accompanying restoration from Armin’s _Das Heutige Mexiko_, employed
by Mr. Bancroft, may serve to give an idea of the proportions of the
structure. The edifice occupies the entire summit platform of the
pyramid except a narrow passage-way around the edge, and measures 228
feet by 182, and about 30 feet in height. The doorways, of which there
are forty in the outer wall, are wider than the piers intervening
between them, and were constructed originally with flat wooden lintels,
all of which have disappeared. The main architectural features will be
observed in the accompanying plate from Waldeck. The lower right-hand
figure shows the angle of the foundations of one of the interior
buildings and the manner in which the stones were laid. The left-hand
figure affords a sectional view of the eastern stairway descending
from the principal corridor into the grand court. It will be observed
that the height of the steps considerably exceeds their width. Waldeck
illustrates this singular disproportion by a diagram in which a native
is represented as sitting upon the stairway. The perpendicular face
of a step is shown to be considerably higher than the Indian’s knee,
and must have measured two feet. The upper left-hand figures represent
the forms of niches, which are of frequent occurrence. The T shaped
niche is the representative of a numerous class so resembling the
Egyptian _tau_ or cross as to excite no little interest in its origin.
M. Waldeck found the marks of lamp-black upon the tops of some of
them, and supposes them to have held torches which illuminated the
corridors; others, which extend through the walls, may have served for
the purposes of ventilation; while others perhaps contained idols.[496]
The right-hand upper figures represent the highly artistic double
cornices employed. Nothing of a definite nature is known of the style
of roof with which the palace was covered, since every vestige of it
has disappeared. Castañeda represents it as sloping and plastered,
while Dupaix refers to it as consisting of large stone flags, carefully
joined together.[497]
[Illustration: The Palace Restored.]
[Illustration: Architectural Features at Palenque.]
The neighboring buildings, such as the Temple of the Three Tablets,
the Temple of the Cross, and the Temple of the Sun, each have
well-preserved roofs of masonry, which are quite remarkable. The first
of these stands upon its lofty pyramidal base, measuring one hundred
and ten feet on the slope, with continuous steps on all sides. The
temple, which is thirty-five feet high, is crowned with a sloping
ornamental roof of great beauty. Stephens illustrated the temple in
several views, subsequently copied by Bancroft.[498] The roof is
divided into three parts; the lower section recedes from the cornice
with a gentle slope, and resembles the corresponding section of a
French or Mansard roof. The stucco decorations of this lower section,
which is also painted, add considerably to the general effect. Five
solid square projections with perpendicular faces suggestive of the
attic windows of a modern French roof are found on this section,
corresponding to the several doors of the temple immediately below. The
second section, which slopes back at a more acute angle, is of solid
masonry. The crowning section seems to have been purely ornamental,
consisting of a line of pillars of stone and mortar, eighteen inches
high and twelve inches apart, surmounted by a layer of flat stones
with projecting sides. The Temple of the Cross and Temple of the Sun
both have roof-structures which may be described as resembling a
lattice-work of stone.
The most interesting feature of Palenque architecture is the arch, of
which there are two styles, if one of them may be classed as an arch
at all; of this we have doubts. The style to which we allude is that
which has been designated as the Yucatan arch. A section of the double
corridor of the palace furnishes an example as shown in the cut from
Mr. Bancroft’s work.
[Illustration: Section of Palace Corridor.]
This so-called arch is nothing more than the approach of two walls
toward each other in straight lines, nearly forming an acute angle at
the top. These inclining walls are constructed of overlapping stones,
with a small surface of exposed ceiling, produced by a lintel-like
covering. The principal doorway, which is eighteen feet high, is
constructed in the form of a trefoil arch, while niches or depressions
of the same trefoil form are ranged along the inclined face of the
gallery on each side of the entrance. This arch is suggestive of the
Moorish pattern, though the latter probably is the more modern. The
accompanying cut—a photographic reduction from Waldeck—will convey a
clear idea of its form.
The tower situated in the southern court is considered by Waldeck as
the crowning work of all. The frontispiece is a photographic reduction
from Waldeck’s drawing, and no doubt indicates the true number of its
stories, as well as the remarkable growth of vegetation upon its roof.
The descent of the little roots and tendrils of the trees above in
quest of nourishment, furnish a striking illustration of the luxuriant
vegetable growth which pervades the region. The very air is laden with
life, though the remains of man’s handicraft and power are but the
lifeless monuments of his vanished glory. The gentle evening breeze
which plays upon the tendrils stretching themselves down the tower’s
wall, produces a soft melodious sound, resembling that of the Æolian
harp, and gives rise to the apprehension in the minds of the natives
that the place is enchanted.[499]
[Illustration: Trefoil Arch, Palenque.]
The second division of Maya architecture, namely, the Yucatan or
modified style, presents some variations from the ancient or Chiapan.
Probably the most remarkable group of ruins in that richest of American
architectural fields—Yucatan—is situated at Uxmal, in Lat. 20° 27′ 30″,
thirty-five miles south of Merida. The reader is of course acquainted
with the detail of the survey of this remarkable city of antiquity
through the work of Stephens and Catherwood.[500] These indefatigable
explorers examined about forty ruined cities, nearly all of which were
previously unknown to others than the natives, and many of them were
unknown at Merida, the capital of the country. While these travelers
are pre-eminently the explorers of Yucatan, there are others whose
services have been of great value in the same field.[501]
Mr. Bancroft has divided the architectural remains in Yucatan into
four groups, classifying them geographically. We do not consider
it necessary to follow such a course, nor enter into the detailed
description of any group, but will content ourselves by simply noting
any variations from the Palenque models. At Uxmal our attention is at
once arrested by the irregular pyramidal base of the building known
as the Casa del Gobernador. The base of the pyramid is a figure of an
irregular rectangular form. The northern and eastern sides of the base
are equal, and measure about six hundred feet each; the southern and
western are, however, irregular. As all the angles are right angles,
and two contiguous sides are equal, it will be understood that the
figure of the base would have been a square, but for the irregularity
of the remaining two sides. These irregularities fall within the
figure of the square. The pyramid is terraced, the first promenade
when observed being but three feet from the ground. The second terrace
rises from this to a height of twenty feet, and supports a platform
with sides 545 feet in length. A trifle west of the centre of this
platform rises the third terrace, nineteen feet high, and supporting
the summit platform, measuring about 100 by 360 feet, with an
elevation above the ground of upwards of forty feet.[502] The pyramid
is composed of fragments of limestone thrown together, but with the
terraces substantially faced with walls of regular and smoothly-hewn
limestone-blocks, laid in mortar which has become intensely hard.
The corners of the pyramid differ from those usually met with in that
they are rounded. The terrace walls incline slightly toward the centre
of the pyramid. The second platform was reached by a long inclined
plain on the south side one hundred feet wide. A regular stairway with
thirty-five steps, and one hundred and thirty feet wide, furnished the
means of ascent from the second platform to the summit. The crowning
feature of the structure is the Casa del Gobernador, a characteristic
Yucatan building, measuring three hundred and twenty-two feet long
but only thirty-nine feet wide. The Casa is surrounded by a promenade
thirty feet wide, and in its interior contains two parallel rows of
apartments (a plan of which is given by Mr. Stephens).[503] A sectional
view of the Casa resembles the sectional view of the palace corridors
at Palenque, except that in the arches conspicuous in the latter, the
irregularities produced by the square overlapping stones (which are
filled up to an even surface by mortar and plastering), are avoided in
Yucatan, by the overlapping stones of the arch being dressed carefully
to the angle of inclination of the wall or ceiling, thus presenting
a smooth surface. The roof is formed by filling in the space between
the tops of the arches and between the arches and the outer walls with
stone, up to the desired level; after which a perfectly flat covering
of well-cut stones is laid over the whole, having a neat though small
projecting cornice, as will be observed in the accompanying cut from
Bancroft’s work. The rear wall is about nine feet thick and perfectly
solid. The comparative modernness of the building may be realized when
we state that Mr. Stephens found the top of each doorway supported
by a heavy beam of zapote-wood. One of these, which was elaborately
and beautifully carved, and measuring ten feet long and ten by twenty
inches wide, he brought to New York, where, unfortunately, it was
destroyed by fire with the remainder of his collection. It is presumed
that the zapote-wood was prized for its rarity, as it is not found at
present near Uxmal. Inside of and above the doors of the Casa were
stone rings, which occur frequently in Yucatec structures, and are
supposed to have supported curtains for closing the doorways. Stephens
presents in a cut (page 346) a view of the imposing and elegant front
looking toward the south.[504]
[Illustration: Casa del Gobernador, Uxmal.]
[Illustration: Section of Casa del Gobernador.]
Of the several Uxmal edifices, one especially demands attention as
representing the highest state of ancient architecture and sculpture
in America. This is known as the Casa de Monjas, or Nunnery, and is
situated nearly three hundred yards north of the Casa del Gobernador,
on a pyramid with three terraces, and measuring three hundred and
fifty feet square at its base. On the summit platform, only nineteen
feet above the level of the ground, stand four of the characteristic
Yucatan buildings upon four sides of a nearly square court. The
northern building does not stand quite parallel to the building on the
opposite side of the court. The plan from Stephens will present clearly
the arrangement of the apartments, in which it will be observed that
of the eighty-eight rooms contained in the Casa de Monjas, not more
than two apartments open into each other, except in one instance,
which occurs in the eastern front.[505] The court formed by these long
narrow edifices measures 258 by 214 feet, and according to M. Waldeck
was paved with 43,660 blocks of stone six inches square. In the centre
stood the fragments of a rude column similar to others observed in the
Casa del Gobernador.[506]
[Illustration: Ground Plan of the Nunnery.]
A cut of one of the beautifully sculptured façades of the Casa de
Monjas will be found on a future page. Near the Casa de Monjas stands
the pyramid and edifice generally known as the Casa del Adivino or
Prophet’s house, and named by M. Waldeck the Pyramid de Kingsborough.
The pyramid rises to a height of 80 feet from a base of 155 by 235
feet. The corners are rounded, and the sides, which are carefully faced
with cubical blocks of stone, rise so steep that the ascent and descent
by the grand stairway on the eastern face is giddy and dangerous. The
stairway measuring one hundred and two feet on the slope is inclined at
an angle of eighty degrees.[507]
About a dozen miles south-eastward from Uxmal are the remains of the
ancient city known as Kabah, where ruins quite similar and nearly
as extensive as those already described are found. However, new
architectural features here meet the observer. In one instance the
structure which surmounts a terraced pyramid is square, instead of
long and narrow as at Uxmal. The inner rooms of the edifice have
floors two feet higher than the floors of the outer rooms, and are
entered by two stone steps. In one instance these were cut from a
single block with the lower step in the form of a scroll. At Kabah
we meet with an entirely new feature in Maya architecture, and the
reader’s acquaintance with the terraced casas, of the New Mexican
region, will supply the lack of an illustration at this point. In the
style of building referred to, the pyramid instead of serving as a
foundation for the building, serves as a central support around which
the house with its receding stories, one above another, is built. The
first story of the building referred to is built upon the ground, with
the perpendicular sides of a mound for its rear wall. Just above,
on a level with the roof of the first story on the platform of the
first terrace of the mound, stands the second story, with the roof
of the first serving as a promenade in front of it, while the third
story rests upon the second platform of the mound. The platforms or
roofs of the first and second stories are reached by means of a stone
stairway supported upon a half arch. The first story is accessible
from the ground by doorways. The interior apartments are constructed
on the model of the Yucatec arch. Here, however, lintels of stone are
met with, supported in the centre by rude stone columns surmounted by
square capitals. These buildings are of large proportions, equalling
any we have thus far described. The decorations of the edifices were
considered by Mr. Stephens equal to those of any known era, even when
tried by the severest rules of art.[508] At Zayi, one of the finest
illustrations of this style of architecture is to be seen in what is
known as the Casa Grande. The dimensions of the Casa Grande are as
follows: lower story, 120 by 265 feet; the second story, 60 by 220
feet; and the third, resting on the summit platform of the mound, 18
by 150 feet; a stairway thirty-two feet wide furnishes a means of
ascent to the third story on the front, while a narrow stairway leads
to the second story at the rear. Round columns both in doorways and
the façade constitute the chief variation from the styles already
observed. An “elephant trunk” ornament protruding from the cornice
(also found on Casa del Gobernador and the Casa de Monjas at Uxmal) is
a marked feature of decoration. It is unnecessary for us to say that
its presence has given rise to much speculation as to its origin. M.
Waldeck has given the figure the name which we have applied to it, and
perhaps with some reason.[509]
At Labná ruins of a curious and extraordinary nature exist, though far
gone in decay. The accompanying cut, employed in Stephens’, Baldwin’s
and Bancroft’s works, will serve to show the extravagant decoration
lavished upon the cornices of the edifices. At Chichen-Itza, the
so-called “Nunnery” is supported by a solid mass of masonry, with
perpendicular walls. The dimensions of this base are one hundred and
twelve by one hundred and sixty feet and forty-two feet high. This was
crowned by a building having two receding stories. The great pyramid
of Chichen is celebrated for the solid stone balustrade which guards
its northern stairway of ninety steps, forty-four feet wide. These
balustrades terminate in colossal serpent heads, ten feet long.[510]
Both at Chichen and at Mayapan circular structures are met with and
are figured by Stephens.[511] The same author has described the
rectangular watch-towers of Tuloom, which rise majestically amid the
extensive ruins of the ancient city of the same name, situated upon the
eastern coast in latitude 20° 10´. At Tuloom, Mr. Stephens (its only
describer), found the first walled city in Yucatan. He believes it to
have been occupied long after the conquest, and probably was one of the
cities whose many towers met the gaze of the wondering Spaniards, who
beheld them as they coasted along the shore.[512]
[Illustration: Corner at Labná.]
_Quiché Architecture._—The propriety of classifying the great ruins
of Honduras and Guatemala as Quiché in their origin and style, may
be questioned by some of our readers. It must be admitted that great
contrasts in style are found in this region, which was occupied by
the powerful kingdom of the Quichés and Cakchiquels, at the time of
the conquest. However, it is probable that the ancient Quichés (who,
as we have already seen, at an early day developed a religion and
literature), were the authors of the more ancient cities, like Copan
and Quirigua. The Quiché-Cakchiquels of more modern times were quite
another people, whose institutions, language, and no doubt their
architecture, had been largely influenced by Nahua people from the
Mexican plateau. Utatlan, the magnificent capital of this modern and
mixed people, was in the height of its glory just before the blighting
power of the conquerors laid it in ruins. As ours is not an attempt at
the history of discovery, we omit entirely that interesting feature
in the treatment of antiquities, and call attention at once to the
features conspicuous in Quiché architecture. The ancient city known as
Copan, on the eastern bank of a river of the same name, in latitude
14° 45´ and longitude 90° 52´ in Honduras, and four leagues from the
Guatemala line, is interesting in furnishing material for study in this
department. It is probably the most ancient city on the continent.
Copan no doubt could successfully contend with Palenque for the palm of
antiquity. It is again to the indefatigable Stephens and the skillful
Catherwood that we are most indebted for our knowledge of these
ruins.[513] The period of the abandonment of Copan is a question with
reference to which we possess too few data to render an intelligent
decision concerning it. Following the example of Stephens and Bancroft,
we first introduce the account of Fuentes contained in Juarros.[514]
“In the year 1700, the great circus of Copan still remained entire.
This was a circular space, surrounded by stone pyramids about six
yards high and very well constructed; at the base of these pyramids
were figures, both male and female, of very excellent sculpture, which
then retained the colors they had been enameled with; and what was
not less remarkable, the whole of them were habited in the Castilian
costume. In the middle of this area, elevated above a flight of steps,
was the place of sacrifice. The same author (Fuentes) relates that,
a short distance from the circus, there was a portal constructed of
stone, on the columns of which were the figures of men, likewise
represented in Spanish habits, with hose, ruff round the neck, sword,
cap, and short cloak. On entering the gateway there are two fine
stone pyramids, moderately large and lofty, from which is suspended
a hammock that contains two human figures, one of each sex, clothed
in the Indian style. Astonishment is forcibly excited in viewing this
structure, because, large as it is, there is no appearance of the
component parts being joined together; and although entirely of stone
and of an enormous weight, it may be put in motion by the slightest
impulse of the hand. Not far from this hammock is the cave of Tibulca;
this appears like a temple of great size hollowed out of the base of a
hill, and adorned with columns having bases, pedestals, capitals and
crowns, all accurately adjusted according to architectural principles;
at the sides are numerous windows faced with stone exquisitely wrought.
All these circumstances lead to a belief that there must have been some
intercourse between the inhabitants of the old and new world at very
remote periods.” The swinging stone hammock is probably a work of the
fancy rather than that of the artist’s hand, though the padre at Gualan
told Stephens that he had seen it, and an Indian remembered to have
heard his grandfather speak of it. None of these remarkable remains
have been identified with certainty, though it is not improbable
that they might be discovered if the heavy growth of vegetation were
removed by a conflagration and explorers to extend their observations
farther from the banks of the Rio Copan. According to Stephens’ survey,
a wall encloses a rectangular area measuring about nine hundred by
sixteen hundred feet. The principal group of buildings is designated
as the temple. It is built of heavy blocks of cut stone, with walls
of about twenty-five feet in thickness, and when examined they were
between sixty and ninety feet high on the river’s bank. The temple
measured six hundred and twenty-four feet north and south by eight
hundred and nine feet east and west. The general feature of the ruin
is that of an immense pyramidal terrace, with a platform elevated
about seventy feet above the ground. The river side of the terrace
is perpendicular, while the remaining sides are sloping; viewing the
ruin from this general platform seventy feet high, depressions such
as amphitheatre-like courts descend from it in some instances thirty
or forty feet, or about half way to the level of the ground, while
above the level of the general platform pyramidal structures rise to
a considerable height, in one instance one hundred and twenty-two
feet. It is difficult to conceive of what might have been the nature
of the superstructure, if any surmounted the general platform. It is
probable that for the purposes of assembly the amphitheatres with their
sloping sides may have answered every purpose, while the pyramids
may have been surmounted by temples now in ruins. Of the sculptured
columns of this locality we will speak farther on. Utatlan, the former
capital of the modern Quiché kingdom, would naturally be selected as
a point at which to seek for remains of the newer Quiché styles of
architecture. The conquerors, however, left little that can serve
as the basis for architectural study. The city was surrounded by a
deep ravine or barranca, which can be crossed at only one point, and
there long lines of stone fortifications still guard the passage. A
fortress, called El Resguardo, is among these works. It rises one
hundred and twenty feet high in the form of a terraced pyramid, with
a stone wall plastered with cement enclosing its summit platform,
on which a circular tower provided with a stairway was built. Only
fragmentary walls of the Quiché palaces remain; their dimensions were
eleven hundred by twenty-two hundred feet, and nothing but their cement
covered floors have survived the vandalism of the conquerors and the
architects of the modern town; the latter having carried away the upper
portions for building purposes. A pyramidal structure near by, known
as El Sacrificatorio, presents no architectural contrasts to pyramids
already described. Its stairway, composed of nineteen steps each eight
inches broad and seventeen inches high, is characteristically Central
American.[515] In the province of Vera Paz, especially in the Rabinal
Valley, Brasseur de Bourbourg observed numbers of tumuli, resembling
those of the Mississippi Valley both in material and structure. These
were especially prevalent in the neighborhood of the villages, and
sometimes were associated with pyramidal structures equal in finish to
any we have described. The name _cakhay_, “red houses,” is generally
applied to these tumuli.[516]
_Nahua Architecture._—It would be quite impossible for us to devote
that space to this subject which the number of remains would justify,
and the presentation of the typal features of the architecture of that
interesting family of nations will be all that we shall here attempt;
of geographical and detailed treatments there are several on the
different departments of the subject.[517] In the pages which follow we
will select a few examples of Nahua architecture in order to illustrate
our subject, but we would state that many equally important works,
though perhaps presenting no new features, have been purposely passed
by unnoticed. In a preceding chapter we referred to those intermediate
nations which occupied the transition position between the Mayas and
Nahuas. The Miztecs, Zapotecs and others, were probably a mixed people,
related in different degrees to both of the great families on the
north and south of them. Oajaca and Guerrero were the homes of these
peoples, where they developed their own civilization and styles of art
in channels distinct from those of their neighbors. The isthmus of
Tehuantepec presents some interesting remains, chief among which we
may cite two stone pyramids situated three leagues west of the city of
Tehuantepec. One of these measures fifty-five by one hundred and twenty
feet at the base and thirty by sixty-six feet on the summit. A grand
stairway composed of forty steps and thirty feet in width leads up the
western slope. The summit is also made accessible by smaller stairways
on the north and south sides. The lower of the four terraces composing
the structure, is perpendicular; the others have inclined walls. On the
face of the second terrace were four ranges of flat stones, one above
another, extending entirely around the pyramid and furnishing a series
of shelves, devoted no doubt to some sacred or sacrificial use. The
whole structure was plastered with a cement, colored brilliantly by red
ochre. The adjoining pyramid presents an architectural novelty in its
gracefully curved sides. Castañeda has sketched and Dupaix described
it. The height of the pyramid is over fifty feet while its general
dimensions are about the same as those of its neighbor. In close
proximity to the pyramids, altar-like structures were observed, one of
which was composed of eight circular stones, like mill-stones, placed
one above another. The base measured ten and a half feet, but the
summit only four and a half feet; the height measures twelve feet.[518]
Numerous earthen tumuli resembling those of the Mississippi Valley were
observed by the German traveler Müller, scattered over the region,
especially to the south-east.[519] The most important group of ruins
in Oajoca is that at Mitla, situated about thirty miles south-east of
the capital of the State. This is probably the finest group of remains
north of the isthmus of Tehauntepec. Still they are not purely Nahua in
their style, being, according to tradition, the work of the Zapotecs.
This group has been described several times by explorers, whose
accounts have differed considerably in value. The most important of
these are the descriptions and drawings by Dupaix and Castañeda, made
in 1806, and the description and valuable photographs by Charnay, the
latest explorer of this group, whose work was performed in 1859.[520]
The mitla ruins are distributed into four groups of buildings
(generally called palaces or temples) and two pyramids. The principal
edifice is described as follows: three low oblong mounds only six or
eight feet high but surmounted by stone buildings, enclose a court.
The court measures 130 by 120 feet. The eastern and western buildings
are in a fallen and ruined condition. The northern building, however,
presents a singular example of ancient grandeur. The southern portion
measures 36 by 130 feet, and the northern 61 feet square. The edifice
is about eighteen feet high, having walls varying from four to nine
feet in thickness. The accompanying cut, a photographic reduction of
Charnay’s photograph, gives a correct idea of the western façade of the
northern building.[521]
The walls of this edifice are constructed in a somewhat novel manner,
their interior portions being nothing more than clay intermixed with
stones, thus furnishing a poor substitute for the cement and stone
filling in the inner parts of Yucatanic walls. However, the exterior
facing of the walls is of hewn stone blocks cut in different forms
and sizes, and so set in relation to each other as to present examples
of perhaps the finest variety of grecques found in any structure in
the world.[522] Two layers of large stone blocks form the base of the
palace, from which rises buttresses and a framework of stone, filled
in with panels of mosaic, in patterns as described. We pronounce these
grecque patterns mosaics, because of the manner of their structure.
They are not of the nature of sculpture, since each pattern, with all
its regularity, is composed of small brick-shaped blocks of stone built
into the wall, mosaic-like, thus forming the graceful patterns shown in
the cut. No trace of mortar has been found at Mitla. The inner surface
of the wall in the northern building was smoothly plastered without any
ornament. Six round stone columns standing in line occupy the centre
of the apartment, and no doubt supported a roof of wood or stone, but
more probably of the former.[523] The cut in Baldwin’s work, copied by
Bancroft showing the interior of the apartment and the six columns,
conveys an incorrect impression as to the form of the columns and the
character of the walls, as is proven by Charnay’s photograph.[524]
The façades of the inner court of the northern wing of the palace
are finished with mosaics of great beauty. Four or five feet of the
wall is plain at the bottom except that the plastering was evidently
frescoed in various colors. The remainder of the wall is decorated with
bands of mosaic grecques, as shown in the cut, which is a fac-simile
of Charnay’s photograph engraven for Mr. Bancroft’s work. We should
not fail to note the use of immense stones in the base, framework
and lintels of the southern wing of the building. One of these is
of granite, sixteen or nineteen feet long, with the pattern of the
adjacent grecques sculptured on its face. None of the other buildings
at Mitla present any architectural contrasts to the one already
described, and require no special attention. Under a temple on the
south-west side of the one we have just referred to, is a subterranean
gallery, constructed in the form of a cross. The opening is at the
base of the mound upon which the temple stands. The arms of the cross
pointing toward the East, North and West, are each twelve feet long,
five and a half feet wide, and six and a half feet high. The southern
arm is, however, about twenty feet long, and not more than four feet
high throughout most of its length. Near the centre of the cross (which
lies directly under the centre of the temple above) a flight of four
steps descends in the southern arm of the cross to a lower level, so
that the southern arm of the passage is somewhat lower than the others.
The entire subterranean chamber was roofed with large flat stones
reaching from side to side. The walls, besides being painted red, were
ornamented with panels of mosaic, but of a ruder style than that of the
superstructure, which is suggestive of an earlier period in the growth
of the art. A circular pillar resting on a square base, and called by
the natives “the pillar of death,” because of the belief entertained
among them that whoever embraced it would immediately die, supports
the large flagstone which covers the intersection of the galleries. An
immense fortification over a mile in circumference and with stone walls
six feet thick and eighteen feet high crowns the summit of a hill,
which stands three-fourths of a league south-west of Mitla. The place
was inaccessible except on the side toward the village where the wall
was double. Castañeda has delineated and Bancroft copied the plan of
this fortress.[525]
[Illustration: Western Façade of the Palace at Mitla.]
[Illustration: Grecques of an Interior Room at Mitla.]
Passing into the state of Vera Cruz, the attention of the observer
is arrested by great numbers of mounds of all the varieties peculiar
to the Mississippi Valley. Excavations have yielded pottery of burnt
clay, idols, and flint and stone weapons, as well as implements of
agriculture, but no trace of iron or copper is recorded. As the Nahuas
are said by Duran and Sahagun to have landed on the Gulf coast not far
north of this region, and to have traversed it in their wanderings
southward, and since the tradition derives them from Florida, it is not
improbable that here we see the continuation of the works of the lower
Mississippi.[526]
[Illustration: Pyramid near Puente Nacional.]
Of several interesting specimens of ancient architecture in the state
of Vera Cruz we have selected a few examples. At Puente Nacional the
remarkable pyramid shown in the cut is situated. It was described by J.
M. Esteva in the _Museo Mexicano_ in 1843. The pyramid is six stories
high, and the eastern side is faced by a grand stairway in the form
of a cross. Mr. Bancroft has described it, employing the accompanying
cut. At Centla, twenty-five or thirty miles north of Cordova, a series
of remarkable fortifications were discovered in 1821, which have been
most thoroughly described by Sr. Sartorius, who visited the locality in
1833, but whose account was not published until 1869.[527]
The most notable fortification is situated at a narrow pass between
two ravines, with perpendicular walls several hundred feet deep. The
distance between the precipices at this point is only twenty-eight
feet. The defensive works consist of several pyramidal structures built
of stone and mortar. The largest of these has three terraces rising
from the rear until they approach a perpendicular wall, fronting a
narrow passage-way only three feet wide. This perpendicular wall is
surmounted with parapets and loop-holes for defence. A pyramid on the
opposite side of the passage-way, the platform of which is reached by
a single flight of steps, is possessed of the same defensive features,
with the addition of a ditch at its front eleven feet wide excavated
in the solid rock to a depth of five and a half feet. The object of
the fortress seems to have been the protection of an oval-shaped tract
of fertile land containing about four hundred acres, lying between
the barrancas. At the opposite end of the oval tract, the precipices
approach so closely to each other as to leave a narrow passage of only
three feet in width, which also is guarded by stone walls. Of numerous
pyramids in the region, the one figured in the cut (from Bancroft’s
work) is pronounced by Sr. Sartorius as typical of all of them.[528]
[Illustration: Type of Pyramids at Centla.]
Half a league below the town of Huatusco, Dupaix discovered a
remarkable pyramid crowning a hill on a slope of which was also a group
of ruins called the Pueblo Viejo. This structure known as El Castillo,
measures sixty-six feet in height, though there is some uncertainty
as to the size of the base.[529] Dupaix’s text states it to be two
hundred and twenty-one feet square, but Mr. Bancroft calls attention
to the fact that Castañeda’s drawing makes it about seventy-five feet
square. The pyramid in three terraces measures thirty-seven feet
high. The superstructure is in three stories, with a single doorway
in the lowest. This seems to have been the only opening through the
walls of the castle, which were eight feet thick; we presume, however,
only at their base, as their exterior shows a sloping rather than a
perpendicular surface. The lowest story forms a single apartment with
three pillars in the centre supporting the beams of the floor above.
Portions of the beams were visible when Dupaix visited the locality.
The walls of the castle are of rubble made of stone and mortar, as
in the Yucatan structures, having stone facings. The exterior of the
castle proper was coated with polished plaster and ornamented with
panels containing regular rows of round stones embedded in the coating.
Some unimportant fragments of sculpture in stone and terra-cotta were
found in the ruin. El Castillo is of special interest because of the
well-preserved condition of its superstructure. About one hundred and
fifty or sixty miles north-west of the city of Vera Cruz, the German
artist Nebel found a group of ruins known as those of _Tusapan_, buried
in a dense forest at the foot of the Cordillera. The only structure
which remains standing closely resembles the pyramid above described,
except that the walls of the pyramid are not terraced, and the tower
surmounting the pyramid is built with a single story. The only opening
in the tower is the doorway at the head of the stairway. The interior
contains a single apartment twelve feet square. The ceiling is said
to have been arched or pointed, but Herr Nebel has failed to furnish
definite information as to whether the arch was of overlapping stones
or not, an oversight of an unpardonable character, since it would be of
greatest interest to know whether the Maya arch existed so far north.
The pyramid is described as thirty feet square, and built of irregular
blocks of limestone, which was probably covered with a coat of the
plastering generally employed and so polished in its appearance.[530]
One remaining structure in the State of Vera Cruz merits special
attention, namely, the pyramid of Papantla. This pyramid, known as
El Tajin, “the thunderbolt,” is situated in a dense forest near the
modern town of Papantla, which lies about forty miles east of Tusapan.
There is a wide divergence of expression as to the dimensions of the
pyramid. Herr Nebel, however, makes the base something over ninety
feet square and the height fifty-four feet. The pyramid is seven
stories high and apparently solid, except the topmost story which
contained interior departments. This crowning structure is now sadly
dilapidated. Dupaix’s statement, copied by Humboldt, that the material
of the pyramid is porphyry, cut in immense blocks, appears to be an
error, since later exploration has revealed the fact that the pyramid
was constructed of regularly cut blocks of sandstone laid in mortar,
and coated with a hard, smooth cement, three inches thick. A stairway
on the eastern front is divided as well as being guarded by solid stone
balustrades.[531]
For Nahua monuments of the purest type we naturally turn to Anahuac
the home of Toltec and Aztec art during its most advanced period of
development. But alas! the hand of the conqueror and the zeal of the
fanatic have robbed irretrievably the antiquarian and the student
of the history of architecture and art, of the best and noblest
remains of that strangely interesting civilization. Our attention
is naturally directed to the architecture of that ancient religious
centre—Cholula—the origin of which, together with that of its great
pyramid, we have described in a previous chapter. We have already
seen that the prime object for erecting the immense pile, according
to Duran, was the worship of the sun, and not to afford a refuge from
a deluge as has been generally supposed. The pyramid of Cholula is
situated in the eastern portion of a village to which it has given its
name, and is reached by a ride of about ten miles westward from the
city of Puebla de los Angelos. The magnificent temple upon its summit
dedicated to Quetzalcoatl, fell a prey to the destroying vengeance
of Cortez, who no doubt was enraged at the stubborn resistance with
which he was met by the devoted natives, in a hard-fought battle at
the foot and upon the slopes of the pyramid. Of the large number of
descriptions, either made from personal observation or written from a
comparison of accounts, none surpass that of Humboldt, which was the
result of a careful survey, performed in 1803. Humboldt’s drawing,
however, was a restoration and not a picture of the condition of
the shrub-grown hill as he saw it.[532] The pyramid, according to
Humboldt, measures at the base six hundred and thirty-nine metres or
a trifle more than fourteen hundred and twenty-eight feet square; in
other words, about forty-four acres. The base is shown by Humboldt to
be more than twice as large as that of Cheops. Humboldt and Dupaix
give its height as fifty-four metres or one hundred and seventy-seven
feet; Mayer says it is two hundred and four feet; Tylor, two hundred
and five feet, and Heller[533] states that its summit platform covers
an area of 13,285 square feet. Its height is somewhat greater than
that of the pyramid of Mycerinus. Humboldt compares it to a mass of
brick, covering a square four times as large as the Place Vendôme and
twice the height of the Louvre. He considers it of the same type as
the temple of Jupiter Bélus—the pyramids of Meïdoùn Dahchoùr, and the
group of Sakharah in Egypt. This great monument was constructed in four
equal terraces of small sun-dried bricks, laid in a mortar which has
been pronounced by some a mixture of clay with fragments of stones and
pottery, by others a cement intermixed with small pieces of porphyry
and limestone. Herr Heller discovered that the entire structure had
been covered with a coating of cement composed of lime, sand and
mortar.[534] The present appearance of the pyramid is sufficient to
induce the opinion that it was originally a natural eminence faced up
with adobes in terraces, in accordance with the architectural idea, but
its position in the centre of a plain, together with the revelations
as to its contents, disclosed by the construction of the Pueblo road
through one corner of its base, furnish partial if not conclusive
proof that it was entirely of artificial construction. The excavation
revealed the perfect regularity with which the bricks were laid in
the interior, and brought to light a tomb containing two skeletons,
two basalt figures, a collection of pottery and other articles not
described. Humboldt has fully described this chamber, which was
constructed with stone walls supported by cypress timbers. No doorway
could be found opening into the tomb.
At Xochicalco, the “hill” or “castle of flowers,” situated seventy-five
miles south-west from the city of Mexico and distant from Cuernavaca
fifteen miles in nearly the same direction, are found the most
remarkable specimens of ancient Mexican architecture north of the
isthmus of Tehuantepec. The most important descriptions of the ruins
are by Alzate y Ramirez,[535] Humboldt,[536] Dupaix and Castañeda,[537]
Nebel,[538] and one prepared by the authority of the Mexican
government.[539]
These ruins are both beneath and upon a natural hill of oval form
measuring about two miles in circumference and from three hundred to
four hundred feet in height, authorities differing considerably on this
point. At the foot of the hill on its northern side, are the entrances
of two tunnels, one of which extends to a point eighty-two feet from
the edge of the hill, where it terminates abruptly. The second tunnel
penetrates the solid limestone of the hill in the form of a square
gallery nine and a half feet high and broad, extending inward for
several hundred feet and branching into several auxiliary galleries,
which terminate in some instances abruptly. The floors are paved with
small blocks of stone, to a thickness of a foot and a half; masonry
in some places support the sides, and all the interior surface shows
traces of red paint upon the polished cement coating with which it was
finished. The principal gallery, after turning a right angle toward the
left and extending some hundred feet in a straight line, enlarges into
a subterranean chamber eighty feet long by about sixty feet in width.
Two circular columns of living rock were left in making the excavation
as supports for the roof. The most singular feature connected with the
chamber is the perfectly circular excavation found at its south-east
angle, or that corner of the room diagonally opposite to the corner at
which the passage-way enters it. This circular apartment is only about
six feet in diameter, and while it is no deeper than the adjoining
chamber, rises above its ceiling in a dome-shaped roof, lined with
stones hewn in curved blocks. The curve of this dome-like ceiling
corresponds with that of a well-proportioned Gothic arch. At the apex
of the dome, a round hole ten inches in diameter extends vertically
upwards; some suppose to the pyramid above, but a moment’s calculation
suffices to show that in view of the considerable diameter of the hill
and the comparatively short distance from the chamber to its exterior
slope, such is impossible. The exterior of the hill presents a most
wonderful display of masonry. Its entire circuit is compassed with
five terraces of well-laid stone and mortar, faced with perpendicular
walls. Each terrace of masonry is about seventy feet in height, and
is constructed in an irregular line, forming sharp angles, like the
bastions of a fortress; each wall supporting the terraces rises above
the level of their respective platforms in parapets, evidently for
defence. The pavements of the platforms are of stone and inclined
slightly toward the south-west, with a view to draining off the
rainfall. Dupaix is the only explorer who mentions the means of ascent,
which he describes as a roadway eight feet wide, leading to the summit.
The summit platform measures 285 by 328 feet, and is surrounded by a
wall which is perpendicular on the inside, and on the outside conforms
to the slope of the terrace wall of which it is an extension. This
parapet, built of stones without mortar, rises five and a half feet
above the plaza, and is two feet and nine inches thick, we presume at
its top, since the outer slope of the terrace would make a difference
between the top and bottom. Near the centre of the plaza stands
the base of a pyramid which presents some remarkable architectural
contrasts from anything we have thus far described. Its sides face
the cardinal points, and measure sixty-five feet from east to west,
and fifty-eight feet from north to south. One of the façades, the
northern, according to Nebel, and the western, according to the Mexican
Government Survey in the _Revista_, is cut in two in the centre by an
opening twenty feet wide, where it is supposed a stairway formerly
led to the superstructure. The cut from Nebel, and reproduced by Mr.
Bancroft, shows the façade to the left of the opening, as the observer
faces the pyramid.
[Illustration: Pyramid at Xochicalco.]
The great granite or porphyritic stones which constitute the facing
of the pyramid, some of them eleven feet in length and three feet in
height, must have been brought to the summit of the hill at the expense
of great labor, especially since they must have been transported from a
considerable distance, no such material being found within a circuit of
many leagues. The stones were laid without mortar, and so nicely that
it is said the joints are scarcely perceptible. Fragments of a ruined
superstructure surmount the pyramid. The foundation walls of the second
story were two feet and three inches from the edge of the cornice below
it, except on the west where the space was four and a half feet wide.
In 1755, so say the inhabitants of the vicinity, the structure was yet
complete, having five receding stories like the first, and probably
reaching a height of sixty-five feet. On its crowning summit, on the
eastern side, stood a large throne-like block of stone, ornamented
with elaborate sculptures. The second story foundations indicate the
position of three doorways at the head of the grand stairway, and
the account in the _Revista_ describes an apartment twenty-two feet
square observable at the summit of the first story, but now filled with
fragments of stone. Mr. Bancroft suggests that from this apartment
there may have been some means of communication with the subterranean
galleries already described. The colossal sculpture on the face of the
pyramid will receive our attention on a future page.[540]
The general description given above, together with the reported
character of the superstructure of this magnificent monument, calls to
mind the main features of the great teocalli dedicated to the bloody
god Huitzilopochtli in the Aztec capital called Tenochtitlan or Mexico.
This blood-stained temple upon whose altars smoked the hearts of
countless human victims, is supposed to have occupied the site of the
cathedral fronting the Plaza Mayor of the modern city of Mexico. Not a
vestige of that terraced pyramid has survived the destructive hand of
fanaticism and the transforming work of man and nature which have been
going on ever since upon the old site of the capital of the Montezumas.
It is said to have been built in five stories, with flights of steps
affording access to the summit; but each flight was so constructed with
reference to the platform at its top, as to require almost a complete
circuit of the building before the next flight could be reached. It was
necessary, therefore, in order to reach the summit platform, to pass
four times around the pyramid. It is supposed that this was intended
to display to better advantage the solemn processions of the priests
as their long train mounted gradually the sides of the edifice. The
specialist is already familiar with the descriptions by Bernal Diaz,
whose particular extravagance of statement renders his work altogether
unreliable. Also with the accounts by Torquemada, Gomera, Cortez and
Clavigero. The reader has no doubt acquainted himself with the main
facts in the writings of the graceful and imaginative Prescott, whose
seeming romance, _The History of the Conquest of Mexico_, has been
proven by recent and reliable investigation to have approached much
nearer to fact than to fiction. Mr. Tylor, after careful exploration,
has expressed in his “Anahuac” his surprise and satisfaction at what
he considers to be the proof of Mr. Prescott’s general correctness
of statement as to the extent of the Aztec capital and the probable
character of its edifices.[541]
For a description of the palaces of Mexico and Chapultepec, the
museums, mansions of the nobles, the pavements and aqueducts of that
buried city, we refer the reader who has not access to the sources, to
the admirable account by Prescott, especially since it more properly
belongs to the province of history (now that all traces of them have
disappeared) than to that of archæology.[542]
Of many interesting localities where architectural remains still exist,
we select one more in the Central region, to illustrate our subject.
The ancient religious city of the early Nahuas, Teotihuacan, with
its famous pyramids—the traditional origin of which we have already
noted[543]—deserves our attention. The city of the gods has had
many describers, from the illustrious Humboldt to the observant and
philosophical Mr. Tylor. The most complete description, however, is
that given in the report of a scientific commission appointed by the
Mexican government in 1864, containing accurate plans and views.[544]
Sr. Antonio Garcia y Cubas, a member of the commission, subsequently
published a most interesting memoir on the pyramids of Teotihuacan,
entitled _Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo entre las Pirámides Egípcias
y Mexicanas_ (Mexico, 1871). The analogies between Teotihuacan and
Egyptian pyramids receive the greater share of attention, though some
valuable facts not mentioned in the report of the commission are here
made known. Mr. Bancroft has reproduced the main features of the report
of the Mexican Commission and compared it with previous researches,
thus presenting the reader with probably the best critical version of
the exploration of Teotihuacan, to be found in any language.[545] The
cut reduced from Almaraz for Mr. Bancroft’s work shows the plan of the
Teotihuacan monuments on a scale of about twenty-five hundred and fifty
feet to an inch.
[Illustration: Plan of Teotihuacan.]
The pyramid marked A in the plan is known as Metztli Itzacual, which
is interpreted “House of the Moon.” It measures 156 metres or 512
feet from east to west by 130 metres or 426 feet from north to south.
According to Almarez, its height is 42 metres or 137 feet, but Sr.
Garcia y Cubas, who took his measurement on the opposite side of the
pyramid from that measured by Almaraz, says that it is 46 metres or
150 feet high. The summit platform, according to Garcia y Cubas, is
six metres or nineteen and a half feet square; quite a discrepancy
is here observable between the estimated area given by Beaufoy and
copied by Mr. Bancroft as thirty-six by sixty feet, and this actual
measurement. The sides of the pyramid nearly face the cardinal points.
The eastern slope is 31° 30′, while the southern is somewhat steeper,
being 36°. The slope on the east seems to have been unbroken except
by a zigzag roadway, leading to the summit. The remaining sides
are plainly marked by the remains of three terraces, one of which
is still about three feet wide. Humboldt and Tylor both speak of
remains of stairways of which no mention is made by the Government
Commission. Most observers have described the pyramids as faced with
hewn stone, but the commissioners on the contrary found them coated
with successive layers of different conglomerates as follows: “1st,
small stones from eight to twelve inches in diameter, with mud forming
a layer of about thirty-two inches; 2d, fragments of volcanic tufa,
as large as a man’s fist, also in mud, to the thickness of sixteen
inches; 3d, small grains of tetzontli (a porous volcanic rock) of
the size of peas, with mud, twenty-eight inches thick; 4th, a very
thin and smooth coat of pure lime mortar. These layers are repeated
in the same order nine times and are parallel to the slopes of the
pyramid, which would make the thickness of the superficial facing
about sixty feet.”[546] On the southern slope, sixty-nine feet from
the base, according to Almarez, a gallery large enough to admit a
man crawling on hands and knees, extends inward on an incline, a
distance of twenty-five feet, and terminates in two square wells or
chambers, each five feet square, and one of them fifteen feet deep.
Mr. Löwenstern, according to Mr. Bancroft, states that “the gallery
is a hundred and fifty-seven feet long, increasing in height to over
six feet and a half, as it penetrates the pyramid; that the well is
over six feet square, extending apparently down to the base and up to
the summit; and that other cross galleries are blocked up by débris!”
It is probable that these remarkable galleries never existed, except
in Mr. Löwenstern’s imagination, since Sr. Almarez in the report of
the official survey pronounces the tunnel already described as simply
excavations by treasure-hunters. The pyramid B of the plan, situated
five hundred and seventy-five yards south of the House of the Moon, is
called Tonatiuh Itzacual, or “House of the Sun.” This pyramid requires
no description, except to give its dimensions, since in all other
respects it is precisely similar to the House of the Moon. The House
of the Sun, according to the measurement of Sr. Garcia y Cubas, which
is the most recent, is at the base 232 metres or 761 feet by 220 metres
or 722 feet. Its height is 66 metres or 216 feet, while the summit
platform measures 18 by 32 metres or 59 by 105 feet. Both this pyramid
and the preceding have each a small mound on one of their sides near
their base. In the latter instance this mound seems connected with an
avenue of mounds just west of it. An embankment marked _a_, _b_, _c_,
_d_, one hundred and thirty feet wide on the summit and twenty feet
high, widening out at the extremities into platforms, extends around
three sides of the “House of the Sun.” Across the Rio San Juan, and at
the distance of twelve hundred and fifty yards southward of the “House
of the Sun,” stands the Texcalpa or “citadel.” This is a quadrangular
enclosure, measuring on its exterior twelve hundred and forty-six by
thirteen hundred and thirty-eight feet. The embankments are of enormous
strength, being two hundred and sixty-two feet thick by thirty-three
feet high, except on the western side, which is but sixteen feet high.
The enclosure is divided unequally by a wall as strong as that upon
the sides. On the centre of this wall stands a pyramid ninety-two feet
high. At its base are two small mounds besides one in the western
enclosure, while fourteen others averaging twenty feet in height are
arranged with regularity upon the summit of the enclosing wall. An
avenue two hundred and fifty feet wide formed by mounds and measuring
two hundred and fifty rods in length, extends from a point south of
the “House of the Moon” to the river, as is shown from C to D, in the
plan. The avenue is cut up into compartments by six cross embankments,
a rather strange feature for which no explanation has been afforded.
These mounds are mostly conical, built of fragments of stone and clay,
and some of them reach a height of thirty feet. The native traditions
call it Micaotli, which may indicate that they were designed for the
purposes of sepulture. Almaraz, who excavated one of the multitude of
mounds or _tlalteles_ in the vicinity, found four walls meeting at
right angles, though a little inclined and forming a small square.
Connected with this were steps, at the top of which four other walls
enclosed a little room, supposed to have been a tomb. The natives
describe the discovery of a stone box in one of the mounds containing
a skull, with about such a collection of trinkets as is commonly met
with in the stone graves of Tennessee. Mayer describes a massive stone
column, ten feet long and four feet square, cut from a single block.
This resembles the elaborate capitol of a column resting on a base with
scarcely a shaft intervening. It is called the fainting stone by the
natives, who believe that whoever sits on it is sure to faint instantly.
One additional group of ruins, as yet unclassified with any of the
types we have described, merits our attention. This group is known
as Los Edificios of Quemada, situated in southern Zacatecas north of
the Central plateau and probably the home of the Chichimecs.[547] Mr.
Bancroft has attempted to reconstruct the unsatisfactory accounts of
the several explorers of Quemada, but with little success. We therefore
decline adding another comparative failure to the list of literature
on these ruins. Some general observations, however, may not be out of
place. The Cerro de los Edificios is a natural eminence about half a
mile long and between one hundred and two hundred yards wide, except at
its southern extremity where it increases to a width of five hundred
yards. The authorities differ as to its height, one saying from two
to three hundred feet, and another eight to nine hundred feet above
the plain. Ancient roads well paved radiate in various directions from
the hill, some of them extending a distance of five or six miles. The
northern brow of the hill, where the descent is not so precipitous
as at the other points, is guarded by a stone wall, as are all other
points where the precipitous sides do not offer a sufficient barrier
to an intruder from without. The surface of the hill is quite uneven,
and these irregularities have been formed into terraces supported by
stone walls. Foundations have thus been secured for a multitude of
structures, some of them perfectly pyramidal and others consisting
of quadrangular enclosures or squares, terraced and having steps
descending to the court within, where pyramidal structures of stone are
found. On the eastern terrace of the Cerro, a round pillar, eighteen
feet high and nineteen feet in circumference, stands in proximity to a
wall of as great height as the pillar. Traces of nine similar pillars
are visible, and the probability is that they formed part of a balcony
or perhaps a portico. Adjoining this wall is an enclosure measuring 138
by 100 feet, in which are eleven pillars in line, each seventeen feet
in circumference and as high as an adjacent wall, namely eighteen feet.
The distance from the wall is twenty-three feet, and the presumption is
that the pillars supported a roof. There are no doorways, properly so
called, since the doorways are large quadrangular openings extending to
the full height of the halls. No windows were discovered anywhere. The
material is gray porphyry from hills across an intervening valley, and
the mortar is reddish clay, mixed with straw, and is of poor quality.
Sculpture, hieroglyphics, pottery, human remains, idols, arrow-heads,
and obsidian fragments are totally wanting, thus presenting a strange
contrast with all other Mexican ruins. Nevertheless, the massiveness
of the fortifications, the height and great thickness of the walls,
none of which are less than eight feet thick and in one instance over
twenty, the extensive system of paved roads, besides great elevated
stone causeways running through the city, the size of the enclosed
squares, one of which contains six acres, all indicate that this
might have been the capital city of a powerful people, a people whose
architectural affinities with all others that we are acquainted with
are very few, and whose contrasts are numerous. Certainly the type and
execution of the masonry, though massive, is more primitive than found
elsewhere in Mexico. We do not mean that it is more ancient, for such
cannot be true, but inferior to that in other parts of Mexico and the
Central American region. The arch of overlapping stones is entirely
wanting, and but for the round columns without either base or capitol,
the steps toward advancement in the art would only be those common to
that generally vigorous and warlike period which, in the history of
every people, has preceded a higher civilization. Mr. Bancroft has
published Burghes’ plan of Quemada but to little purpose, since the
descriptive matter available does not contain a reference to more than
one-fourth of the many structures indicated.
In the course of the chapter, we have indicated the principal
resemblances and contrasts between the various styles treated. The
pyramidal structure we have found employed by both Mayas and Nahuas,
with certain modifications and with such resemblances as would seem to
indicate that both peoples had been originally, or at an early day,
near neighbors, and that the younger people, at least the more recent
in their occupancy of Mexico and Central America, the Nahuas, may
have copied the pyramid in its perfected form from the Mayas. We have
noted some difference between the ancient and modern Maya styles. In
the ancient or Chiapan, the irregularities in the face of the pyramid
caused by constructing it of tiers of rectangular stones were filled
with mortar, and an even surface produced. In the modern or Yucatec
style the blocks of stone-facing are bevelled to the angle of the
slope. Furthermore, in some instances the corners of the pyramids were
rounded. At Palenque the superstructures were of only one story, while
Yucatec structures were often formed of three receding stories. Of the
Copan ruins little can be said intelligently, except that the pyramid
combined with the terrace is all-pervading, but still is not unlike the
Palenque style in its main features. The Nahua architecture offers a
great variety of styles, but at the same time the pyramidal structure
is the fundamental feature of all kinds of structures. Mitla offers an
exception to this rule, but there are doubts as to whether Mitla may be
classified as a Nahua ruin at all. The early writers devoted much of
their attention to seeming old world resemblances in ancient American
architecture, but their speculations in most cases were puerile and
trivial. Mr. Stephens, with the experience which the careful study
and observation of old world monuments afforded him, strongly denies
that any such analogies are to be found among the Maya groups.[548] M.
Viollet-le-Duc considers the monuments of Mexico, especially those of
Maya origin, to have been influenced by white and yellow races, the
former of the Aryan from the north-east, the latter the Turanian from
the north-west. He seems to find some analogy between ancient Japanese
temples (and quotes a description from Charlevoix, _Histoire du Japan_,
ed. 1754, tom. i, chap. x, p. 171) and those of ancient America. He
thinks that the style of architecture at Uxmal indicates clearly that
the first structures were of wood and resembled the style prevalent in
Japan. However, the wooden structures more properly originated with
the white races, while the use of stucco is characteristic of the
Turanian or Yellow races of the north-west. He thinks it certain that
Mitla and Palenque were influenced by a white race.[549] Señor Garcia
y Cubas has attempted to prove in a careful argument that the pyramids
of Teotihuacan were built for the same purposes as were the pyramids
of Egypt. He considers the analogy established in eleven particulars,
as follows: the site chosen is the same; the structures are oriented
with slight variation, the line through the centres of the pyramids
is in the astronomical meridian; the construction in grades and steps
is the same; in both cases the larger pyramids are dedicated to the
sun; the Nile has a “valley of the dead,” as in Teotihuacan there is
a “street of the dead;” some monuments of each class have the nature
of fortifications; the smaller mounds are of the same nature and for
the same purpose; both pyramids have a small mound joined to one of
their faces; the openings discovered in the Pyramid of the Moon are
also found in some Egyptian pyramids; the interior arrangement of the
pyramids is analogous.[550] Mr. Delafield by a less systematic argument
advocates the same theory. However, his capability to discern analogies
is not confined to a single structure, since in the pyramid of Cholula
and the teocalli of the city of Mexico he finds a counterpart to the
temple of Belus at Babylon, as described by Herodotus. The walls
around the hill at Xochicalco explain the use of similar embankments
at Circleville and Marietta in Ohio, while the order of the apartments
at Mitla bears a striking analogy to the arrangements of apartments
in the temples of upper Egypt. This and much more Mr. Delafield has
been able to discover, but unfortunately only with certainty to
his own mind.[551] Löwenstern is equally certain that the American
monuments were not constructed by a nation analogous to that which
built the pyramids of Egypt.[552] Ranking, on the other hand, finds
that Teotihuacan was named after the illustrious dead buried beneath
its pyramids, as was the custom in Egypt, but in this instance the
name is analogous to that of Thiautcan or Khan, the name of the grand
Khan of the Monguls and Tartars who occupied the throne of China at
the time of Sir John Mandeville’s visit to Pekin in the fourteenth
century; and as at Teotihuacan and among the Monguls the sun and moon
were worshipped, so, according to Ranking, those American monuments
are attributable to Mongul architects.[553] It would be easy for us to
continue the citation of these fancied analogies, but it is no doubt
already apparent to the reader that they are generally of too trivial a
character to serve the ends of science, and we therefore dismiss their
further consideration.[554]
[Illustration: Stucco Bas-relief in the Palace.
Fig. 1.]
_Sculpture and Hieroglyphics._—The mound sculpture, as has been
observed in the cuts illustrating a previous chapter of this work,
though comparatively rude in most cases, still, in a few instances,
is quite remarkable as affording true representations of animals
and possibly of the human face. Considerable progress in the art of
ornamentation in terra-cotta is displayed on many of the vases and
burial urns exhumed from the mounds. Many of the lines, figures and
borders traced in relief and sometimes in taglio on those vessels
indicate not only that a sense of the beautiful was present, but that
it had been cultivated to a considerable extent. The same remarks apply
to the pottery of the Pueblos and Cliff-dwellers. At Palenque, however,
the student of art meets with no mean attempts at delineating the
human form—in fact, the success obtained in this difficult field alone
characterized the work of the Palenque artists. It is presumed that
nearly all of the piers separating the doorways in the eastern wall of
the palace were ornamented with stucco bas-reliefs. Two out of six of
the best preserved are shown in the following cuts. The most remarkable
feature of the first (Fig. 1, reduced from Waldeck for Bancroft’s
work) is the cranial type, deformed to a shocking degree, probably by
artificial pressure, so generally employed by the ancient American
races. Possibly it is but a caricature.
[Illustration: Stucco Bas-relief in the Palace.
Fig. 2.]
Fig. 2 (a photographic reduction from Waldeck) presents us with a
subject which has called forth no little discussion. The “elephant’s
trunk” which protrudes from the elaborate head-dress of the priest has
been thought to indicate an Asiatic influence.[555] We have already
referred to the frequent occurrence of the “elephant trunk” ornament in
Yucatan. The hieroglyphic signs at the top and on the faces of these
reliefs no doubt hold locked up in their mysterious symbols the history
of the scene.
In all of these reliefs the flattened cranial type is present, and
no doubt represents the ideal of beauty among those ancient people.
The stuccoes appear to have been moulded upon the undercoating of
cement after it had become hard. The brush of the painter was then
employed in its final embellishment.[556] Adjacent to the eastern
stairway leading downward into the main court of the palace are great
stone slabs, forming a surface on each side of the steps fifty feet
long by eleven feet high. Waldeck, Stephens and Bancroft furnish
views of gigantic human figures sculptured in low relief upon these
surfaces. Both the attitudes and expressions portrayed indicate that
the groups represented are either captives or possibly victims for
sacrifice.[557] On the opposite side of the court, and on the stone
face of the balustrade of a stairway, two figures, male and female, are
sculptured, which, according to Waldeck, are of the Caucasian type. The
same artist has shown the beautiful grecques which adorn the panels of
the cornice.[558] Waldeck and Bancroft have figured a remarkable stone
tablet of elliptical form, in which a princely personage is represented
as sitting cross-legged on a chair formed of a double-headed animal,
pronounced by Stephens to resemble a leopard. Catherword’s plate, in
Morelet’s _Travels_, shows an ornament suspended from the neck of
the chief figure resembling an effigy of the sun, while in Waldeck’s
drawing the Egyptian Tau is graven upon the ornament.[559] The
accompanying cut shows Waldeck’s drawing (employed by Mr. Bancroft).
[Illustration: Sculptured Tablet in the Palace.]
Four hundred yards south of the palace stands the ruins of a pyramid
and temple, which, at the time of Dupaix’s and of Waldeck’s visits
were in a good state of preservation, but quite dilapidated when seen
by Charnay. The temple faces the east, and on the western wall of its
inner apartment, itself facing the eastern light, is found (or rather
was, for it has now entirely disappeared) the most beautiful specimen
of stucco relief in America. M. Waldeck, with the critical insight
of an experienced artist, declares it “worthy to be compared to the
most beautiful works of the age of Augustus.” He therefore named the
temple the Beau Relief. The above cut is a reduction from Waldeck’s
drawing used in Mr. Bancroft’s work, and is very accurate. However,
the peculiar beauty of Waldeck’s drawing is such that it must be seen
in order to be fully appreciated.
[Illustration: Beau Relief in Stucco.]
It is scarcely necessary for us to call the reader’s attention to the
details of this picture, in which correctness of design and graceful
outlines predominate to such an extent that we may safely pronounce
the beautiful youth who sits enthroned on his elaborate and artistic
throne, the American Apollo. In the original drawing the grace of the
arms and wrists is truly matchless, and the chest muscles are displayed
in the most perfect manner. The embroidered girdle and folded drapery
of the figure, as well as the drapery around the leopards’ necks, are
arranged with taste. The head-dress is not unlike a Roman helmet in
form, with the addition of numerous plumes. The sandals of the feet are
secured by a cord and rosette, while ornaments on the animals’ ankles
seem secured by leather straps. The engraving does not do justice to
the face-like ornament suspended by the string of pearls upon the
youth’s breast. In the original drawing it is quite beautiful, and of a
female cast.[560]
The next subject of interest to the student of sculpture is found in
the Temple of the Cross, in the inmost sanctuary of all, and is known
as the Tablet of the Cross. Three stones cover most of the surface of
the rear wall of the sanctum sanctorum, and present an area six feet
four inches high by ten feet eight inches wide. The central of the
three stones bears the celebrated sculpture of the cross which has
excited so much interest and comment, to say nothing of speculation
as to its origin. The cut is a photographic reduction from Waldeck’s
drawing. A priest and priestess appear to be offering an infant to an
ugly bird which stands perched upon the cross. The infant’s face is
completely hid by a fantastic mask or cap. The expression of pain on
the faces of the officiating personages is very marked. The symmetry
of proportion employed in the sculpture is conceded by all observers.
The two lateral stones (the left-hand one being shown in our cut) are
covered with hieroglyphics, which begin at the left-hand upper corner
with a large capital letter. Some one had removed the central stone
from its position prior to Waldeck’s visit, and conveyed it to a point
in the forest not far distant. Stephens also found it in the same
locality. By referring to the hieroglyphic tablet at the left of the
cross it will be observed that just below the large initial letter or
word is a threefold hieroglyphic, while seven others in the same column
are double. This would indicate, we should think, that the characters
were read from the top downwards, though it is possible that the lines
were read horizontally, each line beginning with a capital as in
poetry.[561]
[Illustration: Tablet of the Cross.]
[Illustration: Palenque Statue.]
On either side of the doorway opening to the inner sanctuary of the
Cross, were originally two male figures sculptured in low-relief on
stone; one of them, which appears to represent an aged royal person,
is beautifully clad in a leopard’s skin, while the opposite figure,
designed probably to represent youthful manhood, is arrayed in what
may be an elaborate military dress and plumed crest of magnificent
character. He wears what appears to be a cuirass about his shoulders
and chest. These tablets were removed to the village of Santo Domingo
years ago and set up in a modern house, where they were offered to
M. Waldeck on the sole condition that he should marry one of the
proprietresses, though he at the time was more than sixty-four years of
age. Stephens could have obtained them by purchasing the house in which
they had been placed, but did not.[562] On the slope of the pyramid of
the Cross, M. Waldeck found two statues just alike, one of which was
unfortunately broken; the other, subsequently sketched by Catherwood,
is shown in the cut, a photographic reduction from Waldeck. These
statues were ten and a half feet high, though two and a half feet of
their length, not shown in the cut, formed a tenon by which they were
embedded in the floor of the pyramidal surface, where Waldeck supposes
they stood supporting a platform about twenty feet square, in front of
the central doorway. These are the only statues ever found at Palenque;
but it is doubted whether they can be technically called statues, since
the back is of rough stone, and unsculptured. They probably rested
against a wall and served as supports for an upper roof or floor, as
indicated by Waldeck. The head-dress has been pronounced Egyptian by
all who have seen it.[563]
In the temple of the Sun, in a position precisely corresponding to
that occupied by the tablet of the cross, stands a somewhat similar
tablet cut in low-relief on three slabs covering an area of eight by
nine feet. The figure of the cross in this instance is displaced by
a hideous face or mask supposed to represent the sun, supported by a
framework resting on the shoulders of crouching men. The priest and
priestess occupy the same positions as occupied by them in the tablet
of the cross. Each is in the act of presenting a child with masked face
to the sun, and each is standing upon the back of a kneeling slave.
The lateral tablets are covered with columns or rows of hieroglyphics,
as in the tablet of the cross.[564] The stuccoed roofs and piers of
both the temples—Cross and Sun—may be truly pronounced works of art
of a high order. On the former, Stephens observed busts and heads
approaching the Greek models in symmetry of contour and perfectness
of proportion. M. Waldeck has preserved in his magnificent drawings
some of these figures, which are certainly sufficient to prove
beyond controversy, that the ancient Palenqueans were a cultivated
and artistic people. In passing to Uxmal the transition is from
delineations of the human figure to the elegant and superabundant
exterior ornamentation of edifices, and from stucco to stone as the
material employed. The human figure, however, when it is represented,
is in statuary of a high order. The artists of Uxmal did not improve
upon the Palenque models so much in the design as in the execution
of their subjects. Uxmal statuary approximates more closely to what
properly may be called statuary, being cut more nearly “in the round”
and having less unfinished back surface than the Palenque statue. The
elegant square panels of grecques and frets which compose the cornice
of the Casa del Gobernador, delineated in the works of Stephens,
Baldwin and Bancroft, are a marvel of beauty, which must excite the
admiration of the most indifferent student of this subject. The
ornamentation of this great cornice, equal to one-third the height of
the building, is cut on blocks of stone and inserted in the wall with
the utmost precision, so that every line matches, and the graceful
arabesques and bas-reliefs, which sometimes cover several blocks with a
single figure, are unbroken by apparent joints. The grandest specimens
of American ornamental sculpture are, however, to be seen on the inner
fronts of the four buildings of the Casa de Monjas, a plan of which is
given on page 351 of this work. It will be remembered that these fronts
face the court around which the buildings were constructed. The court
front of the eastern building is probably one of the most tasteful and
interesting specimens of sculpture to be met with in America.[565] M.
Waldeck considers that it presents an appearance of grandeur of which
it would be difficult to give an idea, while Stephens considers its
chasteness of design a great relief from the gorgeous masses of other
façades. The cornice over the central doorway and the corners of the
eastern court façade are ornamented with ugly masks and “elephant
trunks” protruding from them, as in the Governor’s home.[566] If the
preceding façade is the most generally admired of those at Uxmal, “the
most magnificent and beautiful front in America” is that of the Serpent
Temple, or western court façade of the Nunnery, as is shown in the
accompanying engraving, which is a photographic reduction of Waldeck’s
drawing employed in Mr. Bancroft’s work.
[Illustration: Western Court Façade—Casa de Monjas.]
[Illustration: Sun Symbol.]
The marked feature of the sculpture is the formation of square panels
by the intertwined bodies of two huge stone serpents with monster
heads, surmounted by plumes and enclosing between the jaws of each a
human face. A head and tail as shown above occupy opposite extremes of
the front. This may be a representation of the plumed serpent of the
Central American mythology. The stone lattice-work (a feature of Uxmal
sculpture) underlying the serpents and covering the panels formed
by their folds, is more complicated and beautiful than any other in
America. At regular intervals large grecques or arabesques, with their
connecting bars lengthened to the width of the entire sculptured
portion of the façade, are distributed. Several panels are ornamented
with life-sized human figures, while each panel contains a human
face, some of which are as beautiful as the Greek models. The upper
cornice is ornamented, as are all the other cornices of the Nunnery,
with what are supposed to be Sun symbols, one of which is shown in the
cut, reduced photographically from Waldeck’s drawing. The appended
“feathers” are almost Assyrian in their type, while the double triangle
within the circle is certainly an ancient symbol in the old world.
[Illustration: “Elephant Trunk.”]
The “elephant trunks” and rude masks employed as ornaments above
the doorways of the other fronts, are also numerous here. Since
M. Waldeck’s visit portions of this wonderful example of ancient
decorative art have fallen.[567] The northern building of the court
offers no sculptured contrasts with the other buildings, except that
above the upper cornice, thirteen turrets, each seventeen feet high
and ten feet wide, are distributed at regular intervals, and are
also covered with sculpture resembling the grecques of the Serpent
temple. Most of the sculptures at Uxmal were probably painted, as
traces of various colors were observed in sheltered localities. The
rich sculptures of the prophet’s house were painted blue, red, yellow
and white, according to M. Waldeck. The Mayas no doubt employed the
brush freely, and in some instances with skill. In the gymnasium at
Chichen-Itza, Stephens grew enthusiastic over the exceedingly fine
series of paintings in bright colors, which cover the walls of one
of the chambers. Many of the pictures have been destroyed by the
falling of the plaster upon which they were painted. In this series of
pictures, battles, processions, houses, trees and a variety of objects
are represented—blue, red, yellow and green are the colors employed,
though the human figures are painted reddish brown.[568] At Chichen, as
elsewhere, the favorite subject for the Maya sculpture was the serpent.
A colossal serpent balustrade is one of the wonders of this interesting
place.
Dr. Augustus Le Plongeon, during the last quarter of the year 1875,
made an extensive exploration of Chichen-Itza. The reports of his
discoveries seem at first well-nigh fabulous, though their authenticity
is so well attested as to leave no room for doubt. Mr. Stephen
Salisbury, Jr., of Worcester, Massachusetts, has in several memoirs
of intense interest and unusual scientific value, communicated the
progress and results of Dr. Le Plongeon’s exploration in Yucatan to
the American Antiquarian Society. Mr. Salisbury has also presented
the explorer’s original memoirs, accompanied by photographs made at
Chichen-Itza and on the Islands of Cozumel and Mugeres. These valuable
documents have reached the public in Mr. Salisbury’s publications
entitled, (1.) _The Mayas, the Sources of their History_ (Worcester,
1877, with heliotype reproductions of the photos); (2.) _Maya
Archæology_ (Worcester, 1879, with heliotype reproductions of photos
and drawings).[569] In these pages we are impressed with the fact that
the darkness which has so long enveloped the antiquity of Yucatan is
soon to be displaced by the noon-day of scientific investigation. Still
we cannot refrain from expressing the regret that Dr. Le Plongeon’s
enthusiasm is so apparent in his reports. A judicial frame of mind,
as well as the calmness which accompanies it, are requisites both for
scientific work and the inspiration of confidence in the reader.
Notwithstanding this, our views have been most happily expressed by the
committee of the American Antiquarian Society, to whom was entrusted
the publication of Dr. Le Plongeon’s memoirs. Their statement is as
follows: “The successes of Du Chaillu, Schliemann, and of Stanley, are
remarkable instances of triumphant results in cases where enthusiasm
had been supposed to lack the guidance of wisdom. If earnest men are
willing to take the risks of personal research in hazardous regions,
or exercise their ingenuity and their scholarship in attempting to
solve historical or archæological problems, we may accept thankfully
the information they give, without first demanding in all cases
unquestionable evidence or absolute demonstration.”
Dr. Le Plongeon says of the columns at Chichen, “the base is formed by
the head of Cukulcan, the shaft by the body of the serpent, with its
feathers beautifully carved to the very chapter. On the chapters of
the columns that support the portico, at the entrance of the castle
in Chichen-Itza, may be seen the carved figures of long bearded men,
with upraised hands, in the act of worshipping sacred trees. They
forcibly recall to mind the same worship in Assyria.” In consequence
of the successful interpretation of certain hieroglyphic inscriptions
at Chichen, the explorer and his wife (who accompanied him in his
perilous enterprise), learned that the statue of Chaac Mol, or Balam,
(the tiger king), the greatest of the Itza monarchs, had been buried
below the surface of the ground at a certain point, distant four
hundred yards from the palace. The first result of excavation in
the locality indicated was the discovery of a sculptured tiger of
colossal size, having a human head, which, unfortunately, was broken
off. Several slabs bearing sculptures of tigers and birds of prey in
relief were unearthed. A pedestal supporting the sculptured tiger
apparently had once occupied the spot, and its destruction had left a
mound of débris. Seven metres below the surface of this mound a rough
stone urn containing a little dust was secured, and upon it an earthen
cover. This was near the head of the statue of Chaac Mol, which was
next disclosed. The statue is of a white calcareous stone, one metre
fifty-five centimetres long, one metre fifteen centimetres in height,
and eighty centimetres wide, and weighed fifty kilos. The statue
represents the reclining figure of a man, who is naked except that he
is adorned with a head-dress, with bracelets, garters of feathers,
and sandals similar to those found upon the mummies of the ancient
Guanchies of the Canary Islands.
[Illustration: Sculptured Slab found at Chichen-Itza.]
The statue of Chaac Mol was seized by Mexican officials and sent to the
capital. Our friend, the Rev. John W. Butler, of the city of Mexico,
writes to us (letter received October 10, 1878) concerning the statue:
“It is just as represented. It may be seen in the National Museum, just
opposite its exact duplicate, which was found under the Plaza of the
city of Mexico, some years ago. What is the meaning of this? The tribe
whose king (or god) it was, must have _migrated southward_, for the one
excavated in Mexico shows _greater age_ than the one from Yucatan.” In
reply we would say that the evidences are sufficient that the Maya
civilization once extended farther north than the city of Mexico, but
the conquests of the Nahuas drove that ancient people no doubt to
abandon their northern territory and to confine themselves to their
lands farther south.
[Illustration: Sculptured Slab found at Chichen-Itza.]
[Illustration: Statue of Chaac Mol.]
Dr. Le Plongeon, in speaking of the historical value of the statue,
says Chaac Mol was one of the three brothers whom tradition declares
were the co-rulers of Yucatan at a very ancient period. Chaac Mol and
his beautiful queen Kinich-Kakmó were the powerful sovereigns of the
kingdom of Chichen-Itza. Aac, one of the brothers, becoming enamored of
his sister-in-law Kinich-Kakmó, slew Chaac Mol that he might make her
his wife. The funeral-chamber, the mural paintings, the statues, and
the monument of the murdered king found by the explorer, were memorials
of the sad event which the faithful queen caused to be executed by the
artisans and artists of the royal city. Dr. Le Plongeon remarks: “In
the funeral-chamber, the terrible altercation between Aac and Chaac
Mol, which had its termination in the murder of the latter by his
brother, is represented by large figures, three-fourths life size.
There Aac is painted holding three spears in his hands, typical of the
three wounds he inflicted on the back of his brother. These wounds are
indicated on the statue of the dying tiger (symbol of Chaac Mol) by two
holes near the lumbar region, and one under the left scapula, proving
that the blow was aimed at the heart from behind. The two wounds are
also marked by two holes near each other in the lumbar region, on the
_bas-relief_ of the tiger eating a human heart that adorned the Chaac
Mol mausoleum (see sculptured slab on page 398).”[570]
Mr. Stephen Salisbury, Jr., in his _Maya Archæology_, has reproduced
one of Dr. and Mrs. Le Plongeon’s tracings of a mural painting in the
funeral-chamber of the Chaac Mol monument at Chichen-Itza. Through the
courtesy of Mr. Salisbury we have been permitted to copy it for this
work. The Doctor interprets it as representing the queen Kinich-Kakmó
when a child consulting an _H-Men_, one of the Maya wise men or
astrologers, in order to know her destiny. The prediction is based upon
the lines produced by fire on the shell of an armadillo or turtle, and
is expressed in the colors of the elaborate scroll proceeding from the
throat of the _H-Men_. Referring to his tracings of mural paintings
at Chichen-Itza, Dr. Le Plongeon says “they represent war scenes
with javelins flying in all directions, warriors fighting, shouting,
assuming all sorts of athletic positions, scenes from domestic life,
marriage ceremonies, temples with complete domes, proving that the Itza
architects were acquainted with the circular arch, but made use of the
triangular probably because it was the custom and style of architecture
of the time and country.”[571] Besides the sculptures of long-bearded
men seen by the explorer at Chichen-Itza mentioned on a preceding
page, were tall figures of people with small heads, thick lips, and
curly short hair or wool, regarded as negroes. “We always see them as
standard or parasol bearers, but never engaged in actual warfare.”[572]
He pronounces the features of the long-bearded men pictured on the
walls of the queen’s chambers to be Assyrian in their type. On the Isla
Mugeres (in the latter part of the year 1876), Dr. Le Plongeon exhumed
portions of a female figure in terra-cotta, which indicate an advanced
state of art among the ancient Mayas. The fragments of the statue,
consisting of the head and feet, were probably attached to the front
of a brasero or incense-burner used at the shrine of the Maya Venus,
located on the southern extremity of the island. It was immediately
in front of this shrine, visited by Cordova in 1516,[573] that the
remains of the statue were found buried in the sand. The expression of
the face is cruel and savage, the nostrils are perforated and also the
pupils of the eyes. The teeth are filed as those of the statue Chaac
Mol are said to be. The head is surmounted by a head-dress eight inches
high. The fragments of this statue are now in the possession of Mr.
Salisbury.[574]
[Illustration: Mural Painting from Chaac Mol Monument
Chichen-Itza.—(From a copy by Dr. and Mrs. Le Plongeon.)]
[Illustration: Terra-cotta Figure from Isla Mugeres.]
Through the courtesy of the owner we are enabled to present a
photographic reduction of the relics in the preceding cut.
[Illustration: The Cara Gigantesca.]
At Izamel, the burial-place of the culture-hero Zamna, a remarkable
example of aboriginal sculpture is found upon the side of a mound now
enclosed in a private court-yard. This specimen of art, known as the
Cara gigantesca, or gigantic face, measures seven feet in width and
seven feet eight inches in height. “The features were first rudely
formed by small rough stones, fixed in the side of the mound by means
of mortar, and afterwards perfected with a stucco so hard that it has
successfully resisted for centuries the action of air and water.”
The accompanying cut from Mr. Bancroft’s work will show the type of
features.
The subject of Maya sculpture is almost a limitless one, but we trust
that the above-cited examples may give the reader a comprehensive
acquaintance with the existing types. The sculpture of Copan is no
less remarkable than its architecture. In fact, every object bore the
skillful marks of the graver’s chisel. The great number of sculptured
obelisks, pillars and idols have been the wonder of every reader of Mr.
Stephens’ description. Since his work is so generally known, we refrain
from presenting more than one example of Copan art. In the accompanying
cut employed in Mr. Bancroft’s work the elaborateness of the sculpture
will be observed, and may well be pronounced a marvel of aboriginal art.
[Illustration: Copan Statue.]
But for the perfectly horizontal position of the eyes, the aspect of
some of the faces represented by Stephens would strike us as having
a Mongolian cast. The magnificently sculptured hieroglyphics which
cover the sides and backs of these huge idols, no doubt could tell
the sealed story of Copan’s greatness and the attributes of its many
gods, were the key once discovered. Everything is covered with these
significant symbols, differing slightly from those at Palenque; but who
will read them? In the court of the temple, a solid block of stone six
feet square and four feet high, resting on four globular stones was
sketched by Catherwood, and pronounced an altar by Stephens. Sixteen
figures in profile, with turbaned heads, breast-plates, and each
seated cross-legged on hieroglyphic-like cushions, are sculptured in
low-relief, four figures being on each side of the block. The top of
the altar is covered with thirty-six squares of hieroglyphics, shown
in a cut on a future page. Besides numbers of masks, effigies and rows
of death’s heads at Copan, there are sculptures of the face which we
may believe to have been portraits. The Copan sculpture is generally
admitted to be of a high order, and Stephens thinks it unsurpassed in
Egypt. The receding forehead of most of the portraits have excited
general interest, and are believed to be delineations of the priestly
or aristocratic type. No weapons are sculptured at Copan, but on the
contrary altars abound in considerable numbers, especially in front
of the sculptured obelisks or idols. The presumption is therefore
strong that this was a religious centre, unmolested by any enemy, and
undisturbed by the alarm of war.[575]
[Illustration: Figure from Monte Alban.]
_Nahua Sculpture._—The Nahua sculpture is not of as high an order nor
of as frequent occurrence as that of the Mayas. At Monte Alban in
Oajaca, in a gallery within a mound, Castañeda sketched the sculptured
profile shown in the accompanying cut, employed in Mr. Bancroft’s work.
It is cut upon the face of a granite block about three feet square, and
is interesting because of the Chinese-like queue which hangs from the
figure’s head. At Mitla the grecques and arabesques which cover the
façades of the several edifices are not sculptured, except in cases
where large stones serve as lintels over doorways. On them the running
borders are sculptured in low-relief, while the remainder of the
profuse ornamentation is of the nature of mosaic work, being built into
the wall.
Several minor objects of sculpture found in the States of Oajaca and
Vera Cruz might be cited, but their interest for the reader would be
too insignificant to justify a description.[576] One of the principal
objects of this class and much superior to any of the others is a
grotesque fountain cut in the living rock at Tusapan. The statue is
that of a woman in a kneeling posture, and measures nineteen feet in
height. The waters of a neighboring spring formerly ran into a basin
formed among the plumes of the female’s head-dress, from which it found
its way through the entire length of the figure, and flowed forth from
beneath her skirts.[577] At Panuco the traditional point of the arrival
of the Nahuas, several rude limestone statues were found, some of which
have been figured in the _Journal of the London Geographical Society_,
by Mr. Vetch, one of which is copied by Mr. Bancroft.[578] The marked
features of these statues is the elaborateness of the style of
head-dress worn. We cannot see that they are far removed in their style
from similar statues dug from mounds in the Mississippi Valley. In the
State of Puebla, at various points, especially at Tepexe el Viejo, at
Tepeaca, and at Quanhquelchula, minor sculptures of animals, birds,
reptiles, monsters, etc., were observed by Dupaix.[579] Rattlesnakes
were found plentiful both in sculptures and in a state of nature.
At Cuernavaca, in the State of Mexico, numerous boulder-sculptures,
finely executed in low-relief, exist. Dupaix has figured and Bancroft
copied one in particular, showing a beautiful coat-of-arms, sculptured
on the smooth face of a huge boulder. A circle of arrows and Maltese
cross which compose them, are all symbolical of power.[580] Similar
coats-of-arms were observed in the State of Puebla. Probably the most
remarkable sculpture found in the country occupied by the Nahuas, is
that upon the walls of the pyramid of Xochicalco, illustrated on a
preceding page.[581] Most of the sculptures are of colossal dragons’
heads, which occur at each of the corners. Human figures, seated
cross-legged and holding something like the Assyrian sun symbol in the
left are found on the frieze, though some observers have considered
this figure to be that of a curved cross-hilted sword, a weapon never
employed by the Nahuas. The elaborate head-dresses and strings of
enormous pearls worn by the seated figures bear a striking resemblance
to the stuccoes of Palenque. At Xochimilco on the western shore of
Lake Chalco, Dupaix found several interesting specimens of ancient
sculpture.[582] The most celebrated article of Aztec sculpture,
unquestionably, is the calendar-stone, which, together with the
so-called sacrificial stone and the idol Teoyaomiqui, was in December,
1790, dug up in the Plaza Mayor, in the city of Mexico, on the
supposed site of the great teocalli, destroyed by the conquerors. The
calendar-stone, now built into the wall of the cathedral, where it can
be seen by all passers-by, is a rectangular block of porphyry, thirteen
feet one inch square and three feet three inches thick, and of the
enormous estimated weight of twenty-four tons. The sculptured portion
of the block, on the exposed face, is contained in a circle, eleven
feet one inch and four-fifths of an inch in diameter. The regularity
and geometrical precision with which the figures are executed called
forth enthusiastic admiration from Humboldt, and has been the source
of equal wonderment to many later observers. Our cut is a reproduction
of Charnay’s photograph, by means of the photo-engraving process, and
may be relied upon as absolutely correct. Prescott considers that the
original weight of the block before it was mutilated must have been
nearly fifty tons; and as no similar stone is found within a radius
of twenty-five miles of Mexico, that it must have been brought from
the mountains beyond Lake Chalco.[583] Some remarks upon the Aztec
calendar will be found in the following chapter. The sacrificial stone
is a cylindrical block of porphyry, nine feet ten inches in diameter
and three feet seven inches thick, and is now lying in the courtyard
of the University of Mexico. If the reader will imagine the border
of the calendar-stone outside of the eight triangular points removed
entirely, will substitute a concave basin in the place of the central
face or sun, also instead of all the calendar signs intervening between
the face and the circle, upon which the base of the four principal
triangular figures rest, will imagine the existence of several
concentric circles not unlike strings of beads, he will have a general
idea of the top of the stone. We should not omit to state that a groove
or channel leads from the central basin to the outer circumference. The
use of the stone is a matter of controversy, Humboldt considering it
the gladiatorial stone, Gama a calendar-stone, and Tylor that it was
an altar on which animals were sacrificed. Fifteen groups of two human
figures, each dressed in the insignia of royalty, are sculptured around
its circumference. Bancroft, as well as several others, give cuts of
the stone and sculptures. The horrid monster Teoyaomiqui—goddess of
death—is sculptured in high-relief on a block of porphyry ten feet
high and six feet wide and thick. Probably no mythology nor all the
mythologies of the world besides could produce so hideous and unsightly
a combination of reptile, human and infernal forms, as make up the
three sides of this idol.[584] Mr. Bancroft first figured the beautiful
earthen burial vase dug up in the Plaza Tlatelulco and sketched by Col.
Mayer. It is twenty-two inches high and fifteen and a half inches in
diameter; a closely fitting lid most chastely sculptured covered it, as
will be seen in the accompanying cut.
[Illustration: Aztec Calendar Stone in its Present Condition.]
[Illustration: Burial Urn from Mexico.]
Among the elegant sculptures upon one of its sides is a comely face
surmounted by a crown, from each side of which project wings of
the same character as were employed to symbolize the sun among the
Assyrians.[585] The original is pronounced one of the finest relics
preserved in the Mexican Museum. M. Waldeck has figured many beautiful
examples of Mexican ceramic art preserved in the above collection as
well as in others. The finest specimens of ancient terra-cotta work of
which we have any knowledge are shown in the cut, photographically
reduced from Waldeck’s plate.[586]
[Illustration: Vases from Waldeck.]
No description can convey any idea of their beauty. The upper left-hand
vase, it will be observed, is supported on three feet, each perforated
by a perfect Maltese Cross. The central lower vase, of remarkable
symmetry, is distinguished by the perfect _crux ansata_ which adorns
its side. The lower right and left hand figures are different views of
a swinging lamp. These vases cannot but command the admiration of all
who see them. M. Waldeck has delineated with remarkable artistic skill
three specimens of Mexican mosaic work now in the Christy collection in
London. One of these beautiful relics is shown in the cut, reduced from
Waldeck’s colored plate for Mr. Bancroft’s work.
[Illustration: Mosaic Knife—Christy Collection.]
However, the cut conveys but a faint idea of its beauty, especially
of the handle. The blade is of semi-translucent chalcedony from the
volcanic regions of Mexico, while the handle is a most artistic mosaic
of bright green turquoise, malachite, and white and red shells. The
blade is of a light straw-colored tint, and is mortised in the handle,
which is wrapped nearest to the blade with what appears to be a golden
braid. Mr. Bancroft remarks “it is certainly most extraordinary to
find a people still in the stone age, as is proved by the blade, able
to execute so perfect a piece of work as the handle exhibits.”[587]
Among the few relics recovered at Tula, the ancient Toltec capital
Tollan, the column shown in the cut (from Mr. Bancroft’s work) is very
interesting, both for its sculpture and for the exhibition it affords
of the manner in which the Toltecs formed their columns, namely, by
fastening the sections together by means of circular tenons. The
largest block measures four feet long by two and a half in diameter.
[Illustration: A Column from Tula.]
Our National Museum at Washington contains numerous fine specimens of
Mexican terra-cotta ware, some of which have been figured recently
in Dr. Charles Rau’s “Archæological Collection of the U. S. National
Museum.”[588] Two large vases in particular demand attention. These
were brought to the United States by General Alfred Gibbs at the close
of the Mexican war, and are shown in the cut.
The upper vase, which is thirteen and a half inches high, is very
elaborately wrought, being surrounded with ten female figures in
relief, each alternate figure bearing a child on the left arm. It is
noticeable that the head-dresses of the figures holding the children
are more elaborate than those of the remaining figures. The second or
lower vase, Dr. Rau considers equal to many Etruscan or Greek vases
in gracefulness of outline. “The vessel may be compared to a pitcher
with two handles, standing opposite each other, and with two mouths
projecting between them.” Among the terra-cotta images of Mexican
origin in the National Museum the two shown in the cut are of interest.
The left-hand figure is that of a woman pressing her hands upon her
ears. The face represents an aged individual. The Museum possesses
almost an exact duplicate of this image. The right-hand figure is
much smaller and is hollow, enclosing a clay ball, and was probably
used as a rattle. It is scarcely necessary for us to remark that the
seeming analogies between the Maya (Central American) sculpture and
that of Egypt have often been noted. Juarros, in speaking of Palenque
art, says: “The hieroglyphics, symbols and emblems which have been
discovered in the temples, bear so strong a resemblance to those of
the Egyptians, as to encourage the supposition that a colony of that
nation may have founded the city of Palenque or Culhuacan.”[589]
Giordan found, as he thought, the most striking analogies between the
Central American remains, as well as those of Mexico, and those of
the Egyptians. The idols and monuments he considers of the same form
in both countries, while the hieroglyphics of Palenque do not differ
from those of ancient Thebes.[590] Señor Melgar, in a communication
to the Mexican Geographical Society, has called attention to the
frequent occurrence of the (Τ) _tau_ at Palenque, and has more
studiously advocated the early relationship of the Palenqueans to
Egypt than any other reliable writer.[591] He cites Dupaix’s _Third
Expedition_, page 77 and plates 26 and 27, where in the first figure
is a goddess with a necklace supporting a _tau_ like medallion to
which the explorer adds the remark that such is “the symbol in Egypt
of reproduction or abundance.” In the second plate he finds an altar
dedicated expressly to the _tau_. He considers that the cultus of this,
the symbol of the active principle in nature, prevailed in Mexico in
many places. Señor Melgar also refers to two idols found south of the
city of Mexico, “in one of which two symbols were united, namely, the
Cosmogonic egg, symbolical of creation, and two faces, symbols of the
generative principle. The other symbolized creation in the bursting
forth of an egg. These symbols are not found in the Aztec mythology,
but belong to the Indian, Egyptian, Greek, Persian, Japanese and other
cosmogonies.” This, the Señor considers proof that these peoples were
the primitive colonists of that region, and seeks to sustain his views
by references to the Dharma Sastra of Manou and the Zend Avesta. The
reader has no doubt been surprised at the frequent occurrence of the
[Τ]-shaped niches in the Palenque palace, and has observed the same
symbol employed on some of the hieroglyphics of the Tablet of the
Cross. The Egyptian tau, one of the members of the _Crux ansata_, is
certainly present at Palenque, but whether it was derived from any one
of the Mediterranean peoples who employed it, cannot be ascertained.
Among the Egyptians it signified “life,” as is shown by the best
Egyptologists.[592] The tau was usually surmounted by a roundlet,
though such was not always the case. On a stele from Korasabad, an
eagle-headed man is depicted as holding the oval in one hand and the
cross in the other.[593] M. Mariette recently, while exploring the
ancient temple of Denderah, discovered the sacred symbol in a niche of
the holy of holies. It is probable that this emblem was the central
object of interest in these inner precincts of the temple, as it was
preserved with scrupulous care as the hidden wisdom.[594] Macrobius
tells us that the _crux ansata_ was the hieroglyphic sign of Osiris
or the Sun,[595] but other writers inform us that it was an ancient
symbol of majesty and divinity, and so employed in a modified form in
the hands of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva.[596] The associations of the
tau in Central America are such as to lead us to believe that it may
have had a significance analogous to that which it possessed on the
shores of the Mediterranean, the Nile, and the Ganges. The Palenque
Cross tablet is a most singular work of American antiquity, and though
Mr. Stephens attempted to prove that no analogy exists between it and
Egyptian sculptures, still Mr. Bancroft has shown that the former was
unfortunate in his selection of Egyptian specimens for the purpose of
comparison, since marked analogies between the sculpture of the Vocal
Memnon of Thebes and the top of the fallen obelisk at Carnac and the
Palenque Tablets exist.[597]
[Illustration: Mexican Vases in the National Museum.]
[Illustration: Statuettes in the National Museum.]
It has been argued that the Egyptian and Palenque sculpture resemble
each other in that both are generally in profile; but the trivialness
of the reasoning will be at once apparent. On the contrary, Mr.
Bancroft remarks, “Sculpture in Egypt is for the most part in intaglio,
in America it is usually in relief.” Notwithstanding the oft-repeated
assertion that a resemblance between Egyptian and Maya hieroglyphics
exist, no one of the Egyptologists so successful in their chosen field
have been able to decipher the Maya writing. It is not improbable
that the Palenque and Copan civilization received its first impulse
from some of the peoples of the southern or eastern shores of the
Mediterranean, but from which it would be impossible to say even if we
were certain that such was the case. Whatever of a foreign character
it may have had at first has been mostly lost in the independent
development of new and original characteristics, the natural outgrowth
of new wants and new conditions, arising through the lapse of many
centuries. The latter remark we think may be applied with even more
certainty to the Nahua civilization as displayed in its sculpture. All
through Mexico the favorite subject for the Toltec or Aztec sculptor
was the serpent, generally the rattlesnake. Mr. Bancroft in his fourth
volume has given numerous examples of this fact. Serpent sculpture
was also common among the Mayas, but to a less extent, and it is not
improbable that the symbol entered into their art through the Quichés—a
mixed people composed of Mayas and Nahuas. We have already observed the
same disposition to sculpture the rattlesnake among the Mound-builders.
In the great serpent upwards of a thousand feet in length on Brush
Creek, Adams County, Ohio, we find a striking analogy to the tendency
of Mexican art. Furthermore, the great serpent grasps in its jaws
(if they may be so called) an immense oval figure of precisely the
shape of an egg, and “the combined figure is regarded as a symbolical
illustration of the Oriental cosmological idea of the serpent and the
egg.” We have seen in the remarks of Señor Melgar that two examples of
the egg possessing precisely the same significance which is attached to
it in Eastern Asia were found near the City of Mexico. The part which
the serpent symbol plays in the south and east Asiatic sculpture and
mythology is probably well known to the reader; and if not, a perusal
of Maurace’s _Indian Antiquities_ or Moor’s _Hindu Pantheon_ will
satisfy him that it occupied a place equally important among Nahuas and
Hindoos. The great serpent in Ohio may be a connecting link between
the art of both Mexicans and Asiatics. In the course of independent
development which the Nahuas underwent during thousands of years, the
cosmological symbol of the egg may have been lost and supplanted by
that of the serpent alone, the emblem of the life principle in both
America and Asia. However, we may safely close these speculations
with the conclusion that though the Mayas and Nahuas were probably
descendants of foreign stock, their civilization, so far as we are able
to judge from their arts, was indigenous—developed upon our soil, and
offering but few analogies to any other.
_Hieroglyphics._—No well authenticated Mound-builder hieroglyphics
have as yet come to light. The Grave Creek Mound tablet we believe is
now shown unquestionably to be an archæological fraud. The Cincinnati
tablet figured in our first chapter seems to bear some symbolic signs
upon its face, but no resemblance can be traced between them and any
other known hieroglyphic signs. The Davenport tablet if genuine is
of great interest in that it abounds in hieroglyphics, some of which
are not unlike some of the signs employed by the Aztecs; besides, the
element of picture-writing so common to that people plays a prominent
part on both sides of that mysterious stone. Col. Charles Whittlesey,
in the second chapter of his _Report to the Centennial Commission of
Ohio_ (already cited), has figured and described rock sculpture near
Barnesville, Newark, Independence, Amherst and Wellsville, most of
which are of the lowest grade of savage art, and we think can only be
attributed to the red Indian.
Mr. W. H. Holmes has furnished specimens of picture-writing of a
rude character found engraven in the rocks of the cañon of the Rio
Mancos and San Juan, but there is no evidence that they are or are not
the work of the Cliff-dwellers whose works abound upon neighboring
rocks.[598] We have already called attention to the tablets of
hieroglyphics at Palenque, Copan and in Yucatan, a specimen of which is
shown in a cut on page 390. The accompanying cut, employed by Stevens,
Baldwin and Bancroft, show the thirty-six squares of hieroglyphics
engraven upon the top of a Copan altar.
In addition to these stone and stucco records, the Mayas had books,
which Bishop Landa describes as written on a large leaf doubled in
folds and enclosed between two boards which they ornamented; they
wrote on both sides of the paper, in columns accommodated to the
folds; the paper they made from the roots of trees, and coated it
with a white varnish on which one could write well. These books were
called _Analtees_, a word which, according to Villagutierre, signifies
the same as history.[599] Bishop Landa confesses to having burned
a great number of the Maya books because they contained nothing in
which were not superstitions and falsities of the devil.[600] Bancroft
has quoted from Peter Martyr a description of these books, which
conveys the additional information that they were written on many
leaves joined together but folded so that when opened two pages are
presented to view.[601] Three of the Maya manuscripts are known to
have escaped the vandalism of the early Fathers. These are, first, the
Mexican MS. No. 2 of the Imperial Library at Paris, called by Rosny
the _Codex Peresianus_, which has been photographed by order of the
French government, but we believe is still unedited. The second, the
_Dresden Codex_, in the Royal Library at Dresden, a complete copy of
which was published by Lord Kingsborough. It is a Maya, and not an
Aztec MS., as is proven by its marked resemblance to the tablets of
Palenque and Copan, a fact pointed out by Mr. Stephens, though at
the date of his exploration everything was pronounced Aztec.[602] The
third, the _Manuscript Troano_, found by Brasseur de Bourbourg at
Madrid in 1865 in the possession of Señor Tro y Ortolano, from whom
it derives its name, is a Maya MS. of unknown origin and history. The
French government and the Commission Scientifique du Mexique reproduced
it in fac-simile by means of chromo-lithography, and Brasseur, with
the expenditure of great labor, attempted to translate part of it,
which he has published; but in a subsequent work he confesses that
he began his reading at the wrong end of the manuscript, which, as
Mr. Bancroft humorously remarks, was a “trifling error perhaps in the
opinion of the enthusiastic Abbé, but a somewhat serious one as it
appears to scientific men.”[603] Mr. Bancroft has reproduced a page
of the MS. Troano in his work, and accompanied it with a condensed
account from the Abbé’s description as follows: “The original is
written on a strip of maguey paper about fourteen feet long and nine
inches wide, the surface of which is covered with a whitish varnish,
on which the figures are painted in black, red, blue and brown. It is
folded fan-like in thirty-five folds, presenting when shut much the
appearance of a modern large octavo volume. The hieroglyphics cover
both sides of the paper, and the writing is consequently divided into
seventy pages, each about five by nine inches, having been apparently
executed after the paper was folded, so that the folding does not
interfere with the written matter. * * * The regular lines of written
characters are uniformly in black, while the pictorial portions, of
what may perhaps be considered representative signs, are in red and
brown, chiefly the former, and the blue appears for the most part as
a background in some of the pages.”[604] Notwithstanding the bigoted
spirit exhibited by Bishop Landa in his destruction of the native Maya
books in the presence of their sorrowful and helpless owners, he did
one act of service for the antiquarian, which will ever entitle him to
the gratitude of every student of ancient American civilization. That
act was the record which he made of the Maya hieroglyphic alphabet. The
Bishop has left us scarcely two and a half octavo pages (of his work as
edited by Brasseur de Bourbourg) upon this important subject, yet it is
the only known key to the mysteries of Palenque, Copan and the numerous
inscriptions found in Yucatan. His explanation of the manner in which
letters are combined into words is not clear, and though Mr. Bancroft
has translated it literally and introduced parenthetic explanations,
still the sense is not very apparent. Brasseur de Bourbourg in his
French translation has not succeeded much better, and complains of
Landa’s style as being untranslatable. One important fact, however,
is deducible from the Bishop’s remarks and example, namely, that the
Maya letters were formed into words in much the same order as in the
English and other languages which read from the left to the right.[605]
Landa’s alphabet is given in the accompanying cut which is an exact
photographic reproduction of the original.
[Illustration: Hieroglyphics on the Copan Altar.]
Landa adds nothing after this table except the remark: “Of the letters
which here fail, this language is wanting and has others added of
ours, for other things of which they have need, and already they do
not use these characters of theirs, especially the young people who
have learned ours.”[606] Landa has left us other hieroglyphic signs,
relating to the Maya months and days, which will be given in the
next chapter. Many of the hieroglyphics in his alphabet are plainly
recognizable in the three Maya MSS. which we have named, though it is
quite certain that other signs, which are wanting in his list, are
found not only in the MSS. but also among the inscriptions of the
several localities we have already described. Besides the attempts
made by Brasseur de Bourbourg to decipher the Maya writing, three
Américanistes in particular have bestowed labor upon the subject. These
are Mr. Wm. Bollaert,[607] M. Hyacinthe de Charencey,[608] and M. Leon
de Rosny,[609] the latter of whom is the honorable president of the
Société Américaine de France.
[Illustration: Landa’s Alphabet.]
By means of Landa’s key, Mr. Bollaert obtained encouraging results
from hieroglyphics figured in Stephens’ works. In that author’s
_Yucatan_, vol. ii, page 292, is seen a sculptured figure with
hieroglyphics represented on the upper part of the door called Akatzeeb
at Chichen-Itza. This tablet is examined by Mr. Bollaert with the
following result: “The figure (male) is nude; the cap is like those on
the figures at Kabab, and has an ornament round the neck; the large
crucible-form before him contains fire, in which some small animal is
being burnt or sacrificed. Comparing the hieroglyphs on either side
of the figure with the Maya key, I get the following words: _Ahau_,
‘king’; _oc_, ‘leg’; _Muluc_, ‘to unite’; _ik_, ‘courage’; _cib_,
‘copal’; _eznab_, ‘magician’; _no_, ‘frog’; which may mean that the
magician has in the crucible a frog to be sacrificed, in which copal
as incense is used. The two lines of hieroglyphs give something like
the following: Kings must die—they have courage, and after death are
united to those who went before them. The king is with his fathers;
the chief and his family burn copal and mourn for his death.”[610]
On the tablet of the cross at Palenque, Mr. Bollaert found in squares
_eznab_, “magician”; _dz_, “a hand”; the “aspiration sign” ⋃; and a
part of _zip_, “tree.” Among the hieroglyphs he traced _ahau_, “king”;
_zip_, “tree”; _akbal_, “a plant”; _pax_, “a musical instrument.” Mr.
Bollaert has attempted to read several other inscriptions with no more
satisfactory results.[611] One or two of the same scholar’s attempts
with the _Dresden Codex_ yield the following: _We come to thy presence
to implore. The young female implores before the deity, she weeps
but has courage._ In a group representing a king and a young female,
he reads: _She has made a vow about the king to the magician, the
king is happy._ Again: _The sacred bird chel is sacrificed, there is
weeping; the bride weeps for the bird, she makes a vow or prays for
the king, she offers a tortoise, a great feast is given._[612] M. de
Charencey translates the hieroglyph found just above the child which
is being offered to the bird on the tablet of the cross at Palenque,
by the word _Hunabku_, “the only holy one.” He also finds the name of
_Kukulcan_ and _eznab_, “magician,” the name of a month.[613] M. de
Rosny in his able essay on the decipherment of the hieratic writings
of Central America has undertaken the solution of this interesting and
perplexing problem in a scientific manner, and we have the fullest
confidence that his system constructed on Landa’s key will open to
us the books and inscriptions of the Mayas. But two of the four
parts which constitute the work have been published, still we think
sufficient data has been placed at the hands of scholars by M. de Rosny
to justify the opinion that if the remainder of his essay should never
appear, the work of interpreting some of the Maya writings might be
carried on with reasonable certainty. Landa’s key contains seventy-one
signs (twenty for the days, eighteen for the months, and thirty-three
in the alphabet.) M. de Rosny, by a careful examination of all the
hieratic texts of the Mayas which are known, has discovered more than
seven hundred different signs. Of this number he has deciphered and
classified four hundred and thirty-nine as follows: Alphabetic signs,
including Landa’s (of which all the others are but varieties), two
hundred and sixty-two; signs of the days, one hundred and fifty-nine;
and the eighteen signs of the months given by Landa. All these signs
are classified in a double folio plate (Pl. XIII) which we believe
deserves to be regarded as the larger portion of the much-sought-for
Maya Rosetta stone. Considerable difference of opinion has existed as
to the direction in which the hieroglyphics should be read. Brasseur
held the view that the proper order was from right to left, and that
the beginning of a book was where our books end. This mistake brought
down the ridicule of scholars upon the Abbé’s head, when it was
discovered that he had begun at the wrong end to translate the _Troano
MS._ Mr. Bollaert says, “I have read from the bottom upwards and from
right to left.”[614] Dr. Brinton[615] has suggested some such order as
the following arrangement of the word _marvellous_:
o ll m
u e a
s v r
M. de Rosny has shown that the statement of Landa and the fact that the
human faces shown in the hieroglyphs look toward the left, indicate
that the signs should be read from left to right.[616] In rare cases
this order is reversed, as is seen on a couple of leaves of the _Codex
Peresianus_. There are, no doubt, numerous instances in which the
signs are arranged in perpendicular columns, and the order in which
such columns are to be read is not the same in all manuscripts. In the
Maya inscriptions and manuscripts, the “illustrations” or pictorial
figures are interwoven with the alphabetic signs forming an important
part of the writing. In many cases a page of MS. (as shown in Rosny’s
plates) is divided into sections or squares, in which the hieroglyphics
are inseparably connected with grotesque figures which accompany
them and form a part of the writing. M. de Rosny has undertaken the
classification and interpretation of all these figures which are found
in the existing Maya MSS. This doubtless will prove an important
auxiliary to the table of signs already alluded to. We may reasonably
expect that since M. de Rosny has shown the extensive character of the
Maya phonetic and symbolic alphabet, he will furnish us examples of its
application in the practical interpretation of the hieroglyphics, in
the latter part of his work. Recently Dr. Ph. Valentini has pronounced
the Landa alphabet a Spanish fabrication, of later date than the
conquest. See _Proceedings of Amer. Antiquarian Soc._ for April, 1880.
We do not deem it necessary to assure the reader that while the Aztec
picture-writing was not as far advanced in the scale of graphic
development as the system employed by the Mayas, still it was an
accurate means of communication and of recording events. The “scribes”
of the Mexicans were an educated class of men, who with strictest
accuracy painted in hieroglyphic symbols the record of national,
historic and traditional affairs, as well as the tribute rolls, the
calendar with its feast days, the stated services of the gods, the
genealogical tables of noble and royal personages, and even the
customs of the humble classes. No doubt many educated persons who did
not belong to the priestly and lettered class, were acquainted with
the system employed, and many others understood it sufficiently to
recognize calendar and feast signs. The Aztec books were painted mostly
on cotton cloth, prepared skins and maguey paper, and when not rolled
were folded fan-like and bound with thin wooden covers, like the Maya
books. The priests who accompanied the conquerors and immediately
followed them, mistook the pictured figures painted in these books to
be representations of heathen deities, and consequently inaugurated a
system of wholesale destruction of all the picture-writing. Las Casas
informs us that they were actuated by the fear that in matters of
religion the existence of these books would be injurious. The infamous
crime committed against the cause of knowledge and the irreparable
injury done to the natives, their successors, and to students of
history for all time, by the destruction of those valuable MSS., must
ever remain an unerasable blot upon the name of the early church in
Mexico, and must be ranked with the worst deeds of Goths and Vandals.
Juan de Zumárraga, the chief of these sacrilegious destroyers who
committed the annals of the Mexican States publicly to the flames
in his tour of the principal cities of the country, will ever be
remembered with proper contempt. Fortunately, many of the MSS. were
hidden by their owners and have since come to light; the greater
number of these, however, were tribute rolls, which, down to the last
century, played an important part in the Mexican courts of justice.
Prescott informs us that “until late in the last century, there was
a professor in the University of Mexico especially devoted to the
study of the national picture-writing. But as this was with a view to
legal proceedings, his information probably was limited to deciphering
titles.” In the course of time the priests became acquainted with the
harmless nature of the hieroglyphics, through their use by the natives
in their making confessions and in recording the Lord’s prayer. Many
documents written since the conquest were provided by their authors
with a Spanish translation or with an explanation in Aztec written
with Spanish letters. Many of these are in existence, and with a few
authentic documents, written previous to the conquest, are preserved
in public and private libraries of Europe and this country, the finest
collection of which is that of the National Museum of the University
of Mexico. The reader is no doubt already familiar with the splendid
fac-similes of several Mexican MSS. published in Lord Kingsborough’s
work. Mr. Bancroft has concisely narrated the events and vicissitudes
which have attended the transmission of some of these documents through
the hands of successive owners to their present depositories.[617]
Several writers on hieroglyphic systems, and the above author among
them, have classified the progressive steps of picture-writing into
_representative_, _symbolic_, and _phonetic_. Of these, the first
is by far the simplest, and has invariably preceded the others in
the development of the graphic art. It was natural for the savage to
represent an object by a picture, in which that object was surrounded
with certain conditions; at first the entire object was pictured, but
subsequently only a portion of the object, as in the case of a bird,
the head or foot or wing in the more advanced stages of art, would be
substituted for the object itself. In symbolic picture-writing, we find
an attempt at representing abstract ideas and actions. Some quality
or attribute of a person is portrayed by means of the representative
process, by symbols which would naturally seem to suggest the
distinguishing characteristic of the person or occasion. A certain
Aztec festival might be symbolized by the conventional calendar sign,
an altar, a flint knife held by a human hand, and a smoking human
heart. Phonetic picture-writing is, of course, dependent upon the
sounds of the language for which it is designed. Its province is to
represent those sounds by pictures of objects in whose names the sounds
occur. Words, syllables and elementary sounds which are represented by
alphabets, are thus gradually evolved in the progression which follows.
Mr. Bancroft, by a most ingenious example, has illustrated this
principle as applied to our own language. “According to this system,”
he says, “the [left hand pointing up] signifies successively the word
‘hand,’ the syllable ‘hand’ in handsome, the sound ‘ha’ in happy, the
aspiration ‘h’ in head, and finally, by simplifying its form or writing
it rapidly, the [left hand pointing up] becomes [left hand pointing
up outline] and then the ‘h’ of the alphabet.”[618] The Aztecs never
reached the last stage of phonetic development, namely, the alphabet.
They, however, employed the system in the syllabic formation of words
to a very considerable extent. The priests soon found the natives
applying their art of writing to the record of the standard expressions
employed in teaching the new faith. Amen was expressed by the sign
of water, _atl_ associated with a maguey plant, _metl_ which united
gave the word _atl-metl_, or after the ever present Aztec termination
_tl_ is stricken off, we have _a-me_, an approximation to our word
Amen. Mr. Bancroft gives also the following example of the manner in
which the name Teocaltitlan was expressed by this syllabic-phonetic
writing: “It is written in one of the manuscripts of the Boturini
collection by a pictured pair of lips, _tentli_, for the syllable _te_;
footsteps, symbolic of a road, _otli_ for _o_; a house, _calli_ for
_cal_; and teeth, _tlantli_ for _tlanti_, being a common connective
syllable.” We think the reader will find a clearer illustration in the
word Chapultepec, which literally means “hill of the grasshopper.”
By reference to the Aztec migration map which has been published by
several authors[619] (the most correct copy accessible to the general
reader is that by Bancroft).[620] A hill surmounted by a grasshopper
will be observed among the figures. The same representation in
different form will be seen in Boturini’s picture-map of the migration.
Chapultepec is well known as the royal hill, a short distance west of
the city of Mexico, celebrated as the country residence of Montezuma.
Numerous similar examples might be selected from the migration maps
of this combination of the three methods employed. Proper names were
always expressed in a similar manner. An example of the representative
and symbolic stages of the picture-writing of the Aztecs has been
given by Mr. Bancroft from the _Codex Mendoza_ in Kingsborough.[621]
We here reproduce the plate used in the _Native Races_. It describes
four steps or periods in the education of children; each period is
supposed to refer to a particular year. In the upper left-hand group
we see a father (fig. 3) punishing his son by holding him over the
fumes of burning chile (fig. 5); in the right-hand group the mother
threatens her daughter with similar punishment. In the second group
(figs. 12–13), a father punishes his son by exposing him bound hand
and foot on the damp ground. A bad boy twelve years of age, according
to Aztec custom was always punished in this way, and his punishment
lasted during an entire day. A disobedient girl of the same age was
obliged to rise in the night and sweep the whole house, as is shown
in the right-hand group, or, as no tear is seen in her eye, she may
be learning. At the age of eight years children were only shown the
instrument of punishment; at ten they were pricked with maguey thorns,
or if still unruly, were whipped. The above groups show the methods
employed during the eleventh and twelfth years, after which age a child
was supposed to be pretty well disciplined. In the third group a father
directs his boys (fig. 21) how to transport wood, both upon the back
and in the canoe, while the mother teaches the daughter (fig. 23) to
make tortillas and use the mealing stone and other utensils (figs. 25,
26, 28); the tortillas are also represented (fig. 27). In the fourth
group the son learns the use of the fish-net and the daughter that of
the loom. The allowance of tortillas apportioned to the children at the
ages represented are shown in figs. 2, 8, 11, 16, 20, 24, 30 and 34.
The remaining figures are not representative, but symbolic. The small
circles (figs. 1, 10, 19, 29) are numerals indicating that the child
was successively eleven, twelve, thirteen and fourteen years of age. A
circle or dot was always used for a unit. The comma-like figure issuing
from the mouth of the parent is the symbol of speech. The tears in the
children’s eyes need no explanation. The singular figure (17) above
the girl in the second group is said to be symbolical of night, and to
indicate that the sweeping was required in the night.
[Illustration: Education of Children according to the Codex Mendoza.]
For most interesting specimens of Aztec picture-writing as well as
their supposed explanation, we refer the reader to the Gemelli Carreri
and Boturini Migration maps in the Atlas of Garcia y Cubas, or in the
second volume of Mr. Bancroft’s work, which are the only places where
they are to be found correctly reproduced. Mr. Delafield sought to
find an analogy between the Aztec and Egyptian hieroglyphic systems
on no other ground than that both were representative, symbolic and
phonetic, a most wonderful discovery indeed.[622] Notwithstanding this
fact, and many similar efforts, no marked analogy between the Aztec
picture-writing and the hieroglyphic systems of any other peoples has
yet been pointed out.[623]
• • • • •
MAP OF YUCATAN.—We have found it impossible in this chapter to
convey any adequate idea of the number and extent of the ruins
scattered over Central America and Mexico. Only by reference to
an accurately prepared map, having distinctness and detail, can a
proper understanding of this interesting field be reached. Maps of
Northern and Central Mexico alone, meeting the requirements, have
for some time been accessible, but a reliable map of Yucatan and
of neighboring States has long been a desideratum. This great want
has recently been supplied by the publication in New York of a rare
specimen of cartography, bearing the title, _Mapa de la Peninsula
de Yucatan, compilado por Joaquin Hübbe y Andres Azuar Perez y
revisado y aumentado con datos importantes por C. Hermann Berendt_,
1878—size, 28 × 36 inches. Stephens, in his work on _Yucatan_,
indicated the sites of many remains discovered by him; but Señor
Perez has for the first time brought before us a view of the whole
field, including Yucatan and Campeachy, together with the greater
part of Tabasco and Belize, and portions of Guatemala and Chiapas,
showing, by means of appropriate symbols, the great number of known
ruins. The map has met with merited approval from the American
Antiquarian Society, and has been reproduced in _Dr. A. Petermann’s
Mittheilungen aus Justus Perthes Geographische Anstalt, Gotha, Band
25_, No. VI, 1879.
CHAPTER IX
CHRONOLOGY, CALENDAR SYSTEMS AND RELIGIOUS ANALOGIES.
No Mound-builder Chronology known — Maya Calendar — Landa on
the Calendar — Maya Days — Maya Months — The Katun — The
Ahau Katun or Great Cycle — The Maya System Adjusted to our
Chronology — The Adjustment by Perez — Intercalary Days — The
Nahua Calendar — The Sources — Divisions of Mexican Calendar
— The Aztec Year — The Nemontemi — Aztec Months — Aztec Days
— Nahua Ritual Calendar — Mexican Calendar Stone — Sources
of Interpretation — History of the Stone — Interpretation of
the Stone — Date of the Origin of the Calendar Stone — Date
of the Nahua Migration — Analogies with the Nahua Calendar —
Religious Analogies — Jewish Analogies — Deluge Traditions —
Supposed Parallels in Jewish and Mexican History — Analogies of
Doctrine — Analogies of Ceremonial Law — Yucatanic Trinity Myth
— Mexican and Asiatic Analogies — Buddhism in the New World —
Scandinavian Analogies — Mexican and Greek Analogies — Brasseur
de Bourbourg’s Comparisons.
_Chronology and Calendar Systems._—No tablet or relic of Mound-builder
origin has yet been discovered, which can be said to give any clue to
the system of chronology employed by that people. Several supposed
calendar stones have been found, such, for instance, as the Cincinnati
Tablet referred to in Chapter I, and the Tablet from Mississippi in
the possession of Wm. Marshall Anderson, Esq., of Circleville, Ohio.
However, their character is only a matter of conjecture, since no
progress whatever has been made toward evolving any system from them.
Farther south, on the soil where a higher civilization flourished, we
meet with two calendar systems, which, while they have several points
of resemblance, are quite distinct from each other.
The first of these, the Maya, is probably the most ancient. Bishop
Landa is our chief authority in this field, though Don Juan Pio Perez,
a more recent writer, also familiar with the Maya language, has
furnished us some material.[624] Bishop Landa informs us that the Mayas
had a year of 365 days and 6 hours divided into months (a month being
called a _U_) in two ways, first into months of thirty days each, and
second, into eighteen months of twenty days each. As the Bishop makes
no explanation of the former statement, we are unable to determine
whether the months of thirty days each were employed in Yucatan prior
to the conquest, or not, but we are rather inclined to the opinion that
they were not.
[Illustration: The Maya Days.]
The month of twenty days was called the _Uinal-Hun-ekeh_, and might
commence on any of the days represented by the hieroglyphics in the
left-hand column of the table of days. These months were eighteen in
number, thus making a year of 360 days. The Mayas, however, corrected
the error by adding five intercalary days and six hours to the 360
days; and once every four years, Landa informs us, they counted 366
days a year. The five supplementary days were considered unlucky, and
were known as the “nameless days” because they were never called by
any particular designation. The accompanying cut is a photographic
reproduction of Landa’s plate, and shows accurately the Maya days in
their proper order.[625] (Page 436.)
[Illustration: The Maya Months.]
Though the intercalary days were “nameless” and characterized as
the “bed or chamber of the year,” “the mother of the year,” “bed of
creation,” “travail of the year,” “lying days,” or “bad days,” etc.,
still five of the above twenty were reckoned for them in regular order.
The year began on a day corresponding to our 16th of July—“a date,” as
Mr. Bancroft observes, “which varies only forty-four hours from the
time when the sun passes the zenith—an approximation as accurate as
could be expected from observation made without instruments.”[626]
The Maya months as figured in Landa’s work are shown in the
accompanying photo-engraving. (Page 437.)
The translation of the names of the days and months is somewhat
uncertain. The following equivalents are the same as those given by
Señor Perez, except in a few instances where Brasseur and Rosny have
made corrections.
TRANSLATION OF THE DAYS.
1. _Kan_, “string of twisted hemp” (yellow).
2. _Chicchan_, signification unknown.
3. _Cimi_, preterit of _cimil_, to kill = “dead.”
4. _Manik_, “wind that passes” (??)
5. _Lamat_, signification unknown.
6. _Muluc_, “reunion” (??)
7. _Oc_, “that which may be held in the palm of the hand.”
8. _Chuen_, “board” (??)
9. _Eb_, “ladder.”
10. _Ben_, “to distribute with economy” (??)
11. _Ix_, “fish-skin” (Rosny), “witch, witchcraft” (Brasseur),
“roughness” (Perez).
12. _Men_, “builder.”
13. _Cib_, “gum copal.”
14. _Caban_, “heaped up” (Brasseur).
15. _Ezanab_, “flint” (Brasseur).
16. _Cauac_, signification unknown.
17. _Ahau_, “king, or period of twenty-four years.”
18. _Ymix_, signification unknown. “Corn” (??)
19. _Ik_, “wind,” “spirit,” according to Rosny, one of the symbols of
Kukulcan or Quetzalcoatl.
20. _Akbal_, “approach of night” (Brasseur).
TRANSLATION OF THE MONTHS.
1. _Pop_, “mat of cane.”
2. _Uo_, “frog.”
3. _Zip_, “a tree” (Perez), “fault, error” (Brasseur).
4. _Tzoz_, “a bat.”
5. _Tzec_, signification unknown.
6. _Xul_, “end or conclusion.”
7. _Yaxkin_, signification unknown. “Summer” (??)
8. _Mol_, “to re-unite, to recover.”
9. _Chen_, “a well.”
10. _Yax_, “first,” or _Yaax_, “blue.”
11. _Zac_, “white.”
12. _Ceh_, “a deer.”
13. _Mac_, “a lid or cover.”
14. _Kankin_, “yellow sun,” “because in this month of April the
atmosphere is charged with smoke,” owing to the work of
clearing the soil.
15. _Muan_, “cloudy weather” (Brasseur).
16. _Pax_, “musical instrument.”
17. _Kayab_, “singing.”
18. _Cumhu_, “thunder-clap,” “detonation.”[627]
Though these translations may seem uninteresting by themselves, they
are of great value when taken in connection with Landa’s alphabet and
M. de Rosny’s interpretations. They must ever be important factors in
attempts to translate the inscriptions and codices.
Another division of time among the Mayas of a complicated character
was the Katun or Cycle of 52 years. The Katun was composed of four
periods (indictions or weeks) of 13 years each, enumerated by a system
of reckoning kept simultaneously with the current reckoning of days,
months and years. The mode of computing the Katunes was, according
to Landa and Perez, briefly as follows:[628] The year was divided
into twenty-eight periods of thirteen days each. These periods for
convenience have been called weeks, and the number of days of which
each is composed may have been suggested by the number of days embraced
in the moon’s _increase_, and _decrease_, twenty-six days constituting
about the actual time in which the moon is seen above the horizon
during each lunation.[629] The weeks were divided off by counting
thirteen days from the beginning of the list of days shown on page
436, Kan constituting the first day of the first week and according to
usage applying its name to the weeks. The week was consequently called
by the name of the day on which it began. Caban being the fourteenth
day of the current month, became the first day of another week; but
as not enough days remain to complete it, the enumeration is begun
again and continued down to Muluc, the sixth day of the next month.
Oc, the seventh day, then becomes the starting point for another week,
which assumes its name, and thus the computation is carried on _ad
infinitum_. A numeral preceded each day designating its position in
the week. The people of Yucatan painted a small circle in which they
placed the four hieroglyphics of the initial days which constitute
the left-hand column of signs given on page 436. Kan was placed in
the east, Muluc in the north, Ix in the west and Cauac in the south.
These signs were termed the “carriers of the years” because no month or
year could begin on any of the twenty days, but on one of these. Since
twenty days constitute a current month, it is apparent that every month
in a given year must begin with the same day. However, the introduction
of the five intercalary days at the end of the year, changed the
initial day on which the months of the different years began. In
reckoning the Katun it is further observed that the numeral which
indicates the day of the week (of thirteen days) which falls upon the
first of a given month, varies. Supposing the month to begin on Kan and
the numeral of the first day to be 1, the numerals indicative of the
days of the week (composed of thirteen days) falling on Kan throughout
the eighteen months, would be, 8, 9, 3, 10, 4, 11, 5, 12, 6, 13, 7, 1,
8, 2, 9, 3.
The Katun year consisted, as we have seen, of twenty-eight weeks of
thirteen days each, and _one additional day_, making in all 365 days.
If the year commenced with number one of the week, the additional day
(the 365th) caused it to end on the same number. The ensuing year would
then begin with number two, and so on through the thirteen numbers of
the week, as follows: 1. Kan, 2. Muluc, 3. Ix, 4. Cauac, 5. Kan, 6.
Muluc, 7. Ix, 8. Cauac, 9. Kan, 10. Muluc, 11. Ix, 12. Cauac, 13. Kan,
thus completing an indiction or week of years. The same combination
of names and numerals can only occur after the lapse of the Katun or
cycle comprising four of these indictions or fifty-two years. Not only
the years of the week, but also the indictions themselves were named
by the four initial symbols. The first indiction of each Katun being
named Kan, the second Muluc, the third Ix, and the fourth Cauac. The
completion of a Katun or fifty-two years was celebrated with feasts
and rejoicings as an event of great moment. A monument was reared as a
memorial of the event. It is not impossible that the great number of
pillars, observed by Stephens at Chichen-Itza were of this character,
serving as landmarks to Maya chronology.[630]
A third division of time employed by the Mayas was the great cycle of
312 years, composed, according to Señor Perez,[631] of thirteen periods
of time, each embracing twenty-four years. Each of these thirteen
periods was called an Ahau Katun, and was divided into two parts.
The first part, embracing twenty years, was enclosed in a square and
called _Amaytum lamayte_, or _lamaytum_; and the other part of four
years, which formed as it were a pedestal for the first, was called
_Chek oc Katun_, or _lath oc Katun_, meaning “stool” or “pedestal.” He
affirms that the latter were intercalated, therefore believed to be
unfortunate as were the five supplementary days of the year. This may
account for their not being reckoned with the Ahau Katun by any other
writer. Just here lies the discrepancy which has created most of the
confusion in the investigation of this subject. However, if we accept
the statement of Señor Perez, that the Ahau Katun embraced twenty-four
years instead of the testimony of every other writer that it included
but twenty years, we shall have moderately fair sailing until we split
upon the rock of his inaccuracies as to dates. He tells us that these
periods took their name from Ahau, the second of those years that began
in Cauac, and from the order of the numerals accompanying those days
would succeed each other according to the numbers 13, 11, 9, 7, 5, 3,
1, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2. The Indians established the number 13 Ahau as
the first, because some great event happened in that year. If the 13
Ahau Katun began on a second day of the year, it must have been the
year which began on 12 Cauac, and the 12th of the indiction. The next
or the 11 Ahau would commence in the year 10 Cauac, which combination
in its rotation would happen after a lapse of twenty-four years. The
third or 9 Ahau would begin in 8 Cauac twenty-four years later, in
illustration of which we follow out the rotation of the four names of
the years, Kan, Muluc, Ix and Cauac, through the indictions of thirteen
years each, until we have noted the numerals accompanying them during
twenty-four years. Our starting point will be the commencement of the
second Ahau Katun on the second day of 10 Cauac.
+-----------+---------------+--------------+
| _Year of | | _Year of |
| 13 Year |_Name of Year._| Period of |
|Indiction._| | 24 Years._ |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+
| 10 | Cauac | 1 |
| 11 | Kan | 2 |
| 12 | Muluc | 3 |
| 13 | Ix | 4 |
| 1 | Cauac | 5 |
| 2 | Kan | 6 |
| 3 | Muluc | 7 |
| 4 | Ix | 8 |
| 5 | Cauac | 9 |
| 6 | Kan | 10 |
| 7 | Muluc | 11 |
| 8 | Ix | 12 |
| 9 | Cauac | 13 |
| 10 | Kan | 14 |
| 11 | Muluc | 15 |
| 12 | Ix | 16 |
| 13 | Cauac | 17 |
| 1 | Kan | 18 |
| 2 | Muluc | 19 |
| 3 | Ix | 20 |
| 4 | Cauac | 21 |
| 5 | Kan | 22 |
| 6 | Muluc | 23 |
| 7 | Ix | 24 |
| 8 | Cauac | 1st of a new |
| | | period. |
+-----------+---------------+--------------+
As above stated the new Ahau Katun begins in the year 8 Cauac, and as
it invariably began on the second day of the year, that day would be
9 Ahau, as Ahau is the next letter in the alphabet after Cauac. An
extension of the table will show that the next period will begin in 6
Cauac on 7 Ahau, and so on in the order of the numerals given above.
Thirteen Ahau Katunes, as previously stated, constituted a great cycle
of three hundred and twelve years. Sr. Perez states that according to
all sources of information, confirmed by the testimony of Don Cosme
de Burgos, one of the conquerors and a writer (but whose observations
have been lost), the year 1392 A. D. corresponded to the Maya year 7
Cauac, and as the second day of that year was the beginning of an era
of twenty-four years, it must have been 8 Ahau Katun. By dividing off
the time between that date and the beginning of the present century
into periods of twenty-four years each, and extending a table of the
rotation of the four names of the years, the reader will observe
that 13 Ahau will fall in the year 1800; 11 Ahau in 1824; 9 Ahau in
1848; 7 Ahau in 1872, and 5 Ahau in 1896, three hundred and twelve
years intervening before this, and any similar combination of Ahau
Katunes either have occurred or can be repeated. This would be highly
satisfactory if Sr. Perez could be relied upon in this particular,
which is doubtful. We are sorry to say that he is certainly chargeable
with inaccuracies, which impair the value of his whole system. Most
conspicuous of these is one pointed out by Mr. Bancroft, to which we
refer the reader below. Señor Perez sets about the verification of his
system by citing the death of a notable personage named Ahpula. He
states that Ahpula died in the sixth year of 13 Ahau, when the first
day of the year was 4 Kan, on the day 9 Imix, the eighteenth of the
month Zip. It is seen that 13 Ahau is the second day of the year 12
Cauac which falls in the year 1488, also that the year 1493 is the
sixth from the beginning of 13 Ahau, and that its first day is 4 Kan,
which is the title of the year. The day is the eighteenth of the month
Zip, corresponding to the eleventh of September. The statement is also
made that this date fell on 9 Imix. This is tested as follows: The
first month of that year commenced on 4 Kan, which combination names
the year. The number (of the week of thirteen days) is found by adding
seven to the number of the first day of each month successively. The
number of the first day of the first month, Pop, in this case being 4,
the number of the first day of the second month (Uo) would be 4 + 7
= 11, and that of the first day of the third month (Zip) would be 11
+ 7 = 18, but as the week consists of but thirteen days, that number
must be substracted, leaving 5 Kan as the first day of Zip. If Zip
begins on the twenty-fifth of August, the day 9 Imix will be found
to correspond both with the eighteenth of Zip and the eleventh of
September, if the Katun week of thirteen days is counted off regularly,
beginning with 5 Kan. Sr. Perez is correct enough in his calculations,
but unfortunately his system of twenty-four years to the Ahau Katun
or his informant as to the correspondence of the Ahau Katunes with
our chronology (no doubt the latter) is incorrect, since the Maya
manuscript furnished and translated by Perez and published in the works
of Stephens and Landa, states explicitly that Ahpula died in A. D.
1536, instead of 1493 (incorrectly printed 1403 in Bancroft’s work),
a date which is irreconcilable with the system of twenty-four years
to the Ahau, reckoned from 1392 as a starting point. Neither will the
statement of Landa that the year 1541 corresponded with the beginning
of 11 Ahau relieve the difficulty, but rather increases it, since it
will neither harmonize with the date of Ahpula’s death given in the
MS. nor with the system by Perez. Furthermore, while Landa gives the
same succession of numerals for the recurrence of the Ahaus, he states
that they embraced but twenty years each, thus making it impossible
for the combinations of names and numerals to correspond to the order
which he lays down for their succession. Landa is no doubt incorrect
in his statement. Sr. Perez is at least consistent in his adaptation
of the length of the Ahau Katun to the order of numerals given by
Landa and others. Recently, M. Delaporte, a member of the Société
Américaine de France, has, by a series of extended calculations,
vindicated the correctness of the statement of Sr. Perez, that the
Ahau Katun embraced twenty-four years. M. de Rosny agrees with M.
Delaporte in his conclusions. The fault of Perez, probably, lies in
his adaptation of the Ahaus to our chronology, and in carelessness.
Amidst these discrepancies it is impossible to fix accurately the
dates of the Maya history, though they can be approximated.[632] Señor
Perez cites Boturini as stating that the day introduced every four
years to compensate for the annual loss of six hours, was observed by
counting the symbol for the three hundred and sixty-fifth day twice,
as the Romans did with their bissextile days, thus leaving the order
undisturbed.[633]
_The Nahua Calendar_ system closely resembles that of the Mayas, a fact
which adds to the abundant proof that both civilizations had grown up
under nearly the same influences, and that they had largely affected
each other. If the trifling differences of a few writers concerning
some of the details of the Aztec calendar be overlooked, and the best
authorities (together with a little exercise of judgment) be followed,
the system becomes comparatively simple. Sahagun, Leon y Gama,
Humboldt, Veytia, Galatin, McCulloch, Müller, Bancroft, Chavero, and
Prof. Valentini, are the authorities to whom we refer the reader.[634]
_The Mexican Calendar_ contains divisions as follows: The age, called
_huehuetiliztli_, embraced two cycles of fifty-two years each, thus
equalizing one hundred and four years. The cycle of fifty-two years was
named _xiuhmolpilli_, _xiuhmolpia_, and _xiuhtlalpilli_, signifying the
“binding up of the years” and consisted of four periods of thirteen
years each. These periods or indictions were called “knots,” while the
single years were called _xihuitl_ or “new grass,” because anciently,
before the invention of the calendar, the Nahuas were only able to
distinguish the revolution of the years by the annual appearance of
fresh vegetation and new grass. The age was but little used, the
cycle being the common measure for long periods. The years in a given
cycle were designated as among the Mayas, by means of the consecutive
rotation of four signs, each accompanied with a numeral. The signs were
_tochtli_, “rabbit”; _acatl_, “cane”; _tecpatl_, “flint,” and _calli_,
“house.” The following table illustrates the rotation occurring in one
cycle:
-------------------------------+-------------------------------+
1ST TLALPILLI. | 2D TLALPILLI. |
------------------+------------+------------------+------------+
| _Names of | | _Names of |
_Names of | Years | _Names of | Years |
Years._ |Translated._| Years._ |Translated._|
------------------+------------+------------------+------------+
Ce Tochtli | 1. Rabbit. | Ce Acatl | 1. Cane. |
Ome Acatl | 2. Cane. | Ome Tecpatl | 2. Flint. |
Yey Tecpatl | 3. Flint. | Yey Calli | 3. House. |
Nahui Calli | 4. House. | Nahui Tochtli | 4. Rabbit. |
Macuilli} | 5. Rabbit. | Macuilli} | 5. Cane. |
Tochtli} | | Acatl } | |
Chicoace} | 6. Cane. | Chicoace} | 6. Flint. |
Acatl } | | Tecpatl} | |
Chicome } | 7. Flint. | Chicome } | 7. House. |
Tecpatl} | | Calli } | |
Chico y Calli | 8. House. | Chico y Tochtli | 8. Rabbit. |
Chico Nahui} | 9. Rabbit. | Chico Nahui} | 9. Cane. |
Tochtli } | | Acatl } | |
Matlactli} |10. Cane. | Matlactli} |10. Flint. |
Acatl } | | Tecpatl } | |
Matlactli } |11. Flint. | Matlactli occe } |11. House. |
occe Tecpatl} | | Calli } | |
Matlactli } |12. House. | Matlactli omome} |12. Rabbit. |
omome Calli } | | Tochtli } | |
Matlactli } |13. Rabbit. | Matlactli omey } |13. Cane. |
omey Tochtli} | | Acatl } | |
------------------+------------+------------------+------------+
-------------------------------+-------------------------------
3D TLALPILLI. | 4TH TLALPILLI.
------------------+------------+------------------+------------
| _Names of | | _Names of
_Names of | Years | _Names of | Years
Years._ |Translated._| Years._ |Translated._
------------------+------------+------------------+------------
Ce Tecpatl | 1. Flint. | Ce Calli | 1. House.
Ome Calli | 2. House. | Ome Tochtli | 2. Rabbit
Yey Tochtli | 3. Rabbit. | Yey Acatl | 3. Cane.
Nahui Acatl | 4. Cane. | Nahui Tecpatl | 4. Flint.
Macuilli} | 5. Flint. | Macuilli} | 5. House.
Tecpatl} | | Calli } |
Chicoace} | 6. House | Chicoace} | 6. Rabbit.
Calli } | | Tochtli} |
Chicome } | 7. Rabbit. | Chicome } | 7. Cane.
Tochtli} | | Acatl } |
Chico y Acatl | 8. Cane. | Chico y Tecpatl | 8. Flint.
Chico Nahui} | 9. Flint. | Chico Nahui} | 9. House.
Tecpatl } | | Calli } |
Matlactli} |10. House. | Matlactli} |10. Rabbit.
Calli } | | Tochtli } |
Matlactli occe} |11. Rabbit. | Matlactli } |11. Cane.
Tochtli } | | occe Acatl } |
Matlactli omome} |12. Cane. | Matlactli } |12. Flint.
Acatl } | | omome Tecpatl} |
Matlactli omey } |13. Flint. | Matlactli } |13. House.
Tecpatl } | | omey Calli } |
-----------------+------------+------------------+----------
As in the Maya rotation of years no confusion could occur, so with the
Mexican, as the same combination could be made only once in fifty-two
years. The cycles themselves were distinguished by numbers. Confusion
is liable to arise in studying the early writers, since the Toltecs and
Aztecs began their reckoning on different signs, the former on Tecpatl,
and the latter on Tochtli. The year consisted of eighteen months of
twenty days each, to which were added five days called _nemontemi_ or
“unlucky days.” Every superstition seemed to centre in the _nemontemi_,
for no business of importance nor enterprise of the most insignificant
character would be undertaken upon these days. Both the names of the
months and the particular month which served to begin the year, as well
as the date of the first day of the year, have been fruitful subjects
of controversy between authors. Mr. Bancroft has tabulated the names
given by twenty-one writers, and shown the disagreements existing
between them.[635] The dates for the first day of the year range
between the ninth of January and the tenth of April. Gama, Humboldt and
Gallatin, by careful calculations, have shown that the first year of a
Nahua cycle commenced on the thirty-first day of December, old style,
or on the ninth day of January, new style, with the month Titill and
the day Cipactli.[636]
The names and order of the months, together with their etymologies,
as adopted by Mr. Bancroft, are as follows: 1. Titill, meaning “our
mother,” according to Boturini, or “fire,” according to Cabrera; 2.
Itzcalli, translated “regeneration” by Boturini, “skill” by the Codex
Vaticanus, and the “sprouting of the grass” by Veytia; 3. Atlcahualco,
meaning the “abating of the waters.” Another name (Quahuillehua)
applied to this month signified “burning of the mountains,” referring
to the forests; 4. Tlacaxipehualiztli, is translated “the flaying of
the people.” Another name applied to this month, Cohuailhuitl, means
the “feast of the snake”; 5. Tozoztontli is rendered “small fast”
or “penance”; 6. Hueytozoztli, means “great fast” or “penance”; 7.
Toxcatl, a “necklace”; 8. Etzalqualiztli, “bean stew” or “maize gruel”;
9. Tecuilhuitzintli, “small feast of the Lord”; 10. Hueytecuilhuitl,
“great feast of the Lord”; 11. Miccailhuitzintli, translated “small
feast of the dead”; 12. Hueymiccailhuitl, “great feast of the
dead”; 13. Ochpaniztli, “cleaning of the streets”; 14. Teotleco,
“arrival of the gods.” The names Pachtli, “moss hanging from trees,”
and Pachtontli, “humiliation,” were often applied to this month;
15. Hueypachtli, “great feast of humiliation,” sometimes called
Tepeilhuitl, “feast of the mountains”; 16. Quecholli, “peacock”; 17.
Panquetzuliztli, “the raising of flags and banners”; 18. Atemoztli,
means the “drying up of the waters.”
The month, consisting of twenty days, was divided into four weeks
of five days each. Mr. Bancroft states that each of the weeks began
with one of the four signs—Tochtli, Calli, Tecpatl or Acatl, used
to designate the years; but his own engraving of the Aztec month,
and the order of the days on the Calendar-Stone, contradict this
statement.[637] The following are the days in their proper order, with
their translations affixed: 1. Cipactli, “sea-animal,” “sword-fish,”
or “serpent with harpoons.” 2. Ehacatl, “wind.” 3. Calli, “house.” 4.
Cuetzpalin, “lizard.” 5. Coatl, “snake.” 6. Miquiztli, “death.” 7.
Mazatl, “deer.” 8. Tochtli, “rabbit.” 9. Atl, “water.” 10. Itzcuintli,
“dog.” 11. Ozomatli, “monkey.” 12. Mollinalli, “brushwood” or “tangled
grass.” 13. Acatl, “cane.” 14. Ocelotl, “tiger.” 15. Quanhtli, “eagle.”
16. Cozcaquauhtli, “vulture.” 17. Ollin, “movement.” 18. Tecpatl,
“flint.” 19. Quahuitl, “rain.” 20. Xochitl, “flower.”
The day was divided into sixteen hours.[638] Sahagun and several
authors state that the loss of six hours in each Aztec year was
counterbalanced by the addition of a day every four years. Gama
demonstrates this to be a mistake, and states that they added twelve
and a half days at the close of every cycle of fifty-two years. Mr.
Bancroft cites this fact, and states the time added to have been
thirteen days.[639]
The Nahuas had also a ritual calendar, for the purpose of reckoning
their religious feasts, which was altogether different from the civil
system, except that it employed the twenty days, the year of 365 days,
and at the end of a cycle added the thirteen days to compensate for the
time lost during that period.[640] The year consisted of two parts, the
first composed of twenty weeks of thirteen days each (for there were no
months in the ritual year) making 260 altogether. This portion of the
year was called _Meztli pohualli_ or the “lunar computation,” from the
fact that half of the time during which the moon is visible is thirteen
days. The smaller part, composed of 105 days reckoned by a continuation
of the periods of thirteen days, was called _Toualpohualli_ or “solar
computation.”[641] The days were numbered from one up to thirteen, the
fourteenth day of the first solar month being counted the first of
another lunar week, and thus the reckoning continued. However, it will
be observed that the same number would fall twice on one name in the
course of a year; accordingly accompanying signs were provided for the
regular names of days. The duplication could not occur if the second
division embraced 104 days instead of 105.
The distinguishing signs were nine in number, called _quecholli_,
“lords of the night.” They were as follows: Tletl, “fire”; Tecpatl,
“flint”; Xochitl, “flower”; Centeotl, “goddess of maize”; Miquiztli,
“death”; Atl, “water”; Tlazolteotl, “goddess of love”; Tepeyollotli, “a
mountain deity”; Quiahuitl, “rain,” the god Tlaloc. The lords of the
night, though reckoned from the first of the year, were not mentioned
except in connection with the 105 days of the second division.
The reader will more clearly understand the relation of the two
systems to each other by constructing a table of four parallel columns.
In the left-hand column place the months of one year, numbering the
days of each month in order, but beginning on the ninth day of January.
In the second column place the names of the Mexican months, numbering
the days of each month from one to twenty in regular order. In the
third column place the _names_ of the Mexican days, twenty in number,
repeating them in their regular rotation throughout the year, but
in addition prefix to the names such numerals as will fall opposite
to each in the process of dividing them off into thirteens. These
divisions into thirteens represent the ritual weeks. Acatl being the
13th day of the month will end the first week of the year, and Ocelotl
being the 14th day of the month will constitute the 1st day of the
second week. In the fourth column place the nine signs of the “lords
of the night” in regular order. Divide the year into periods of nines,
and it will be found that the same combination of days of the month
(twenty days), of days of the week (thirteen days), and the “lords of
the night,” will not recur for a considerable period.
The most remarkable embodiment of this complex system is found in the
symbols and concentric zones graven upon the face of the Calendar
Stone, described in the last chapter. The interpretation of its
mysterious disk was partly accomplished by the learned antiquarian
Leon y Gama; Gallatin, and after him Bancroft presented those
investigations to the public. In 1875 (Nov.), Don Alfredo Chevero, of
the Liceo Hidalgo of Mexico, published his _Calendario Azteca_, in
which it was shown that many of Gama’s interpretations would have to be
abandoned. It was proven that the “Calendar Stone” was a sun-disk or
stone of sacrifice, and that Gama had pursued his investigations with
a mistaken view of its character. Chevero’s account of the history of
the stone is full and satisfactory, Duran being the authority cited. An
interpretation of some of the concentric zones, two in particular, is
attempted with a result somewhat different from that obtained by any
other investigator. Recently, Prof. Ph. Valentini, by the light of his
extensive researches into Nahua literature, has compelled the sun-disk
to give up its secrets. The illustration on the preceding page is a
reproduction of a pen-and-ink drawing made by the Professor from the
most recent and correct photograph which has been made of the Calendar
Stone. It was kindly furnished for this work. The same conclusion
concerning the character of the stone was reached independently by
both Chevero and Valentini. The latter’s account of the stone and
its history is drawn from Tezozomoc, and though agreeing in the main
facts with Duran’s account as rendered by Chevero, bears the evidence
upon its face of independent research.[642] The originality of Prof.
Valentini is vindicated in his masterly interpretation of all the zones
of the Calendar Stone. Whether the interpretation will ever give way to
some other is a question of the future, though it is probable that it
will not.
[Illustration: The Mexican Calendar Stone.]
We are indebted to Professor Valentini for a communication on the
History of the Calendar Stone, condensed from his unpublished MS.
_Description and Interpretation of the Mexican Calendar Stone_. An
extract from the communication is as follows: “King Axayacatl of
Mexico, 1466–1480, the builder of the large pyramid, at the approach of
the last year of the national cycle (1479), ordered the altar standing
on the platform of the pyramid to be covered with a stone disk, the
surface of which was to be sculptured with the image of the Sun-god,
and, as the text says, ‘to be surrounded by all the national deities’
(see Alvaro de Tezozomoc, 1598, _Chronica Mexicana_, Ternaux-Compans,
vol. i, chap. xlvii, pp. 249 _et seq._). A large slab, carried for the
purpose from the quarries of Cuyoacan, when rolled over the bridge
of Xoloc, crushed this structure, fell to the bottom of the lake and
remained there. Another slab was broken and a new bridge built, and
50,000 Indians succeeded in transporting the slab to the foot of the
pyramid, where the sculptor accomplished his task to the satisfaction
of the king. The cyclical festival of the sun (1479) was celebrated,
and on the disk which now had been inserted into the surface of the
sacrificial altar, thousands of captives were slaughtered. The king is
said to have overworked himself, slaying one hundred of the victims,
and feasting upon their flesh and blood—that very soon after he died
in consequence of these exertions. In the year 1512, Montezuma II, for
reasons unknown, expressed the wish to replace the altar cover, which
his father had consecrated, by a new and still larger one. The people,
horrified and out of patience with the bloody proceedings connected
with these consecration festivals of sacrificial disks, contrived to
let the slab, brought expressly for the purpose, fall into the lake
again, pretending as an excuse, that the stone had spoken and said
that it was to go back to the quarry. Montezuma, superstitious as
he was, took the accident for a bad augury, desisted from his plan,
and left the stone in its place. We may thus infer that it was _our_
disk on which, in the year 1520, those Spaniards of Cortes’ troops
which were made captives had been immolated, and the screams and
cries of whom reached the ears of their comrades, and as Bernal Diaz
narrates, ‘filled their hearts with the most awful forebodings.’
Cortez demolished the pyramid, and with its débris filled the canals
of the city. The disk was preserved, for we know from Duran, who
wrote a _Historia de la N. España_, 1588, that he and many of his
fellow-citizens had often been standing before this disk admiring it,
until the Archbishop Montufar, scandalized by the existence of such a
barbarous relic, caused it to be buried in the immediate neighborhood
of the Metropolitan cathedral in the year 1551. This procedure was
forgotten; so much so, that when this disk was disinterred in the year
1790, even Gama the archæologist and its later interpreter, had not the
remotest idea what purpose it could have served, for the manuscript
chronicles of Duran and Tezozomoc still slumbered in the dust of the
archives. The viceroy, Reviellagigedo, ordered the disk to be fitted
into the outer wall of one of the towers of the cathedral. There it is
to this day.”
We now ask your attention to the stone itself. The central circle
contains the face of the Sun-god bedecked with ornaments, earrings,
and jeweled lip. In the next zone we observe four large parallelograms
containing hieroglyphic signs: Nahui Ocelotl, Nahui Ehecatl, Nahui
Quahuitl and Nahui Atl. Between the upper and lower enclosures on both
sides of the central disk are circular figures containing hieroglyphics
resembling claws, said to represent two ancient astrologers, man and
wife, who, according to the early writers, invented the calendar.
These four signs are identical with the days on which, according to
the traditions, the world was destroyed at four different times.
These destructions mark four ages represented by the signs of the day
on which they occurred. These ages were also called suns. The first
destruction occurred in Ce Acatl, and is represented by the sign
Nahui Ocelotl, or 4 Tigre, seen in the upper right-hand tablet. The
small figure above and towards the left is the sign for 1. Tecpatl, a
feast-day kept by the Aztecs in memory of the first destruction. The
second tablet bears the symbol for Ehecatl or Wind, in memory of the
destruction of the world by hurricane, which occurred in the year Ce
Tecpatl or Nahui (4) Ehecatl. Between the tablet and the triangular
figure to the right is a sculpture in which a broken wall with
towers appears. The sign 1. Calli is associated with it, indicating
a ritualistic feast-day kept on that sign. The third tablet bears
the symbol of the rain-god Tlaloc, in memory of the destruction of
the world from frequent rains. The last tablet represents the fourth
destruction by a flood on Nahui Atl in the year Ce Calli.
The faces of Cox-Cox, the Mexican Noah, and his wife are delineated in
the picture. The symbol for water is seen immediately below the faces.
Between the two lower tablets, two small quadrilateral enclosures
will be observed, each containing five round points, supposed to mean
10 Ollin (the sun being called _ollin tonatiuh_). Below the lower
tablets and almost in contact with the next concentric circle are the
hieroglyphics 1. Quiahuitl and 2. Ozomatli. The first, namely 10 Ollin,
corresponds with our twenty-second of September in the first year of
a cycle, and its hieroglyphic on this astronomical disk represents
the autumnal equinox. At the extreme top of the Calendar Stone is a
central figure, well known to be the hieroglyphic for 13 Acatl. This
fact known, the interpretation of the two remaining symbols is easy.
In the year 13 Acatl, the day 1. Quiahuitl would correspond to our
twenty-second of March, and represent the vernal equinox. In the same
year 2. Ozomatli would correspond with our twenty-second of June, or
summer solstice. Thus it is that the stone speaks and testifies to
the astronomical knowledge of the Aztecs, the accuracy of which casts
into the shade the imperfect Julian Calendar in use by Europeans at
the time of the conquest. In the next zone, encircling that which
contains the tablets of the cosmological ages, are twenty enclosures,
containing the symbols of the twenty days. The triangular pointer
which extends upwards from the crest of the sun-face indicates the
dividing line between the first and last days of the month. Cipactli,
whose hieroglyphic stands at the left of the pointer is unquestionably
distinguished as the first day of the month. The second symbol to the
left is that of the second day Ehecatl, wind, the third Calli, house,
the fourth Cuetzpalin, lizard, the fifth snake, and so on to the end
of the list. In the next zone we find a succession of small squares,
each enclosing five round points. The circle is divided into four parts
by four large triangular pointers or gnomons. In each division of the
zone are ten squares containing five points each, or in the four,
we have 200 points. Gama states that the space for sixty additional
points is occupied by the feet or curves of the large indices. By
experiment it is found that the mean of the space occupied by the
feet of the pointers is equal to the width of one and a half of the
square enclosures. Eight times this space gives us twelve squares with
sixty points. Thus we have the ritualistic division or lunar reckoning
(Metzli pohualli) of 260 days. In the next zone the symbols of the
remaining 105 days or solar reckoning of the ritualistic year is found.
Eight pointers divide the circle; the six upper divisions of which
contain each ten figures resembling a grain of maize, while the two
lower divisions have but five figures in each. This gives us seventy
figures. Under each limb of the pointers is space for one and a half of
the figures, giving twenty-four more or ninety-four in all. The space
of ten additional figures is occupied by the helm-plumes of the heads
which are figured at the lower margin of the stone. This gives us 104
figures, or one less than the required number. It will be remembered
that the five intercalary days called the nemontemi, or unlucky
days, though reckoned in regular order at the close of each year,
were considered separate and apart from it. The artist who executed
the Calendar Stone has carried out this custom in placing the figures
of the nemontemi between the tablets of the two last destructions of
nature, where they will be found by themselves. It will be observed
that four of the signs correspond to those wanting under the lower
pointer and the adjacent plumes, with this further departure from the
general plan of the design, that the central figure or maize grain
corresponds to the space between the limbs of the great pointer below.
Here, then, we have the missing symbol, and are able to find the 105
hieroglyphics of days for the lesser division of the year. The two
zones consequently represent the complete year of 365 days.
The most conspicuous of the remaining zones is the outer, and last of
all. The attention is asked to one of the twenty-four quadrangular
figures composing it. The Mexican Codices in the Kingsborough
collection furnish similar symbols for the cycle of 52 years.[643] The
ancient Mexicans had a superstition that in the last night of the 52d
year of their cycle the sun would destroy the world. Consequently, at
every recurrence of the eventful night, all fires were extinguished,
the people clothed themselves in mourning, and forming a long
procession, repaired to a neighboring mountain, where at midnight a
priest sacrificed a man in their presence. A second priest placed a
round block of dry wood over the ghastly wound from which the heart
had been torn; while a third, kneeling over the corpse, rested a hard
shaft or stick upon the block, revolving it between his two hands
with pressure until the friction produced fire. This was considered
a promise from the god that the destruction of the world would be
postponed until another cycle had elapsed.[644] A moment’s observation
will disclose the fire symbol in the hieroglyphics for the cycle
as delineated on the stone; the perpendicular shaft with handles,
surrounded by flames and smoke, rising from a hole below. In the same
zone, above, we have two groups of pleats or bow-like figures, which
are clearly proven to be the symbol for the binding of two 52-year
cycles into an age.[645]
The zone immediately within the one we have been considering, contains
the symbols of the rain-god Tlaloc. No writer has as yet given a
satisfactory explanation of the plumed head at the bottom of the stone.
It will be readily seen that the two serpent heads, plumed, and with
extended jaws, armed above and below with great fangs, enclose two
human faces. These are but the heads of the serpents whose bodies
constitute the outer zone of the disk and terminate in the triangular
points above.
If the reader will but turn to our cut of the serpent temple at Uxmal
(p. 394), the same symbol of Cukulcan or Quetzalcoatl, the feathered
serpent, will be seen. Dr. Le Plongeon, in his recent researches, is
convinced that Uxmal was built, or more properly rebuilt, by Nahua
invaders, who afterwards became amalgamated with the Mayas.[646] Most
of the Mexican historians represent Quetzalcoatl as the founder of
the Nahua civilization. Torquemada states that he was their leader
when they first arrived in Mexico.[647] If the “Feathered Serpent”
was the founder of their institutions, it was not inappropriate for
the Aztec artist to place the hero’s face at the bottom of the stone,
and represent the symbols of the cycles as huge scales upon his body,
since the influence of the civilization which he established had been
felt throughout their entire history. To return to Prof. Valentini’s
investigations, it will be observed that there are twenty-four of the
cycle symbols, two of which are nearly hidden under the helm-plumes.
The product of 24 and 52 gives us a period of 1248 years. But what have
we to do with this result? The triangular-shaped figures which point to
the central tablet cut at the top of the stone, indicate that we must
make a calculation, and it remains for us to interpret that symbol. It
is recognizable as the sign Acatl accompanied by the number thirteen; a
year which, according to the authentic tables of reduction, corresponds
to the year 1479 A. D.; a date which is confirmed as being the year in
which the Calendar Stone was finished and set up in the great pyramid
of Mexico by the statement of the native writer Tezozomoc, that its
author, King Axayacatl, became ill from his exertions at the tragic
celebrations of the completion of the temple and lived scarcely a year,
at the same time fixing the date of his death in 1480. If we subtract
1248 years from the known date 1479 A. D., we have the year 231 A. D.;
a date which no doubt marks the beginning of the national era of the
Nahuas, and probably designates the year of their arrival in Mexico
by the ports of Tampico, Xicalanco and Bacalar. Thus it is that the
uncertainty of the traditions relating to the obscure events of early
Nahua history is removed, and we are enabled to settle upon the third
century of our era as the period when the great migration took place.
We will say more than Professor Valentini or his predecessor; we
believe this to be the date of the migration from Hue hue Tlapalan, the
country of the Mound-builders of the Mississippi valley, and we further
think we are sustained in this view both by the early writers and by
the condition of the mounds and shell-heaps of the United States. At
first thought, it would seem that the year 231 might be the date in
which the astrologers assembled in Hue hue Tlapalan for the correction
of the calendar (a fact to which we have previously referred), but it
is distinctly stated that the assembly convened in the year 1 Tecpatl;
a date which, according to the received reduction tables, corresponds
to the year 29 B. C.
Humboldt by an elaborate discussion has satisfactorily shown the
relative likeness of the Nahua Calendar to that of Asia. He cites the
fact that the Chinese, Japanese, Calmouks, Mongols, Mantchoux and
other hordes of Tartars have cycles of sixty years duration, divided
into five brief periods of twelve years each. The method of citing
a date by means of signs and numbers is quite similar with Asiatics
and Mexicans.[648] He further shows satisfactorily that the majority
of the names of the twenty days employed by the Aztecs are those of
a zodiac used since the most remote antiquity among the peoples of
Eastern Asia.[649] Cabrera thinks he finds analogies between the
Mexican and Egyptian calendars. Adopting the view of several writers
(Acosta, Clavigero and others) that the Mexican year began on the 26th
of February, he finds the date to correspond to the beginning of the
Egyptian year. He also observes that both peoples intercalated five
days at the close of their year.[650] M. Jomard, quoted by Delafield,
denies that the Egyptians intercalated, but believes sufficient
analogies exist to prove a common origin for the Theban and Mexican
calendars;[651] his argument, however, is worthless, as are many others
of a similar character.
_Religious Analogies._—In contrast with the obscure subject of the
calendar requiring such close attention, we present to the reader
a few of the analogies supposed to exist between Mexican and other
religious systems. The majority of our references will be made more
with a view to satisfying curiosity than for the establishment of
a theory. Argument from analogy is at best unscientific—it proves
nothing. It is a matter of surprise how much has been written to
establish the theory that the Mexicans were descendants of the Jews
both in race and religion. Mr. Bancroft has collected many of Lord
Kingsborough’s arguments in proof of the theory to which he devoted
his fortune and sacrificed his life. We have done a similar work with
a somewhat different arrangement, and call the attention of the reader
to some of the fanciful and we must add mirth-provoking analogies to
which the great Americanist attached so much importance. “The Mexicans
spoke of their god as the _invisible and incorporeal Unity_, and they
furthermore believed man to be created in his image.”[652] He states
further that the doctrine of the trinity was also held by them.[653] He
considers that Eden and the temptation were portrayed by the American
artists. “The Toltecs had paintings of a garden with a single tree
standing in the midst, one especially drawn on coarse paper of the
Aloe, round the root of which tree is entwined a serpent, whose head
appearing above the foliage displays the features and countenance of a
woman. * * * Torquemada admits the existence of this tradition amongst
them, and agrees with the Indian historians who affirm this was the
first woman in the world who had children, and from whom all mankind
are descended.”[654]
Lord Kingsborough is no doubt warranted in holding that the Nahuas
were of old world origin at a very remote period prior to their having
developed any special tribal characteristics, because of their singular
and we think certain knowledge of the Mosaic deluge; but he is not
justified in claiming for them any particular relationship to the
Jewish or any Shemitic people.[655]
In a preceding chapter we have given the deluge tradition from
Ixtlilxochitl, who states that the waters rose _fifteen cubits_
(caxtolmoletltli) above the highest mountains, and that a few escaped
in a close chest (toptlipetlacali), and after men had multiplied, they
erected a very high _zacuali_ or tower, in order to take refuge in it
should the world be again destroyed. He further states that then their
speech was confused, so that they could not understand each other, and
that they dispersed to different parts of the earth.[656] Whether the
native historian of Tezcuco who gives us this account, so remarkable
for its similarity to the Mosaic, was influenced by Spanish priests
and warped from the truth, we are not prepared to affirm at this
distant day, since such an assumption would strike the very keystone
from the arch upon which all historical evidence rests. Much of the
aversion to the view that the Mexican deluge legends are authentic
and of old world origin, has been generated by the unscientific and
presumptuous style of most of its advocates. Lord Kingsborough himself
is ever ready to catch at a straw, and out of customs the most remote
to evolve an analogy. Nevertheless, we are not at liberty to reject
the Mexican deluge legend as a fable without assuming the burden of
proof.[657] Remarkable parallels (?) in the history of both Jews and
Mexicans are thought to be discovered by the sanguine Kingsborough.
Of a number, two or three specimens will suffice. Hue hue Tlapalan is
claimed to have been situated on the Californian coast since the Gulf
of California until a late period was called the _red river_ or _gulf_,
a name they brought with them.[658] Again: “As the Israelites were
conducted from Egypt by Moses and Aaron who were accompanied by their
sister Miriam, so the Aztecs departed from Aztlan under the guidance
of Huitziton and Tecpalzin, the former of whom is named by Acosta and
Herrera, Mixi, attended likewise by their sister Quilaztli, or as she
is otherwise named Chimalman or Malinatli, both of which names have
some resemblance to Miriam as Mixi has to Moses.”[659] “The destruction
of the rebellious Kohra (Gen. xvi) is repeated after the arrival of
the Mexicans at Tulan, who, enchanted with the land, were unwilling
to go further in search of their promised land. They murmured at
Huitzilopochtli, and suffered a dreadful punishment at his hands that
night by the death of every one who had rebelled against his will.”[660]
Lord Kingsborough discovers in a Mexican painting in the Bodleian
library, a symbol resembling the jaw-bone of an ass, from the side
of which water flows forth. This, of course, commemorated the story
of Sampson.[661] Among the conspicuous doctrines held by both Jews
and Mexicans, we note that the latter believed their children to be
the gift of Tezcatlipoca as the former ascribed them to the favor
of Jehovah.[662] The doctrine of sin and atonement was held by
the Mexicans. Confession and sacrifice of atonement were common,
for “half the offerings represented in the Mexican paintings were
trespass-offerings, or sacrifices for the commission of sins.”[663]
“The Mexicans, like the Jews, were accustomed to do penance by sitting
on the ground, in which posture their priests are often represented
in the Mexican paintings.”[664] “The Mexicans were as punctilious
about washings and ablutions as the Jews.”[665] Baptism was considered
the means of regeneration in Yucatan,[666] and was practised by the
Mexicans as a religious ceremony.[667] Both peoples had devils and the
leprosy,[668] both considered women who died in child-bed as worthy
of honor as soldiers who fall in battle.[669] The doctrine of hell,
according to the most orthodox theology, was held by the Mexicans.[670]
Both Jews and Mexicans believed in the resurrection of the body and the
immortality of the soul.[671] The latter people sprinkled the face of
a corpse with water as a baptism after death.[672] Numerous analogies
are found to exist between the Mosaic and the religious code of the
Mexicans, as in profanity, sabbath-keeping, disobedience to parents,
the smiting of a servant to death, and in the punishment by stoning of
persons guilty of fornication and adultery.[673] Kingsborough maintains
that circumcision was performed on the eighth day, declaring it to
have “prevailed thousands of leagues along the coast of the Atlantic,
amongst nations very remote from each other, and who spoke very
different languages.”[674] Both peoples had a mutual disgust for swine
flesh, and refused to eat the blood of any animal.[675] The latter
statement is altogether unwarranted in fact. The ceremonial of both
peoples have many features in common. As the Jews killed the paschal
lamb in the evening, so the Mexicans offered up their sacrifices at
night.[676] The Jews in Mexico substituted llamas for sheep in their
sacrifices.[677] Both Jews and Mexicans worshipped toward the east,
or toward their chief temples, and both called the _south_ by the
designation of “right-hand of the world.”[678] Both burned incense
toward the four corners of the earth.[679] As David leaped and danced
before the ark of the Lord, so did the Mexican monarchs before their
idols.[680] Both peoples had an ark, and Duran states that in the ark
of the Aztecs which figured so prominently in their migration, was
the image of their invisible god.[681] Numerous analogies relating
to astrology, omens, witchcraft, dreams, etc., are recorded.[682]
References to prophecy are not wanting: Quetzalcoatl predicted the
destruction of the temple of Cholula, furnishing a parallel to Christ’s
prophecy of the destruction of the temple.[683] In the Mexican
mythology, by means of an active imagination, he finds an allusion to
the “stone which was carved without hands.”[684] A tiger represented
in the Bologna MS. he supposes to be the lion of the tribe of Juda—the
Jews of the New World having metamorphosed it into a tiger.[685]
Kingsborough supposes that the crosses found in Mexico may have been
carried there by Irish monks, “especially,” he adds, “as M. de Humboldt
informs us that the first Spanish monks and missionaries gravely
discussed the question of whether Quetzalcoatl was an Irishman.”[686]
The fanaticism of the eminent Americanist, however, reaches its
culmination in his supposed discovery of analogies to Christ in Mexican
mythology. The story of the virgin, the annunciation, and the identity
of Christ and Quetzalcoatl, are clearly discernible to his practised
eye.[687] Christ stilled the tempest, and, like Quetzalcoatl, was god
of the air.[688] In Yucatan, in the priestly fable of Bacab, he finds a
complete and true account of the trinity.[689] It is hardly necessary
for us to remark that these ingenious comparisons, tinged with a
coloring of fanaticism and yet so full of interest, are useless to the
cause of science and prove nothing. With the single exception of the
remarkable tradition of the deluge and its literal correspondence in
detail to the Mosaic account, we must dismiss the multitude of supposed
analogies between Mexican and Hebrew traditions, customs and religion,
which Kingsborough and others have discovered, as either imaginary or
accidental.[690]
The hypothesis that the Nahua religion may have received some of its
characteristics from India is altogether plausible and not without
support in resemblances. The cosmological conception of the egg and
serpent is found, as previously stated, on Brush Creek, in Adams
County, Ohio. It certainly comes to us from Asiatic India. Serpent
worship, not only among the people of the mounds but especially of
Mexico, is the most patent fact revealed to us in ancient American
sculpture. “Humboldt thinks he sees in the snake cut in pieces, the
famous serpent Kaliya or Kalinaga, conquered by Vishnu, when he took
the form of Krishna, and in the Mexican Toua-tiuh, the Hindu Krushna,
sung of in the Bhagavata-Purana.”[691] Count Stolberg and Tschudi have
both made arguments in favor of this view.[692] Humboldt characterizes
Quetzalcoatl as the Buddha of the Mexicans, the founder of the monastic
establishments resembling those of Thibet and Western Asia.[693] He
further considers the flood of which they speak, identical with that
of which traditions are preserved by the Hindoos, the Chinese, and the
Shemitic peoples.
Advocates of Scandinavian analogies in religion are not wanting.
Although Viollet-le-Duc finds parallels existing between the
Brahmanistic ideas of divinity and passages of the _Popol Vuh_, still
he is of the opinion that the strongest resemblances have been found
to exist between the religious customs of the Scandinavians and those
recorded in the _Popol Vuh_.[694] Humboldt remarks, “we have fixed the
special attention of our readers upon this Votan or Wodan, an American
who appears of the same family with the Wods or Odins of the Goths
and of the peoples of Celtic origin. Since, according to the learned
researches of Sir William Jones, Odin and Buddha are probably the same
person, it is curious to see the names of _Bondvar_, _Wodansdag_ and
_Votan_ designating in India, Scandinavia, and in Mexico, the day of a
brief period.”[695]
Lafitau, in his _Mœurs des Sauvages_, is as enthusiastic in his
advocacy of the theory that the ancient Americans derived their
religion from the Greeks, as Kingsborough is certain that it was of
Jewish origin. He devotes his fourth chapter, and furnishes numerous
illustrations, in support of his view.[696] Our limited space precludes
the possibility of presenting in full the analogies discovered
by the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg between the Mexican deities and
those of Greece and Egypt. If we hesitate sometimes in accepting his
conclusions, we cannot but wonder at his erudition and his zeal in
research. He calls attention to the fact that the cult of Pan and
Hermes were identical in Greece, and refers to Maia, a personification
of the earth, and the mother of the Hermes having been the consort
of Zeus or Pan himself. So in Mexico he finds Pan in the person of
_Cipactoual_, who, under the name of _Cuextecatl_, has for his consort
_Maia_ or _Maiaoel_. This god was adored in all parts of Mexico and
Central America, and at _Panuco_ or _Panco_, literally _Panopolis_, the
Spaniards found upon their entrance into Mexico, superb temples and
images of Pan.[697] The names of both Pan and Maia enter extensively
into the Maya vocabulary, _Maia_ being the same as _Maya_, the
principal name of the peninsula, and _pan_, making Mayapan, the ancient
capital. In the Nahua language _pan_ or _pani_ signifies “equality to
that which is above,” and _Pantecatl_ was the progenitor of all beings.
The Abbé has little difficulty in proving the identity of Zamna,
Hunab-ku and other Maya deities, with the gods of Greece.[698] In the
name of the Egyptian god Horus, he finds the significance of hurricane,
or in the dialects of the Antilles, _huracan_ or _urogan_, the god
Hurakan of the Quichés. Also in the Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol which
Salvolini found equivalent to the phonetic K, namely, the singular
reptile _Uraeus_, which resembles a serpent in an erect position
with an enlarged body, and employed extensively as a decoration in
hair of the Egyptian deities and the Pharaohs; he sees the emblem of
Quetzalcoatl (Ketzalcohuatl) the feathered-serpent, called Gukumatz
in Quiché, and Kukulcan in Maya. The same symbol is represented on
the Egyptian monuments with a feather rising from the serpent’s
crest.[699] It would be easy to pursue these ingenious comparisons
through a number of pages, but we question their value in throwing any
light on the subject in hand. The reader will find them scattered in
profusion through the voluminous writings of the learned Abbé. It is
sufficient to say that most of the seeming analogies between the new
and old world religions cannot be other than accidental, since it is
probable that the aborigines entered our continent at a very remote
antiquity, long before the religions with which theirs have been so
persistently compared, took on their distinctive features. If after
they were separated from the rest of the world by seas and mountains,
the Americans developed religious systems presenting analogies to
those of other lands, it furnishes us but another proof of the common
parentage and brotherhood of the race, of the universal outgoing of the
human mind after the deity, and the sameness of mental operations and
processes under the same given conditions.[700]
CHAPTER X.
LANGUAGE AND ITS RELATION TO NORTH AMERICAN MIGRATIONS.
Diversity of Languages in America — Causes of Diversity — Richness
of American Languages — Polysynthesis — Grimm’s Law — The
Maya-Quiché Languages — Stability of the Maya — Oldest American
Language — The Maya compared to the Greek, the Hebrew, the
North European, the Basque, West African, and the Quichua
Languages — Epitome of Maya Grammar — The Mizteco-Zapotec
Languages — The Nahua or Aztec — The Classic Tongue — Ancient
and Modern Nahua — Epitome of Aztec Grammar — Geographical
Extension of the Aztec — In the South — In the North-west —
Buschmann’s Researches — Sonora Family — Opata-Tarahumar-Pima
Family — Moqui and Aztec Elements — Aztec in the Shoshone and
in the Languages of Oregon and the Columbian Region — Line
of Aztec Elements — The Nahua probably the Language of the
Mound-builders — The Otomi — Supposed Chinese Analogies —
Japanese Analogies — Geographical Names.
Language in aboriginal America may be pronounced a mystery of mysteries
and a Babel of Babels. Mr. Bancroft has catalogued nearly six hundred
distinct languages, existing between northern Alaska and the Isthmus
of Panama. Many of these, however, scarcely deserve to be called more
than dialects; while each has its individuality, it is true that all
have certain characteristics in common, a fact which by some has been
considered sufficient ground for belief in the unity of the American
race, a hypothesis which is by no means tenable. The geographical
division and intermixture of languages, for instance, in California,
is without a parallel elsewhere in the world. By the accidents
attendant upon savage life, resulting from ceaseless hostilities and
the frequent inroads of tribes upon their neighbors, a nation has often
been scattered in fragments, and its refugees, separated into small
bands, have taken up their residence in the midst of other tribes at
localities far removed from their central home. In a generation or
two a modification of the parent speech has been brought about by the
surrounding influences, all of which vary in the several localities in
which the refugees have found their new homes. New tribes thus formed,
soon become unintelligible to their brothers, who have developed a
dialect under different influences from theirs. When we consider that
for thousands of years this wholesale division and subdivision of
tribes and languages has been going on, as the result of ceaseless
hostilities, we can easily account for the multitude of languages
and dialects on the one hand, and the existence of a thread of unity
or similarity on the other, said to run through them all. Supposing
the continent to have received its population from several different
quarters, the natural expectation would be that in the course of time
this process of general intermixture would result in developing in
each language much that was common to the others—hence the foundation
for the hypothesis of their unity of origin. In the study of American
languages it has often been a matter of surprise that their structure
and expressiveness indicates a degree of perfection far in advance of
the civilization out of which they had sprung. This superiority, we
think, can be accounted for on the principle, first, that the evolution
of languages on this continent has been more active and constant
here than elsewhere, though unfortunately not always operating under
favorable conditions; and second, that in the frequent catastrophes
which have resulted from inter-tribal warfare, even in language, the
law of the survival of the fittest is apparent, in the preservation
of those etymological forms and principles of structure which are
most useful. We by no means agree with the eminent philologist Dr.
W. Farrar, F.R.S., chaplain to the Queen, and others who, taking
but a partial and second-hand view of American languages, pronounce
their elaborateness a childish excess, and their vaunted wealth a
concealment of their poverty.[701] An examination of the poems of
Nezahualcoyotl, king of Tezcuco, recorded by Ixtlilxochitl, will
afford sufficient proof of the expressiveness and richness of the
Aztec language.[702] The song on the “Mutability of Life” and the ode
on the tyrant Tezozomoc have often been translated and admired.[703]
One of the leading characteristics of American language, it has been
said, is “_agglutination_,” but we must add that the term employed is
not sufficiently comprehensive. “Agglutination,” says Farrar, “may be
described as that principle of linguistic structure which consists
in the mere placing of unaltered roots side by side; as when to
express ‘discipline’ the Chinese say ‘law-soldier,’ or for ‘elders’
‘father-mother,’ or for ‘enjoyment’ ‘luxury-play-food-clothes.’”[704]
The term _polysynthesis_, the synthesis of many words into one, with a
little explanation will describe the characteristic, so prominent, to
which we allude. In their polysynthesis, the syllables or words which
are compressed into one long word, no longer retain their individual
forms, but are clipped and altered so as to be scarcely recognizable.
A sentence by this process of fusion is compressed into a single
long word. Dr. Farrar cites the following example from the Aztec:
_achichillacachocan_, means “the place where people weep because the
water is red.” The component parts are: _atl_ “water,” _chichiltic_
“red,” _tlacatl_ “man,” _chorea_ “weep,” all of which have nearly lost
their identity in the inflection and contraction necessary in the
synthesis.[705] As in the Aryan and other families, Grimm’s system of
_Lautverschiebung_—sound changing, or shunting—better known by Prof.
Max Müller’s designation as “Grimm’s law” prevails, so there are groups
or families in northern Mexico pointed out by Buschmann to which
this law is clearly applicable. No doubt the number of relationships
already established between aboriginal languages, as the result of
classification, will be greatly augmented when, if ever, the subject
receives special attention.[706] Mr. Bancroft classifies the languages
in his catalogue under three great families, namely, the Tinneh, Aztec
and Maya. The first, which covers the territory around the northern
extremity of the Rocky Mountains, and sends its offshoots as far south
as northern Mexico, only concerns us incidentally in treating the
ancient languages of North America.[707] The two families (and their
far-reaching branches) in which we are interested, are the Maya and the
Aztec, the latter the survivor of the speech of the Nahuas.
To the Maya, or rather, the Maya-Quiché stock, no doubt belongs the
greatest antiquity assignable to any language or languages on the
continent. The mother tongue, the Maya, prevails throughout all of
Yucatan, and together with its dialects extends itself over Tabasco,
Chiapas and Guatemala, and is even present in the states of Tamaulipas
and Vera Cruz, in the Huastic and Totonac languages. Numerous
catalogues of the branches of this family have been made, but the most
recent, and we think the most complete, is one constructed in 1876 on
Señor Pimentel’s classification by the Mexican scholar, Señor Garcia y
Cubas. It is as follows: 1. Yucateco or Maya; 2. Punctunc; 3. Lacandon
or Xochinel; 4. Peten or Itzae; 5. Chañabal, Comiteco, Jocolobal; 6.
Chol or Mopan; 7. Chorti or Chorte. 8. Cakchi, Caichi, Cachi or Cakgi;
9. Ixil, Izil; 10. Coxoh; 11. Quiché, Utlatec; 12. Zutuhil, Zutugil,
Atiteca, Zacapula; 13. Cachiquel, Cachiquil; 14. Tzotzil, Zotzil,
Tzinanteco, Cinanteco; 15. Tzendal, Zendal; 16. Mame, Mem, Zaklohpakap;
17. Poconchi, Pocoman; 18. Atche, Atchi; 19. Huastic, and probably
20. the Haytian, Quizqueja or Itis, with their affinities, the Cuban,
Boriguan and Jamaican languages.[708]
The author of the above list has compensated us for its length by
giving each of the names with its variation in orthography according
to different writers. The classification is altogether superior to any
other. The Maya is of peculiar interest to us, especially since within
the territory over which it extends are found the most celebrated
architectural remains known to Central American archæology. The
majority of the sculptured tablets which are preserved are no doubt
in the Maya or some of its dialects. What is most satisfactory to us,
is the probability that the language is spoken to-day by the mass of
the native population of Yucatan as it was anciently, for says Señor
Pimentel, “the Indians have preserved this idiom with such tenacity
that to this day they will speak no other,” and he adds that it is
necessary for the whites to address them in their own tongue in order
to communicate with them.[709]
Señor Orozco y Berra furnishes us evidence that little change has
taken place in the language since the earliest times, in the statement
that all the geographical names of the peninsula are Maya, which
is considered proof in his judgment that the Mayas were the first
occupants of the country.[710] It is but a reasonable expectation,
therefore, that at no distant day, by the aid of Landa’s alphabet, the
inscriptions will be compelled to reveal their mysterious contents.
The Tzendal, the language in which Votan is said to have written a
history of the foundation of his city, and still spoken near the ruins
of Palenque, is said to have been the oldest of American languages,
but linguistic investigations have proven that it is an offshoot from
the Maya, the mother tongue.[711] It is probable that the Maya was
first planted at some point in the territory which it now occupies, and
gradually extended its domain until its colonies reached northern Vera
Cruz and southern Nicaragua. Whether at any time it was the language
of a people inhabiting central and southern Mexico at a date anterior
to the arrival of the Nahuas, is unknown though probable. Señor Orozco
y Berra has shown by linguistic studies that probably the Mayas
occupied the Atlantic seaboard of the United States, having in their
migration passed from the Floridian peninsula to Cuba and thence to the
other Caribbean isles, and to Yucatan. He states that the Mayas possess
traditions of a northern home from which they passed by means of the
islands of the Gulf to Yucatan. Both he and Señor Pimentel agree that
the languages of the West Indies belong to the Maya family.[712]
The characteristics of the Maya-Quiché languages are; flexibility,
expressiveness, vigor, approximating harshness, yet on the contrary
rich and musical in sound. The Maya itself has more than once been
compared to the Greek, and even said to be derived from it. Dr. Le
Plongeon, who for four years has been exploring the ruins of Yucatan
and especially of Chichen-Itza, writes thus in connection with the
discovery of a well-sculptured bear’s head at Uxmal: “When did bears
inhabit the peninsula? Strange to say, the Maya does not furnish the
name for bear. Yet one-third of this tongue is pure Greek. Who brought
the dialect of Homer to America? Or who took to Greece that of the
Mayas? Greek is the offspring of the Sanscrit. Is Maya? Or are they
coeval? A clue for ethnologists to follow the migrations of the human
family on this old continent. Did the bearded men whose portraits
are carved on the massive pillars of the fortress at Chichen-Itza,
belong to the Mayan nations? The Maya is not devoid of words from the
Assyrian.”[713] He does not hesitate to say that “the Maya, containing
words from almost every language, ancient or modern, is well worth
the attention of philologists,” a statement which might with but
little breach of propriety be made as well concerning almost any
other language. In referring to its antiquity, the writer says, “I
must speak of that language which has survived unaltered through the
vicissitudes of the nations that spoke it thousands of years ago, and
is yet the general tongue in Yucatan—the Maya. There can be no doubt
that this is one of the most ancient languages on earth. It was used by
a people that lived at least 6000 years ago, as proved by the Katuns,
to record the history of their rulers, the dogmas of their religion, on
the walls of their palaces, on the façades of their temples.”[714] The
Mexican scholar, Señor Melgar, is convinced that he sees resemblances
between the names employed by the Chiapenecs in their calendar, and
the Hebrew, and furnishes comparative lists to sustain his hopeless
theory.[715]
The speculations of the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg are none the
less remarkable and about equally as plausible as those of Dr. Le
Plongeon or Señor Melgar. The Abbé after years of study among the
peoples of Central America, was convinced beyond a doubt that a marked
relationship existed between the Quiché-Cakchiquel and Zutugil and the
languages of the north of Europe. He considers the evidence sufficient
that peoples speaking the Germanic and Scandinavian languages migrated
to Central America and infused their idioms into the Maya.[716]
With Mr. Bancroft we agree that no value can be attached to these
speculations, until impartial comparisons are made by scholars who
have no theories to substantiate. It is worthy of note that several
eminent scholars have observed the remarkable similarity of grammatical
structure between the Central American and certain transatlantic
languages, especially the Basque[717] and some of the languages of
Western Africa.[718] Dr. Le Plongeon, after several years spent amid
the antiquities of Peru and in the study of the Quichua language,
says, “The Quichua contains many words that seem closely allied to the
dialects spoken by the nations inhabiting the regions called to-day
Central America, and the Maya tongue.” In referring to the mural
paintings at Chichen-Itza, he further remarks, “By comparing them with
those of the Quichuas, I cannot but believe that Manco’s ancestors
emigrated from Xilbalba or Mayapan, carrying with them the notions of
the northern country.”[719] Interesting as these speculations are, they
must be received with allowance and viewed with doubt, until thorough
linguistic researches test their value.
The most important features of Maya grammar are as follows: The letters
of the alphabet are, a b c ɔ e, ch, c_h_, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, _p_,
ó, pp, t, th, tz, u, x, y, _y_, z. The letter ɔ is pronounced like the
English _dj_, _h_ is not aspirated, _th_ is hard, and the _k_ guttural.
Much of the beauty of the pronunciation depends on the elision of
certain vowels and consonants, as for instance instead of _ma in kati_
they say _min kati_, or instead of _ti ca otoch_ they would say _ti c
otoch_. The plural is distinguished from the singular by the addition
of _ob_ (those). Verbs ending in _an_ take _tac_ in the plural. The
masculine of rational beings is denoted by the prefix _ab_, the
feminine by _ix_. The words _xibil_ and _chupul_, signifying male and
female respectively, are used to express the gender of animals. The
case of nouns is determined by their position in the sentence and
their relation to the prepositions, the most frequent of the latter
being _ti_, which has various significations. Adjectives accompanying
substantives always precede them, but the number is only expressed
by the substantive. The comparative is formed by adding _l_ to the
adjective, sometimes _il_, and prefixing _u_ or _y_ the pronoun of the
third person. The superlative is formed by prefixing _hach_ to the
positive.
The Maya pronouns are as follows:
----------------------------+------------------------+------------------
_Personal Pronouns._ | _Possessives._ | _Reciprocals._
----------------------------+------------------------+------------------
Ten, en, I |In, u, Mine. |Inba, Myself.
Tech, ech, Thou. |A, au, Thine. |Aba, Thyself.
Lay, laylo, lo, He, that. |U, i, His, of that.|Uba, Himself.
Toon, on, We. |Ca, Ours. |Caba, Ourselves.
Teex, ex, You. |Aex, auex, Yours. |Abaex, Yourselves.
Loob, ob, They, those.|Uob, yob, Of those. |Ubaob, Themselves.
----------------------------+------------------------+------------------
The verb has four conjugations and that of the auxiliary _teni_, to
be, the present tense of which is the same as the personal pronouns
given in the left hand column, _Ten_, _Tech_, etc. The other cases are
as follows: Imperfect, _Ten cuchi_; Perfect, _Ten hi_; Pluperfect,
_Ten hi-ilicuchi_; Future, _Bin ten-ac_; Future perfect, _Ten hi-ili
coshom_; Imperative, _Ten-ac_; Subjunctive present, _Ten-ac en_;
Imperfect, _Hi ten-ac_.
The verb _Nacal_, to ascend, of the first conjugation, is inflected as
follows:
PRESENT INDICATIVE.
Singular, 1st per., _Nacal in cah_; 2d per., _Nacal a cah_; 3d per.,
_Nacal u cah_.
Plural, 1st per., _Nacal ca cah_; 2d per., _Nacal a-cah-ex_; 3d per.,
_Nacal-u-cah-ob_.
The Imperfect, _Nacal in cah-cuchi_; Perfect, _Nac-en_; Pluperfect,
_Nacen ili cuchi_; Future, _Bin nacac-en_; Future perfect, _Nacen
ili-cuchom_; Imperative, _Nacen_.
THE LORD’S PRAYER IN MAYA.
Cayum ianeeh ti càannob cilichthantabac akaba; tac a
Our Father who art in Heaven blessed be Thy name; it may come
ahaulil c’ okol. Mencahac a nolah uai ti luum bai ti caanè.
Thy kingdom us over. Be done Thine will as on earth as in heaven.
Zanzamal uah ca azotoon heleae caazaatez c’ ziipil he bik c’
Daily bread us give to-day us forgive our sins as we
zaatzic uziipil ahziipiloobtoone, ma ix appatic c’ lubul ti tuntah
forgive their sins to sinners, not also let us fall in temptation
caatocoon ti lob.[720]
us deliver from evil.
In the state of Oajaca and occupying the western portion of the Isthmus
of Tehuantepec, in a position intermediate between the Maya on the
one hand and the Nahua on the other, is found the ancient family of
languages known as the Mizteco-Zapotec, the various dialects of which
are spoken to this day by the natives occupying those regions. No
tradition throws any light on the origin of this group, nor do any
affiliations in vocabulary or grammmatical structure seem to exist
between them and any other family, American or foreign. The Miztec
language is exceedingly difficult to acquire, being characterized by
words of extraordinary length. The Zapotec on the contrary, with its
several dialects, is elegant, sonorous, and _less_ difficult.[721]
The language pre-eminent above all others in Mexico for its territorial
extent, for the refinement and civilization which it represented, and
its own inherent beauty and elegance, is known as the Nahua or Aztec,
or more modernly the Mexican. It was the language of the Toltecs and
of their advanced civilization, and after them of the seven tribes of
_Nahuatlacas_, that in the year 1196 established themselves in the
Mexican plateau. The Aztecs, one of these tribes, in the course of
events gaining the ascendency, gave their name to the language which
their conquests speedily extended over a territory four hundred leagues
in length, and in width from the Gulf to the Pacific, in the latitude
of the capital. The Aztec tongue prevailed continuously from a point
on the Gulf of California, under the twenty-sixth parallel of latitude
south-easterly to Rios Goatzacoalco and Tobasco; and southward to the
fifteenth parallel, extending along the coast of San Salvador and
appearing in the interior of Nicaragua. Its dialectical extension north
of Mexico we will consider on a future page. Twenty languages besides
the Aztec are said to have been spoken throughout Montezuma’s empire,
but the Aztec alone was recognized as the official and classic tongue.
The Chichimecs are said to have spoken a language of their own, until
the ruler Techotlalatzin commanded them to learn the Mexican.[722] Mr.
Bancroft is of the opinion that the Nahua was the original language of
the Chichimecs, and consequently does not agree with Señor Pimentel
who advocates the opposite view, and, we think, sustains it.[723] The
copiousness and grace of the Aztec has furnished a theme for many
Spanish writers whose praises have found an echo in the works of our
most able scholars and historians. If the Maya has been compared to the
Greek, the Aztec has often been likened to the Latin, not in structure
or vocabulary, but in its relation to ancient American civilization,
in its expressiveness, politeness, its capacity for the sublime, and
for the romantic coloring with which it is able to clothe that which is
humble and even insignificant. “It was the court language,” says Mr.
Bancroft, “of American civilization, the Latin of medieval and the
French of modern times.”[724]
The Nahua attained its highest development during the century preceding
the conquest in the schools of oratory, poetry and history, established
at Tezcuco, to which the sons of nobles were sent, as much to acquire
the purity of the idiom as the science which they taught.[725] Señor
Orozco y Berra says that the difference existing between the ancient
Nahua and the modern, may be compared to that difference observed
between the Castilian of the Romance of the Cid and that of the present
day.[726]
The outlines of the Aztec grammar are briefly as follows: The alphabet
contains the letters a, ch, e, h, i, k, l, m, n, o, p, t, tl, tz, u, v,
x, y, z, but lacks our consonants b, d, f, r, g, s. No word commences
with l. The _a_ is clear; _ch_ before a vowel is pronounced as in
Spanish, but before a consonant or when final it differs somewhat; _e_
is clear; _h_ is moderately aspirated and soft, but strong when it
precedes _u_; _t_ is omitted except when it comes between two _l’s_.
The _tl_ in the middle of a word is soft as in Spanish, but at the end
is pronounced _tle_, the _e_ being half mute. The pronunciation of _tz_
is similar to the Spanish _s_, but stronger. The _v_ is pronounced
by the women as in Spanish and French, but by the men like _hu_ in
Spanish; _x_, soft like the English _sh_, and _z_ like the Spanish _s_,
but not quite so hissing.[727]
By composition, words containing sixteen syllables are formed, though
many simple words are quite long. We have already explained the process
of polysynthesis or compounding by means of clipping the syllables
and words with a view to brevity and euphony. The following example
furnished by Pimentel and copied by Mr. Bancroft, further illustrates
the principle: _tlazotli_, esteemed or loved; _maviztik_, honored
or reverenced; _teopixki_, priest; _tatli_, father, and _no_, mine,
furnishes as a result: _notlazomaviztcopixkatatzin_, “my esteemed
father and reverend priest.” An example of the termination _tzin_,
signifying respect, is presented in this word. Several illustrations of
the same principle are furnished by Señor Pimentel, showing that often
a sentence is compounded into a single word. Indeed a great many of the
component parts of these long words, though words in themselves, are
incapable of being used separately. In composition the verb succeeds
the nominative and is placed at the end of the sentence. The adverb
precedes the verb, as does the adjective the substantive.
The Aztec is rich in terminations for the formation of the plural.
Generally no change is required for inanimate objects, as multiplicity
is expressed by means of numerals or the adverb _miek_ (much), e. g.,
_ze tetl_, one stone; _yei tetl_, three stones; _miek tetl_, many
stones, though often the terminations used for the plural of persons is
applied to inanimate objects, particularly when they are connected with
persons, as _zoquitl_, mud; _tizoquime_, we are earth; however, there
are exceptions to the rule, as in the Aztec words for the heavens,
the mountains and the stars. Furthermore, the first syllable is often
doubled in order to form the plural of inanimate things. Señor Pimentel
has embraced the entire subject of the formation of the plural in six
rules.
1. Primitive words form their plural in _me tin_ or _ke_, as _ichkatl_,
a ewe, a sheep; _ichkame_, sheep; _zolin_, a quail; _zoltin_, quail;
_kokoxki_, sick; _kokoxke_, sick (plural).
2. Derivatives form their plural as follows: the so-called
“reverentials” in _tzintli_, have the plural in _tzitzintin_; the
diminutives in _tontli_ form the plural _totontin_, and the diminutives
in _ton_ and _pil_, augmentatives in _pol_ and reverentials in
_tzin_ double the final syllable; as, _tlakatzintli_, person;
_tlakatzitzintin_, persons, etc.
3. Words either primitive or derived into which the possessive pronouns
enter, form the plural in _van_ (_huan_ according to the common
orthography); as, _noichkavan_, my sheep, _noichkatotonvan_, my little
sheep.
4. The words _tlakatl_, person; _zivatl_, woman; terms of gentilitious
character or expressive of office and profession, form their plural by
the omission of the final letters, as _Mexicatl_, a Mexican; _Mexika_,
Mexicans; in which case the final vowel is accented.
5. Some words form the plural by omitting the terminals and by doubling
the first syllable, while others double the first syllable without
omitting the terminal; as, _teotl_, god; _teteo_, gods; _zolin_, quail;
_zozoltin_, quails; _telpochtli_ and _ichpochtli_, double the syllable
_po_.
6. Some adjectives have various plurals, as _miek_, much; whose plural
is _miektin_, _miekintin_ or _miekin_.
In most cases the adjective and its substantive agree in number. The
only means of expressing gender is by adding the words _okichtli_,
male, and _zivatl_, female.
In the absence of a regular declension the cases are formed as
follows: The genitive is indicated by the possessive pronoun or by
the juxtaposition of the words, the dative by means of verbs called
applicatives, the accusative by certain particles accompanying the verb
or by juxtaposition, the vocative by adding e to the nominative or by
the change of _i_ into _e_ in words ending in _tli_ or _li_ and the
_in_ into _e_ in words ending in _tzin_.
The ablative is indicated by various particles and prepositions. The
language surpasses the Italian in the number of its augmentatives and
diminutives. The former take the syllable _pol_, the latter _tontli_
and _ton_. The Aztec is richer in verbal nouns than any other language.
Those derived from active, neuter, passive, reflective and impersonal
verbs, terminate in _ni_, _oni_, _ya_, _ia_, _yan_, _kan_ or _ian_,
_tli_, _li_, _liztli_, _oka_, _ka_, _ki_, _k_, _i_, _o_, _tl_.
TABLE OF PRONOUNS.
PERSONALS. | POSSESSIVES.
|
_Nevatl_, _neva_, _ne_, I. | _No_, Mine.
_Tevatl_, _teva_, _te_, Thou. | _Mo_, Thine.
_Yevatl_, _yeva_, _ye_, He, or somebody. | _I_, His.
_Tevantin_, _teva_, We. | _To_, Ours.
_Amevantin_, _amevan_, You. | _Amo_, Yours.
_Yevantin_, _yevan_, They. | _In_ or _im_, Theirs.
| _Te_, Of or belonging
to others.
“The possessives,” says Pimentel, “are always used in composition, and
change the final syllable of the word to which they are joined; as,
_teotl_, God, _noteuh_, my God,” etc.[728]
The modes of the verb are: the indicative, imperative, optative
and subjunctive. The indicative has the following tenses: present,
imperfect, perfect, pluperfect, future. The subjunctive has one tense
which is translated by the imperfect.
The following example of the conjugation is given from Pimentel:
INDICATIVE.
_Present._
_Ni-chiva_, I make. _Ti-chivâ_, We make.
_Ti-chiva_, Thou makest. _An-chivâ_, You make.
_Chiva_, He makes. _Chivâ_, They make.
_Imperfect._
_Ni-chiva-ya_, I made.
_Perfect._
_Oni-chi-uh_, I have made.
_Pluperfect._
_Oni-chi-uhka_, I had made.
_Future._
_Ni-chiva-z_, I shall make.
IMPERATIVE.
_Present_: _Ma xi-chiva_, Make thou.
_Future_: _Ma ti-chiva-z_, Make thou presently.
OPTATIVE.
_Imperfect_: _Ma ni-chiva-ni_, Would that I should make.
_Perfect_: _Ma oni-chi-uh_, Would that I have made.
SUBJUNCTIVE.
_Imperfect_: _Ni-chiva-zkia_, or } That I should make.
_Ni-chiva-zkiayo_, }
There is no infinitive in the conjugation, it being expressed by the
future indicative. Only verbs in _liztli_ have this mode. The passive
voice, save in a few exceptional cases, is formed as follows: _lo_ is
added to the present indicative of the active voice. In the perfect
tense, _k_ is added to the previously affixed _o_ in the singular and
_ke_ in the plural. The other modes and tenses form their passive
voice by adding to the present indicative passive their own final
termination, as, for instance, we have _nichiva_, I make, _nichivalo_,
I am made, _onichivalok_, I was made, _onichivaloka_, that I should be
made, etc. The Aztec contains only six irregular verbs.
THE LORD’S PRAYER IN AZTEC.
Totatzine in ilvikak timoyetztika ma yektenevalo in
Our reverend Father who heaven in art be praised ()
motokatzin mavallauh in motlatokayotzin ma chivalo in tlaltikpak in
thy name may come () thy kingdom be done () earth above ()
motlanekilitzin in yuh chivalo in ilvikak. In totlaxkal mo moztlae
thy will () as is done () heaven in. () our bread every day
totech moneki ma axkan xitechmomakili, ivan ma xitechmopopolvili in
to us is necessary to-day give us and forgive us ()
totlatlakol in yuh tikintlapopolvia intechtlatlakalvia ivan makamo
our sins () as we forgive those who us offend and not
xitechmomakavili inik amo ipan tivetzizke in teneyeyekoltiliztli, zanye ma
lead thou us that not in we fall () temptation, but
xitechmomakixtili in ivikpa in amo kualli.[729]
deliver us () against () not good.
Language has ever been an important factor in determining the original
home and the migrations of peoples. With this view the Aztec has
received the attention of some of the best scholars of both continents.
The most prominent results merit attention. The Nahua language is
unquestionably spoken far to the south, in Guatemala, Honduras and
Nicaragua, and this fact has been persistently cited as conclusive
proof of the southern origin of the Nahuas; but even Mr. Bancroft, the
most eminent of the advocates of this hypothesis, admits that there
“it is dialectic rather than aboriginal in appearance, so that the
testimony of language is all in favor of the plateau of Anahuac having
been the primal centre of the Aztec tongue.”[730]
The reports of several of the adventurers into the unexplored north,
were to the effect that the aborigines whom they encountered spoke
Aztec. Father Roque of Oñate’s expedition into New Mexico at the close
of the sixteenth century, and Father Gerónimo de Zárate subsequently
at the Rio del Tizon, are authority for the most positive statements
that the Mexican was encountered. Mr. Anderson, a companion of Captain
Cook in 1778, discovered the Aztec terminal _l_ _tl_ or _z_ of frequent
occurrence among the Nootkas of the North-west coast. With this data
and the traditions of the Aztecs, which all point to the north as their
ancient home, sufficient basis was found for a general belief that the
Mexican peoples had migrated down the coast of California and left an
unbroken linguistic line along the entire route of their wanderings.
At the beginning of the present century, the great German philologist,
Vater, sought to establish this line by his extensive investigations,
published in his _Mithridates_.[731] Unfortunately for his labors,
later researches have shown his generalizations too sweeping. Wilhelm
von Humboldt considered the Cora, under the twenty-second degree of
latitude on the Rio de Santiago, to be a mixture of Aztec and some
older and rougher language.[732] In 1855–59, Dr. Buschmann of Berlin
issued two celebrated works,[733] in which the subject was critically
examined, and as far as possible, with the data at hand, the true
proportion of Aztec elements entering into all the languages spoken
north of the Mexican plateau, was indicated. The researches were
systematically made, beginning with the North Mexican, languages and
proceeding northward in the supposed line of the Aztec migration. In
four languages of North-western Mexico in particular, did Dr. Buschmann
find the conspicuous presence of Aztec elements. These are the Cora
of Jalisco, referred to above; the Tepehuana of northern Sinaloa,
Durango and southern Chihuahua, spoken between the twenty-third and
twenty-seventh parallels, in a crescent-shaped territory the points
of which touch the Aztec on the west, intervening between it and the
Gulf of California; the Tarahumara, spoken in the Sierra Madre, of
the State of Chihuahua and Sonora, and fourthly, the Cahita occupying
the east coast of the Gulf of California between the twenty-sixth and
twenty-eighth parallels. By a liberty in classification, Buschmann
calls this group the Sonora family, although the languages are entirely
different from each other, with the exception that they are all
pervaded by the Aztec element. This is their only bond of union. They
contain about two hundred Aztec words, and about eight hundred words
derived from the Aztec in the several idioms.[734] “The Aztec _tl_,
and _tli_ in the Cora, are found changed in _ti_, _te_ and _t_; in
the Tepehuana into _de_, _re_ and _sci_; in the Tarahumara into _ki_,
_ke_, _ca_ and _la_, and in the Cahita, into _ri_. In all four of
the languages substantive endings are dropped, first, in composition
when the substantive is united with the possessive pronoun; secondly,
before an affix; thirdly, in the Cora alone, before the ending of the
plural and before affixes in the formation of words.”[735] North-east
of the Tarahumara and reaching to the Rio Grande is the Cnocho, and
directly to the east of the Cnocho, is the territory of the Toboso,
also bounded on the north by the Rio Grande. It is uncertain whether
the Aztec was ever the language of these large districts, though
testimony is not wanting that it was understood by both peoples.[736]
In fact throughout all northern Mexico, the Aztec was understood,
and, in some instances, entered prominently into the languages of the
north-western tribes. Grimm’s law of _Lautveränderung_, sound changing
or shifting, is as conspicuous in its application to the Aztec-Sonora
family of Buschmann as it is to the members of the Aryan family, and
often far more so. Occupying the north-western extremity of Mexico
are the Pima-Alto and Bajo, and the Opata, the principal dialect of
the latter being the Eudeve. Here again the Aztec appears both in the
identity of words and the similarity of grammatical structure. These
languages are recognized as branches of the Aztec-Sonora family, so
much so that Orozco y Berra has classified them together under the name
of the Opata-Tarahumar-Pima. He accounts for the presence of the Aztec
element upon the supposition that the language and civilization of
Mexico once extended over this region, but were subverted and displaced
by the incursions of northern peoples toward the close of the twelfth
century.[737] Not only is this probable, but, on the other hand, it
would be a matter of surprise if traces of the Aztec were not found
in languages bordering upon so vast and powerful an empire as that of
Montezuma. Still this fact alone is scarcely sufficient to account for
the prominence of the Aztec element in the northern languages, while it
is almost totally wanting in others more central and southern. Crossing
into the United States territory, we first encounter the Moqui of the
pueblo towns of Arizona; to the west in south-eastern California, we
meet the Cahuillo, Chemehuevi, Kizh, Netela and Kechi; at the other
extreme on the east, we have the Comanche of New Mexico and Texas,
while to the north, in Utah, Nevada, Idaho and Oregon, we have the
great Shoshone and Utah families. But why group these languages in
such a wholesale manner? Is it because of inter-linguistic affinities?
No. Simply because of the Aztec element (though insignificant it is
true), which unquestionably pervades them all.[738] Six of the Moqui
towns speak the language which bears their name. But, strange to say,
Harno the Seventh uses the Tequa, a language of one of the New Mexican
Pueblos. The Moqui language contains much that is Aztec, and because
of its substantive endings in _pe_ and _be_, etc., is considered by
Buschmann a branch of his Shoshone-Comanche family of the Sonora
idiom.[739] Coupling this fact with the traditions of the Moquis (see
pages 302–304) descriptive of their migrations from the North under the
pressure of the hordes of savages who deprived them of their cultivated
lands and slaughtered their families, we are at a loss to account for
this infusion of Aztec elements, except on the hypothesis that at a
remote day large numbers of Nahuas came in contact with the ancestors
of this people in their ancient home. Equally conspicuous is the Aztec
element in south-east California languages and the great Shoshone and
Utah families, which occupy the great central basin and stretch away
into Idaho and Oregon. Grimm’s law of sound-shifting is seen in their
adjective and substantive endings, _p_, _pa_, _pe_, _pi_, _be_, _wa_,
_ph_, _pee_, _rp_, and _rpe_. The Shoshone and Utah still retain _ts_,
_tse_, and _tsi_, all of which are but variations of the Aztec _tl_,
_tli_, according to the law above-named. Buschmann pronounces this
group the capstone of his Sonora edifice.[740] In Western Oregon, from
the source to the mouth of the Willamette River, the Yamkally and
Calapooya languages preserve traces of the Aztec both in words and
terminal sounds.[741] The same is even more evident concerning the
Chinook, of the lower Columbia River, in which the Aztec _thl_ and _tl_
is a regular termination.[742] Throughout the entire region drained
by the Columbia and its tributaries, Dr. Buschmann found well-marked
Aztec elements. The Clallum and Lummi languages of the great Salish or
Flathead family, which touches the coast opposite Vancouver’s Island
and extends into the interior, have the _tl_ termination and other
phonetic resemblances to the Aztec.[743] Furthermore, Mr. Gibbs has
discovered that the cardinals employed by the Clallam and Lummi in
their system of enumeration are of a threefold character, and, as Mr.
Gallatin has shown, are similar to those of the Mexicans and Mayas.[744]
Whether the Aztec is represented in the language of the Nootkas
on Vancouver’s Island is uncertain. Certainly strong marks of
similarity are observable. Buschmann, while admitting the existence
of resemblances, thinks that hardly enough of them exist to warrant
relationship.[745] The inquiry naturally arises, how came this Aztec
element which, three and a half centuries after the overthrow of the
Aztec empire, we observe in faint, though unbroken lines running from
the centre of Mexico to the vicinity of Vancouver’s Island to find its
way into a multitude of languages, some of which are separated from
others by a vast region more than two thousand miles in width? How
did it come to be the only bond of union between so many languages
in all other respects so dissimilar? It has been suggested that this
wide-spread dissemination of the Aztec is owing to the trade probably
carried on between Mexico and the North. However, this is merely
conjecture and is incapable of proof. It will be observed that the
linguistic line is faintest in the central basin among the Shoshones
and Utahs, where the relationship is established mainly by the
sound-shifting of the terminals according to Grimm’s law, but in the
languages of the Columbia River and its tributaries, and especially of
the Salish or Flathead family bordering on the strait of Juan de Fuca,
the Aztec terminal is actually present and in constant use. The most
critical researches have established this as an incontestable fact. In
this connection it is worthy of note (as shown in our first chapter)
that the works of the Mound-builders abound in this region in great
numbers, extending into the interior, appearing upon the upper Missouri
and its tributaries, and continuing to the Mississippi Valley and
thence into Mexico instead of following the coast or the central basin
at the west. Whether the Nahua was the language of the Mound-builders
of the United States, we are unable to determine, but the probabilities
that it was are considerable; because (1) the people of the mounds
built structures similar to those which prevail all over Mexico,
though in a less degree of perfection; (2) they carried obsidian
from Mexico to the North Mississippi Valley, showing both regions
to have enjoyed intimate commercial relations. This is no evidence
that the Mound-builders were colonists sent out from Mexico, since it
is improbable that colonists would have penetrated into the extreme
North-west by way of the Missouri River. Furthermore we have the
valuable argument of Baron von Hellwald made at the Luxembourg session
of the Congrès International des Américanistes in favor of a migration
from north to south, in his reply to Mr. Robert S. Robertson’s paper
on “the Mound-builders,” namely, that no evidence exists of the
Mexicans or Central Americans having worked copper mines anterior to
the conquest; hence it follows that since copper was employed by both
Mexicans and Mound-builders, it must have been carried southward by the
latter.[746] (3) We have testimony of the early writers that the Nahuas
came from the North-east; Sahagun says from the direction of Florida,
which then embraced the Mississippi Valley. (4) We have the statements
of Acosta and Sahagun that the Apalaches occupying the region east of
the Mississippi extended their colonies far into Mexico. According to
Acosta the Mexicans called them Apalaches, Tlautuics or Mountaineers.
“Sahagun speaking of them says: ‘They are Nahuas and speak the Mexican
language.’ This is by no means improbable, as the Aztec is found
eastward in the present states of Tamaulipas and Coahuila, and thence
the distance to the Mississippi is not so far.”[747] In their search
for the Aztec element in the North, every investigator—Buschmann
among the rest—has made a great oversight. They have expected to
find resemblances to the Aztec as it was spoken at the time of the
conquest after centuries of culture had been bestowed upon it in the
schools of Mexico and Tezcuco. It appears never to have occurred to
these scholars, that if Mexican similarities exist at the North they
are with the ancient form of the Nahua, which Orozco y Berra tells us
“differs as much from the modern Nahua or Aztec as the Spanish of the
Romance of the Cid from the Spanish of to-day,” or coming nearer home,
we may say that it probably differed as much as the Anglo-Saxon of
King Alfred and the English of the present. The linguistic researches
referred to have certainly been made over a wide chasm of time and
change, as viewed in this light, and when we consider the instability
of language in America, the wonder is that any Nahua traces exist
at the North-west at this late date.[748] This phenomenon can only
be accounted for on the supposition that, at a remote period, large
numbers of Nahua-speaking people resided for a considerable length of
time in those regions. The presence of the mounds in such numbers in
Washington and the British possessions north of it, leads to this view,
provided it can be established that the Mound-builders were Nahuas.
The fact that the line of mounds is toward the interior precludes the
expectation that the Nahua is to be found prominently present west of
the Rocky Mountains. It is plausible to consider the Moquis a branch
from the Nahuas, separating from them at an early day and establishing
themselves in Southern Oregon and Utah, whence, according to their
tradition, they were driven by the Utes. In the course of time, their
language, which contains a Nahua element, may have become changed and
lost much of its original character. To their residence, migration, and
the possible captivity of many of their number, the traces of Aztec
found in the Shoshone and Utah tongues may be due.
Analogies between the Nahua and all the other languages of the world
have been assiduously sought for, and supposed affiliations advocated
by theorists, but in the present unsatisfactory state of philological
science it would be presumptuous for us to pretend that any claim for
linguistic analogies with the old world could be sustained. There is no
doubt that strong analogies are observable between the Otomi and the
Chinese. Señor Najera, to whom the former is vernacular, has appended
to his excellent grammar of the Otomi a comparative table of Chinese
and Otomi words, which while it shows strong resemblances, is not
sufficient in itself to establish relationship.[749]
Warden has treated the grammatical resemblances, which in many respects
are striking.[750] It is one of the most singular phenomena met with
in the whole range of ethnography and philology, that a monosyllabic
language should be found in the very heart of Mexico surrounded by
the most remarkable poly-syllabism in the world, touching the capital
on the south-east and extending north-west into San Luis Potosi and
over portions of Queretaro and Guanajuato. It is no doubt a language
of great antiquity, and whether Chinese in origin is not fully
determined.[751] Numerous claims have been set forth that some of the
Californian languages bear a striking resemblance to the Chinese, and
that Indians and Chinese in some cases have found so much in common in
their respective languages as to be able to hold conversations with
each other. These claims have in most instances been supported by
persons having little knowledge of the principles of philology, and
who are scarcely aware of the difficulty of comparing two monosyllabic
languages in which the finest shade of pronunciation carries with
it the greatest significance.[752] Japanese claims have been urged
with some reason by ethnologists no less eminent than Latham, who is
confident that the “Kamskadale, Koriak, Aino-Japanese and the Korean
are the Asiatic languages most like those of America.”[753]
Comparisons of the Indian languages with those of the old world
have often been made, most frequently in a haphazard manner and
to little purpose. Recently, however, Herr Forchhammer of Leipzig
published a truly scientific comparison of the grammatical structure
of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Muskogee and Seminole languages, with the
Ural-Altaic tongues, in which he has developed many interesting points
of resemblance.[754] Prof. Valentini has called attention to the fact
that Ptolemy (Geography, Asia Minor, Chapter X, Armenia Major) gives in
his list of cities belonging to the Roman province in his time (A. D.
140), the names of five cities situated in the region of the historic
Ararat, which have nearly their counterpart in five proper names
applied to localities in Mexico by its ancient colonists. The cities
of Armenia Major, according to Ptolemy, are: Chol, Colua, Zuivana,
Cholima, Zalissa. “The first name _Chol_ is contained in _Cholula_;
the second, _Colua_, in _Coluacan_; the third, _Zu vana_, in _Zuivan_,
which is the ancient name of the Yucatanic province of Bacalab (see
Perez in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, Appendix, vol. ii, _Chronology of
Yucatan_). _Cholima_ is to-day written _Colima_, _Zalissa_ is contained
in _Xalisco_, the Spanish _x_ sounding in the Nahua language like the
English _sh_.”[755] Generally we have been disposed to pronounce all
such coincidences accidental, as most of them certainly are. In this
case we leave the decision to the reader. In this chapter we have
noticed two prominent families of languages, (1) the Maya-Quiché,
having such transatlantic affinities as to furnish presumptive evidence
that if it did not originate from, it was at least influenced by the
West European or African languages. (2) The great Nahua family, which
linguistic researches, together with the circumstantial evidence
furnished by architectural remains, commercial intercourse and the
testimony of early writers, assign to at least a temporary occupancy of
the Columbian region on the North-west coast. Concede this fact, and
you must look elsewhere, possibly to the opposite continent, for the
early beginnings of a language so ancient and polished.
While the proof is not conclusive, yet we think it is presumptive that
both of these families, as well as some other American languages, are
of old world origin.
CHAPTER XI.
THE PROBABILITIES THAT AMERICA WAS PEOPLED FROM THE OLD WORLD,
CONSIDERED GEOGRAPHICALLY AND PHYSICALLY.
Legends of Atlantis — Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Theory — The Subject
Examined Scientifically — Retzius’ View — Le Plongeon’s
Observations — Identity of European and American Plant Types
— Revelations of the _Dolphin_ and _Challenger_ Expeditions —
The Atlantic Floor — Challenger and Dolphin Ridges — Challenger
Plateau probably once Dry Land — Identity of European and South
American Fauna — Elevation and Depression of Coast Level of
Greenland, United States, and South America — Gulf Stream —
Equatorial Current — The Trade-Winds — Accidental Discovery of
Brazil — America Probably Reached by Ancient Navigators — The
Caras — Atolls of the Pacific Ocean — A Pacific Continent —
Contiguity of the Continents at the North — Aleutian Islands
— Kuro-Suvo — Behring’s Straits — Inviting Appearance of the
American Shore — Remoteness of the Migration — Prof. Grote’s
View — Prof. Asa Gray’s Observations — Conditions Favorable to
a Migration — John H. Becker’s Observations.
We have observed that traditional and linguistic evidence seems to
point to a trans-Atlantic origin for some of the American peoples.
In a preceding chapter (iii), we quoted the story of the Platonic
Atlantis, as recorded in the _Critias_, and alluded to the advocacy by
the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg of the hypothesis that the submerged
continent of Egyptian tradition was a reality. In support of this
view, the Abbé has cited the opinions of geologists and the remarkable
traditions preserved by the Central Americans, the Mexicans, and the
Haytians, concerning the earthquakes and volcanic eruptions which
submerged beneath the ocean a continent, of which the Antilles are but
its mountain summits. Attach as little importance as we may to these
ancient legends, which no doubt refer to some extraordinary cataclysm,
the memory of which was preserved for ages by periodic feasts and
religious celebrations,[756] in which the gods were besought by princes
and people for security against a similar calamity, still our minds
naturally associate them with the story of the Platonic Atlantis.[757]
Until recently the mere expression of belief in the former existence
of an Atlantic continent has been the signal for criticism, and has
called forth the smile of pity, if not of contempt. Such, however, is
no longer true, since scientific investigation, consisting chiefly in
deep-sea soundings and the study of the fauna and flora of the opposite
shores of the Atlantic, call for the respectful attention of all who
are interested in the ancient history of this continent. Prominent
among the men of science who have expressed confidence in this
hypothesis is Prof. Andres Retzius of Stockholm, who was convinced from
a study of comparative craniology, that the primitive dolichocephalic
skulls of America, especially of the ancient Caribs of the Antilles,
were nearly related to the _Guanches_ of the Canary Islands.[758]
Dr. Le Plongeon observed that the sandals upon the feet of the statue
of Chaacmol, discovered at Chichen-Itza, and of the statue of a
priestess found on the island of Mugeres, “are exact representations
of those found on the feet of the _Guanches_, the early inhabitants of
the Canary Islands, whose mummies are yet occasionally met with in the
caves of Teneriffe and the other isles of the group.”[759] The great
number of American plant-types in the Miocene flora of Switzerland,
led Prof. Unger to espouse the view that a continent formerly existed
in the present Atlantic ocean.[760] Professor Heer, the celebrated
botanist of Zurich, for the same reasons promulgated this hypothesis,
and in his _Flora Tertiaria Helvetiæ_, defines the location of the
continent, which he believes to have been as wide as Europe.[761] In
opposition to this view, it is urged by Professors Oliver and Asa Gray,
that the flora of America and Europe are united by means of a former
overland communication at Behring’s Straits.[762] The conformation
of the ocean-bed is the next matter of importance in examining the
subject. The deep-sea soundings taken for the submarine cable between
Newfoundland and Ireland, led to the impression that the Atlantic
floor was comparatively a level, forming but one great trough between
the continents. The United States exploring ship _Dolphin_, however,
subsequently dispelled this illusion, by revealing the fact that a
great submarine plateau or mountain chain which has been denominated
the “Dolphin Rise,” divided the North Atlantic into two longitudinal
troughs running north and south. This is described as a seal-shaped
ridge with its tail joining a connecting ridge at the south in 15°
North Lat. and 45° West Long., while its body widens as it runs towards
the north, reaching its maximum width under the forty-fifth parallel,
and finally tapering to a narrow isthmus at 52° North Lat. and 30° West
Long., which connects the ridge with the great northern submarine
table-land.[763]
This work was prosecuted further by the German frigate _Gazelle_,
and by H. M. ships _Lightning_ and _Porcupine_, with confirmatory
results.[764] The most thorough and satisfactory work of this
character, however, was performed during the cruise of H. M. ship
_Challenger_, from December 30, 1872, until May 24, 1876, inclusive.
Sir C. Wyville Thomson, the director of the expedition, in his
excellent work, _The Atlantic_, has contributed much exact information
relative to the contour of the sea-bed. The frontispiece to his second
volume is a chart illustrative of the relative depths of different
localities in the Atlantic ocean. Almost its entire length from north
to south, the great chain whose loftiest summits tower above the sea
in the Azores Islands, St. Paul’s Rocks, Ascension and St. Helena
Islands, is indicated by a white irregular belt representing a depth
of one thousand fathoms, but shading off into the blue, indicative
of the depths on either hand. Professor Thomson says, “Combining our
own observations with reliable data which have been previously or
subsequently acquired, we find the mean depth of the Atlantic is a
little over 2000 fathoms. An elevated ridge rising to an average height
of about 1900 fathoms below the surface, traverses the basin of the
North and South Atlantic, in a meridional direction from Cape Farewell,
probably as far south, at least, as Gough Island, following roughly
the outlines of the coasts of the old and new worlds. A branch of this
elevation strikes off to the south-westward, about the parallel of 10°
North, and connects it with the coast of South America at Cape Orange;
and another branch across the eastern trough, joining the continent of
Africa, probably about the parallel of 25° South.”[765]
The width of the great land ridge as well as its relation to the
North Atlantic islands is indicated in the following: “One of the
most remarkable differences between the Azores and Bermuda is, that
while Bermuda springs up an isolated peak from a great depth, the
Azores seem to be simply the highest points of a great plateau-like
elevation, which extends for upwards of a thousand miles from west
to east, and appears to be continuous with a belt of shallow water
stretching to Iceland in the north and connected probably with the
‘Dolphin Rise’ to the southward, a plateau which in fact divides the
North Atlantic longitudinally into two great valleys, an eastern and
a western.”[766] A member of the _Challenger_ staff, in a lecture
delivered in London soon after the termination of the expedition,
expressed the fullest confidence that the great submarine plateau is
the remains of the “lost Atlantis,” citing as proof the fact that the
inequalities, the mountains and valleys of its surface, could never
have been produced in accordance with any laws for the deposition of
sediment nor by submarine elevation, but, on the contrary, must have
been carved by agencies acting above the water level.[767] The volcanic
character of the Azores and Philippines, together with the prevalence
of volcanic deposits found upon the entire ridge by the officers of the
_Challenger_, lend probability to the Egyptian and American legends of
a tremendous catastrophe in which a continent was submerged beneath the
waves.[768]
Sir C. Wyville Thomson found that the fauna of the coast of Brazil
brought up in his dredging machine, were similar to that of the western
coast of South Europe.[769] This is of particular interest, since
at a short distance north of the Amazon an arm of the central ridge
connects the sunken plateau with the coast of South America. Mr. J.
Starke Gardner, the eminent English geologist, is of the opinion that
in the Eocene period a great extension of land existed to the west of
Cornwall. The extraordinary mingling of American, Asiatic, Australian
and African genera in all European floras of the Tertiary period leads
him to the conviction that at a remote time they were all connected.
Referring to the locations of the _Dolphin_ and _Challenger_ ridges,
he asserts that a great tract of land formerly existed where the sea
now is, and that Cornwall, the Scilly and Channel islands, Ireland and
Brittany are the remains of its highest summits.[770] The question at
once arises, “What ground have we for believing that the great Atlantic
ridges ever occupied a higher altitude than at present?” The answer is
found in the comparison of facts with the following theory set forth by
Prof. Joseph Le Conte: “Any increase in the height and extent of the
whole amount of land on the globe must be attended with a corresponding
depression of the sea-bottoms, and therefore an actual subsidence
of the sea-level everywhere. Hence if it be true, as is generally
believed, that the continents have been, on the whole, increasing in
extent and in height, in the course of geological history, then it is
true also that the seas have been subsiding, and that therefore the
relative changes are the sum of the two.”[771] It cannot be denied that
the processes of elevation and depression are now actively going on
along the eastern coast of both the Americas. The coast of Greenland
is sinking along a distance of 600 miles so markedly that ancient
buildings on low rock-islands are now submerged, and the Greenlander
has learned by experience never to build near the water’s edge.[772]
The subsidence along our Atlantic seaboard is slowly going on, being
most marked on the coast of South Carolina and Georgia, while on the
other hand the elevation of the eastern coast of South America has
been accomplished by the hidden forces, volcanic or otherwise, on a
stupendous scale. “Raised beaches” have been traced 1180 miles down
the eastern shore and 2075 miles along the western, ranging from
100 to 1300 feet above the sea, and Alexander Agassiz has recently
identified them at a height of 3000 feet above the present sea-level
by means of corals found adhering to the rocks.[773] In view of these
facts, so familiar to any student of geology, it is not difficult to
conceive of the former existence of Atlantis where the _Dolphin_ and
_Challenger_ locate the mid-Atlantic ridge, described as 1000 miles
in width in the latitude of the Azores. Supposing the existence of an
Atlantic continent in the Tertiary period conceded, we have no means at
present of determining the approximate time of its subsidence, unless
we associate it with the dim and uncertain legends of the Egyptian
priests and the ancient Americans. Whether the Atlantidæ who threatened
to overthrow the earliest Greek and Egyptian states, but who were
swallowed up by the sea in the engulfment of their island continent,
were the inhabitants of the _Dolphin_ and _Challenger_ ridges and the
colonists of Eastern America, must for the present at least remain in
doubt, though strong probabilities point to the conclusion that they
were.[774]
The colonization of America by transatlantic peoples, it seems to us,
did not depend upon the existence of a land bridge at a remote period,
but could have been accomplished without the aid of the compass, either
intentionally or accidentally, through the agency of the equatorial
current and the trade-winds, two mighty forces perpetually tending
toward the shores of the new world. The return current of the Gulf
Stream which describes a semicircle in the east Atlantic washes in
its sweep the Azores, the Madeira, the Canary and Cape Verde Islands,
approaching in its southern course the shores of Portugal, Morocco, and
the Sahara Desert, and finally uniting with the stronger equatorial
current which rushes up the coast of Africa, crosses the Atlantic under
the equator, and skirts the coast of South America until it reaches the
Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico.[775] The north-east trade-winds
blowing perpetually from the coast of Europe in a belt from eighteen to
twenty degrees in width (or from 1245 to 1275 miles) reach the coasts
of the American continent over an area which extends from the mouth of
the Amazon to the northern boundary of Florida. Through the agency
of these mild but almost unvarying forces Columbus was steadily borne
on to the accomplishment of the greatest event of modern history. The
companions of the Admiral were dismayed by the persistency with which
they were wafted beyond the bounds of the known world, and ascribed the
unceasing east wind, which they supposed offered them no hope of return
to their homes, to a device of the devil. In one of the houses on the
island of Guadaloupe Columbus on his second voyage saw the stern-post
of a vessel, supposed to have been the fragment of some ship that had
drifted across the Atlantic and been cast, together with the crew, upon
unknown shores. How often and how long this same process had operated
it is impossible to conjecture.[776] The accidental discovery of Brazil
by Cabral furnishes an additional reason for believing that anciently
vessels may have reached the new world. Pedro Alvarez de Cabral was
dispatched by the Portuguese on the 9th of March 1500, with a fleet of
thirteen vessels on a voyage around the Cape of Good Hope, to Calicut.
After passing the Cape Verde Islands he bore away to the west, in
order to avoid the calms prevailing on the Guinea coast. On the 25th
of April, to his surprise he discovered what proved to be the South
American continent, at a point which he named Porto Securo.[777] When
we consider that the distance from the coast of Africa to Cape Frio,
Brazil, is but 1530 miles, and realize that twelve centuries B. C. the
Phœnicians and probably other maritime peoples of the Mediterranean
visited Britain at the north and coasted Africa to the south, the
probabilities are strong that, through the natural agency of the
Atlantic currents and the trade-winds, some ancient mariners reached
the American coast.[778]
Brasseur de Bourbourg, on the authority of Baron de Eckstein and
his own researches, points to the fact that the Barbarians who are
alluded to by Homer and Thucydides, are a race of ancient navigators
and pirates called _Cares_ or _Carians_, who occupied the islands of
Greece and a part of the coast of the Peloponnesus, Arcanania and
Illyria, before the Pelasgi. They ruled in Phrygia and other states
of Asia Minor, antedating the Phœnicians in their sovereignty of the
sea and the Indo-European peoples in their domination of the land. The
same people extended their borders into Nubia and Libya and became
the ancestors of the nations of the Barbary States. The Abbé, to all
appearances, easily identifies them with _Caracars_ or _Caribs_ of
the Antilles, the _Caras_ or _Cariari_ of Honduras, and even with the
_Gurani_ of South America. We submit the question for the investigation
of the student, rather than with our endorsement.[779] Whether a great
continent ever existed in the Pacific Ocean since man’s appearance
on the earth, or whether the great area occupied by Oceanica and
the Coral Islands of the Central Pacific was once a continent, are
questions which cannot now be determined. It is certain, however, as
Professor Dana has shown in his study of the atolls and barriers of
the Pacific, that if not a continent, at least a great archipelago
measuring 6000 miles in length by from 1000 to 2000 miles in breadth,
has subsided to a depth ranging from 3000 to 6000 feet. Professor Dana
states that two hundred islands have thus been lost.[780] Professor Le
Conte estimates the loss of land to equal 20,000,000 square miles, and
defines its boundaries by the Hawaiian and Feejee groups, north and
south, and the Paumotu group and Pelews, east and west. He fixes the
extreme subsidence at 1000 feet, since the average height of the high
islands of the Pacific at present is not less than 9000 feet above the
sea level, while some of them reach 14000 feet.[781] Professor Dana is
of the opinion that this vast area has subsided since the _Tertiary
age_. Whether such is the case or not is a matter of conjecture, but
it is certain that much of it has been accomplished within the human
era. That a higher civilization once prevailed throughout Polynesia
we need only cite the remains found on Easter Island by Captain Cook,
and refer to the Appendix of Mr. Baldwin’s work, where ruins of a high
order are named as existing on Ascension, Marshall, Gilbert, Kingsmill,
Ladrones, Swallow, Strong’s, Navigators and Hawaiian Islands. A
quadrangular tower forty feet high and several stone-lined canals are
to be seen at the harbor at Strong’s Island. On the adjoining isle
of Lele, cyclopian walls forming large enclosures are overgrown by
forests. “These walls are twelve feet thick, and within are vaults,
artificial caverns, and secret passages.” “Not more than five hundred
people now inhabit these islands; their tradition is that an ancient
city formerly stood around this harbor, mostly on Lele, occupied by a
powerful people whom they called ‘Anut,’ and who had large vessels, in
which they made long voyages east and west, ‘many moons’ being required
for these voyages.”[782] It is altogether probable that not only a
higher civilization once prevailed in Polynesia, but that within the
history of man, the greater extent of land, now submerged, made the
passage to America comparatively easy. If we turn to the North Pacific,
all doubts vanish in the presence of the most favorable conditions for
a migration from our continent to the other. With Latham, we believe
that if America had first been discovered from the west, and Alaska
and the north-west coast been as well known as our Atlantic coast,
North-eastern Asia would have naturally passed for the _fatherland_ of
North-western America.[783] It is scarcely necessary to occupy space
in pointing out the facilities which the Aleutian Islands offer for a
migration even in inferior boats, and at all seasons of the year. The
climate, though cool, is not severe, owing to the proximity of the warm
current of the Kuro-suvo, and it only requires an inspection of the map
to convince the most conservative. Col. Barclay Kennon, formerly of
the United States North Pacific Surveying Expedition, after referring
to the conspicuousness of the volcano Petropaulski on the shores of
Kamtschatka, says: “Proceeding along this coast to Cape Kronotski,
which lies north of Petropaulski, the distance to Behring’s Island is
about one hundred and fifty miles—course east. Fifteen miles only from
it is Copper Island, and about one hundred and fifty miles south-west
of it is Attou Island, the most westerly of the Aleutian group, which
is an almost unbroken chain, connecting the American continent to the
peninsula of Alaska.”[784] It is evident that the voyage from the
Asiatic to the American coast can be made as far south as the Aleutian
Islands without losing sight of land but a few hours at a time—a matter
of no consequence to the intrepid navigators found everywhere among
the aborigines upon the islands and coast.[785] The Kuro-suvo or Japan
current sweeps along the Asiatic coast, bears away to the east, and
describing a semicircle, bends its course southward to the shores of
California and Mexico, until it reaches about the tenth parallel of
north latitude, when it returns to the Japanese coast.
This Gulf Stream of the Pacific, which nearly every season casts
wrecks of Japanese junks upon our shores, no doubt has been an
active agent in giving character to our ancient population.[786]
Added to these twofold facilities for communication—of currents and
an almost continuous chain of islands—we have a third in the narrow
channel at Behring’s Straits. These straits, according to Sir John F.
Herschel, are now “only thirty miles broad where narrowest, and only
twenty-five fathoms in their greatest depth.”[787] Sir Charles Lyell,
in alluding to the above fact, remarks: “Behring’s Straits happen to
agree singularly in width and depth with the Straits of Dover, the
difference in depth not being more than three or four feet.”[788] With
this statement before us while standing upon the deck of a vessel
midway between Calais and Dover, with the shores of France and England
in full view, we felt, as never before, how absurd is the opinion
which has been advanced more than once, that no general migration
was likely to take place across Behring’s Straits. As well say that
no general migration was likely to take place across the Straits of
Dover; yet we learn that Britain was known to be inhabited as early
as the twelfth century B. C.[789] The weather at Behring’s Straits,
though cold even in summer, is not nearly as cold as the winters of
Japan.[790] In winter the waters of the straits are frozen over
generally as late as April, furnishing a continuous connection between
the continents, while in summer the communication at present between
the aborigines inhabiting opposite shores is continuous.[791] Frederick
von Hellwald furnishes an argument for the naturalness of a migration
to the American shores the fact that, “while the Asiatic projection
near Behring’s Straits is almost a sterile rocky waste, the opposite
coast presents a much more inviting appearance, abounding in trees and
shrubs. Moreover, the climate when we pass southward of the peninsula
of Alaska, is of a genial character, the temperature continuing nearly
the same as far down as Oregon.”[792] The difference in the two shores
is owing to the fact that the cold current from the Arctic Ocean passes
southward along the Asiatic coast, while a portion of the water of the
warm current passes up the American shore.[793] It is impossible to
approximate the period of the world’s history in which the migration
must have taken place. No doubt it was in a remote age, before the
old world peoples had developed their present or even historic
peculiarities and types of civilization. If this be true, the futility
of all old world comparisons, and the unceasing search for analogies
which has been going on since the discovery of the continent, is at
once apparent.[794]
Prof. Grote thinks the first migration may have taken place in the
Tertiary period in Pliocene time, and that the subsequent advent
of the ice period cutting off all communication with the old world
until recent times, produced a modification in the race, and that man
retired with the glacier on its return to the north, where we see his
descendants in the Eskimo.[795] If Prof. Croll’s theory of climatic
change resulting from the maximum eccentricity of the earth’s orbit be
true, or even if the ordinary time at which the American glacial period
is supposed to have occurred be taken into consideration, we hardly
think the evidences of man’s pre-glacial residence on this continent
are sufficient on which to base a safe hypothesis.[796] Of course Prof.
Grote would assign a comparatively recent migration to the civilized
nations. Whether a continuous land communication ever existed between
the continents at the Aleutian Islands[797] or at Behring’s Straits
cannot be determined, though the probabilities seem to favor the view
that they were once united.[798]
Prof. Asa Gray has satisfactorily shown the intimate relationship
between the North American and Asiatic vegetation, while many of our
fauna are clearly of Asiatic origin.[799] However, it is of little
moment in this discussion whether the land bridge ever existed; the
conditions for migration from one continent to the other are now,
and no doubt ever have been favorable, and that different peoples at
different times have availed themselves of those conditions is equally
certain. We have already alluded to the climatic conditions south of
Alaska which would naturally allure a migrating tribe down the coast
to Oregon and the Columbian region. Once there, however, a tribe of
considerable numbers and enterprise would soon be stimulated to push
farther, because of the demands for a more ample support than could be
found on the Pacific coast in the region of the Columbia and Frazier
Rivers. Still, progress to the south is practically cut off, since
the dryness and sterility of the Californian coast, the ice-capped
mountains intervening between the north and the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers and the desert highlands which rise with bleak and
forbidding aspect between the Sierra Nevada and the eastern Rocky
Mountains, combine in forming a barrier sufficient to turn the course
of a migration.[800] Add to this the fact that the country south
of Oregon rises over 2000 feet above the head of the waters of the
Columbia and Missouri rivers, and it is apparent that an outlet must be
sought in another direction. Nature has provided the highway. Alluding
to this fact and to the unbroken line of mounds from the north and west
down the Missouri valley, Mr. Becker remarks: “On the head of (canoe)
navigation we have what is known as ‘portages.’ These are depressions
in the continuous range of the Rocky Mountains of such a nature that
they fairly invite a travelling tribe to cross from the river system
of the upper Columbia, emptying into the Pacific Ocean to that of the
Missouri, on which a canoe need but be floated in order to arrive in
the far distant Gulf of Mexico. Canoes can easily be carried from
one river system to the other. Nothing like it exists in the whole
mountain range southward, until we arrive at Nicaragua Lake in Central
America.”[801] It will not require long for the matter of fact reader,
who comprehends the well-nigh insurmountable difficulties which lie in
the way of populating America in tropical or southern latitudes, and
compares with them the facilities which the proximity of the continents
and the topography of our country afford, to determine from what
quarter America received the greater part of its inhabitants.
CHAPTER XII.
CONCLUSION.
The dim uncertainty which envelopes the most ancient period of American
antiquity, like that which obscures the beginnings of Egyptian,
Assyrian and Trojan history, to say nothing of the origin of the
venerable Asiatic civilizations, renders much of the effort in this
field unsatisfactory. Still the results are of surpassing interest. A
new cosmogony, mythology and traditional history full of weird poetic
inspiration, an inspiration such as is begotten in contemplating the
struggles of nature’s children after a higher development, is added to
the fund of human knowledge. The poetry of the Quiché cosmogony must
some day find expression in verse of Miltonic grandeur. The fall of
Xibalba will no doubt afford the materials for a heroic poem which will
stand in the same relation to America that the Iliad does to Greece.
The doctrines of the benign and saintly Quetzalcoatl or Cukulcan
must be classed among the great faiths of mankind, and their author,
alone of all the great teachers of morals except Christ himself,
inculcating a _positive_ morality, must be granted a precedence of
most of the great teachers of Chinese and Hindoo antiquity. It is the
custom of many Europeans to regard America as having no heroic or
legendary period, no heroes like Achilles, Æneas, Sigfried, Beowolf,
Arthur and the Cid; but who will review the romance of American
antiquity and longer entertain this view? A few years ago, writers
dated North American history from the discoveries made by Columbus
and his immediate successors. Now they go back to the Northmen for a
starting-point. May not the beginning be pushed even farther back,
and the _ancient history of America_ receive the attention of the
historiographer?
The origin of the North American population cannot be positively
settled at present, though the probabilities are that new facts will be
brought to light establishing the relationship of the ancestors of the
Nahuas with some ancient Asiatic race, as the Eskimo have clearly been
proven to belong to the Arctic race which encircles the globe near the
North pole.[802] We have seen that groups of facts unquestionably point
to Northern Asia as the ancient home of a large share of the tribes of
North America, civilized and savage. The autochthonic hypothesis which
had its first great advocate in Dr. Morton, receives no support from
his mistaken argument for the unity of the American race. We think
we have shown, as did Prof. Wilson before us, that no such fact as
ethnic unity exists in America. Dr. Morton’s own measurements of crania
which we have classified, and the recent measurements of mound skulls,
disprove the argument which he sought to establish. The autochthonic
hypothesis owed much of its popularity to the support which it received
from Prof. Agassiz’s doctrine of the separate creations of races of
men, a hypothesis which has rapidly lost ground since the decease of
its eminent advocate. It is impossible to determine whether the people
of the mounds of the United States were preceded in this country by any
other people. Certainly they had intercourse with some race having a
cranial type quite different from their own, as several low-type skulls
taken from the mounds testify. If the rude weapons found in New Jersey
are as old as Dr. Abbott supposes[803]—belonging to the inter-glacial
age—the question of man’s antiquity on this continent may have to
be viewed in a different light from that in which it has hitherto
appeared. It is conjectured that this supposed inter-glacial race were
the ancestors of the Eskimo of to-day, and retired or were driven
to the Arctic regions, where their racial characteristics became
permanent. The traditional history of both Mayas and Nahuas seem to
indicate an old world origin. The former people clearly claim an origin
which, if their traditions are worth anything, must be assigned to some
Mediterranean country. While, on the contrary, the Nahuas persistently
state that they came from the north or north-west. It is certain that
many of their cosmological traditions closely resemble those of Central
and Western Asiatic peoples. Why should the traditions of the ancient
Americans be less reliable than those of the most ancient Egyptians,
Greeks, or Hindoos?[804]
Tradition, language and architectural remains furnish us the data by
which to trace the migrations of peoples. In addition to the testimony
of tradition, the languages of the Mayas and Quichés present affinities
to the west European and African languages; also to the languages
of the West Indies and the Antilles. Whether the Quiché traditions
concerning their ancient home have reference to the Atlantic coast of
the United States is uncertain, though Señor Orozco y Berra believes
their ancestors to have migrated from Florida to Cuba and thence
to Yucatan. Linguistic and architectural evidences show that the
Maya-Quiché family extended its civilization north as far as Panuco,
and south as far as Honduras.
The Nahua migrations are more numerous and their accounts somewhat
obscure. It is not improbable that while few in number the Nahuas
arrived on our north-western coast, where they found a home until they
had become a tribe of considerable proportions. Crossing the watershed
between the sources of the Columbia and Missouri Rivers, a large
portion of the tribe probably found its way to the Mississippi and
Ohio Valleys, where it laid the foundations of a wide-spread empire,
and developed a civilization which reached a respectable degree of
advancement.
The remainder of the Nahuas, we think, instead of crossing the
Rocky Mountains, migrated southward into Utah, and established a
civilization the remains of which are seen in the cliff-dwellings
of the San Juan Valley and such extensive ruins as exist at Aztec
Springs. It must be conceded that this hypothesis rests on linguistic
and traditional evidence, as no affinity between the architecture
of the Cliff-dwellers and either the Mexicans or Mound-builders is
traceable. We have in a preceding chapter summarized our reasons for
considering the Mound-builders to have been Nahuas. The Olmecs, the
first Nahuas to reach Mexico, came in ships from the direction of
Florida, landed at Panuco, and journeyed southward until they came in
contact with the advanced and already old civilization of the Mayas.
The Toltecs came into Mexico by land from the North. The Chichimecs,
their former neighbors in Hue hue Tlapalan, whether Nahuas or not
originally, followed them and adopted their language. The Nahuatlaca
tribes, speaking the same language, arrived centuries afterward from
the same quarter—the North. Finally the Aztecs, the last of the Nahuas,
reached Anáhuac four centuries before the Spanish conquest. Mr. Becker
has conjectured that Aztlan (land of whiteness) was the name applied
to the southern Mississippi Valley and the region of the Gulf States;
that Hue hue Tlapalan (old red land), the ancient empire of the Nahuas,
was situated on the great plains of the west and in the region occupied
by the Cliff-dwellers and Pueblos, and further, that the “seven caves”
or “ravines,” the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés, is the region of the
Colorado River, the land of cañons.
At best these can be but conjectures, yet the probabilities are
that Hue hue Tlapalan bordered upon the great Mississippi Valley.
Traditional and architectural evidence lead us to this conclusion. The
linguistic argument is wanting, except the statement of the historians
that the people of the Floridian region spoke Nahua. It remains for
some one to compare the Aztec with the languages of the southern
Indians before the investigation is complete. While the probability is
pre-eminent that the ancient Americans are of old world origin and that
the Mayas and Nahuas reached this continent from opposite directions,
it is certain that the civilization developed by each people is
indigenous—that it grew up on the soil where we find it, and was shaped
by the wants of man as influenced and modified by the conditions of
nature and physical surroundings. The most persistent investigation has
failed to disclose any marked resemblance between the architecture,
art, religion and customs of the North Americans considered as a whole
and of any old world people. It is true that occasional analogies
suggest intercourse and even relationship with particular races, as
for instance the serpent and phallus worship common to the aboriginal
Americans and the people of India. Sun-worship, so wide-spread, may
also indicate an ancient community of residence for those peoples who
practise it. The Calendar systems of Mayas and Nahuas present analogies
to the systems employed by the Persians, Egyptians and certain
Asiatic nations, and the presumption is very strong that the latter
furnished the ground-plan upon which the Nahua system was constructed.
The accuracy of the Aztec calendar must ever be a monument to their
intellectual culture, and an undeniable proof of the advanced state of
ancient Mexican civilization. The fact that Cortez found the Julian
reckoning, employed by his own and every other European nation, to be
more than ten days in error when tried by the Aztec system—a system
the almost perfect accuracy of which was proven by the adjustments
which took place under Gregory XIII in 1582 A.D.—excites our wonder
and admiration. How the Nahuas, whether Toltec or Aztec we know not,
were able to approximate the true length of the year within two
minutes and nine seconds, thus almost rivalling the accuracy of the
learned astronomers of the Caliph Almamon, is a mystery. The venerable
civilization of the Mayas, whose forest-grown cities and crumbling
temples hold entombed a history of vanished glory, no doubt belongs to
the remotest period of North American antiquity. It was old when the
Nahuas, then a comparatively rude people, first came in contact with
it, adopted many of its features, and engrafted upon it new life. Like
Rome, overwhelmed by the Teutons of the North, it no doubt succumbed
to the vigorous aggressions of the invaders, and was compelled to
resign the dominion of much of its northern territory. The powerful
empire of the Quiché-Cakchiquels was the result of the union of the
old and new races. The otherwise inviting picture of ancient American
civilization is marred by the introduction of human sacrifices which
in each instance occurred in the period of the political decadence
of the people practising it, and no doubt was the most potent factor
in the downfall of both Toltec and Aztec monarchies. Still, when we
reflect upon the Druidical horrors of the Britons at the time of the
Roman conquest, and realize that our Anglo-Saxon ancestors in the sixth
century sold their relatives and even their own children into slavery,
and were but slightly removed from the condition of cannibals if they
were not actually such, the ancient American civilization with its many
humane features and advanced culture rises up in splendor before us, in
marked contrast with our barbarous origin. Although this civilization
was indigenous and peculiar to itself, we find all of the American
tribes possessed of certain arts and traditions which seem common to
mankind in all parts of the world. The character of flint weapons and
implements are the same among all primitive peoples. The modes of
producing fire by friction and of grinding grain differ little, if
any, in America, from those employed by ancient peoples elsewhere. The
first efforts toward the development of the architectural idea all
round the globe, seem to find expression in the rude mound and then in
the more perfect pyramid. These and other considerations which have
been noted in the preceding pages, lead us to the conclusion that at a
remote period, before racial and national characteristics had been well
defined, this continent received its population from the old world, at
different times and from different quarters.
The uniformity with which the human mind operates in all lands for the
accomplishment of certain ends, has in many instances resulted in the
independent development of institutions common to several peoples. This
fact, together with the probability that occasionally foreigners were
cast upon the American shores, will be sufficient to account for many
features which have been discovered in Mexican and Central American
architecture, art, and religion, presenting analogies with the old
world. The fact that civilizations having such analogies are developed
in isolated quarters of the globe, separated from each other by broad
seas and lofty mountains, and thus indicating a uniformity of mental
operation and a unity of mental inspiration, added to the fact that the
evidence is of a preponderating character that the American continent
received its population from the old world, leads us to the truth that
God “hath made of one blood all nations of men.”
APPENDIX.
A.
MADISONVILLE EXPLORATIONS.
Since the greater part of this work was put in type, the exploration
of ancient mounds in several localities in the United States has
yielded gratifying results. Most conspicuous for rich returns,
both in pottery and human remains, are the researches which have
recently been prosecuted with such rare intelligence and vigor by
the Literary and Scientific Society of Madisonville, Ohio, in the
aboriginal burying-grounds and among the mound-works of the Little
Miami Valley. Through the liberality of the society and the courtesy
of its secretary, Mr. Frank W. Langdon, we are enabled to present
an authorized account of the explorations. We take this opportunity
of expressing our obligations to the society, and especially to Mr.
Langdon, who has kindly prepared the following report:
NOTICE OF SOME RECENT ARCHÆOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES IN THE LITTLE MIAMI
VALLEY. _By FRANK W. LANGDON, Secretary of the Literary and
Scientific Society of Madisonville, Ohio._
The valley of the Little Miami River, in South-western Ohio, has long
been noted for the number and extent of its pre-historic earthworks,
which, distributed on either side of the river, from its confluence
with the Ohio to the well-known Fort Ancient and beyond, form an almost
continuous chain of mounds, forts, circles, and embankments, extending
for more than fifty miles, and constituting an important division of
the great earthworks system of the Mississippi Valley.
Of the few publications relating more especially to the ancient works
of this series, one of the most important, perhaps, is the paper by
Dr. Charles L. Metz, entitled “The Prehistoric Monuments of the
Little Miami Valley,”[805] accompanied by a chart showing the location
and character of more than forty of these earthworks, situated in
Columbia, Spencer and Anderson Townships of Hamilton County. The Hon.
Joseph Cox, H. B. Whetsel, Esq., Mr. Charles F. Low, and the several
other gentlemen composing the organization known as the Literary and
Scientific Society of Madisonville, have also, at various times,
given considerable attention to archæological investigations in this
vicinity, and the valuable and interesting collections of objects
of pre-historic art accumulated by these gentlemen afford abundant
evidence of the long-continued occupation of this region by a numerous
and somewhat intelligent people of whom we have no historic record.
A renewed interest in the subject has been recently developed by the
discovery, near Madisonville, of one of the cemeteries of this unknown
people, and the explorations therein by the above-named society, are
perhaps among the most interesting that have ever been conducted in the
Mississippi Valley.
This cemetery, which is distant about one and one-half miles south-east
from Madisonville, occupies the western extremity of an elevated
plateau overlooking the Little Miami River, and situated from eighty
to one hundred feet above the water-line. It is bounded on the south
by the river “bottom”; on the north and west by a deep ravine, through
which flows a small stream known as Whisky Run; on the east the plateau
slopes gradually up to the general level of the surrounding country,
of which it is in fact a continuation or spur, its character of an
isolated plateau being derived from its position between the eroded
river valley and the deep ravine above referred to. The precipitous
but well-wooded bluff which forms the southern limit of this plateau
extends eastward, facing the river, for perhaps half a mile, and
distributed along its edge are a number of mounds and other earthworks;
at its base are the Cincinnati and Eastern and Little Miami Railways,
the nearest station being Batavia Junction, distant about half a mile
east of the cemetery.
The original forest still covers the site of the cemetery, and
measurements of some of the principal trees are recorded by Dr. Metz
in his paper before mentioned, as follows: a walnut, 15½ feet in
circumference; an oak, 12 feet; a maple, 9½ feet; an elm, 12 feet. The
locality has long been known to local collectors and others interested
in archæological matters, as the “Pottery Field,” so called on account
of the numerous fragments of earthenware strewn over the surface; and
it was until recently supposed to be a place where the manufacture of
pottery had been carried on by the ancient inhabitants of the valley,
the fragments found being considered the _debris_. A few scattered
human remains had also been found in the adjoining ravines, but it was
not until some time in March, 1879, that its true character and extent
as a cemetery were brought to light.
It then became apparent that some concerted action would be necessary,
in order to secure the best scientific results from the discovery; and
early in April excavations were begun under the auspices of the before
mentioned organization, the proprietors of the premises, Messrs. A.
J. and Charles K. Ferris, having kindly granted to it the exclusive
privilege of making a thorough and systematic exploration of the
ground. From that time until the present (July 19, 1879) excavations
have been continued with a force varying from one to three men,
assisted by members of the society, every foot of the ground gone over
being thoroughly explored, and full notes taken as the work progressed.
The following brief outline of the results, taken from the records of
the society, will but serve to convey an idea of the general features
of the discovery and of its importance to archæological science, time
and space not permitting a detailed account in the present connection.
Of the four or five acres of ground over which the cemetery is believed
to extend, only a small segment of the south-western portion has been
explored. The exploration, however, has been exceedingly thorough and
comprises an extent of perhaps half an acre of ground, from which have
been exhumed in all one hundred and eighty-five skeletons. Of these,
however, but a small proportion are in a good or even tolerable state
of preservation, as with the utmost care only about forty crania could
be preserved sufficiently well for measurement. The preservation of
even this number must probably be attributed to the favorable character
of the soil, a compact gravelly drift, as the various surroundings,
position of some skeletons under large trees, etc., all indicate for
these interments a remote antiquity.
With respect to the mode of burial, this is far from being uniform. A
large majority of the skeletons are found at a depth of from two to
three feet, in a horizontal position, face upwards; but exceptions
to this rule are numerous, many interments being made in a sitting
position, and some in groups of from three to six individuals
irregularly disposed. There has been no attempt in any instance at
the construction of a stone coffin, but in one case the skeleton was
covered with a layer of small flat limestone from the adjacent stream.
The heads of those in the horizontal position are generally directed to
the east or south-east; but this rule is not constant, several being
found at right angles to these. It is worthy of note, however, that,
with scarcely an exception, those skeletons accompanied by the finer
vases, pipes and other choice relics, have their heads directed east or
south-east.
During the progress of the work on April 12, a cranium, unaccompanied
by other bones, was exhumed; in searching for the rest of the skeleton,
a circular excavation, three and a half feet in diameter and four and a
half feet in depth, was made, from which were taken bones sufficient to
represent twenty-two skeletons. But two of the crania, both evidently
those of females, could be preserved; they are remarkable for their
whiteness and smooth texture as compared with the average crania
from this cemetery. A sacrum taken from this pit has imbedded in its
anterior surface, near the promontory, one of the small triangular
flints known as “war arrows,” which had passed obliquely from above
downwards, and to the right, necessarily penetrating the abdominal
walls and viscera in order to reach its final lodging place. The bottom
of the pit was paved with the common river mussel shells (_unios_), and
there appeared to have been some attempt at a natural disposition of
the bones, those of the lower extremities being placed at the bottom,
the crania at the top.
Among the human remains from this cemetery are many possessing features
of surgical and anatomical interest, as, for instance, an adult male
cranium in which complete anchylosis of the atlas to the condyles
has occurred, the posterior arch remaining free. Other crania show
evidences of severe injury with subsequent repair, and among the long
bones are several showing characteristic lesions strongly indicative
of rachitis and of syphilis, a fact of considerable interest in its
relation to the geographical distribution of the latter disease, and
also as bearing on the theory of its introduction into Southern Europe
from America in the fifteenth century.
Among the graves opened are several of children, who are usually buried
in close proximity to adults, and with them are found various ornaments
or toys of perforated shell, bone, etc., as well as small earthen
vessels.
[Illustration: Bowl from Ancient Cemetery, Little Miami Valley.
(Collection of W. C. Rogers, Madisonville, O.)]
The pottery ware which accompanies the skeletons is usually situated
near the head and presents many features of special interest. It is
made of clay, finely tempered with pounded unio shells, and much care
has evidently been bestowed upon its manufacture, some pieces being
scarcely thicker than an ordinary teacup. Many specimens are in a
perfect condition, or nearly so, and they usually contain a single
unio shell when found, the shell being evidently intended for use as a
spoon. The vessels range in capacity from a third of a pint, or even
smaller, up to a gallon or more, the smaller ones, as before stated,
being usually found in the graves of children. They are symmetrical
in shape and varied in design, some being artistically ornamented
with scroll work, handles representing lizards, human heads, etc.,
and are almost invariably provided with four handles. Among the
few exceptions to this latter rule is an eight-handled bowl (see
cut), in the collection of W. C. Rogers, Esq., which is a two-story
affair, apparently made by combining two distinct vessels, and then
removing the bottom of the upper one. Vessels having but two handles
occasionally occur, and others with holes in lieu of handles; but
these are exceptions to the general rule as above noted.
The total number of vessels taken from the cemetery to date is
eighty-eight. There is good reason to believe, however, that each
interment has been originally accompanied by a vessel, the present
disparity between the number of vessels and the number of skeletons
being accounted for by the fragments thickly strewn over the surface
and intermingled with the surrounding soil, which have doubtless at one
time constituted portions of the missing burial urns. To the growth
of trees, action of frost and rooting of hogs, the destruction of so
much of this valuable ware must be attributed, and to the latter cause,
irregularities observed in the disposition of some of the skeletons are
probably due.
Among the other articles of utility or ornament found in the graves
are twelve pipes, of various patterns, three of them being made from
the Minnesota Catlinite or Red Pipestone; also stone disks, axes
and chisels, flint knives and spear-heads, and many ornaments and
implements of bone, such as beads, awls, needles, perforated teeth,
etc., together with others of unknown uses. Two small cylinders of
rolled copper, about two inches in length, and two flat pieces of the
same metal an inch or more square, are among the collections, as are
also two stones bearing inscriptions as follows: one, an irregular
piece of sandstone, measuring about 3 × 2 × 1 inches, on the flat
surface of which are cut two parallel figures made of straight lines
and apparently intended to represent arrows; this specimen is now in
the writer’s collection. The other stone, which is in the collection of
E. A. Conkling, Esq., is a flattened dark-green boulder measuring about
3½ × 2½ inches, one side of which is completely covered with a network
of lines from ⅛ to ¼ of an inch apart and crossing each other at nearly
right angles, thus forming quadrangular divisions of various sizes.
An interesting feature of these excavations has been the discovery of
what may be designated as “ashpits”; being circumscribed deposits of
ashes, shells, sand, etc., from two to three feet in thickness, placed
at varying distances below the surface. A perpendicular section made
of one of these pits answers to the following description, which will
serve to convey a fair idea of them all. Diameter of pit, three feet;
the first eighteen inches consisted of leaf mold and sandy soil; then
followed nine inches of clay, burnt earth and charcoal; next, ashes
and charcoal, twelve inches; clay, three inches; white ashes, two
inches; sand and unio shells, six inches; pure ashes, twelve inches;
total depth, five feet two inches.
Of these ashpits, more than fifty have been opened, situated in
continuous rows near the edge of the bluff. They are quite uniform in
size, measuring from three to four feet in diameter and from four to
six feet in depth, and with one or two exceptions have not been found
in any other than the above-mentioned situation. Intermingled with the
ashes are pipes, implements of bone, shell, and stone, a mastodon’s
tooth, bones of various wild animals, including birds and fishes, and
in some of them large sherds of pottery-ware indicating vessels of from
ten to twelve gallons capacity or even larger. With the exception of a
single dorsal vertebra no human remains have yet been found in these
pits, unless the ashes be so considered.
From the uncharred condition of the above articles it is evident that
the ashes have been placed in the pits _as ashes_, after having been
burned elsewhere, as in no case do the relics or the walls of the pits
show any traces of the action of fire.
With respect to the length of time that has elapsed since these
interments, mention has already been made of the situation of some of
the skeletons under large trees, an instance of which may be cited: On
Saturday, April 5, the ground was visited by Judge Cox and Mr. Low,
in company with Dr. Metz, and in excavating beneath an oak tree, six
feet two inches in circumference, a skeleton was discovered, its lower
extremities extending under the tree; overlying the lower extremities
of this skeleton was another, its body situated directly under the
trunk of the tree and the skull so surrounded and penetrated by roots
as to prevent its removal except in fragments. The bones of both
skeletons were much decayed and exceedingly fragile.
In forming an estimate as to the probable antiquity of these
interments, the time that must necessarily have elapsed between the
abandonment of the cemetery and the springing up of the forest; the age
of the trees now present and of others that have fallen and decayed;
the advanced state of decay in which the human remains are found; the
character of the pottery-ware; and lastly, the total absence of any
evidences of communication with civilization, in the shape of glass
beads or other trinkets, must all be taken into account; and it does
not appear at all unreasonable to conclude that the use of this ground
as a cemetery probably antedates the discovery of America by Columbus.
As regards the particular race to which this people belonged,—whether
they were identical with, or related to, the celebrated “stone-grave
people” of Tennessee,[806] as some of their pottery-ware and the shape
and dimensions of their crania would seem to indicate; or whether they
were the last remnants of the once powerful nation that erected Fort
Ancient and other gigantic works in this region,—these and similar
queries remain as yet unanswered. More extended investigations and a
careful comparison of large amounts of material from this and other
localities, may be expected to assist in the solution of these obscure
but interesting problems.
At the present writing excavations are still in progress, with new
developments daily, and a publication of the entire results, with full
details and illustrations, may be looked for in due season.
MADISONVILLE, Hamilton County, Ohio, _July_ 19, 1879.
NOTE.—An illustrated report of the continuation of the Madisonville
exploration, so remarkable in results, will be found in the
_Journal of the Cincinnati Society of Natural History_, vol.
iii, Nos. 1, 2, and 3; also a sketch by F. W. Putnam in _Harvard
University Bulletin_ for June 1, 1881.
B.
[Illustration: Elephant Pipe from Louisa Co., Iowa.]
The question as to whether man and the mastodon were contemporaneous in
America, has long been a matter of dispute as the reader is aware after
the perusal of our second chapter and other sources. The “elephant
pipe” figured in the accompanying cut has been the means of calling
fresh attention to the subject. Dr. R. J. Farquharson, of the Davenport
Academy of Sciences, who kindly furnished us the photo from which our
illustration is a reduction, states that six or seven years ago Mr.
Peter Mare, a farmer (whose estate was situated on both sides of the
line dividing Muscatine and Louisa Counties, Iowa) found the elephant
pipe while plowing corn on his land in Louisa County. The finder,
who had no idea of its archæological value, kept it with a number of
“Indian stones,” as he termed them, until last year (1878), when it
became the property of the Davenport Academy. Dr. Farquharson says:
“The ancient mounds were very abundant in that vicinity (Louisa Co.),
and rich in relics which are deposited on the surface of the soil (not
in excavations), as we found in exploring a number. In such a case
it is not strange that a mound having been gradually removed by long
cultivation, the relics so deposited should be reached and turned up
by the plow.” * * * “The pipe, which is of a fragile sandstone, is of
the ordinary Mound-builder’s type, and has every appearance of age and
usage. Of its genuineness I have no doubt. Together with the ‘Elephant
mound’ of Wisconsin, the elephant head of Palenque (depicted in Lord
Kingsborough’s great work), our pipe completes the series of what the
French would call ‘documents’ proving the fact of the contemporaneous
existence on this continent of man and the mastodon.”[807] The above
facts, as stated by Dr. Farquharson, were substantially embodied in a
paper read by Mr. Pratt before the Davenport Academy, April 25, 1879.
C.
THE CHARNAY EXPLORATION.
The exploring expedition under French and American patronage, led by
M. Désiré Charnay, began its labors in Mexico, May 1st, 1880, and
continued them nearly a year. During this time a large number of ruins,
scattered over the area extending from Teotihuacan and Tollan, on the
north, and Palenque, on the south, are reported to have been examined.
How thorough the examination was, or how scientifically accurate
were the published reports, it would at present (September, 1881) be
impossible to determine. Suffice it to say that they are generally
viewed with distrust, partly on account of the disjointed, haphazard
form in which they have appeared in the _North American Review_
(September, 1880-June, 1881—doubtless without blame on the part of the
editor), where the splendid heliotype illustrations have been rendered
nearly valueless by the frequent omission, from the text and elsewhere,
of descriptive reference; and partly on account of the over-confident
style of the writer. It is to be hoped that the ground for criticism
may be removed when M. Charnay shall formally publish his reports.
It would be superfluous in this connection to summarize his work, since
his papers are accessible to all.
It is worthy of note, however, that he reports Teotihuacan, on the
authority of several authors, to have contained twenty-seven thousand
dwellings, besides its temples, and that the heaps of ruins which
remain justify the statement. The whole area of five or six miles
in diameter was found covered with heaps of ruins. Cement roadways,
containing broken pottery, seemed to afford evidence of occupancy
in even a more ancient epoch than that in which Teotihuacan was
founded. Excavations revealed two halls of a supposed temple at the
base of one of the pyramids. One of these halls is reported to be
nearly fifty feet square, in the middle of which stood six pillars
which had served to sustain the roof. At Tula, the ancient capital of
Tollau, north-west of the city of Mexico, hitherto so fruitless of
archæological, and especially of architectural remains, M. Charnay
made remarkable discoveries of pyramids, and several Toltec houses of
immense proportions, one of which contained forty-three apartments,
besides corridors and a staircase. Sculptures were numerous, and bricks
of burnt clay, twelve inches long by five inches wide, were found to
have been used in constructing stairways.
Near the village of Comalcalco, thirty-five or forty miles
north-west of San Juan Bautista, the capital of Tabasco, vast ruins
were discovered, particularly pyramids, towers, and edifices, all
forest-grown, equalling and even surpassing in proportions those at
Palenque. Upon a pyramid 115 feet high an edifice of brick and mortar
234 feet in length was explored.
At the village of Palenque, M. Charnay found the two bas-reliefs seen
by Waldeck and Stephens a half century ago, now built into the outer
wall of a church (see this work, p. 391).
At the ancient city itself the explorer discovered the ruins to be
more extensive than ever heretofore supposed, and estimates that it
would require the labor of five hundred men for six months, under the
direction of a corps of topographers, simply to determine the general
plan of the city. Eight hundred and sixty-one square feet of casts of
bas-reliefs were taken. It was ascertained at Palenque, by breaking off
portions of the vesture upon the stucco reliefs, that the human body
had in all cases been first carefully modeled, and that the drapery had
subsequently been superposed. Whether this fact throws light simply
upon the process employed, or indicates a reaction or evolution in art,
is equally interesting and uncertain.
D.
HOUSE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MOUND-BUILDERS AND PUEBLOS.
Among the unsolved problems of American archæology is that of the
use to which the extensive systems of embankments attributed to the
Mound-builders were put. The Newark (Ohio) system of works, now
covering two miles square, but formerly presenting twelve miles of
embankment, reaching at some points a height of thirty-five feet,
with sufficient width for a carriage-way on top, has been a veritable
sphinx to all inquirers. Nor does it stand alone in an architectural
aspect. Its square is precisely of the dimensions of a similar figure
found at Hopetown, in the Scioto Valley. Its circles are connected
with squares or octagons, a typical combination of features generally
prevalent in mound structures. Furthermore, its trenches are all within
the enclosures. The probability is that the clew to the solution of
the problem has come to light. The discovery of what are pronounced
to be mound-works, in connection with the Pueblo ruins of Colorado
and New Mexico and Arizona, has given us the hint. Mr. Wm. H. Holmes
in “A Notice of the Ancient Ruins of South-western Colorado, examined
during the Summer of 1875,”[808] shows us the Mound and Pueblo ruin in
close proximity. In describing a ruined village on the Rio La Plata,
he says: “North of this, about 300 feet, is a truncated rectangular
mound, 9 or 10 feet in height and 50 feet in width by 80 in length.
On the east end, near one of the angles, is a low, projecting pile
of débris that may have been a tower. There is nothing whatever to
indicate the use of this structure. Its flat top and height give it
more the appearance of one of the sacrificial mounds of the Ohio Valley
than any other observed in this part of the West. It may have been,
however, only a raised foundation, designed to support a superstructure
of wood or adobe.... South of this, and occupying the extreme southern
end of the terrace, are a number of small circles and mounds, while
an undetermined number of diminutive mounds are distributed among the
other ruins.” Mr. W. H. Jackson, in the same document (p. 29) that
contains Mr. Holmes’ report, mentions the remains of “many circular
towns” on a high plateau between the Montezuma and the Hovenweep. The
year following, the lamented scholar, Mr. Lewis H. Morgan, acting on
the suggestion or originating a hypothesis of his own, announced in the
_North American Review_ for July, 1876, what has since been called his
“Pueblo Theory.” A fuller exposition of his views were embodied in his
paper “On Houses of the American Aborigines,” published in the _Report
of the Archæological Institute of America for 1879–1880_. Mr. Morgan
illustrates the prevalence of communal houses among the aborigines east
of the Mississippi, citing the long houses of the Iroquois; and west
of the river the communal lodges of the Minnitares and Mandans, and
of Columbia River Indians seen by Lewis and Clark in 1805. The writer
further illustrates the communal architecture of the aborigines by
discussions relating to the joint tenement houses of the Pueblos of New
Mexico and Arizona. Having thus laid his foundation, he applies the
communal idea and its expression in the Mandan and Pueblo structures
in a conjectural restoration of the mound villages. He supposes that,
as adobe would not withstand the frosts and rains of the Ohio Valley,
the Mound-builder people resorted to the structure of wooden edifices.
He says: “They might have raised these embankments of earth, enclosing
circular, rectangular, or square areas, and constructed their long
houses upon them.” Mr. Morgan would build upon the squares and circles
houses having a wooden framework, upon which turf and grass were placed
both upon roof and sides. In order that this should be possible, the
sides are supposed to have been inclined at the same angle with the
embankment, the superstructure being a continuation of the earthern
foundation so far as outline and geometrical figure is concerned. To
preserve analogy with the closed, windowless ground-storey of New
Mexico Pueblos, Mr. Morgan supposes that the outer side or sides of
the edifice were closed, presenting only blank walls of heavy turf
or gravel to view; while the walls facing within the enclosure were
windowed, and pierced with doors. The entrances to the enclosures, he
supposes, were guarded with palisades. There the defensive feature of
the Pueblo house was preserved. In his elaborate work, the “Houses
and House Life of the American Aborigines,”[809] that last touch of a
vanished hand, the author has discussed at length the development of
the joint tenement house among the Mound-builders. After illustrating
the principle, as applied in the restoration of High Bank works
(Ross County, Ohio), he adds: “These embankments, therefore, require
triangular houses of the kind described, and long houses as well,
covering their entire length. But the interior plan might have been
different; for example, the passage-way might have a long exterior
wall, and the stalls or apartments on the court side, and but half as
many in number; and, instead of one continuous house, in the interior,
450 feet in length, it might have been divided into several, separated
from each other by cross partitions. The plan of life, however, which
we are justified in ascribing to them, from known usages of Indian
tribes in a similar condition of advancement, would lead us to expect
large households formed on the basis of kin, with the practice of
communism in living in each household, whether large or small.” The
plausibility of Mr. Morgan’s hypothesis is, to say the least, striking.
However, his supposition that the Mound-builders and Pueblos were of
the same race, is not unattended with difficulties. Conspicuous among
them is the marked dissimilarity of the ceramic ornament employed by
the two peoples. Nothing is more stable than the art of a race or
age. Nothing more truly reveals the inner life of a people than its
pottery. The Mound-builders and Pueblos each had their ceramic types.
But they were wholly unlike—apparently the work of unrelated races.
Yet, community of burial, as well as community of residence, to which
may be added similarity of cranial type, are facts that declare for Mr.
Morgan’s hypothesis as to the relation of the peoples in question.[810]
INDEX.
A.
Abbott, discoveries in New Jersey. 127–8;
view of Eskimo, 128.
Aboriginal painting of sun, 65;
trade, 98;
Rau on, 98.
Aborigines, American, 21.
Acolhuas, Nahua tribe, 256.
Agassiz on Floridian jaw-bone, 112;
on origin of nations, 158–9;
on physical life and nature, 158;
views of untenable, 159, 516.
Ages of stone and bronze in Mississippi valley, 27.
Age of trees on mounds, 104.
Agglutination in languages, 471.
Alabama mounds, 71–72.
Alaska, climate of, 511.
Aleutian islands, 509;
migration by, 509.
Alleghany Mts., boundary of Mound country, 58.
Alligator mound, 34.
Allighewi, 102.
Allouez, Father, on aboriginal copper, 92–3.
Al-Mamoun, state of learning during kalifate of, 132.
Altar mounds, 37;
Squier and Davis on, 83–87;
stratification of, 83–84;
Prof. Andrews on, 83, n. 1.
Alton, mounds at, 41.
Amaquemecan, Chichimec home, 248, 256.
American civilization (ancient) contrasted with that of Britons, 520.
“Bottom,” recent discoveries in, 43–44.
languages, number and variety of, 190;
instability of, 190.
race not unique, 165;
of old world origin, 201–2.
Anahuac, 249.
Analogies in geographical names, 497.
in religion, 459–68.
of ceremonial law, 463.
Scandanavian and Mexican, 464.
Hindoo and Mexican, 465.
Greek and Mexican, 466.
Egyptian and Mexican, 467.
Anchylosis (bony) observed in mound-builder remains, 184.
Ancient copper mines, 89–94.
Ancient forts of New York, 28;
of Lake Erie, 28;
Col. Whittlesey on, 28;
Dr. Foster on, 28.
Anderson’s, W. M., “Calendar Stone,” 70.
Andrews, E. B., explorations by, 55.
Antiquity of man, chap. ii;
testimony of geology, 102;
in Europe, 24, n. 1.
Antiquity of mounds, 101, 103, 104.
Red man, 22.
Antipodes, St. Augustine on, 132;
Aristarchus of Samos on, 132.
Apes, American group of, 194.
Ararat, Mt., 497.
the Mexican, 261–63.
Arch, pueblo, 292.
Architecture, analogies in, real and fancied, 339.
Maya, 340–55.
classification of styles, 340.
Palenque, 340;
Yucatan style, 346;
Uxmal, 347.
Kabah, 352;
Zayi, 353;
Labná, 354.
Quiché, 355–59.
Nahua, 359–83;
Mitla, 360–64.
Maya and Nahua compared, 381.
Architectural progress in mound works, 79–80.
Argyll, Duke of, on Negroid type, 197.
Art, unity of style in savage, 196.
high order at Palenque, 389, 392;
at Uxmal, 393, 395;
at Copan, 404.
Palenque and Egyptian compared, 418.
Astronomical knowledge of Aztecs, 455.
Mound-builders, 94–6.
Atlantic Ocean, floor of, 502, 505.
submerged land ridge of, 503.
mean depths of, 502.
sea-board, changes in level of, 504.
continent, 505.
Atlantis, Platonic, tradition of, 142, 498–505.
Brasseur de Bourbourg on, 498–500.
Legends of from _Popol Vuh_ and _Codex Chimalpopoca_, 499.
Retzius on, 500;
Unger, 501;
Heer, 501.
Atolls of the Pacific, 507;
Dana and Le Conte on, 507–8.
Atoyac, Mexican river, 234.
Autochthones, mound-builders not, 97.
Autochthon, the American an, 192.
Autochthonic origin of Americans, 155.
Axayacatl, Mexican king, 452.
Azores, volcanic character of, 503.
Aztec calendar, 446–59;
year, 447;
months, 447;
weeks and days, 448;
inter-calation, 448;
Ritual year, 449, 455;
Lords of night, 449.
Stone, 450;
lunar reckoning, 455.
chronology, 458.
Aztec language, richness of, 471, 480, 481;
extent of, 480, 492.
the classic tongue, 480;
ancient and modern, 481.
grammar, 481–85;
Lord’s prayer in, 485.
traces of north of Mexico, 486–90, 491.
elements in Nootka languages, 491.
Aztec picture-writing, 428–33.
Aztec springs, 300, 324–26;
Aztec-Sonora languages, 487–8.
“Aztec theory,” the, 331.
Aztecs, migrations of, 259–263;
date of, 259;
stations, 260–61;
southern origin of considered, 266, n. 1.
Aztlan, Nahua home, 257–9, 518;
location of, 257–9, 264–65.
description of by Duran, 258.
Aztlan, Wis., mound works at, 36.
B.
Babel myths, 140;
tower of, 205;
Cholula, 235–37.
Bacab myth, 465.
Balam-Agab, Quiché progenitor, 214.
Balam-Quitzé, Quiché progenitor, 214.
Baldwin, J. D., on mounds of North-west, 31, 32.
Bancroft, H. H., on Hue hue Tlapalan, 251–53.
resumé of Toltec annals by, 255.
observations on Cox-cox myth, 263.
on Maya chronology, 438.
on Aztec language, 476, n. 2.
Baptism, Mexican, 462.
Barber, E. A., 305.
Barrandt on Dakota mounds, 31.
Basque and Maya languages compared, 476;
Dr. Farrar on, 476, n. 2.
Bartlett’s exploration of Casas Grandes, 276–83.
Bayou St. John, earthworks on, 76.
Beard mound, 56.
Bearded men at Chichen-Itza, 401.
Beau Relief in Stucco, 388.
Becker, J. H., on traditions of Nahua Mound-builders, 102, n.;
on ancient home of Nahuas, 248;
on Toltec migration, 248–50.
Behring’s Straits, Bancroft’s remarks on, 147.
width and depth of, 510;
Lyell and Herschel on, 510;
Hellwald on migration by, 511;
Dall, W. H., on migration _via_, 512, n. 1.
Berthoud, E. L., stone implements collected by, 124.
Big Harpeth valley works, 60–65.
Blake, J. H., collection of Peruvian skulls by, 176–7.
Bollaert’s interpretation of hieroglyphics, 425.
Books used by Mayas, 420.
by Aztecs, 428.
Bourbeuse River, mastodon discovered at, 116.
Brasseur de Bourbourg, estimate of by Bancroft, 142, n. 1.
on the Platonic Atlantis, 142, 498–500;
on Igh and Imox, 205, n. 1;
on Maya hieroglyphics, 421–25;
on religious analogies, 467–8;
on Scandinavian and Maya languages, 476.
Brachycephalic crania classified, 162–3.
Brazil, accidental discovery of by Cabral, 506.
Brentwood, Tenn., stones graves at, 60.
Brick, sun-dried, from mounds, 72–75.
Brinton, Dr., phonetic alphabet, 427;
Buddha and Quetzalcoatl compared by, 466.
Brown, Thos., mounds of, 63–4.
Browne, Ross, explorations by, 282–3.
Buckle, on learning in Spain, 133, n. 2.
Buddhist missionaries in America, 148–50.
Burial, “intrusive” in mounds, 85;
ceremony, 40;
in stone coffins, 60;
vase from Mexico, 410.
Butler, J. W., on Chaac-Mol, 399.
Buschmann’s researches on American languages, 487–88.
Sonora family, 487;
on Aztec element in Nootka language, 491.
C.
Cabots, 22.
Cabral, discovery of Brazil by, 506.
Cabrera on the origin of the Votanites, 208–9;
on Votanic document, 207.
Cahita, language of New Mexico, 487.
Cahokia mound, 41.
Calapooya language, traces of Aztec in, 490.
Calaveras Co. (Cal.) cranium, 125;
views of Whitney, Wyman and others on, 125.
Calendar systems, mound-builder, 40.
Maya, 435–45;
days, 436;
months, 437;
the Katun, 439–40;
Ahau Katun, 441;
succession of, 442.
Nahua or Mexican, its construction, 243, 446–59;
perfection of, 519;
year, 447;
days and weeks, 448;
inter-calation, 448;
Ritual year, 449;
lords of night, 449;
Calendar Stone, 408–9;
interpreted by Gama, Chevero and Valentini, 450–58;
history, 452–3, 457.
California, traces of antiquity of man in, 125.
California languages and their affinities to Chinese, 495;
Japanese, 496.
Canals constructed by Mound-builders, 98–100.
Caras or Carians ancient navigators, 507;
Brasseur on, 507.
Carr’s Measurements of Crania, 173;
on low-type mound crania, 174.
Carter, 22;
Carter, Dr. J. Van A., on stone implements, 24, n. 1.
Carthaginian colonization of America, 145–6
Cara Gigantesca, 404.
Casa del Ecó, 312.
Gobernador (Uxmal), 347–50.
Grande of Zayi, 353.
de Monjas, sculptures of, 394.
Casas Grandes, Chihuahua, 276;
Aztec station at, 277.
of the Gila, 284.
Cataclysm, traditions of a, 499.
Cave explorations, 26.
dwellings, 292–311, 313.
village of Rio Chelley, 313.
shelters of San Juan, 319.
fortresses of Rio Mancos, 320.
Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, Toltec king, 272.
Cemetery, aboriginal, 65.
Centennial Report of Ohio Arch. Asso., 82.
Centla, pyramid of, 365–6.
Cephalic index of crania, 160.
Ceremonial law, analysis of, 463.
Chaac-Mol, statue of, 397–400.
Chaco Valley, ruined pueblo in, 291;
peculiarity of architecture, 292.
Chalcas, Nahua tribe, 256.
Chalco, lake, 264.
Challenger, voyage of, 502;
“Challenger plateau,” 502–3.
Chalcatzin, Toltec chief, 244.
Chamber, interior in mound, 75.
Chanes, ancient races, 206.
Charencey, 425.
Chelly Cañon, antiquities of, 293;
cave-village of, 313–14;
house in, 315.
Chevero, interpretation of Mexican Calendar Stone by, 450–2.
Chiapan architecture, 340.
Chiapas, ancient civilization of, 203.
Chichen-Itza, antiquities of, 353–5, 397–403;
mural paintings at, 401.
Chichilticale, “red house,” 281.
Chichimecs, Mexican nation, 243;
dynasty of, 254;
language of, 255, 480;
Pimentel on, 255–6.
Chicomoztoc (Chichimostoc) Nahua home, 256–7;
identical with “seven caves,” 261, n.; 264–66.
Chihuahua, Casas Grandes of, 275;
original descriptions of, 276;
material and dimensions of, 276–77.
Children’s graves in Tennessee, 66–8.
Chimalhuacan, Toltec station, 245.
Chinook language, traces of Aztec in, 490, n. 3.
Cholula pyramid, 235;
not related to a flood, 235, 237;
origin according to Duran, 236, 368–70.
Christ myth in Yucatan, 231, 464.
Christy collection, Mosaic knife from, 412.
Chinese colonization of America, 148.
Chronology, accepted faulty, 199, 200;
Duke of Argyll on, 200.
Maya, 435–45;
adjusted to ours, 443–45.
Cibola, seven cities of, 288.
Cincinnati mound-works. 44–6;
tablet, 44–6.
Circumcision, 463.
Cists, stone, 60.
Civilization, American contrasted with that of ancient Britons, 520.
Clallam and Lummi languages, Aztec element in, 490.
Clarke, Robert, on Cincinnati Tablet, 44–6.
on Morgan’s Pueblo theory, 55, n. 2.
Classification of crania, 160–3.
of mound-works by Squier and Davis, and Foster, 81.
of mound relics by Rau, 82, n. 1.
Clavigero, views on origin of Americans, 140, n. 1.
on first colonists of America, 204.
Cliff-dwellers, 293;
their traditional history, 302.
Cliff-dwellings of the Mancos Cañon, 298–99, 319.
McElmo Cañon, 302.
Hovenweep, 305–7.
San Juan, 307, 308, 319.
and Rock Shelters on San Juan, 309.
house of Chelly Cañon, 315.
in Montezuma Cañon, 316.
Cloth from mounds, 37, 43.
Coast level, elevation and depression of, 405.
Coffins, stone, 60.
Columbus, 22;
stern-post of ship seen by, 506.
Colonists, first in Mexico, 242.
Color, variety in human races, 197, 198;
Darwin on origin of, 199.
Color of ancient Americans, 189;
Pritchard on, 189, n. 2.
Colorado River, ruins in Grand Cañon of, 285.
Major Powell’s exploration, 285–87.
Colorado Chiquito, antiquities of, 287.
Columbia River languages, 492.
Conant, A. J., explorations by, 76, 77;
on ancient canals, 98, 100.
Conflict of science and dogmatism, 131.
Confusion of tongues, 238.
Connett mound, 56.
Conquest of Xibalba, 222–5.
Copan, 221;
ruins of, 356–59;
sculpture of, 404–5.
Copper in mounds, 85;
ancient mines of, 89–94;
theory of Mexican supply, 93, 493.
relics from Wisconsin, 99.
Cora language and its relation to Aztec, 486–7.
Cosmogonic egg, 416, 419, 465.
Coronado’s journey to New Mexico, 281, n. 1.
Cox, Prof., discoveries cited, 75.
Cox-cox, Mexican Noah, 262, n. 1.
Cox-cox, Bancroft’s observations on, 263, 454.
_Crania Americana_, measurements of, classified, 161–3.
Cranial measurements, 159–60.
Crania from mounds, testimony of, 105–6.
River Rogue, 167;
measurements by Gillman, 168.
Davenport, Farquharson’s measurements, 169–70;
from Ohio, 170;
from Kentucky, 171;
from Tennessee, 171;
comparison, 174;
compression of common, 178, 184;
among Chinooks, 182;
among other American tribes, 183.
Cranium, low type, discovered by Conant, 174.
Cremation probable, 85.
Cristone of McElmo Cañon, 301.
Cross, subterranean temple of, 363.
Tablet of, 390.
Cruciform works at Trenton, Wis., 35.
Crux Ansata at Palenque, 416–17.
Cukulcan culture hero, 230–31, 272, 394, 457.
Culhuacan, 226.
Culhuas (Nahuas) sometimes applied to Mayas, 209.
Curtiss, Ed., explorations by, 65.
D.
Dablon, Father, on aboriginal use of copper, 92–3.
Dakota mounds, 31, n. 2.
Dall, W. H., on migration by Behring’s Straits, 512, n. 1.
Dana, J. D., review of Dr. Koch’s discoveries, 120.
Darwin on old world origin of Americans, 194.
Davenport Academy, explorations conducted by, 37–40.
Davenport Tablet, 38, 40.
Davenport mound crania, 169–70.
elephant pipe, Appendix B.
Days, Maya, 436–38.
Deguignes, 148.
Deluge myths, Mexican, 262–3, notes.
Tezpi, 263, n.;
Analogies, 460.
Development of American Race (see Evolution).
Dickson, Dr., examination of “Mammoth Ravine” by, 113–14.
Diseases of Mound-builders, 184.
Dogmatism and science, 131.
Dolechocephalic crania classified, 161.
“Dolphin Rise,” the, 501.
Domenech, Abbé, note on works, 139, n. 4.
Dowler, Dr., skeleton discovered by, 123;
estimate of antiquity, 123.
Drake, account of works at Cincinnati by, 44.
Drift (modified), fossil from, 121.
Dwellings of Mound-builders, 67.
E.
Earth, globular form discovered, 133.
Echevarria y Veitia on the origin of the Americans, 138.
Eckstein, Baron de, on the Caras, 507.
Eden, Mexican analogies with, 460.
Edificios de Quemada, 379.
Education of Aztec children, 432.
Effigy mounds of Wisconsin, 33–36;
of Ohio, 34;
of Georgia, 35.
Egypt and Teotihuacan compared, 383.
Egyptian influence on American civilization, 147.
Egyptian painting, 197.
Egyptian Tau at Palenque, 416.
El Castillo, pyramid, 366.
Elephant mound. 35–6;
“Trunk,” 385, 395;
pipe, 530.
El Moro, ruins on, 290.
Elyria cave, Whittlesey on, 26.
Engleman, Dr. J. G., 43.
Enoch, H. R., discovery by, 44.
Epsom Creek, antiquities of, 315;
elevated tower on, 316.
Eric the Red, 153.
Ericson, 32.
Eskimo, the first occupants of America, 512.
Estufa (Pueblo sanctuary), 292;
entrance peculiar, 322.
Etowah valley mounds, 72.
Europe, antiquity of man in, 24, n. 1.
Evolution, origin of the Americans by, 191;
views of Hellwald on, 191;
regarded improbable by Hæckel and Darwin, 195.
F.
Fanaticism of early writers on America, 133.
Farquharson, Dr., reports by, 38.
Farrar, Dr. W., on American language, 470.
Feathered Serpent (Quetzalcoatl, Gucumatz Cukulcan), 272, 394, 457.
Festival of the Mexican Cycle, 456.
Flood myths of the Mexicans, 262, n. 1, 499;
of Pueblos, 335–6.
Floors of burnt clay, 66.
Florida, ancient home of Mayas, 517.
Floridian jaw-bone, Agassiz and Pourtales on, 112–13.
Fontaine, Mr., on Tennessee valley mounds, 71.
Forchhammer on Indian languages, 496.
Forest growth on mounds, 104.
Forshey, Prof. C. G., on southern mounds, 77–79.
Fort Ancient, 51;
Judges Dunlevy and Force on, 51, 52.
Fortifications (ancient) in New York, on the Lakes, and in Butler
Co., Ohio, 50;
in Miami valley, 51, 75.
Foster’s _Pre-historic Races_, importance of, 100, n. 2.
Foster, Dr. J. W., on Cahokia mound, 42;
classification of mound-works by, 81;
on Indian traditions, 102;
on age of “New Orleans skeleton,” 124.
Fossil from drift, Jersey Co., Ill., 121;
Foster’s observations on, 121.
Fremont, Montezuma legend by, 334.
Frio, Cape, distance from Africa, 506.
Fuentes, description of Copan by, 356.
Funeral ceremony, 39, 40.
Fusang, 148–51;
views of Neuman on, 149;
Bretschneider, 150;
Klaproth, 150;
D’Eichthal, 151.
G.
Gama, Leon y, on Mexican Calendar Stone, 450–55.
Garcia on origin of Americans, 136–7.
Gardner, J. Starke, on Dolphin and Challenger ridges, 503.
Gass, Rev. J., discoveries of, 37, 40.
Gemelli Carreri, migration map of, 261–3.
Geometrical knowledge of Mound-builders, 49.
Geographical names, analogies in, 497.
Gest, Mr. E., 46.
Giants, race of, 232;
destruction of, 235.
Gila river, Casa Grande of, 279.
accounts of, 279;
ground plan of, 281.
view of, 283.
Gillman, Henry, explorations of, 29.
on crania from River Rogue, 167–8.
on crania from Chamber’s Island, 169.
Goazacoalco (various spellings) river and province, 251.
Gobernador, Casa del, 347–50.
Grammar of Maya language, 477–9.
Aztec language, 481–85.
Grave Creek mound, 87.
Gravier on Northmen, 153.
Gray, Asa, on American and European flora, 501;
on Asiatic flora, 513.
Graphic systems, see Hieroglyphics.
Great Serpent, mound-work, 34, 70.
Grecques at Mitla, 363.
Greek analogies of religion, 466.
Greek colonization of America, 146;
advocates of, 146.
Greek gods in Yucatan, 467.
Green County, Missouri, mound, 74.
Greenland, subsidence of coast, 504.
“Grimm’s Law,” 471–488.
Grote, Prof. A. R., observations on Eskimo, 128, 512.
Guatemalians, origin and flood myths of, 228–9.
Gucumatz, Quiché, deity, 213, 222, 226, 227.
search for maize by, 241, 272.
Gulf Stream, 505.
H.
Hacavitz, mountain and deity, 215–16.
Hæckel, on origin of Americans, 195.
Hair of ancient Americans, 186.
Hair-cloth from mounds, 43.
Hanno’s naval expeditions, 145.
Hands, prints of ancient cliff-dwellers, 312.
Haywood, mummies described by, 187.
Head-flattening, history of, 178–80;
practiced in America, 180–84;
Prof. Wilson on, 180;
among the Chinooks, 182;
among Mound-builders, 183.
Headlee, Dr., cited, 75, n.
Hearths (ancient) in Ohio valley, 122.
Helena, Missouri, sun-dried bricks at, 75.
Hellwald, F. von, and copper in Mexico, 93.
Herrera on origin of Americans, 137.
Heroic period of American history, 515.
Hieroglyphics, from the mounds, 419.
of cliff-dwellers, 420;
of Mayas, 420–28;
Landa’s key to, 223–25.
Mexican, 429–34.
Hill, S. W., on ancient copper mines, 91.
Hindoo and Mexican analogies, 465.
Hiram and Solomon’s fleet, 154.
Hitchcock, Prof. Ed., on age of Mississippi delta, 128.
Hivites, ancestors of Votanites, 208–9, n.
Hoei-Shin, report on Fusang, 148.
Holmes, W. H., explorations of, 297, 305, 317.
on Rio de la Plata, 318;
mound-works reported, 318;
discoveries on San Juan, 319.
in Mancos Cañon, 320–24.
Hooker, Sir Joseph, 43.
Hopetown works, 49.
Hosea, S. M., on sacrificial mounds, 74, n. 2.
Houses of Mound-builders, 67.
Hovenweep, ruined city of, 304;
niche stairway of, 306;
cliff-house of, 307.
Howland, H. R., discoveries by, in “American bottom,” 43–4.
Huastecs, Maya nation, 234.
Hueman (Huematzin), Toltec astrologer and leader, 245, 253.
Hue hue Tlapalan, ancient Nahua home, 238, 240, 248;
date of migration from, 240, 241, 244, 245, n., 458;
location of, 244, 518.
in Mississippi Valley, 253;
not in North-west, 253.
Huehuetan, in Chiapas. 206.
Huemac, Toltec king, 268.
Hueyxalan, Toltec station, 245.
Humboldt, William von, on Aztec language, 486.
Humphries and Abbott’s estimate of age of Mississippi delta, 124.
Hunahpu, Quiché, hero, 222;
exploits of, 222–3.
Hunab Ku (only god), 231.
Hunbatz, 223.
Hun Came, 222–24.
Hunchouen, 228.
Hunhunahpu, Quiché, chief, 222–3.
Hurakan, Quiché, deity, 212, 222, 226.
I.
Iaia, tradition of, 499, n.
Igh, one of the first colonists of Chiapas, 204.
Imox, one of the first colonists of Chiapas, 204.
Inca-bone, 173.
India and Mexico, religious analogies of, 465.
Indiana mounds, 57, n. 2.
Indigenous Americans, 155.
views of writers on, 156.
Infant burial in Tennessee, 60, 66.
Ingersoll, Mr., tradition of cliff-dwellers recorded by, 302–4.
Intercalary days, 445, 455.
Interglacial race, 512–516.
relics from Waynesville, Ohio, 126;
President Orton on, 126–7.
Interglacial man in New Jersey, 127–8.
Iqi-Balam, Quiché, deity, 214–15.
Irish colonists of America, 152.
Israel, lost tribes of in America, 135–6;
views of Duran on, 135;
Thorowgood, 136;
L’Estrange, 136;
Garcia, 137;
Pineda, 138;
Echevarria y Veitia and Kingsborough, 143.
Isle Royal, copper mines on, 91;
Henry Gillman 91, n. 1;
Foster on, 92–3;
Aboriginal use of copper, 92–3.
Issaquena County, Mississippi, mounds, 70;
Anderson’s Calendar Stone from, 70.
Ixtlilxochetl’s _Relaciones_, 240, 250.
J.
Jackson, W. H., discoveries by in the McElmo and Mancos cañons, 294.
in the Hovenweep, 305–7.
Janos river, antiquities of, 278.
Japanese and American affinities, 496.
colonization of America, 148.
Jaredites, colonists of America, 144.
Jaw-bone from Florida, Agassiz and Count Pourtales on, 112–13.
Jewish theory of colonization, 143.
Jewish and Mexican historical analogies, 461.
Jones, George, on Phœnician colonization of America, 146;
estimate of his work, 146, n. 2.
Jones, Prof. Joseph, Mound explorations in Tennessee, 171–3;
cranial measurements by, 172.
K.
Kabah, peculiarity of architecture at, 352.
Kamucu, Quiché national song, 217.
Kennebec valley mound, 28.
Kennon, Col., on Aleutian islands, 509.
Kentucky mound crania, 171.
Kinich-Kakmó, queen of Chichen-Itza, 400.
Kingsborough’s fancied analogies, 460–65.
Kitchens of the Mound-builders, 76.
Kitchen-middens, see _Shell-heaps_.
Knapp, S. O., discovery of ancient copper mines by, 89.
Koch, Dr., discoveries of, 116–121;
J. D. Dana on, 120–21;
Koch, valuable services of, 121, n. 2.
Kuro-suvo, or Japan current, 509.
L.
Labná, architecture of, 353.
Lake Superior copper mines, 90–92.
Lamnites, colonists of America, 144.
Landa’s Alphabet, 423–25.
Maya days and months, 436–7.
Languages (American), multiplicity of, 190, 469;
instability of, 493–4, n. 1.
survival of the fittest, 470.
the Maya-Quiché, 472;
classification of, 472;
stability of the Maya, 473.
the oldest American, 473;
Orozco y Berra on, 473, 493;
Maya-Quiché characteristics, 474;
Dr. Le Plongeon on, 474.
the Aztec, 479–90;
epitome of grammar, 481–85;
affinities to Asiatic, 495–96;
bearing on migrations, 486.
Lapham, Dr., survey of mound-works in Wisconsin, 34–5.
Lascarbot on origin of Americans, 137.
Las Casas, on origin of Guatemalians, 228.
on flood myth, 228;
on creation myth, 228, n.;
on Christ myth, 231.
Latham on Morton’s theories, 165, n.
Lautverschiebung, 471, 488.
Leather relic from mound, 56.
Le Conte, Prof., on changes of coast level, 504.
Legendary period of American history, level, 515.
Leidy, Prof. Joseph, on stone implements, 24.
L’Estrange on origin of Americans, 136.
Leroux, M., discoveries of, 284.
Le Plongeon, Dr., explorations in Yucatan, 396–403;
on Maya language, 474–77;
on analogies between Yucatan and Canary Islands, 500.
Liberty, Ohio, works at, 48.
Lief, Norse discoverer of America, 153.
Lord’s prayer in Maya, 479.
in Aztec, 485.
Louisiana mounds, 77–79.
Prof. C. G. Forshey on, 77;
pyramidal mounds, 78.
Low type crania from mounds, 174.
Lund, Dr., explorations by, 116.
Lyell, Sir Charles, on remains at Santos River, Brazil, 113;
observations on Natchez bone, 113–14;
on age of Mississippi delta, 123;
on New Orleans skeleton, 123.
M.
McElmo Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 300, 302.
square tower in, 301;
triple-walled tower of, 224.
McGuire on antiquity of Red man, 27, n.
McKinley, William, mounds described by, 73.
Madisonville explorations, 523.
Mahucutah, Quiché progenitor, 214.
Maize, discovery of, 241.
Man, antiquity of in South America, 109–10, 129;
four creations of, 214.
Man’s influence on nature, 110–11;
measure of antiquity, 110;
Martius on, 111, n.;
Dr. Brinton on, 111;
Dr. Meigs on Santos River remains, 113.
Man of recent origin in America, 130;
Lubbock’s remarks on, 130;
Foster on, 130, n.
Manchester stone fort, 59.
Mancos Cañon, cliff-houses of, 294, 295, 298, 299;
watch-tower of, 296–97, 300;
cave-fortresses of, 320–24.
Manuscripts of Mayas, 421.
Troano MS, 422.
of Mexicans, 429;
Mendoza Codex, 431–33.
Maps, Aztec migration, 261–63.
Marietta mounds, 54.
Marsh, Prof. O. C., exploration by, 87–9.
Mastodon discovered by Dr. Koch, 116–18.
Mayas, traditional origin of, chap. v.;
earliest home, 210;
venerable civilization, 519;
architecture of, 340–55;
sculpture, 384–403;
compared to Egyptian, 415;
calendar of, 435–45;
Katun or Cycle, 439–40;
Ahau Katun, 442;
intercalary days, 445;
system adjusted to our chronology, 443–45;
observations of Landa, Perez, Bancroft and Delaport on, 443–45.
Maya-Quiché languages classified, 472;
stability of, 473;
antiquity of, 474–5.
Maya Grammar, 477–79;
Maya, Lord’s prayer in, 479.
Maya and Hebrew compared, 475.
compared to Scandinavian languages, 476.
compared to the Basque, 476;
to West African languages, 477.
Maya writing, see Hieroglyphics.
Mazatepec, Toltec station, 246.
Mecitl (or Mixi), Aztec leader, 259.
Meigs on mean of Indian cranium, 167.
Melgar on two idols near Mexico, 416;
on Maya language, 475.
Menominees, “White Indiana,” 189.
Mexican baptism, 462–3;
crania, 175.
Calendar, divisions of time, 446;
the Cycle, 446;
festival of, 456;
months, 447;
New Year, 447.
Calendar Stone, 450;
its interpreters, 450;
dates furnished by, 458;
Lunar reckoning, 455.
Mexican language, see Aztec language.
Mexico, pyramid of, 374;
sculpture from, 408–11;
vases from, 410;
vases in the United States National Museum, 413–415.
Miami Valley, aboriginal cemetery in, 523.
Miamisburgh mound, 52.
Mica, use of by Mound-builders, 98.
Michigan mounds, 29.
Migration, the first to America, 512.
conditions favorable in North-west, 513.
Becker on, 513–14.
of the Quichés, 215.
of the Tolteca, 244–251.
of the Aztecs, 259–63;
of Tarascos, 261.
Migration map of Boturini, 433.
of Gemelli Carreri, 261–63, 483.
Gemelli interpreted by Ramirez, 262.
Minas Geraes, caves of, 116.
Mississippi delta, age of, 122–24;
estimate by Lyell, 122;
by Dr. Dowler, 123;
by Dr. Hitchcock, 123;
by Humphries and Abbott, 123.
Mississippi mounds, 69–70, 71.
Mitchell, Dr. A., explorations cited, 73.
Mitla, antiquities of, 361–62.
Mizteco-Zapotec languages, 479.
Miztecs, Mexican tribe. 234.
Mongol colonization of America, 151.
Monjas, Casa de, 350.
Montezuma Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 316.
Montezuma, culture-hero, 333;
legend of his birth, 334;
legend concerning by Papagoes chief, 334;
Montezuma II., Mexican emperor, 453;
languages of his empire, 480.
Months, Maya, 437–39.
Monosyllabism, 495.
Moqui towns, Becker on origin, 332;
name, 332;
Lieutenant Ives’ description of, 326–30;
pottery, 327;
interior of dwellings, 328.
Moqui language, Aztec traces in, 489.
Mooshahueh, Moqui town, 328.
Morgan, L. H., Pueblo theory of, 55;
Robert Clarke on, 53, n.
Mormon colonisation of America, 144;
Bancroft on, 144.
Morton, Dr., classification of American races by, 157–59;
table of cranial measurements by, 158, n. 1;
views untenable, 159–165, 516;
measurements of _Crania Americana_ classified, 161–63.
Moody, J., on Rockford Tablet, 44.
Moss, Captain, 302.
Mosaics at Mitla, 362–3.
Mosaic knife, 412.
Mosaic deluge, Mexican analogies with, 460.
Mound-builders, geographical distribution of works, 27;
Mica mines of, 28;
copper mines of, 92–94.
no tradition of, 102–3;
Mound-builders and Indians distinct, 65.
language of, 492;
diseases of, 184.
Mound-works at St. Clair river, 30;
in British Columbia, 30;
in Oregon, 31;
Bonhomme’s island, 31;
Missouri valley, 31, 33;
on Butte prairies, 31, n. 1;
in Dakota, 31, n. 2;
in Wisconsin, 33;
at Davenport, 37;
heart of country, 40;
St. Louis and American bottom, 41;
in Ohio, 48;
at Newark, 53–55;
in Wabash valley, 57, n. 2;
in Tennessee, 58–68;
in North and South Carolina, 67;
in Mississippi, 67;
in Alabama, 71;
in Georgia, 72, 73;
in Missouri, 74–77;
in Louisiana, 77–79;
in Texas, 78;
antiquity of, 101;
abandonment, 101–5, 458–9;
age of vegetation on, 104;
of Mancos Cañon, 294;
in Vera Paz, 359;
in Tehuantepec, 360;
in Vera Cruz, 364.
Mound crania, condition of a measure of antiquity, 105–6;
typical mound skull, 166.
Mound sculptures, 187–9.
Mugeres Isla, statue from, 403.
Müller, Max, 471.
Mummies from Peru, 186.
from Tennessee, 187.
Mural paintings at Chichen-Itza, 401.
N.
Nachan, “city of serpents,” 205.
Nahua architecture, 359–83.
sculpture, 406–15.
Nahua Calendar, 445–459.
writers on, 445, n. 3.
analogies with calendars of Asia and Egypt, 459.
Nahua language, see Aztec language.
ancient and modern, 480, 481, 486, 493–4, n. 1.
elements of in language of North-west, 491.
the probable language of Mound-builders, 492.
spoken in Florida, 493;
analogies to, 494.
Nahua nations, origin of, 232.
predecessors of in Mexico, 232.
chronology of according to _Codex Chimalpopoca_ and _Popol Vuh_,
241, 250.
their arrival at Panuco, 242.
extent of territory in Mexico, 248.
migrations of, 244, 251, 517.
southern origin considered, 252.
Nahuatlacas, seven Nahua tribes, 256–9.
Najera on the Otomi and the Chinese, 494–5.
Nashville, Tenn., mounds near, 62, 65, 67.
Natchez pelvic bone, discovered by Dr. Dickson, 113.
Lyell’s observations on, 113–14.
Foster’s observations on, 114, n. 4.
Negroid type, ancient, 197.
Nemontemi, Aztec intercalary days, 455.
Neolithic age in America, 23.
Nephites, colonists of America, 144.
Newark, Ohio, works at, 53–55.
New Jersey, traces of inter-glacial man in, 127–8.
New Madrid, Missouri, great mound near, 75–76.
New Orleans, ancient skeleton discovered at, 123.
New York, ancient forts of, 28.
Nezahualcoyoth, King of Tezcuco, poems of, 470.
Niche stairway, 315.
Nootkas, Aztec traces among, 486.
Norse discovery of America, 153.
North-west, antiquity of man in, 128–9.
Nott and Gliddon on the origin of nations, 159.
O.
Oajaca, antiquities of, 360–64.
languages of, 479.
Observations on places of sanctuary, 80.
Obsidian in mounds, 85.
Occupancy of Mississippi valley by Mound-builders, 106.
Ocean currents, 505.
Ococingo, ancient city in Chiapas, 211.
site of, 226.
Ohio Archæological Society report, 82, n. 1.
Ohio mound crania, 170–1.
Ohio mound-works, 47.
estimated number of, 48.
Ojo del Pescado, ruins at, 289.
Oldtown art, 64.
Oldtown, Tennessee, mounds, 61–3.
Olmecs, First Nahuas, 232–4, 518.
destroy the giants, 235.
build Chohila, 235, 248, 264.
Opata-Tarahumar-Pima family of languages, 488.
Ophir, 145.
Oraybe, Moqui town, 330.
Ordoñez, history of, 207.
Oregon, traces of Aztec in, 490.
Origin of the Americans, Autochthonic, 192 _et seq._
Origin of Americans reviewed, 516.
Origin of Ancient Americans, 134, 153.
views of Duran, 135;
L’Estrange, 136;
Thorowgood, 136;
Garcia, 136–7;
Herrera, 137;
Torquemada, 137;
Pineda, 138;
Echevarria y Veitia, 138;
Ulloa, 139;
Domenech, 139;
Clavigero, 139.
Bancroft’s summary of views cited, 139;
views of modern authors, 201–2, notes;
of old world origin, 202.
Origin of the Nahuas, according to Sahagun, 242.
Origin tradition of Mayas, 204.
of Quichés, 211–12.
Orton, President Edward, on inter-glacial relics in Ohio, 126–7.
Otomi language compared to Chinese, 494–5.
Oztotlan, home of Aztecs, 248.
P.
Pacific Continent, 508.
Page, J. R., explorations by, 67.
Painted desert, 332.
Painting practised by Mound-builders, 65.
Palæolithic age in America, 23.
Palenque art compared with Egyptian, 418.
Palenque, centre of the earliest American civilization, 204, 208–9.
Palenque, situation, 340;
antiquities, 340;
palace, 342;
architectural features of, 343;
Tau at, 343;
roofs, 344;
arch, 345–6;
tower, 345;
sculpture at, 384–92;
statue, 391.
Panuco (Panco, Panutla or Panoaia, Pantlan) Mexican port, 242.
Papantla, pyramid of, 367.
Patton, Dr., on Indiana mounds, 57, n. 2.
Pecos, New Mexico Pueblo, 331.
Pentateuch, true chronology of, 199.
_Peresianus Codex_, 427.
Peruvian crania, 175.
Petit Anse Island, remains from, 115.
Foster’s observations on, 115.
Hilgard and Fontaine’s report on, 115.
Physiognomy of ancient Americans, 186.
Phœnician colonization of America, 145–6.
George Jones on, 145–6.
Picture-writing of Aztecs, 428–33;
specimen from _Codex Mendoza_, 431–2.
Pimentel on Chichimec language, 255.
Pimentel’s classification of Maya languages, 472;
epitome of Aztec Grammar from, 482–83.
Pineda on origin of Americans, 138.
Plastered room in mound, 75
Platycnemism, 183;
Gillman’s discoveries of, 185, n. 2.
Plato’s Atlantis, tradition of, 142.
Polynesia, ancient empire of, 508.
Baldwin on, 508.
Polysynthesis, a law of American language, 471.
Pomme-de-Terre River, Dr. Koch’s discoveries at, 118–19.
Pontonchan, 234.
_Popol Vuh_ (national book of the Quichés), 212, n. 2.
second division of, 221.
Pottery from the cliff-houses, 327.
Powell, Major J. W., explorations, 285–287.
Pratt, W. H., explorations by, 42, n. 2.
Pre-Columbian colonization, views on, 141–154.
Progress, architectural, in mound-works, 79–80.
Prophecy, analogies of, 464.
Ptolemy cited, 497.
Pueblo civilization, extent of, 283.
architecture, chap. vii.
transition in style, 284.
Pueblos of New Mexico, 330–1.
in ruins, 331.
Pueblo Pintado, 291.
Pueblos, the, and Aztecs, 331;
and mound-builders, 332;
architecture and remains compared, 333;
creation and flood and Babel myths of, 335–6.
Puente Nacional, pyramid at, 365.
Putnam, F. W., explorations by, 57, 65, 67.
explorations in Tennessee, 173.
Pyramid, the American, 341.
structure according to Bancroft, 341.
of Tehuantepec, 360.
of Puento Nacional, 365.
of Centla, 366.
of El Castillo, 366.
of Tusipan, 367.
of Papantla, 367.
of Cholula, 368.
of Xochicalco, 370–73.
of Mexico, 374.
of Teotihuacan, 375–9.
Q.
Quemada, Los edificios of, 379–81.
Quiché architecture, 355–9.
Quiché-Cakchiquel languages, 476.
Quinames (Quinametin), 282;
first inhabitants of Mexico, 245;
their destruction, 233.
Quiché poetry, 515.
Quichés reputed to be Carthaginians, 226.
Quichés, Maya nation, 211;
origin tradition, 211–12;
creation myth, 213;
creations of men, 214;
migrations, 215;
deities of, turned to stone, 216;
heroic age of, 220.
Quetzalcoatl, culture hero, 219, 237;
traditions of, 267–71;
from Hue hue Tlapalan, 267;
priest and God of Toltecs, 268;
habits, 268;
author of letters and Mexican calendar, 268;
his enemy, 269;
departure from Tulla, 270;
reign at Cholula, 270;
departure to the East, 271;
expectation of his return, 271;
origin of legends concerning him, 272, 394, 457;
nationality, 464;
positive morality, 515;
discovery of maize, 242.
Quiyahuitztlan, Anahuac, Toltec station, 245.
R.
“Raised Beeches,” discovered by Alexander Agassiz, 504.
Ramirez, on Aztec migration map, 263.
Rau, Charles, on Mexican copper mining, 94, n. 2.
on aboriginal trade, 98.
Red Man, antiquity of, 22;
traditions, 22.
Read, M. C., on Grave Creek Tablet cited, 87, n.
Religious analogies, 459–68.
Religion of the Quichés, 212.
a war of, 226.
Remains at Santos River, Brazil, Lyell and Meigs on antiquity of, 113.
Reviellagigedo, viceroy to Mexico, 453.
Report of Ohio Archæological Society, 82, n. 1.
Retzius, on Morton’s measurements, 165.
on Mexican crania, 175, n.
River Rouge mound, 29.
crania from, 167–8.
River Terraces, mound-works on, 103.
Mr. Baldwin’s views, 103.
Foster’s view, 104. n. 1.
Rock shelters in San Juan Cañon, 309.
in Montezuma Cañon, 316.
“Rockford Tablet,” 44.
Room plastered in mound, 75.
Rosny, M. Leon de, essay by, 425–26.
key to hieratic writings of Mayas, 427.
Ross County (Ohio) works, 48.
Roque, Father, observations on Aztec, 486.
Russell, G. P., explorations by, 87–89.
S.
Sabine worship, 40–85.
Sacrifices, human, 273, 452–53.
Sacrificial mounds, 83–6;
stratified according to Squier and Davis, 84;
stratification denied by Prof. Andrews, 83.
Sacrifices, probably human, 39.
Sahagun’s account of the first Nahuas, 240–6.
Salado Rio, antiquities of, 283.
Salinas River, 283.
Sadelmair, discoveries of, 283.
Salisbury, Stephen, cited, 396–401.
Salish family of languages, Aztec element in, 492.
Sanctuary, places of, 80.
Sandals of Chaac-Mol, 398.
San Juan Cañon, cliff-dwellings of, 307.
Echo Cave in, 310–11.
San Miguel Valley, antiquities of, 275–7.
Savage Art, unity in style of, 196.
Scandinavian and Mexican analogies, 466.
discovery of America, 22, 153;
Prof. Rafn on, 153.
Schools of Tezcuco, 481.
Sculpture, from mounds, 382;
at Palenque, 384–92;
Uxmal, 393–95;
Chichen-Itza, 398–403;
Copan, 405;
Monte Alban, 406;
at Tusapan, 407;
Xochicalco, 408;
at Mexico, 409–10.
Sculptures from the mounds, 187–9.
Seltzertown pyramidal mound, 72.
Separate creation theory, Morton and Agassiz’s views of, 157–9;
groundless, 191.
Sepulture, mounds of, 86–88.
“Serpents,” kingdom of, 222.
Serpent Temple, 394;
symbol, 419, 272;
Serpent-work, Adams county, Ohio, 34.
“Seven Caves,” 215, 219, 248, 264–66.
Shaler, Prof., on Dr. Abbott’s discoveries, 128.
Shell-heaps on Atlantic sea-board, 28, 106–7.
fresh-water of, 107–9;
in Florida, 107.
Prof. Wyman on, 106–8;
Dr. Brinton on, 107;
on Pacific coast, 109;
examination by Paul Schumacher, 109.
Shoshone-Comanche languages, 489;
Aztec elements in, 492.
Signal Systems of the Mound-builders, 52.
on Great Miami River, 52.
Squier and Davis on, 53.
Skrellings, 22.
Sorcery practised upon Xibalban kings, 225.
Spain’s state of learning in 17th century, 133, n. 2.
Squier and Davis, estimate of number of mound-works in Ohio, 48;
classification of mound-works by, 81.
Squier on Newark works, 53.
Stations, of Toltec migration, 244–46;
of Aztec migration, according to Veytia, Tezozomoc and Clavigero,
260;
names interpreted by Humboldt, 261, n. 3.
Statuettes in National Museum, 415.
St. Clair River mounds, 30.
Stephens and Catherwood, explorations, chap. viii., _passim_.
Steinthal, Prof., classification of languages by, 471, n. 4.
Stevenson, M. F., description of mounds by, 72.
St. Francis Valley mounds, 74.
St. Louis, mound-works at, 40, 73.
Stone Age in New Jersey, 26;
Dr. Abbott on, 26.
Stone coffins, burial in, 60.
Stone graves in Tennessee, 60;
in Indiana, 57.
Stone implements from Bridger basin, Wyoming, 24, n. 1.
Stone tubes used by Mound-builders, 96.
St. Patrick in America, 152.
Stucco reliefs at Palenque, 384–88.
Sun-dried brick, 75;
wall of at Seltzertown, 72;
in Phillips County, Missouri, 75.
Sun, tablet of, 392.
symbol of, 395.
Sun worship, 40, 85.
Swallow, Prof., explorations by, 75.
Syphilis among Mound-builders, 184.
T.
Tabasco, ancient civilization of, 203.
Tablet of cross, 390;
of sun, 392;
at Chichen-Itza, 398.
Tablet, Rockford, 44; Cincinnati, 44.
Tablets at Palenque, 384–90.
Table Mountain, cranium from, 125.
Tamoanchan, city of Tobasco, 241, 243.
Tarahumara, language of North Mexico, 487.
Tarascos, migrations of, 261.
“Taylor mound,” the, 87–89.
Tehuantepec, antiquities of, 350–60;
language of, 479.
Tegua, Moqui pueblo, 326.
Temple base near Nashville, 62.
Temple of Mexico, 374.
Tennessee mound-works, 58;
explorations of Prof. Jones in, 58–65;
of Prof. Putnam, 65–67.
Tennessee mound crania, 171–4.
Tennessee Valley mounds, 71;
Mr. Fountain on, 71.
Teo-Culhuacan, 250–60, 265, 266.
Teotihuacan, pyramids of, 375–79;
compared with Egypt, 375, 382, 383.
Teotihuacan, sacred city of, 234, 343, 266.
Tepanecs, Nahua tribe, 256.
Tepetla, Toltec station, 246.
Tepehuana, language of North Mexico, 487.
Terra-Cotta, figure from Isla Mugeres, 403.
Terminos, Laguna de, 234.
Texas mounds, 78.
Tezcatlipoca, bloody god of the Nahuas, 269–70;
sorcery of, 269.
Tezcuco, schools of, 481.
Tezpi, flood myth, 263, n.
Tezquil nation, 208.
Theban calendar compared to the Aztec, 459.
Thomas, Dr., on Dakota mounds, 31–2.
Gen. H. W. on same, 32;
low type skull cited, 128, n. 5, 167.
Thomson, Sir C. Wyville, on Atlantic land ridge, 502–3.
Thompson, Dr. J. P., on Usher’s chronology, 201.
Thorowgood on origin of ancient Americans, 136.
Thorwald, Ericson, 22.
Tibiæ, flattened, 30.
Time, Absolute and Relative, 200.
Tlacamitzin, Toltec chief, 244.
Tlachicatzin, city in Hue hue Tlapalan, 245.
Tlahuicas, Nahua tribe, 256.
Tlaloc, Aztec rain-god, 457.
Tlapalans, four, 252;
Bancroft and Brasseur’s views upon, 251–2.
Tlapallan de Cortes, 251;
location of examined, 251.
Tlapallanconco, Toltec station, 245.
Tlascatecs, Nahua tribe, republic of, 257.
Tohil (Quiché deity), 215.
Tollan, Toltec capital, 218, 246.
Toltec migration, 244, 251;
migration according to Becker, 248–50;
according to Ixtlilxochitl, 244–46, 250;
account examined, 246.
Toltec flood myth, 238.
Toltecs, origin according to Ixtlilxochitl, 239.
southern origin considered, 252;
outlines of history, 254;
annals, Bancroft’s resumé of, 255.
Tomlinson’s report on Grave Creek mound, 87.
Tongues, confusion of, 238.
Totonacs, Mexican nation, 234.
Totzapan, 246.
Tower of Mancos Cañon, 297–300;
McElmo, 324;
at Chichen, Mayapan and Tuloom, 355.
Toxpan, Toltec station, 245.
Trade-winds, 508;
agents in the discovery of America, 506.
Tradition (Indian) valueless, 102.
Dr. Foster on, 102.
of Nahua Mound-builders, Becker on, 102–3, n.
Tradition and History and their scope, 109–10.
Tradition of uncertain value, 204.
Trinity myth in Yucatan, 231.
Troano MS, 422.
Tula (Tulha or Tulan), 211.
sculptured column from, 413.
Tulan, 215–16;
four in number, 217–18.
Tulancingo (Tollancingo), Mexican city, 246.
Tulan-Zuiva, 215, 264–66, 248.
Tumuli of Vera Paz, 359;
Tehuantepec, 360.
Vera Cruz, 364.
Tusapan, antiquities of, 367.
Typical mound skull, 166.
Tzendal, language of Chiapas, dialect of the Maya, 206.
Tzendel, a Maya dialect, the oldest American language, 473.
U.
_Uraeus_, Egyptian symbol, 467.
Ural-Altaic languages compared to Indian tongues, 496.
Usher, Bishop, chronology of faulty, 199.
Usumacinta Valley, the seat of most ancient American civilization,
208.
Utah languages, 489–90.
Utatlan, Quiché city, 227;
antiquities of, 358.
Utes, the enemies of the cliff-dwellers, 303.
Uxmal, architectural remains, 347–52.
arches and roofs, 349–50.
sculpture, 393;
Façades at, 394.
Le Plongeon’s observations on, 457.
V.
Valentini, Dr. Ph., interpretation of Mexican Calendar Stone, 453–59;
on analogies in geographical names, 497.
Vancouver’s Island, Aztec termination used, 490;
elements in, 491.
Vases from Casas Grandes, 278;
burial from Mexico, 410;
after Waldeck, 410;
from National Museum, 414–15.
Vater, on the Aztec language, 480–90.
Vega, Bishop Nuñez de la, 200.
Vegetation, age of on mounds, 104;
relation between American and Asiatic, 513.
Vera Paz, mounds of, 359.
Verda Rio, antiquities of, 284.
Verrezano, 22.
Vespucius, 22.
Voc, mythical personage, 222.
Votan (culture hero), tradition of cited, 133–9, 145, 204.
document written by, 206–10.
Vucub-Cakix, Xilbalban monarch, 222.
Vucab-Came, 224.
Vukub-Hunapu, Quiché chief, 222.
W.
Wabash Valley, mounds in, 57, n. 2.
Watch-tower of the Mancos, 300.
Waterbury Mine, 91.
Waynesville, Ohio, inter-glacial relics from, 126.
Welsh discovery of America, 154.
Whipple, Lieut., explorations by, 284.
“White-man’s land,” 152.
Whittlesey, Col., on Shelter Caves, 26.
on ancient copper mines, 91, 94.
Wilson, Dr. Daniel, cranial measurements tabulated, 164;
observations by, on Morton’s theory, 165, n. 2;
examinations of Peruvian crania by, 176;
on head-flattening, 180–2;
on Cincinnati Tablet, 47.
Wisconsin mound-works, 33;
effigy and animal mounds of, 33.
Worship of sun, 40.
Writing, systems of, see Hieroglyphics.
Wyman, Jeffries, on shell-heaps of Florida, 155–8.
X.
Xalisco, Toltec station, 245.
Xan, Quiché messenger, 224.
Xbalanque, Quiché hero, 222–3.
Xelhua, builder of Cholula, 236.
Xibalba, kingdom of Votanites, tradition of fall, 220–26;
date of, 227;
fall of, a theme for poetry, 515;
hatred of, 221.
Xicalancas, 234;
origin of, 234.
Xicalanco, Mexican city, 234.
Xmucane, 222–3.
Xochicalco, pyramid of, 370–3.
Xochimilcos, Nahua tribe, 256.
Xpiyacoc, 222.
Xquiq, Xibalban princess, 223.
Y.
Yamkally language, traces of Aztec in, 490.
Yaqui, Mexican tribe, 219.
Yazoo Valley mounds, 71.
Yellowstone, mounds of, 31.
Yond Mountain, 73.
Yucatan, origin of population, 229–30;
Greek gods in, 467.
Yztachnexucha, 246.
Z.
Zacotlan, Toltec station, 246.
Zamna, Maya culture hero, 229–30.
Zapotecs, Mexican nation, 234;
antiquities of, 360–64.
Zárate, on the Aztec, 486.
Zayi, Casa Grande of, 353.
Zipacua, Xibalban warrior, 222.
Ziuhcohuatl, Toltec station, 246.
Zumárraga, destruction of Aztec MS. by, 429.
Zuñi, description of, 288–89;
Valley, Pueblos of, 288.
Zutugil, language, 476.
THE END.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Las Casas: _Historia de Indias_, lib. I, cap. 40, tom. I, MS.
Irving: _Columbus_, vol. I, p. 158 (N. Y., 1851 ed.). Navarrete:
_Coleccion de los viajes_, tom. I, p. 176. Grynaeus: _Novus Orbis_,
p. 66, Basil, 1555, fol. Herrera: _Historia General_, Dec. I, lib. I,
cap’s ii et vi, Madrid, 1730.
[2] Rafn: _Antiquitates Americanæ_, p. 45, note. Rafn: _Op. cit._, pp.
xxx–xxxiii.
[3] Rafn: _Historia Thorfinni Karlsefnii_ (in Ant. Am.), pp. 149,
181; also, De Costa: _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, pp. xxxii,
xxxiii, 21, 41, 57, 58, 69, 70, 73, 74, 110; Gravier: _Découverte de
l’Amérique par les Normands au Xᵉ Siècle_, p. 83. Paris, 1874, 4to.
[4] Prof. Jos. Leidy, in _Hayden’s 6th Ann. Report of the U. S.
Geological Survey of the Territories_ (1872), pp. 652–3, describes
the stone implements found in the Bridger basin in southern Wyoming.
He remarks, “The question arises, who made the stone implements and
when, and why should they occur in such great numbers in the particular
localities indicated. My friend, Dr. J. Van A. Carter, residing at Fort
Bridger, and well acquainted with the language, history, manners, and
customs of the neighboring tribes of Indians, informs me that they know
nothing about them. He reports that the Shoshones look upon them as the
gift of God to their ancestors. They were no doubt made long ago, some
probably at a comparatively late date, that is to say, just prior to
communication of the Indians with the whites, but others probably date
centuries back.”
[5] It would be foreign to the object of this work to enter upon a
discussion of the antiquity of man in Europe. Were we to follow the
example of several writers on the antiquities of America, we might
present a resumé of the splendid achievements of science in determining
the approximate age of man, as an inhabitant of different portions of
the old world, but such condensed accounts at best are unsatisfactory
and often detrimental to science because of their very slenderness. The
evidences of man’s antiquity being far more remote than the generally
accepted historic period, antedating its beginning by several thousand
years, no doubt exist. The discoveries in the Liége caverns, in the
caves of Languedoc and in the cave of Engihoul in Belgium; in the
Neanderthal and Engis caves; at Abbeville and Amians; the valley of the
Somme; the basin of the Seine; of the Thames; and of the lake dwellers
of Switzerland, as well as the shell-heaps of Denmark, point to an
antiquity which half a century ago it would have been heresy to have
dreamed of. We have but to refer to the admirable work of Sir Charles
Lyell: _The Antiquity of Man_ (Phil., 1863), and to the well-known
works of Lubbock, Tylor, Vogt, and others. A good treatment of the
subject in brief will be found in Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the
U. S._ (1873), and a pointed and popular reference to it in Bryant’s
_History of the U. S._, vol. I. N. Y., 1876.
[6] _Evidences of the Antiquity of Man in the U. S._, by Col. Charles
Whittlesey. A memoir of 20 pp. Perhaps the chief importance of the
above-cited cave discoveries is derived from the eminence of the
antiquarian who cites them, rather than in their real value to science.
In the case of the Elyria cave—examined by Dr. E. W. Hubbard, Prof.
J. Brainerd, and the author of the memoir—“the grindstone grit,”
resting on shale, formed a grotto of considerable size. Four feet of
the floor of the cave, consisting of charcoal, ashes and bones of the
wolf, bear, deer, rabbit, squirrels, fishes, snakes and birds (“all
of which existed in this region when it became known to the whites”),
was removed and three human skeletons discovered. The author states
that the three had been crushed by a large slab of the overhanging
sandstone falling on them, but fails to state how much of the overlying
material consisted of this sandstone slab. He remarks: “Judging from
the appearance of the bones, and the depth of the accumulations over
them, two thousand years may have elapsed since the human skeletons
were laid on the floor of this cave.” The Louisville cave discovery
is no more satisfactory than the above. It is scarcely necessary to
remark that all the evidences are of a comparatively recent interment,
and much less than two thousand years would have been sufficient to
produce the conditions described. See also discoveries at High Rock
Spring, Saratoga, N. Y., cited by Col. Whittlesey, p. 10, and more
fully treated by Dr. McGuire in the “_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of
Nat. Hist._,” vol. xii, p. 398, May, 1839, in which the latter claims
to find traces of the Red man 5470 years ago. It is not probable that
Dr. McGuire’s _traces_ are those of the Indians, nor is it certain that
they were left by human beings at all, since the pine tree (found at a
considerable depth and worn as he supposes by the feet of Indians) was
as liable to have been worn by the feet of animals as of men. See also
Dr. Abbott, _The Stone Age in New Jersey_, Smithsonian Report, 1874, p.
246 _et seq._ See this work, pp. 127–8.
[7] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_,
Washington, 1848, 4to, 1st vol. of Smithsonian Contributions; _Dr. J.
A. Lapham: Antiquities of Wisconsin_, Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge, 1855. More recently—_The Upper Mississippi_, by _George
Gale_, Chicago, 1868; _The Mississippi Valley_, by _Dr. J. W. Foster_,
Chicago, 1869, 8vo, and his _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, Chicago,
1873, 8vo. We might add a list of names scarcely less eminent, of
authors who have written upon special fields and examined particular
works. A reliable bibliography of literature on the Mound-builders is
a desideratum which we trust some enterprising Americanist may soon
supply.
[8] Described by Dr. Wm. Blanding in a letter to Dr. Morton, of
Philadelphia. Foster: _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, p. 148, and
_Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 105. Foster: p. 151.
[9] Squier: _Antiquities of Western New York_, vol. ii, Smithsonian
Contributions, 1851. See an interesting account of the _Antiquities of
Orleans County, New York_, by F. H. Cushing, in _Smithsonian Report_
for 1874, p. 375.
[10] _Antiquity of Man in U. S._, p. 12; also, _Ancient Earth Forts of
the Cuyahoga Valley, Ohio_, by _Col. Charles Whittlesey_, Cleveland,
O., 1871, pp. 40 and plates.
[11] _Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, p. 145.
[12] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 364 _et seq._, from which we
draw the above. _The Proceedings of the American Ass. for the Adv. of
Science_ for 1875.
[13] See Mr. Gillman’s in _Sixth Annual Report of the Trustees of
the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology_, p. 12 _et seq._,
Cambridge, 1873, and _Am. Jour. of Arts and Sciences_, 3d ser., vol.
vii, pp. 1–9, Jan., 1874.
[14] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 151. “There is a large mound,
three hundred feet high and three hundred yards in diameter at the
base, at the southern end of the prairie, about twenty-five miles from
Olympia; and scattered over the prairie for a distance of fifteen miles
are many smaller mounds, not more than four feet high and twenty or
thirty in diameter. * * * A few days ago one of the engineers of the
Northern Pacific Railroad opened one of them and found the remains
of pottery; and a more thorough examination of others revealed other
curious relics, evidently the work of human hands; in fact, in every
mound that has yet been opened there is some relic of a long-forgotten
race discovered.” In quoting the above, Dr. Foster remarks that the
great mound was no doubt a natural eminence artificially rounded off.
[15] _Narrative of the U. S. Exploring Expedition during the Years
1838–42._ Phila., 1844. Tom. IV, p. 334. “We soon reached the Butte
prairies (on Columbia River) which were extensive, and covered with
_tumuli_ or small mounds, at regular distances asunder. As far as I
could learn there is no tradition among the natives relative to them.
They are conical mounds thirty feet in diameter, about six to seven
feet high above the level, and many thousands in number. Being anxious
to ascertain if they contained any relics, I subsequently visited these
prairies, and opened three of the mounds, _but found nothing_ in them
but a pavement of round stones.”
[16] _Baldwin_ (_Ancient America_, pp. 31–2) remarks: “Lewis and Clark
reported seeing them on the Missouri River a thousand miles above its
junction with the Mississippi River; but this report has not been
satisfactorily verified.”
[17] See Mr. A. Barrandt in _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, for an account
of discoveries on Clark’s Creek in Dakota; on the Bighorn River; on the
Yellowstone; on the Morean and the banks of the Great Cheyenne. See
Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 153–4. The proof is conclusive that
the head-waters of the Missouri was one of their ancient seats. The
same gentleman (Mr. Barrandt) describes a remarkable mound in Lincoln
County, Dakota, situated eighty-five miles north-west of Sioux City, on
the west fork of the Little Sioux of Dakota or Turkey Creek. The mound
is known as the “Hay Stack.” Its dimensions are 327 feet in length at
the base on the north-west side, and 290 on the south-east side, and
120 feet wide. It slopes at an angle of about 50°, is from thirty-four
to forty feet in height, the north-east end being the higher. To the
summit, which is from twenty-eight to thirty-three feet wide, there is
a well-beaten path. The remarkable feature of the mound is the fact
that part of the north-east side is walled up with soft sandstone and
limestone, brought a distance of at least three miles from an ancient
quarry. The remainder of the surface is pronounced to be of calcined
clay. The mound contained a large interior circular chamber, in which
the bones of animals, thirty-six pieces of pottery, and a mass of
charcoal and ashes were found.—_Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 413
_et seq._
[18] Since this is a contested point, both as to the presence of the
works of the Mound-builders in the North-west and as to their great
antiquity, I subjoin a portion of a report on these mounds made by Gen.
H. W. Thomas, U. S. A., to Dr. Thomas of the Surveying Expedition, in
the _Sixth Annual Report of the U. S. Geological Survey_ under Dr.
Hayden in 1872, pp. 656–7:
“‘Lewis and Clarke reported seeing Indian mounds 1000 miles above
the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri, but this report
is not verified.’ So says Mr. John D. Baldwin, A. M., in his work
entitled ‘Ancient America.’
“I now and here propose to contribute my mite toward the
verification of the statement of Lewis and Clarke.
“The few men whom duty or wild inclination have from time to
time brought into this, for the most part, uninhabited region of
treeless prairie, have all known of the existence of thousands of
artificial mounds. What was in them they knew not, and but two or
three, to my knowledge, have ever been opened. On August 16, 1872,
I opened one on the high table-lands that spread out on both sides
of a little stream called the James. The point is about 47° north
latitude, and 98° 38´ longitude west from Greenwich. It is within
three miles of the line of the North Pacific Railroad. The mound is
circular in form, 30⁸⁄₁₀ feet in its shorter, and 35³⁄₁₀ feet in
its longer diameter, and five feet high. I opened four trenches,
three feet wide, from the outer edge, meeting in the centre,
forming a cross when finished. I then excavated the entire mound
from the centre outward, until there was nothing more to find.
For results I had several two-bushel bags full of bones, eight
skulls, many pieces of skulls too small to be of value (there must
have been at least twenty-five bodies buried there), a rough-hewn
stone ten inches high and five and a half inches in diameter, in
shape resembling closely a conical shell, a cutting half an inch
deep around the centre. (This was evidently tied with thongs to a
stout handle, and used in pulverizing their maize.) A portion of a
shell necklace, two flints, two heads of beaver, and some bones of
animals unknown, and a large quantity of bivalves, much like the
clam (_Mya oblongata_) of our Atlantic coast, but thicker, and the
interior surface much more pearly.
“The mounds and their contents are apparently of great antiquity.
They are, in every case, on the very highest point in their
immediate neighborhood, and perfectly drained. The climate is
excessively dry; so dry that the James River is entirely dry at
a point about 500 feet above the contemplated railroad-bridge
across the river. Notwithstanding this, many of the bones crumbled
into white dust on being brought to the air, like those found in
Herculaneum and Pompeii, and it was absolutely impossible to get
out a single one in anything like perfection. Around and over
these bodies stones and sticks were placed, doubtless to preserve
the remains from the coyote and the fox. The wood could be rubbed
into fine yellow-brown dust between the thumb and forefinger. Any
trace of excavation around the mound for dirt to heap it with had
been entirely obliterated. The upright position of the skulls also
indicated that the bodies were buried in a sitting posture. The
leg-bones, however, lay lower and horizontal.
“The number of mounds indicates a denser population than ever has
been known here, or than the natural resources of this region can
now support by the chase. At the same time the number of dry lakes
scattered all over would indicate that at some remote period the
country may have been a better one than now, and supported a larger
population.”
[19] “_Antiquities of Wisconsin_,” _Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge_, vol. vii, 1855.
[20] _Squier and Davis: Ancient Monuments_, pp. 97–99. Recent and
possibly more exact surveys of the Alligator give the figures
as somewhat less than the above. Isaac Smucker, a very reliable
antiquarian of Licking Co., Ohio, in an address before the Ohio State
Archæological Convention, held at Mansfield in September, 1875,
corrects the figures in the following statement: “The Alligator mound
is upon the summit of a hill or spur, which is nearly 200 feet high,
six miles west of Newark, and near the village of Granville. The
outlines of the Alligator (or Crocodile) are clearly defined. His
entire length is 205 feet. The breadth of the body at the widest part,
twenty feet, and the length of the body between the fore-legs and
hind-legs is fifty feet. The legs are each about twenty feet long. The
head, fore-shoulders and rump have an elevation varying from three to
six feet, while the remainder of the body averages a foot or two less.”
[21] _Lapham’s Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 18, 20, 36, 37, 39, 52,
54, 55, 56, 57, 62, 69.
[22] _W. H. Canfield’s Sketches of Sauk County, Wisconsin_;
_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 101. On the copper remains of the
Mound-builders, see _Pre-Historic Wisconsin_, by _Prof. James D.
Butler, LL.D._, annual address before the State Historical Society of
Wisconsin, Feb. 18, 1876. Wisconsin Hist. Col., vol. vii. Privately
printed.
[23] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, figured and described on p. 416 by
Jared Warner of Patch Grove, Wis. (Oct. 1872). A further description of
mounds in the same locality, by Moses Strong, M. E., will be found in
_Smithsonian Report_ for 1876, p. 424.
[24] _Antiquities of Wisconsin_, pp. 42–5: “The main features of these
remains is the enclosure or ridge of _earth_ (not brick, as has been
erroneously stated), extending around three sides of an irregular
parallelogram; the west branch of Rock River forming the fourth side on
the east. The space thus enclosed is seventeen acres and two-thirds.
The corners are not rectangular, and the embankment or ridge is not
straight. The earth of which the ridge is made was evidently taken
from the nearest ground, where there are numerous excavations of very
irregular form and depth; precisely such as may be seen along our
modern railroad and canal embankments. These excavations are not to be
confounded with the hiding-places (caches) of the Indians, being larger
and more irregular in outline. Much of the material of the embankment
was doubtless taken from the surface without penetrating a sufficient
depth to leave a trace at the present time. If we allow for difference
of exposure of earth thrown up into a ridge and that lying on the
original flat surface, we can perceive no difference between the soil
composing the ridge and that found along its sides. Both consist of a
light yellowish sandy loam. The ridge forming the enclosure is 631 feet
long at the north end, 1419 feet long on the west side, and 700 feet
on the south side; making a total length of wall 2750 feet. The ridge
or wall is about twenty-two feet wide, and from one foot to five in
height.” * * * After describing one of the mounds of this enclosure, he
remarks: “The analogy between these elevations and the ‘temple mounds’
of Ohio and the Southern States, will at once strike the reader who has
seen the plans and descriptions. They have the same square or regular
form, sloping or graded ascent, the terraced or step-like structure,
and the same position in the interior of the enclosure. This kind of
formation is known to increase in numbers and importance as we proceed
to the south and south-west, until they are represented by the great
structures of the same general character on the plains of Mexico.”
[25] D. Gunn in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1867.
[26] Dr. Farquharson in _Proceedings of Am. Ass. for the Adv. of
Science_, vol. xxiv, p. 305.
[27] Through the courtesy of Dr. R. J. Farquharson I am enabled to
append the original report made by Mr. Gass to the Davenport Academy,
Jan. 26, 1877. It is as follows:
“We broke the surface on the north-east slope of the mound about
ten or twelve feet from the opening on the west side made in
1874. The earth was frozen to a depth of about three and a half
feet. Five or six inches below the surface we came upon a layer
of shells one or two inches in thickness, which sloped downward
toward the south-east, reaching a depth of two feet or rather more
below the surface, and extending for a distance of ten or twelve
feet. Between the surface and this first layer of shells a number
of small fragments of human bones were found scattered through
the soil. Under this shell layer was a stratum of earth of from
twelve to fifteen inches in thickness, resting on a second layer of
shells, from three to four inches in thickness. Both shell layers
sloped downward nearly parallel with each other.
“Below the second shell layer the earth was of the nature of a
light mould, darker in color than the earth above and thickly
interspersed with fragments of human bones. These circumstances
arrested my attention and caused me to proceed from this time on
with the greatest caution. At a depth of about fifteen inches under
the lowest part of the shell layer exposed in this excavation—the
shell stratum at this point being five or six inches thick—the
inscribed slates were found. The slate is the same as that usually
found overlying coal beds in this vicinity, and is such as is
frequently seen cropping out from the hill-sides or in isolated
slabs in the beds of streams. Both plates lay close together on the
hard undisturbed clay bottom of the mound.
“The engraved side of the smaller tablet was upward, and also
that side of the larger one presenting the heavenly bodies,
hieroglyphics, etc. The larger plate being partially divided by
natural cleavage, its upper layer was unfortunately broken in
two by a slight stroke of the spade. The two plates were closely
encircled by a single row of weathered limestones. These stones are
irregular in shape, but almost of the same size, their dimensions
being about three by three by seven or eight inches, and the
diameter of the circle about two feet.
“In the immediate vicinity were found a number of fragments
of human bones, one being a portion of a skull saturated with
carbonate of copper. A small piece of copper was found; also many
fragments of slate and a piece of bone artificially wrought.”
Also see _Proceedings of the Davenport Academy of Natural Sciences_ for
_Account of the Discovery of Inscribed Tablets_, by Rev. J. Gass, with
_A Description_ by Dr. R. J. Farquharson. Davenport, Iowa, July, 1877.
Cuts and views.
[28] _Pre-Historic Paces of the U. S._, p. 107. See especially _12th
Annual Report Peabody Museum_.
[29] In a paper, _A Deposit of Agricultural Flint Implements Found in
Southern Illinois_, _Smithsonian Report_, 1868, Dr. Chas. Rau treats
the subject of Aboriginal Agriculture at considerable length. In
the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, p. 413 _et seq._, Dr. A. Patton
describes the exploration of several remarkable mounds in Lawrence
Co., Illinois. In the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 351, Taylor
McWhorter describes a number of mounds in Mercer Co., Illinois. He
estimates the number in the county at one thousand, mostly on the
Mississippi River bank. _The Antiquities of Whiteside County, Ill._,
by W. H. Pratt, of Davenport, Iowa, printed in the same Report, p. 354
_et seq._, is a most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the
mounds. The first mound examined yielded eight skulls, two of which
were preserved. The third mound opened yielded the skeletons of four
adults and several articles of interest, such as pieces of mica, a lump
of galena and a dove-colored arrow-head. From the fifth mound opened,
a remarkably well-preserved skeleton was recovered. Dr. Farquharson,
of the Davenport Academy of Sciences, has contributed one of the most
valuable tables of mound-cranial measurements ever published.
[30] The best and most exhaustive treatment of the above is by _Mr.
Robert Clarke: The Pre-Historic Remains which were Found on the Site
of Cincinnati, Ohio, with a Vindication of the Cincinnati Tablet_.
Cincinnati, 1876. 8vo, 34 pp. It is to be regretted that this
valuable discussion of the genuineness of one of the most important
Mound-builder relics is only “privately circulated.” Mr. Clarke has
fully accomplished the design for which he wrote.
[31] _Dr. Daniel Drake’s Picture of Cincinnati_, Cincinnati, 1815.
_Squier and Davis in Ancient Monuments_. _Gen. Harrison: Ohio Hist. and
Phil. Society Trans._, vol. i, and others.
[32] _Dr. Daniel Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, 3d ed., 1876, vol. i,
pp. 274–5. The following description is given in _Squier and Davis’s
Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_: “The material is
fine-grained, compact sandstone of a light-brown color. It measures
five inches in length, three in breadth at the ends, and two and
six-tenths at the middle, and is about half an inch in thickness. The
sculptured face varies very slightly from a perfect plane. The figures
are cut in low relief (the lines being not more than one-twentieth
of an inch in depth), and occupy a rectangular space four inches
and two-tenths long by two and one-tenth wide. The sides of the
stone, it will be observed, are slightly concave. Right lines are
drawn across the face near the ends, at right angles, and exterior
to these are notches, twenty-five at one end and twenty-four at the
other. The back of the stone has three deep longitudinal grooves, and
several depressions, evidently caused by rubbing—probably produced by
sharpening the instrument used in the sculpture.” [Mr. Gest, however,
does not regard these as tool marks, but thinks they are of peculiar
significance.] “Without discussing the singular resemblance which
the relic bears to the Egyptian _Cartouch_, it will be sufficient to
direct attention to the reduplication of the figures, those upon one
side corresponding with those upon the other, and the two central ones
being also alike. It will be observed that there are but three scrolls
or figures—four of one and two of each of the others. Probably no
serious discussion of the question whether or not these figures are
hieroglyphical is needed. They more resemble the stalk and flowers of
a plant than anything else in nature. What significance, if any, may
attach to the peculiar markings or graduations at the end, it is not
undertaken to say. The sum of the products of the longer and shorter
lines (24 × 7 + 25 × 8) is 368, three more than the number of days in
the year; from which circumstance the suggestion has been advanced that
the tablet had an astronomical origin, and constituted some sort of
a calendar.” We may here add that Col. Chas. Whittlesey published at
Cleveland, Ohio, in _Historical and Archæological Tract No. 9_ (Feb.
1872) of the Western Reserve Historical Society, a statement that the
“Cincinnati Tablet” was a fraud. But we are informed that he is since
convinced of its genuineness.
[33] Judge M. F. Force: _Mound-Builders_. Cincinnati, 1872. Rev. S. D.
Peet in the _American Antiquarian_ for April, 1878, refers to the visit
of the Ohio Archæological and the National Anthropological Conventions
to Fort Ancient in September, 1877, and states that during the visit
the significance of the walls of the lower enclosure was discovered.
“They bear a resemblance,” he remarks, “to the form of two massive
serpents, which are apparently contending with one another. Their heads
are the mounds, which are separated from the bodies by the opening
which resembles a ring around the neck. They bend in and out and rise
and fall, and appear like two massive green serpents rolling along
the summit of this high hill. Their appearance under the overhanging
forest trees is very impressive”—p. 50. See also Mr. Peet’s memoir on
a Double-walled Earthwork in Ashtabula County, Ohio, in _Smithsonian
Report_ for 1876, pp. 443–4.
[34] Dr. Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 145, cites a letter from
Prof. E. B. Andrews, of the Ohio Geological Survey, describing an
earthwork discovered by him in Vinton County with the ditch _outside_
the parapet. In his _Report of Explorations of Mounds in Southern
Ohio_, published in _Tenth Ann. Report of the Peabody Museum of Am.
Arch. and Eth._, p. 53 (Camb., 1877), the Professor remarks: “On a
spur of a ridge about two miles east of Lancaster is an earth wall,
evidently for defence. The ditch is on the outside of the wall, where
it should be according to modern ideas of defence. In this particular
the earthwork differs from all the circles and so-called ‘forts,’
either circular or square, which I have seen, these having the ditch on
the inside.”
[35] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 128: “No one, I think, can
view the complicated system of works here displayed and stretching
away for miles without arriving at the conclusion that they are the
result of an infinite amount of toil expended under the direction of a
governing mind, and having in view a definite aim. At this day, with
our iron instruments, with our labor-saving machines, and the aid of
horse-power, to accomplish such a task would require the labor of many
thousand men continued for many months. These are the work of a people
who had fixed habitations, and who, deriving their support in part at
least from the soil, could devote their surplus labor to the rearing of
such structures. A migratory people dependent upon the uncertainties of
the chase for a living, would not have the time, nor would there be the
motive, to engage in such a stupendous undertaking.”
[36] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 129.
[37] _North American Review_, July, 1876.
[38] Robert Clarke’s _Pre-Historic Remains at Cincinnati_, p. 18: “I
believe I am correct in saying that there is no clay in Ohio which
could be applied in this way and resist for any length of time the
washing rains and sudden winter changes of temperature of our climate,”
_et seq._
[39] See A. B. Tomlinson’s _Grave Greek Mound_ (1838). _Schoolcraft in
American Ethnological Soc. Transactions_, vol. i. Especially Squier and
Davis.
[40] Dr. Patton has described some interesting mounds near Vincennes,
Indiana. A giant mound, which towers above many others of considerable
proportions, is called the Sugar-loaf Mound, and stands on a promontory
which overlooks the rich valley of the Wabash. The height of the
Sugar-loaf is seventy feet, with a circumference at the base of one
thousand feet. Dr. Patton in June, 1873, sank a shaft in this mound
to the depth of forty-six feet. The composition of the mound was of
siliceous sand, nowhere found in the region except in other mounds.
At ten feet below the summit bones were found, but much decayed.
Immediately below them was a layer of charcoal and ashes. Thirty feet
deeper the same conditions were repeated, and the bones again were so
brittle as to render it impossible to save them. A bed of calcined clay
was next entered which could not be penetrated with the instruments
at command. One mile south of the Sugar-loaf is a pyramidal mound
forty-three feet high, with a circumference of 714 feet at the base and
a platform on top fifteen feet wide and fifty feet in length. Others of
as great proportions are described. _Smithsonian Report_, 1873, pp. 411
_et seq._ See also _Antiquities of La Porte County, Indiana_, by R. S.
Robertson in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, pp. 377 _et seq._ A very
low type of cranium was exhumed from one of the mounds in this county.
Also see _Mounds at Merom and Hutsonville on the Wabash_, by F. W.
Putnam—_Proceedings of the Boston Soc. of Nat. Hist._, vol. xv, 1872.
Fifty-nine mounds were examined, and three stone graves discovered.
[41] For an excellent treatment of this part of the subject, see
_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 130–144 inclusive.
[42] In _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley._
[43] _Explorations of the Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee._
_Smithsonian Contribution No. 259._ Oct. 1876, p. 100.
[44] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 39, and other places.
[45] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 138.
[46] _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 348–360.
Cambridge, 1878. See also _Antiquities of Jackson County, Tenn._, by
Rev. Joshua Hale, in _Smithsonian Reports_ for 1874, p. 384. Very
interesting and valuable explorations have been conducted in Tennessee
by Mr. E. O. Dunning for the Peabody Museum of Am. Arch. and Eth. See
_Reports_, 3d, p. 7; 4th, p. 7; 5th, p. 11.
[47] _Mr. Jas. R. Page’s Results of Investigations of Indian Mounds_,
in _Transactions of St. Louis Acad. of Science_, vol. iii, p. 226, and
copied in _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, vol. ii,
No. 4, pp. 371 _et seq._
[48] In _Cincinnati Quar. Journal of Science_, Oct. 1875, p. 378. Also
see _Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, p. 318.
[49] See _Wilson’s Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, p. 317.
[50] _Fontaine’s How the World was Peopled_, p. 278, and _Foster’s
Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 111 _et seq._
[51] _How the World was Peopled_, p. 278.
[52] _Squier and Davis’s Ancient Monuments_, pp. 117 _et seq._
_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 112.
[53] _E. Cornelius_ in _Silliman’s Journal_, vol. i, p. 223, and
_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 122.
[54] _Smithsonian Report_, 1870, and _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p.
123. A further description of works on Etowah River in Bartow Co., Ga.,
by _Mr. Stephenson_ in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, p. 421. A full
and elaborate treatment is also that by Charles C. Jones, Jr., entitled
_Monumental Remains of Georgia_. Savannah, 1861. 12mo, p. 118.
[55] _Smithsonian Report_, 1872.
[56] _Smithsonian Report_, 1874, pp. 390 _et seq._
[57] These measurements were carefully made by Dr. S. H. Headlee, of
St. James, Missouri, and communicated to the editors of the _Cincinnati
Quar. Jour. of Science_, published in January number, 1875, pp. 94–5.
[58] A sensational description of this mound which appeared in the
_St. Louis Times_ is used by Mr. S. M. Hosea as the basis of an
article on Sacrificial Mounds in the above number of the _Cincinnati
Quarterly Jour. of Science_, p. 62. The account contains some wonderful
statements, which are evidently made by some unscientific person, and
hence are utterly worthless. Although, judging from internal evidence,
we have little faith in the reliableness of the correspondent, we give
a paragraph for what it is worth: “The approach or causeway which
leads across the trench from the north is ten feet in width. Ascending
from this causeway to the summit of the mound are the remains of a
rude flight of stairs, constructed originally of roughly-hewn stones.
Most of these steps are now displaced, and quite a number have rolled
down into the trench below, but there is unmistakable evidence that
they were at one time arranged in regular order of ascent, and could
doubtless be again replaced in position by an intelligent architect.”
“By a series of investigations, I found that about a foot beneath
the surface there was a regular solid platform of stone covering the
entire top of the mound. This platform, though constructed by rude and
unmechanical hands, is placed in position with a precision and firmness
that might well defy the ravages of the elements in all coming ages.
About twelve feet from the northern edge of the mound, and directly on
a line with the approach and stairway, I noticed a very perceptible
elevation of the earth, covering an area of about twenty by fifteen
feet; and driving a pick into the elevated ground, the point struck
upon solid rock a few inches below the surface. * * * Pushing our work,
we soon unearthed a piece of workmanship that an antiquarian would
have worked a week to bring to light. The newly-discovered curiosity
consisted of a flat rock twelve feet long, ten feet wide, and eleven
inches thick. The centre of the stone was hollowed to a depth of six
inches, with a margin of about one foot around the edge.” “At the
south end of the stone, a round hole five inches deep and four in
diameter was drilled. Amongst the dirt taken out of this place hewn in
the stone, was a large fossil tooth and a piece of small broken stone
column, and several bits of pottery ware.” This description is very
suggestive of the Mexican Temple or Teocalli, but unfortunately for the
facts, Dr. Headlee, who made the measurements given in the text a short
time subsequently, failed to find any certain evidences that either a
stairway or temple had existed on the mound.
[59] _Report on the Geology of Arkansas_, vol. ii, p. 414—cited by
Foster.
[60] See on chambered mounds similar to English barrows, Curtiss in
_Peabody Museum Reports_, vol. ii, p. 717; Broadhead in _Smithsonian
Report_ for 1879, pp. 350 _et seq._ (with cuts).
[61] “Within the State, from Pulaski County to Arkansas, in all the
little valleys which wind in and out among the flint-crowned hills
of the Ozarks, are seen what may be termed garden mounds. These are
elevated about two or three feet above the natural surface of the land,
and are from fifteen to fifty feet in diameter, varying thus in size
according to the amount of richer soil which could be scraped together.
Their presence may always be detected in fields of growing grain by
its more luxuriant growth and deeper green.”—_A. J. Conant_ in the
_Transactions_ cited above, p. 354. The same writer has treated the
subject more fully in a recent work published at St. Louis, entitled,
“_The Commonwealth of Missouri_.”
[62] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 115, and _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 120.
[63] _Baldwin’s Ancient America_, p. 72.
[64] Prof. Forshey, in _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 121, 122,
remarks: “There is a class of mounds west of the Mississippi Delta and
extending from the Gulf to the Arkansas and above, and westward to the
Colorado in Texas, that are to me, after thirty years’ familiarity
with them, entirely inexplicable. In my Geological Reconnoissance of
Louisiana in 1841–2, I made a pretty thorough report upon them. I
afterwards gave a verbal description of their extent and character
before the _New Orleans Academy of Sciences_. These mounds lack every
evidence of artificial construction based on implements or other
human vestigia. They are nearly all round, none angular, and have an
elevation hemispheroidal of one foot to five feet, and a diameter
from thirty feet to one hundred and forty feet. They are numbered by
millions. In many places, in pine forests and upon the prairies, they
are to be seen nearly tangent to each other as far as the eye can
reach, thousands being visible from an elevation of a few feet. On the
gulf-marsh margin, from the Vermillion to the Colorado, they appear
barely visible, often flowing into one another, and only elevated a
few inches above the common land. A few miles interior they rise to
two and even four feet in height. The largest I ever saw were perhaps
one hundred and forty feet in diameter and five feet high. These were
in Western Louisiana. Some of them had abrupt sides, though they are
nearly all of gentle slopes. There is ample testimony that the pine
trees of the present forests antedate these mounds. The material for
their construction is like that of the vicinity everywhere, and often
there is a depression in close proximity to the elevation.” We can
make no conjecture concerning the use of those mounds described by
Prof. Forshey, except to suggest that they in all probability served as
foundations for dwellings in a low country, which at that time may have
been moister and more marshy than at present. If such was the case,
the whole region must have presented the appearance of a continuous
community instead of the proper proportion of country and village. This
crowded state of affairs could have been produced by the pressure from
enemies in the north, and the lack of agricultural lands evidently was
sufficient alone to cause a migration to the south.
[65] A number of the cuts in this chapter illustrative of the Arts of
the Mound-builders, are copies of those used by Dr. Charles Rau in his
_Catalogue of the Archæological Collection of the National Museum_,
Washington, Smithsonian Contribution No. 287 (1876), granted me through
the courtesy of Professor Henry. A few also are from the memoir by
Prof. Jos. Jones on the _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_. Smithsonian
Contribution No. 259 (1876). For an able classification of these Mound
Relics (a work which I could not undertake in a volume not devoted
exclusively to the Mound-builders), I refer the reader to Rau’s Memoir
above cited, as being altogether the most satisfactory attempt of the
kind of which I have any knowledge. For a classification of works in
Ohio, see _Antiquities of Ohio_: Report of the Committee of the State
Archæological Society to the Centennial Commission of Ohio (Columbus,
Ohio, 1877, 8vo). The incompleteness of the work is to be regretted.
Ohio, out of its vast fund of material, certainly ought to furnish a
more satisfactory contribution to the subject of archæology. The work
comprises seven chapters, of which the last is the least satisfactory
of all, for while bearing the title “Location of Ancient Earthworks
in Ohio,” it enumerates only one hundred and sixteen out of the ten
thousand mound-works in the State. Still the memoir is not without
value. Its chapters on Stone Relics, Copper Relics, and Insignia and
Ornaments are comparatively thorough.
[66] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 143. Prof. E. B. Andrews has shown that
the supposed uniformity of stratification in altar mounds is a fallacy.
In many instances the earth has been dumped together indiscriminately.
[67] _Ancient Monuments_, p. 143, the following general description
is given: “The altars or basins found in these mounds are almost
invariably of burned clay, although a few of stone have been
discovered. They are symmetrical, but not of uniform size or shape.
Some are round, others elliptical, and others square or parallelograms.
Some are small, measuring barely two feet across, while others are
fifty feet long by twelve or fifteen feet wide. The usual dimensions
are from five to eight feet. All appear to have been modelled of fine
clay brought to the spot from a distance, and they rest on the original
surface of the earth. In a few instances a layer or small elevation of
sand had been laid down, upon which the altar was formed. The height of
the altars, nevertheless, seldom exceeds a foot or twenty inches above
the adjacent level. The clay of which they are composed is usually
burned hard, sometimes to the depth of ten, fifteen, and even twenty
inches. This is hardly to be explained by any degree or continuance of
heat, though it is manifest that in some cases the heat was intense. On
the other hand, a number of these altars have been noticed which are
very slightly burned; and such, it is a remarkable fact, are destitute
of remains.”
[68] Charles Rau in _Smithsonian Report_, 1872, p. 357. _Baldwin’s
Ancient America_, p. 41.
[69] _Squier and Davis_: _Op. Cit._, pp. 169–70. _Foster_: _Op. Cit._,
pp. 188–196. Schoolcraft in vol. i, _Trans. Am. Ethnol. Soc._ M. C.
Read in _American Antiquarian_, vol. i, p. 139, Jan. 1879. Dr. Clemens
in Morton’s _Crania Americana_, p. 221. Mr. E. O. Dunning in _Foster_,
p. 194.
[70] _Description of an Ancient Sepulchral Mound near Newark, Ohio_, by
O. C. Marsh, F. G. S., in _American Journal of Science and Arts_ for
July, 1866. Second Series, vol. xlii.
[71] See _Dr. Charles T. Jackson’s Geological Report to the United
States Government_, 1849. _Foster and Whitney’s Report on the
Geology of the Lake Superior Region_, Part I. Published by authority
of Congress in 1850, and substantially reproduced in _Foster’s
Pre-Historic Races of the U. S._, chap. vii, in 1873. The most
elaborate treatment is by _Col. Charles Whittlesey_, _Ancient Mining
on the Shores of Lake Superior_. Published in the _Smithsonian
Contribution to Knowledge_ in 1863, vol. xiii. _Swineford’s History and
Review of the Mineral Resources of Lake Superior_, Marquette, 1876.
Containing _Ancient Copper Mines of Lake Superior by Jacob Houghton_.
[72] _Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 268. For a further account, see
Mr. Henry Gillman in an article printed in _Appleton’s Journal_, August
9, 1873, and entitled _Ancient Works at Isle Royal_; also to a paper
printed in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1873, and in the _Proceedings
of the Amer. Ass. for the Advancement of Science_, 1875 meeting, p.
330. Also A. C. Davis in _Smithsonian Report_ for 1874, p. 369.
[73] _Ancient Mining on the Shore of Lake Superior_, p. 2.
[74] “L’on trouve souvent au fond de l’eau, des pieces de cuivre tout
formé, de la pesanteur de dix et vingt livres; i’en ay veu plusieurs
fois entre les mains des Sauvages, et comme ils sont superstitieux,
ils les gardent comme autant de divinités, ou comme des presents que
les dieux qui sont au fond de l’eau leur ont faits pour estre la cause
de leur bonheur; c’est pour cela, qu’ils conservent ces morceaux de
cuivre envelopés parmi leurs meubles les plus pretieux, il y en a
qui les gardent depuis plus de cinquante ans; d’autres les ont dans
leurs familles de temps immemorial, et les cherissent comme des dieux
domestiques.”—_Relations des Jésuites, en l’Année 1667_, p. 8. Quebec
reprint, 1858. Tome iii.
[75] “En y entrant par son embouchure, que se décharge au Sault, le
premier endroit que se présente où se retrouve du cuivre en abondance,
est une Isle que est éloignée de quarante on cinquante lieuës,
scituée vers le côté du Nord, vis a vis d’un endroit qu’on appelle
Missipicoüatong. Les sauvages racontent que c’est une Isle flottante,
que est quelquefois loing, quelquefois proche, selon les vents qui la
poussent, et la promenent de côté et d’autre. Ils ajoûtent qu’il y a
bien longtemps que quatre sauvages y furent par rencontre, s’etans
égarez dans la brume, dont cette Isle est presque toujours environnée.
C’étoit du temps qu’ils n’avoient point encore eu de commerce avec les
François, et n’avoient aucun usage ny des chaudieres ny des haches.
Ceux-cy donc voulans se preparer à manger, firent à leur ordinaire:
prenant des pierres qu’ils trouvoient au bord de l’eau, les faisaient
rougir dans le feu et les jettaient dans un plat d’ecorce plein d’eau
pour la faire boüillir et faire cuire par cette industrie leur viande.
Comme ils choisissoient ces pierres, ils trouvoient, que c’étoient
presque tous morceaux de cuivre; ils se servirent donc des unes et des
autres, et aprés avoir pris leur repas, ils songerent à s’embarquer
au plustost, craignant les Loups Cerviers et les Lievres, qui sont
en cét endroit grands comme des Chiens, et qui venoient manger leurs
provisions et même leur Canot. Avant que de partir, ils se chargerent
de quantité de ces pierres grosses et menuës, et même de quelques
plaques de cuivre; mais ils ne furent pas bien éloignez du rivage,
qu’une puissante voix se fit entendre à leurs oreilles, disant tout
en colere: Qui sont ces voleurs qui m’emportent les berceaux et
les divertissemens de mes enfans? Les plaques de cuivre sont les
berceaux, parce que parmy les sauvages ils ne sont faits que d’un ou
deux aix joints ensemble, sur lesquels ils couchent leurs enfans; et
ces petits morçeaux de cuivre qu’ils enlevoient, sont les jouets et
les divertissemens des enfans sauvages, qui joüent ensemble avec des
petites pierres.” The voice which the savages heard was believed to be
that of a spirit called Missibizi, a certain water-god. “Quoy qu’il en
soit, cette voix étonnante jetta tellement la frayeur dans l’esprit de
nos Voyageurs, qu’un des quatre mourut avant que d’arriver à terre;
peu de temps aprés un second fut enlevé, puis le troisièma; de sorte
qu’il n’en resta qu’un, lequel s’étant rendu en son Pays, raconta
tout ce qui s’étoit passé, pues mourut fort peu apriés.” The Father
adds that the savages never afterward could be induced to approach
the island for fear of being seized by the Genii presiding over its
treasures.—_Relations des Jesuités l’année 1670_, p. 84, tome iii.
Quebec reprint, 1858.
[76] _Ancient Mining_, p. 22 _et seq._
[77] _Congrès International des Américanistes._ Luxembourg. 1877, tom.
i, pp. 51–2.
[78] _Essai Politique_ (Paris, 1825–27), vol. iii, p. 114. Dr. Charles
Rau has courteously furnished me the following references on ancient
mining in Mexico: _Clavigaro’s History of Mexico_, Phil., 1817, vol.
i., p. 20. _Prescott’s Mexico_, vol. i, p. 138; _Despatches of Hernando
Cortés_ addressed to the Emperor Charles V (trans. by Folsom, New
York, 1842), p. 412. _Memoirs of Bernal Diaz_ (trans. of Lockhart,
London, 1844), vol. i, p. 36. Dr. Rau remarks: “We are forcibly led
to the conclusion that the Mexicans obtained copper by the mining
process.”—_Letter to the Author_, Aug. 24, 1878.
[79] Colonel Whittlesey in the _Report of the State Archæological
Society_ to the Centennial Commission of Ohio, Chap. IV, pl. 10, has
figured several symmetrical tubes of stone from Ohio Mounds. The
most perfect of these he thinks may have served “as telescopic helps
for distant views.” The most general use to which most of them were
applied, it is believed, was the making of signals, or possibly rude
music. One of the tubes taken from the Tippet Mound near Newark, Ohio,
and figured in the report, has its upper end flattened like a whistle
or flute, and has a hole penetrating it just below the mouthpiece,
which indicates that it may have been a musical instrument. The Huron
slates were most frequently employed in the manufacture of tubes, as
they were in the production of the class of objects known as ceremonial
relics.
[80] Baldwin’s _Ancient America_, p. 42, and Dupaix, quoted on pp.
122–3.
[81] Dr. Rau has shown that division of labor and its advantages was
recognized among the aborigines; that certain individuals who were
qualified to manufacture particular implements devoted themselves
exclusively to that work. He bases his conjecture “on the occurrence
of manufactured articles of a homogeneous character in mounds or in
deposits below the surface of the soil. There is little doubt, for
instance, that there were persons who devoted their time chiefly to
the manufacture of stone arrow-heads and of other articles produced
by chipping, among which may be mentioned those remarkable large
digging tools described by me several years ago, and the oval or
leaf-shaped implements made of the peculiar hornstone of ‘Flint Ridge’
in Ohio.” See Stock-in-trade of an Aboriginal Lapidary, by Charles Rau,
_Smithsonian Report_ for 1877.
[82] Dr. S. S. Schoville, in the _Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of
Science_, April, 1875, p. 164, describes the discovery of numerous mica
plates in a mound on the east bank of the Little Miami River, about
twenty-five miles east of Cincinnati. He states, that at the base of
the mound, on a level with the surrounding country, the remains of
several skeletons were found, placed with their heads together and
lying in a horizontal position. “Lying upon or immediately over the
cranial debris, were found plates of mica, some a foot in diameter.
These plates were disposed in such a way as to cover an area somewhat
larger than that occupied by the crania beneath. However, it could
not definitely be determined whether the design had been to make
a continuous or common roof over the faces as a group, or whether
each face had a covering of its own.” The writer ventures the rather
fanciful conjecture that the mica in this and many other cases served
the purpose of exhibiting temporarily the features of the dead in the
manner that glass is now used on caskets.
[83] See a most interesting and extensive memoir on _Aboriginal Trade
in_ _North America_, by Charles Rau, first published in vol. iv of the
_Archiv für Anthropologie_ (Braunschweig, 1872), and translated in
_Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 249–394.
[84] Mr. A. J. Conant in the _Commonwealth of Missouri_, pp. 77–8 (St.
Louis, 1877), refers to ancient canals fifty feet wide and twelve feet
deep observed by Dr. G. C. Swallow. He quotes a pretty full account
from Geo. W. Carleton, Esq. Mr. Conant considers some of the southern
bayous of artificial origin.
[85] For further material on the Mound-builders, see the documents
cited throughout the chapter. No less important is Dr. Foster’s
admirable work so often quoted, and which we must add has been of great
service in the preparation of this chapter. A very good paper on the
Mound-builders is that by Robert S. Robertson of Fort Wayne, Indiana,
in the _Congrès International des Américanistes Compte-Rendu de la
Sec. Ses. Luxembourg_, 1877, tom. i, pp. 39–50, though we do not fully
agree with the author’s views as to the colonization of the Mississippi
valley from the south. The classification of Mound-works by Rev.
Stephen D. Peet in the same document, p. 103, is very satisfactory, and
corresponds to that adopted in this chapter. The learned article by
Judge Force of Cincinnati in the same document, vol. i, pp. 121–156, is
full of interest. For recent mound explorations, see Appendix.
[86] _Pre-Historic Times_, p. 425. Also cited by Foster. In this
connection I refer the reader to the argument of Mr. John H. Becker of
Berlin, in the _Congrès International des Américanistes_, Luxembourg,
1877, tom. i, pp. 345–6: “These northern nations * * * have not
quite forgotten the former existence and the exodus of these Nahua
Mound-builders in and from the western prairie country. Cusick’s
remarkable history of the Iroquois (Schoolcraft, vol. v) states again
and again that ‘their hunters were opposed by big snakes,’ that the
‘great horned snake appeared on Lake Ontario,’ that the ‘lake serpent
traversed the country, and they were compelled to build fortifications
in order to save themselves from the devouring monsters,’ that ‘a snake
with a human head prevented the intercourse of their several villages,
as it had settled near the principal path of communication,’ also ‘that
it retreats,’ etc., etc. Now, in order to understand the force of these
passages, it is necessary to remind the reader that the Nahua race were
perhaps even more properly and generally designated as the ‘Culhua’ the
‘Snake’ race, and one branch, remotely connected with them in blood
and language, though wofully degenerated, the Snakes or Shoshones of
Oregon, etc., carry the name to this very day. * * * ‘An expedition
was sent towards the Mississippi River; they crossed it, reached an
extensive meadow; they discovered a _curious animal_, a _winged fish_;
it flew about the tree, it moved like a _humming bird_’ * * * the
_humming bird_ was the totem of the last tribe of Nahuas, arriving in
Anahuac from Aztlan. The Cherokee tradition, told by Timberlake, is
equally significant: ‘The prince of rattlesnakes lives in the glens
of the mountains. His palace is guarded by obedient subjects. * * *
And in the myth of the Algonquins, the god-hero Michabo is in conflict
with the shining prince of serpents who lives in the lake; he destroys
the reptile with a dart; clothes himself with the skin of his foe, and
_drives the rest of the serpents to the south_.’”
[87] _J. D. Baldwin’s Ancient America_, p. 47.
[88] Foster, pp. 172–3, remarks: “Squier and Davis hastily stated
that none of these works occupied the alluvial bottoms (an error
which Mr. Squier subsequently corrected), and from this statement the
most erroneous conclusions as to their antiquity have been drawn.
There is nothing to indicate but that those works were constructed
after the surface had assumed its present configuration, and that the
climate had become essentially as it is now. That they should not
occur as abundantly on the bottoms as on the river terraces is not
to be wondered at, when we consider the great fluctuations of the
Mississippi and its tributaries. The extreme range between low and
high water of the Upper Mississippi at its mouth is thirty-five feet;
that of the Missouri at its mouth about the same; and that of the Ohio
at Louisville, forty-two feet. Hence, during the flood time a greater
portion of the bottom lands are subject to overflow, and it would be
natural for the Mound-builders to shun such situations. Where the
immediate valleys lie above high water, we find their works. Of this
the ‘American Bottom’ is a notable instance.”
[89] See Dr. Lapham’s communication in Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_,
pp. 373–5, in which he shows the possibility of finding the average
increase of wood each year by measuring annual rings of growth.
[90] Sir Charles Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_, p. 41, says: “When I
visited Marietta in 1842, Dr. Hildreth took me to one of the mounds,
and showed me where he had seen a tree growing on it, the trunk of
which when cut down displayed eight hundred rings of annual growth.”
[91] See Prof. Asa Gray in Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 392; also
Lyell’s _Antiquity of Man_, p. 41, where the opinion of President
Harrison is quoted as follows: “We may be sure that no trees were
allowed to grow so long as the earthworks were in use; and when they
were forsaken, the ground, like all newly-cleared land in Ohio, would
for a time be monopolized by one or two species of tree, such as the
yellow locust and the black or white walnut. When the individuals
which were the first to get possession of the ground had died out one
after the other, they would, in many cases, instead of being replaced
by other species, be succeeded, by virtue of the law which makes a
rotation of crops profitable in agriculture, by other kinds, till
at last, after a great number of centuries (several hundred years
perhaps), that remarkable diversity of species characteristic of North
America, and far exceeding what is seen in European forests, would be
established.”
[92] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 118, 119, 122, and M. Stronck,
_Repères chronologiques de l’histoire des Mound-builders_ in _Congrès
des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, tom. i, pp. 316–18, catalogues the
record of the age of trees found on mounds.
[93] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 370.
[94] _American Naturalist_, Jan. 1868.
[95] _Second Visit to the United States_, vol. i, p. 252.
[96] Dr. Brinton’s _Notes on the Floridian Peninsula_.
[97] From the immense heaps distributed over an area of 150 miles
between Pilatka and Salt Creek Dr. Wyman made some collections of
interest. The banks were composed mostly of the _Ampullaria Depressa_,
the _Paludina Multilineata_ and _Unio Buckleyi_. The bank at King
Phillip’s Town, 450 feet long by 120 feet wide, and in some places
eight feet thick, yielded fragments of pottery and decayed animal
bones. At Black Hammock, on the St. Johns, a mound 900 feet long and
from 100 to 150 in width, yielded the following: such marine shells
as the strombus-gigos, pyrula carica and P. perversa. These had been
shaped into hatchets, gouges and chisels. Scarcely any stone implements
were found in any of the mounds examined. A chisel and twenty-five
arrow-heads were collected in the vicinity of the above shell-bank.
The following animal remains were found: bear, deer, raccoon, opossum,
terrapin, turtle, alligator, cat-fish and garpike. But few bones
of birds were found. Prof. Wyman can only explain the presence of
so many of the now scarce species, the Ampullarius and Paludinas,
on the supposition that they were much more plentiful and are now
becoming extinct, or that the heaps where so abundantly found were
made by slow accumulation, through the lapse of an indefinitely long
period.—_American Naturalist_, vol. ii, Nos. 8 and 9, and _Fifth Annual
Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 22–25. Also _First Report of Peabody
Museum_, pp. 11, 18.
[98] A small sand-mound near Cedar Keys yielded peculiarly massive
skulls; the capacity being 1375 cubic centimetres, or nearly 84 cubic
inches. They show no distortion, and the average thickness of eight of
them through the parietal bones measured 10.5 millimetres, or 0.42 of
an inch. The heaviest weighed 995 grams, and notwithstanding the loss
of its organic matter, is heavier than any of the three hundred skulls
in the collection (Peabody Museum).—_Fourth Annual Report of Peabody
Museum_, p. 13. Also see Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 170.
[99] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 159.
[100] Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 272.
[101] C. C. Jones, Jr., _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_.
[102] Further consult, _Second Indiana Report_, p. iii; _Smithsonian
Report_ for 1870; Humphreys and Abbot’s _Physics and Hydraulics of the
Mississippi Valley_, p. 89, and Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, Chap. IV.
[103] Martius: _Von dem Rechtszustande unter den Ureinwohner
Brasiliens_, p. 80, and reprinted in his _Beiträge zur Ethnographie_,
etc., Leipzig, 1867, quarto. “Der dermalige Zustand dieser Naturwesen
beurkundet, dass die amerikanische Natur schon seit Jahrtausenden
den Einfluss einer verändernden und umgestaltenden Menschenhand
erfahren hat. Auf den Antillen und dem Festlande fanden die ersten
Conquistadores den stummen Hund als Hausthier und auf der Jagd
dienend, ebenso das Meerschweinchen in St. Domingo in einem heimischen
Zustande.... Das Llama war in Peru schon seit undenklicher Zeit als
Lastthier benützt worden, und kam nicht mehr im Zustand der Freiheit
vor; ja sogar das Guanaco und die Vicunna scheinen damals nicht
ganz wild, sondern in einer beschränkten Freiheit den Urbewohnern
befreundet, gelebt zu haben, da sie, um geschoren zu werden,
eingefangen, so dann aber wieder freigelassen würden.... Die Cultur
dieser Pflanze (Maize) aus welcher die Peruaner auch Zucker bereiteten,
ist uralt; man findet sie, und die Banane, den Baumwollenstrauch,
die Quinoa- und die Mandioca-Pflanze ebenso wenig wild in America
als unsere Getreidearten in Asien, Europa und Africa. Die einzige
Palme, welche von den Indianern angebaut wird, hat durch diese Cultur
den grossen, steinharten Saamenkern verloren, der oft in Fasern
zerschmolzen, oft gänzlich aufgelöst ist. Ebenso findet man die Banane,
deren Einfuhr nach America geschichtlich nicht nachgewiesen werden
kann, immer ohne Saamen. Man weiss aber aus anderen Erfahrungen, welch’
lange Zeit nothwendig ist, um den Pflanzen einen solchen Stempel von
der umbildenden Macht menschlichen Einflusses aufzudrücken. Gewiss,
auch in America sind die dort heimischen Nutz-Pflanzen der Menschheit
seit undenklichen Zeiten zinsbar unterworfen.”
[104] Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 37.
[105] Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 352.
[106] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 44.
[107] _Pre-Historic Man_, p. 12.
[108] _American Naturalist_, vol. ii, p. 434, 1868. Also quoted by
Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 77.
[109] Daniel Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, p. 12.
[110] Vol. i, p. 200.
[111] Meigs: _Trans. Am. Phil. Soc._, 1828, p. 285.
[112] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 42.
[113] Vol. ii, p. 197.
[114] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 203.
[115] _Extinct Mammalia of North America_, p. 365: “The specimen may
have been contemporary with the remains of extinct animals, with which
it is said to have been found, though it appears to me equally if not
more probable that it may have fallen into the formation from an Indian
grave above at a comparatively recent date, and become stained like the
true fossils from ferruginous infiltration.”
[116] Foster: _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 61. “A dozen plantation
burial places and Indian mounds and camps had been exposed above for
centuries; and in recent years since uninhabited by the whites (for a
hundred years), the drains had cut through the surface to the depth of
twenty and even forty feet of the bluff loam-beds. The probabilities
are a hundred to one that this bone was not of the bluff (mastodon)
formation but of the recent era.”
[117] Foster in _Transactions of the Chicago Academy of Sciences_, vol.
i, part ii.
[118] Fontaine’s _How the World was Peopled_, pp. 67–69. A book with
many good points, but obscure as to this particular case.
[119] _On the Geology of Lower Louisiana and the Salt Deposit on the
Petit Anse Island_, p. 14, in _Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge_,
No. 248.
[120] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 58.
[121] Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 35.
[122] Vol. xxxvi, p. 198.
[123] Vol. xxxvii, p. 191.
[124] J. D. Dana: _Koch’s Evidence on the Contemporaneity of Man and
the Mastodon in Missouri_, in the _Am. Jour. of Sci. and Arts_, Art.
xxxv, May, 1875, gives the title of two of these pamphlets as follows:
1. _Description of the Missourium or Missouri Leviathan, together with
its Supposed Habits; Indian Traditions Concerning the Location from
which it was Exhumed; Also, Comparisons of the Whale, Crocodile, and
Missourium with the Leviathan, as described in the Forty-first Chapter
of the Book of Job_: by Albert Koch, 16 pp. octavo, St. Louis, 1841
(1840 on the cover, indicating that the copy is from a second edition).
2. _Description of the Missourium Theristocaulodon (Koch) or Missouri
Leviathan (Leviathan Missouriensis), together with its Supposed Habits
and Indian Traditions; Also, Comparisons of the Whale, Crocodile, and
Missourium with the Leviathan, as described in the Forty-first Chapter
of the Book of Job_: by Albert Koch. Fifth edition enlarged, 28 pp.
octavo. Dublin, 1843. (A third edition of twenty-four pages appeared in
London in 1841.)
[125] _American Journal of Science and Arts_, 1830, Art. xxxvi, p. 198,
and copied by Mr. J. D. Dana, in his article before cited, May, 1875.
[126] Dr. Koch’s _Pamphlet_ of 1843, pp. 13, 14, 27, copied by J. D.
Dana.
[127] _Transactions of St. Louis Academy of Sciences_, vol. i, 1857.
[128] Foster’s _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 62.
[129] _Smithsonian Report_, 1872, p. 396, in a note to his article on
_North American Stone Implements_.
[130] J. D. Dana in _American Journal of Science and Arts_, May, 1875,
p. 340.
[131] Article cited, p. 344.
[132] Though the above argument by so eminent a specialist must satisfy
any one that Dr. Koch’s claim, as it now stands, is valueless to
science; still, it is due to the memory of the latter, to admit that he
was the most indefatigable and successful collector in his department
in this country. Though unscientific himself, his service to science
must ever be recognized. The great Mastodon in the British Museum is
a monument to his persevering research. Perhaps the disposition to
acknowledge his services, has unduly biased the judgment of many in
favor of his groundless claim.
[133] _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 67.
[134] “But it is one of those isolated cases which require further
investigation before full credence can be attached to it.”—_Foster’s
Pre-Historic Races_, p. 71.
[135] _Antiquity of Man in the United States, Transactions of American
Association for Advancement of Science_. Chicago, 1869.
[136] _Second Visit to the United States._
[137] Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 336, and Lyell’s
_Antiquity of Man_, p. 43.
[138] _Tableau of New Orleans_, 1852, cited by Foster, _Pre-Historic
Races_, p. 73.
[139] _Antiquity of Man_, p. 43.
[140] _Surface Geology_, p. 92, _Smithsonian Contributions to
Knowledge_, vol. ix.
[141] _Physics and Hydraulics of the Mississippi_, pp. 150 _et seq._,
and 435.
[142] _Pre-Historic Races_, p. 76.
[143] _Philadelphia Acad. of Natural Sciences. Proceedings_, Part I,
1872. Also Foster, pp. 69–71.
[144] This letter bears date December 24, 1876, written from
Waynesville, Ohio, and signed by Robert F. Furnas, M. D.
[145] Prof. Orton in _Geology of Highland County_ in “_Progress of the
Ohio_ _Geological Survey in 1870_,” published 1871, and in vol. i. of
_State Geological Report_, p. 442.
[146] Prof. Winchell remarks: “The very general interest that is being
excited in this country in the problems that invest the history of the
drift is my only excuse for calling your attention to the prevalence
of vegetable remains in the Drift of the North-west, and to the wide
divergence of high authorities on the relative position of those
remains in respect to the boulder clay.”—See _Proceedings_, p. 56, _Am.
Ass. for Adv. Sci._, 1875, _24th Meeting_.
[147] _Eleventh Annual Report of the Peabody Museum_, p. 226,
Cambridge, 1878. Dr. Abbott concludes his interesting report by citing
a letter from Mr. Thomas Belt, dated Grant, Colorado, June 29, 1878,
in which the writer reports the discovery of “a small human skull in
undisturbed loess, in a railway cutting about two miles from Denver,
near the watershed between the South Platte and Clear Creek. All the
plains are covered with a drift deposit of granitic and quartzose
pebbles, overlaid by a sandy and calcareous loam closely resembling the
diluvial clay and the loess of Europe.” The skull was found at a point
three and a half feet from the surface.—_Ibid._, p. 257.
[148] _Tenth Annual Report of Peabody Museum, Cambridge_, 1877, vol.
ii, pp. 30–43; _American Naturalist_, June, 1876, p. 329.
[149] _Tenth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 47.
[150] Grote, _The Peopling of America_, _American Naturalist_, April,
1877.
[151] _Primitive Industry_, by C. C. Abbott, M.D., 1881, p. 551. A
truly scientific work.
[152] _Sixth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey,
under Dr. Hayden in 1872_, p. 657.
[153] General Thomas gives the following account of this form of skull
discovered by him, p. 657: “It is unlike that of any human being to-day
alive on this continent; the frontal bone being low, receding, growing
narrow and pinched from the brows up; the top of the head depressed in
the centre. The cavity of the cranium is full seven inches long, and
a scant four and a half inches wide. The orbital ridges or eyebrows
are excessively developed, like those of the great Gibbon monkey. In
fact the whole skull resembles that of the great Gibbon monkey. The
malar or cheek bones run down very low and deep toward the lower jaw,
are set very far to the front, and are not wide at top, but widen very
much toward the bottom. The nose, and here is the anomaly, is much more
aquiline than that of the Indian. The superior maxillary is one-third
deeper and much more prominent than the Indian’s. The inferior
maxillary is of uncommon prominence, depth, and power, far exceeding
that of the Indian. The mouth is narrow and long, more dog-shaped than
the Indian’s. The _foramen magnum_ or aperture at base of skull, where
the spinal cord enters the head, is peculiarly small. The _condyloid
processes_ are full, oblong, flat on the working surfaces, and at
such an angle as to set the head upward and back more than any race
we know to-day on this continent. Set one of these skulls, without
the lower jaw, on the table, and a line drawn from the upper jaw
perpendicularly upward would be a good inch and a half in front of the
forehead. Set on the lower jaw and it would be two inches.” Mr. R. D.
Guttgisal, formerly an engineer on the Mexican Central Railroad, in
connection with some friends, opened a mound at Chihuahua, on the line
of that railroad. The skulls resembled those I have described (so he
informs me) in every particular. He especially remembers the somewhat
bird-shaped head, and the excessively small _foramen magnum_. The
bodies were not interred horizontally there, but leaning backward as if
in a rocking-chair. Professor H. H. Smith, University of Pennsylvania,
has one of the skulls.
[154] Professor James Orton, _The Andes and the Amazons_, third ed., p.
109, New York, 1876.
[155] Sir John Lubbock, alluding to the changes that have transpired in
the condition of man from his first appearance in America, says: “But
even if we attribute to these changes all the importance which ever has
been claimed for them, they will not require an antiquity of more than
three thousand years. I do not, of course, deny that the period may
have been very much greater, but in my opinion, at least, it _need_ not
be greater.”—_Pre-Historic Times_, p. 234, London, 1865.
Dr. Foster, after giving many of the reputed proofs of man’s antiquity
here, sums up the argument in the following language: “The evidence, it
must be confessed, rests, in most cases, upon the testimony of a single
observer, and besides, there has not been a recurrence of ‘finds’ in
the same deposit (except in the gravel beds of Colorado and Wyoming,
which require further investigation to command an unqualified belief),
as in the valley of the Somme and in the European caves, which is so
conclusive as to the existence of man as contemporary with the great
Pachyderms.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 71.
[156] _De Civitate Dei_, lib. xvi, cap. 9. Above I have availed myself
of the admirable translation by Rev. Marcus Dods, vol. ii, p. 118.
Edinburgh, 1871. On the subject of Antipodes we may refer the reader to
the view of _Cosmas Indicopleustes_, an Egyptian of the middle of the
6th century. See Draper’s _Conflict between Religion and Science_, p.
65, and the opinion of the Venerable Bede, cited by the same author.
See further Bancroft’s _Native Races of the Pacific States_, vol. v,
pp. 1–8, and Ogilby’s _America_, pp. 6–7.
[157] R. H. Major’s _Prince Henry of Portugal_, chap. xxi. London,
1868, 8vo. Draper’s _Conflict_, pp. 163–5.
[158] The narrowness of the attainments of the “educated” in Spain in
the 17th century is portrayed by Buckle: “Books, unless they were books
of devotion, were deemed utterly useless; no one consulted them, no one
collected them; and until the 18th century, Madrid did not possess a
single public library. * * * De Torres, who was himself a Spaniard, and
was educated at Salamanca early in the 18th century, declares that he
had studied in the university for five years before he had heard that
such things as the mathematical sciences existed. So late as the year
1771, the same university publicly refused to allow the discoveries
of Newton to be taught; and assigned as a reason, that the system of
Newton was not so consonant with revealed religion as the system of
Aristotle.”—_History of Civilization in England_, vol. ii, pp. 72–3.
New York, 1861. Of course these remarks apply to Spain’s period of
misfortune and decline, but it must also be remembered that the spirit
of intolerance which alone brought about that condition was at its
height about the time of the discovery of America.
[159] Mr. Bancroft has illustrated the spirit of this latter class by
quoting a passage from Garcia’s _Origen de Los Indios_, Madrid, 1729,
p. 248. It is certainly one of the most venomous and narrow-minded
utterances on record. See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 4.
[160] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España con Noticias de los Ritos
y Costumbres de los Indios y Explicacion del Calendario Mexicano,
por F. Diego Duran_, Escrita en el año de 1585; MS. in three vols.
folio of upwards of 1000 pp. each. On p. 507, tom. iii, we find
notice of December, 1579, as the date at which that stage of the work
was reached. Copy in the library of Congress at Washington. From
Beristain’s _Biblioteca Hispano-Americana, Septentrional_, tom. i, p.
442, Mexico, 1816, we quote the following: “Duran (F. Diego) á quien el
Illmõ. Eguara, p. 324, de su Biblioteca dá equivocadamente el nombre
de Pedro, y á quien el Jesuita Clavigero llama Fernando con igual
equivocacion. Fué natural de Tezcuco, antigua corte de los Emperadores
Megicanos: y Profeso el Orden de Santo Domingo, en el Convento Imperial
de Megico, á 8 de Margo de 1556. Era varon Docto en Theología, y de
vasta erudicion en la historia antigua de los Indios; pero molestado de
enfermedades en sus años ultimos, no pudo dar á luz publica los bellos
libros, que tenia compuestos, los mas amenos y gustosos, que hasta
entonces se habian escrito sobre las cosas de Indias, como se explica
el Illmõ. Dáila Padilla, y repetieron despues los criticos franceses
Querif y Echard. El referido Arzo-Bispo añade, que el P. Juan de Torar,
Jesuita Megicano, en cuyo poder paraban los manuscritos de su paisano
Duran, se los dió al P. José de Acosta á quien servieron mucho para su
Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias, en lo qual convienen Pinelo y
D. Nicolás Antonio. Los dichos MSS. eran:” _Historia de los Indios de
la N. E. Antigüallas de los Indios de la N. E._
[161] “Cuanto á lo primero tendremos por principal fundamento el ser
esta Nacion y Gente Indiana advenediza de estrañas y remotas regeiones,
y que en su venida á poseer esta Tierra hizo un largo y prolijo camino,
en el cual gastó muchos meses y años para llegar á ella, como de su
relacion y pinturas se colige, y como de algunos viejos ancianos de
muchos dias he procurado saber para sacar esta opinion en limpio; y
dado caso que algunos cuenten algunas falsas fabulas conviene á saber,
que nacieron de unas fuentes y manantiales de agua; otros, que nacieron
de unas cuebas; otros, que su generacion es de los Dioses; lo cual
clara y abiertamente se ve ser fabula, y que ellos mismos ignoran su
origen y principio, dado caso que siempre confiessan havre venido
de tierras; y asi lo he hallado pintado en sus antiguas pinturas,
donde señalan grandes trabajos de hambre, sed, y desnudez, con otras
innumerables afliciones que en él pasáron hasta llegar a esta tierra
y poblada; con lo cual confirmo mi opinion y sospecha de que estos
Naturales sean de aquellas diez Tribus de Isrrael que Salmanasar, Rey
de los Asirios cautivó y transmigró de Asiria en tiempo de Ozeas, Rey
de Isrrael, y en tiempo de Ozequias, Rey de Jerusalem, como se prodra
ver en el cuarto Libro de los Reyes, capitulo diez y siete, donde dice
que fue transladado Isrrael de su tierra á los Asirios hasta el dia
de hoy, etc.; de las cuales dice Esdras en el Libro cuarto, capitulo
trece, que se pasaron á vivir á una tierra remota y apartada que nunca
habia sido habitada; á la cual habia largo y prolijo camino de año y
medio, donde agora se hallan estas Gentes de todas las Islas y Tierra
firma del mar oceano hacia la parte de occidente.”—_Historia Antigua de
la Nueva España_, tom. i., pp. 1–2, MS.
[162] London, small quarto, 1650; we have both this and the edition of
1660 before us.
[163] Harmon L’Estrange, Kt., _Americans No Jewes; or Improbabilities
that the Americans are of that Race_, p. 4. 1652; quarto, London.
[164] Id., p. 13.
[165] “De suerte que aviendose conservado este nombre Piru, que es lo
mismo que Ophir, en aquellas tierras, y hallandose que los moradores
dellas parecen a los Hebreos en muchas cosas, bien se signe que a
quellos Indios, y los demas proceden de Ophir nieto de Heber de quien
los Hebreos, y su lengua tomaron el nombre. Tambien se halla el nombre
de Iectan padre de Ophir en la provincia que oy se llama Yucatan, en la
Nueva España, que no es pequeño fundemento para provar que ya que no
pusiesse aquel nombre Iectan, por no haver ido a aquella tierra, pudo
ser que lo diesse su hijo Ophir.”—_Origen de los Indios_, p. 323. Ed.,
_Valencia_, 1607.
[166] _Origen de los Indios_, (_Valencia_, 1607), p. 485.
[167] _Hist. de la Nouvelle France_, lib. i, cap. iii, p. 25. Paris,
1611.
[168] _Historia General de los Hechos de los Castellanos_, Madrid,
1728–30, fol. decada 1, lib. i, cap. vi.
[169] _Historia de la Conquista Itza_, p. 27, Madrid, 1701, fol.
[170] Aunque la verdad es que ellos, por hablar mas propriamente y
los otros de quien descendieron, por Generacion Natural, son de los
Hijos de Noé * * * y segun lo que tenemos dicho, en otra parte, acerca
de el color de estas gentes, no tendria por cosa descaminada, creer
que son descendientes de los Hijos, u Nietos de Cham, tercero Hijo de
Noé.—_Monarquia Ind._, tom. i, p. 30.
[171] Pineda in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, 1852, p. 343; see tradition
of Votan, this work, chap. v.
[172] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv, p. 17; cited by Bancroft.
[173] _Historia del origen de pentes que poblaron la America
Septentrional que llaman la Nueva España con noticia de los primeros
que establecieron la Monarquia, que en ella florecio de la Nacion
Tolteca, y noticias que alcanzaron de la creacion del Mundo_ (date
at end of first vol. 1755, and end of third 1780), _por M. Fer. de
Echevarria y Veitia_, pp. 24–30, chap, i, tom. i, MS. Three vols.
folio, in Library of Congress at Washington. About one-fourth of the
work is published in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, tom. viii.
[174] _Historia_, cap. xii, tom. i, p. 92, MS.; of Kingsborough’s _Mex.
Ant._, tom. viii, p. 189.
[175] _Noticias Americanas_, pp. 391–5, 405–7. Cited by Bancroft,
_Native Races_, vol. v, p. 10.
[176] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 11.
[177] _Deserts_, vol. i, p. 26. But what else could be expected of the
editor of that curiosity of Americo-Germanic literature executed by
some German school-boy and unearthed in the Arsenal Library at Paris,
entitled _Manuscript Pictographique Américain précédé d’une notice
sur l’Ideographie des Peaux-Rouges_, par l’Abbé Em. Domenech, Paris,
1860. Published under the auspices of the Minister of State and of the
Emperor Napoleon III. See also _Le Livre des Sauvages au Point de Vue
de la Civilization Française_, Brussels, 1861. The internal evidences
of this remarkable MS. being the work of a German boy are plain to any
one having the slightest knowledge of the German language. How the
Abbé and the Emperor could have been so blinded to its real character
we cannot imagine; however, it would be unfair to leave the impression
that, because of the theory of Ophir’s colonization and because of this
literary blunder, the Abbé’s work entitled _Seven Years’ Residence in
the Great Deserts of North America_ is without value. On the contrary,
it contains much useful information. The following passage occurs on p.
66 of the above work: “The most careful study concerning the origin of
the red-skins, made on the spot, has confirmed us in the belief that
there is nothing in science to contradict the Bible, which represents
Adam as the sole stock whence sprung the three great races which form
the principal types of the human family.”
[178] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. iv, p. 15. We quote the following
from the translation by Cullan, London, 1807: “We do not doubt that
the population of America has been very ancient, and more so than it
may seem to have been to European authors: 1. Because the Americans
wanted those arts and inventions, such, for example, as those of wax
and oil for light, which on the one hand being very ancient in Europe
and Asia, are on the other most useful, not to say necessary, and when
once discovered are never forgotten. 2. Because the polished nations
of the new world, and particularly those of Mexico, preserve in their
traditions and in their paintings the memory of the creation of the
world and of the building of the Tower of Babel, the confusion of
languages and the dispersion of the people, though blended with some
fables, and had no knowledge of the events which happened afterwards in
Asia, in Africa, or in Europe, although many of them were so great and
remarkable that they could not easily have gone from their memories.
3. Because neither was there among the Americans any knowledge of
the people of the old continent, nor among the latter any account of
the passage of the former to the new world.” He then cites Votan.
See further on early views, Gottfried Wagner’s _De Originibus Amer.
Disertatio Lipsiæ_, 1669; Hugo Grotius’s _Dissertatio de Origine
Gentium Americanorum Amstelodami_, 1642; Jean De Laet’s _Notæ ad Diss.
H. Grotii de Originine Gent. Americ._, 1643; Jean De Laet’s _Responsio
ad H. Grotii Diss. de Origine Gent. Americ._, 1644; Poisson’s
_Animadrersiones in Originem Peruvianorum et Mexicanorum_, Parisiis,
1644; Georgius Hornius’s _De Originibus Americanis Hagæ_, 1652; Rocha’s
_Tratado Unico y Singulare del Origin de los Indios Occidentales,
del Peru, Mexico, Santa Fe, y Chile_; Lima, 1681; Engel’s _Essai sur
Cette Question: Comment l’Amérique est-elle été Peuplée d’Hommes et
d’Ammaux_, Amsterdam, 1767; Corn. De Pauw’s _Recherche sur l’Amérique
et les Americans_, Berlin, 1774; Vater’s _Untersuchungen über America’s
Bevölkerung aus dem alten Continent_, Leipzig, 1810.
[179] D. B. Warden’s _Recherches sur les Antiquités de l’Amérique du
Nord_, in _Antiquités Mexicaines_, tom. ii, div. ii. Paris, 1834,
quarto.
[180] _Native Races_, vol. v, chap. i. The literary apparatus contained
in the notes accompanying the chapter is remarkably full and valuable.
[181] “I know of no man better qualified than was Brasseur de
Bourbourg, to penetrate the obscurity of American primitive history.
His familiarity with the Nahua and Central American languages, his
indefatigable industry and general erudition, rendered him eminently
fit for the task, and every word written by such a man on such a
subject is entitled to respectful consideration. Nevertheless there
is reason to believe that the Abbé was often rapt away from the truth
by the excess of enthusiasm, and the reader of his wild and fanciful
speculations cannot but regret that he has not the opportunity or the
ability to criticise by comparison the French savant’s interpretation
of the original documents.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, p. 127.
[182] The work in which he repudiates his first interpretation of the
Codex Chimalpopoca, and in which he advocates the allegorical meaning
together with the theory of Atlantis, is entitled _Quatre Lettres sur
le Mexique_, Paris, 1868.
[183] This work, p. 135.
[184] Among these we may cite Adair’s _History of the American
Indians_; Jones’ _History of Ancient America_; Giordan’s _Tehuantepec_;
Rossi’s _Souvenirs d’un Voyage en Orégon_, pp. 276–7; Ethan Smith’s
_Views of the Hebrews_; Thorowgood’s _Jewes in America_; Domenech’s
_Deserts_, vol. i, and Simon’s _Ten Tribes_.
[185] _Mexican Antiquities_, London, 1831–48, 9 vols. imperial folio.
[186] The tablets remained in their place of concealment until
discovered by Joseph Smith, September 22, 1827. Mr. Bancroft, _Native
Races_, p. 97 _et seq._ (from which we draw the above), has translated
a full account of this wonderful claim from Bertrand’s _Memoirs_, pp.
32 _et seq._
[187] Pineda’s _De Rebus Solomonis_, but especially Horn’s _De Origine
Gentium Americanarum_.
[188] Some of these features will receive attention in a following
chapter.
[189] Hudson’s _Geographiæ Veteris Scriptores Græci Minores_,
1698–1712, 8vo, and Rev. Thos. Falconer’s _Voyage of Hanno_,
translated, etc., Oxford, 1797, 8vo.
[190] _Native Races_, p. 66.
[191] Chap. V.; see Tradition and Literature.
[192] By George Jones, R. S. I.; M. F. S. V., etc.; dedicated by
permission to the Archbishop of Canterbury and to Frederick William the
Fourth, King of Prussia. London, 1843.
[193] Mr. Jones states in his preface that to furnish a list of the
works from which he drew his material would be pedantic, and adds:
“Yet being professedly an original work, the volume of the brain
has been more largely extracted from than any writer whose works
are already before that public—to whose final judgment (upon its
merits or demerits) the present author submits the first history of
ancient America with all humility; but he will yield to none in the
conscientious belief in the truth of the startling propositions and the
consequent conclusions.” With such convictions there is no opportunity
for unbiased investigation.
[194] _Traditions of Decoodah and Antiquarian Researches_, p. 16. New
York, 1858, 8vo.
[195] _Mœurs des Sauvages Amériquains Comparées aux Mœurs des Premiers
Temps._ Paris, 1724.
[196] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, p. 122; the Abbé Brasseur de
Bourbourg’s discovery of the Greek Gods in America (_Landa, Relacion_,
pp. lxx–lxxx) will be considered further on.
[197] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, pp. 55 _et seq._; M’Culloch’s
_Researches_, pp. 171–2; Mayer’s _Mexico as it Was_, p. 186; Humboldt’s
_Vues_, tom. i, pp. 120–4, and Stephen’s _Central America_, vol. ii, p.
441; Jones’ _Hist. Anc. Am._, pp. 122 _et seq._
[198] Delafield’s _Inquiry into the Origin of the Antiquities of
America_, Cincinnati, 1839, quarto.
[199] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 54. In a note an excellent collection
of authorities is quoted.
[200] Colonel Kennon in Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 65 _et seq._ Also C. W.
Brooks on Japanese Race in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 51.
[201] In _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres_,
vol. xxviii, 1761.
[202] English by Chas. G. Leland: _Fusang, or the Chinese Discovery of
America_, 1875. New York.
[203] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 34, note, says: “A Chinese
_li_ is about one-third of a mile”—English, we suppose, but upon what
authority we are unable to say. Klaproth adopted 850 _li_ to a degree,
while D’Eichthal fixes it at 400 to a degree in the sixth century,
though at present it is 250 _li_ to a degree. Deguignes’ _Mémoires de
l’Académie des Inscriptiones et Belles Lettres_, vol. xxviii, 1761, and
Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 128 and 140.
[204] Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 25 _et seq._ This translation was revised
by Professor Neumann himself, and is more literal than that by Klaproth.
[205] Klaproth’s _Recherches_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_,
1831, tom. li, pp. 57 _et seq._ Humboldt’s _Examen Critique_, tom. xi,
pp. 65–6.
[206] Sr. Jose Perez in _Revue Orientale et Américaine_, No. 4, pp.
189–195.
[207] Dr. E. Bretschneider in the fifth number of the _Chinese Recorder
and Missionary Journal_, vol. iii, published at Foochow, October 1870.
The article entitled _Fusang, or Who Discovered America_, is copied in
full in Leland’s _Fusang_, pp. 165 _et seq._ See also Dr. Neumann’s
_Ost-Asien und West Amerika_; in _Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Erdkunde_
for April, 1864. See _D’Eichthal_ in _Revue Archéologique_, 1862, vol.
ii, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 33 _et seq._
[208] The strongest proof upon which the Chinese theory rests is that
of physical resemblance, which on the extreme north-western coast of
America is very marked. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 37.
[209] John Ranking’s _Historical Researches on the Conquest of Peru,
Mexico, etc., by the Mongols_, London, 1827.
[210] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 44–50, contains a good
review, but Ranking himself must be examined to be appreciated.
[211] _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 40 _et seq._, gives a brief review.
The subject will be fully treated in its proper place.
[212] In the Landnama-book, No. 107, is found a narrative of ARE
MARSON, in Hvitramanna Land. Prof. Rafn (_Antiquitates Americanæ_,
pp. 210 _et seq._), translates it as follows: “Ulvus Strabo, filius
Högnii Albi, totum occupavit Reykjanesum inter Thorskafjördum et
Hafrafellum; uxorem habuit Bjargam, filiam Eyvindi Œstmanni, sororem
Helgii Marci. Eorum filius Atlius Rufus, qui uxorem habuit Thorbjargam,
sororem Steinolvi Humilis; horum filius erat Mar de Reykholis, qui
uxorem habuit Thorkatlam, filiam Hergilsis Hnapprassi (natibus
globosis). Eorum filius fuit Arius, qui tempestate delatus est ad
Hvitramannalandiam (Terram alborum hominum), quam nonnulli Irlandiam
Magnum appellant, qui in oceano occidentali jacet prope Vinlandiam
Bonam, sex dierum navigatione versus occidentem ab Irlanda.” On
Hvitramannaland, see _Antiquitates Americanæ_, pp. 162, 163, 183,
210, 212, 214, 447, 448, and De Costa’s _Pre-Columbian Discovery of
America_, pp. lii, 86, 63, 70, 87, 88.
[213] _Monastikon Britannicum_, pp. 131–2, 187–8. Cited by De Costa,
_Pre-Col. Dis. of Am._, p. xviii.
[214] On this subject see Brasseur de Bourbourg in the 16th vol. of the
sixth series of _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, pp. 263, 281–9; also
3d vol. of same work, sixth series, 1855, pp. 156–7, and in _New York
Tribune_ for November 21, 1855.
[215] _Découverte de l’Amérique par les Normands an Xᵉ siècle, par
Gabriel Gravier_, Paris, 1864, 4to.
[216] _America Not Discovered by Columbus_, by R. B. Anderson, Chicago,
1874, 16mo.
[217] Gravier, _Découverte de l’Amérique_, p. 235, quotes Dr. Schuck as
authority, _Société Royale des Antiquaires du Nord_, 1840–43, pp. 26–7;
also 1844, p. 181.
[218] Hakluyt’s _Principal Navigations, Voyages, etc._, vol. iii, pp.
1 _et seq._; see a good discussion of the Welsh claim in Bancroft’s
_Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 116 _et seq._
[219] “I think, therefore (as mentioned before), we do not at all
derogate from God’s greatness, nor in any ways dishonor the sacred
evidence given us by His servants, when we think that there were as
many Adams and Eves (every one knows these names to have an allegorical
sense), as we find different species of the human genus * * * * God
has created an original pair here as well as elsewhere.”—_Roman’s
Concise Nat. Hist. of E. and W. Florida_, p. 55, New York, 1775. “We
will candidly confess that we could never understand why philosophers
have been so pre-disposed to advocate the theory which peoples America
from the Eastern hemisphere. We think the supposition that the Red
man is a primitive type of a family of the human race, originally
planted in the Western Continent, presents the most natural solution
of the problem; and that the researches of physiologists, antiquaries,
philologists and philosophers in general, tend irresistibly to this
conclusion.”—_Norman’s Rambles in Yucatan_, p. 251, New York, 1843,
8vo. “My own belief is that, whatever was the origin of the different
tribes or families, the whole race of American Indians are native and
indigenous to the soil. There is no proof that they are either the
lost tribes of Israel or emigrants from any part of the old world.
They are a separate and as distinct a race as either the Ethiopian,
Caucasian, or Mongolian. In the absence of all proof to the contrary,
it seems to me to be both rational and consistent to assume that the
Creator placed the Red race on the American Continent as early as He
created the beasts and reptiles that inhabit it.”—_Swan’s North-west
Coast_, p. 206, New York, 1857. “Dieu a créé plusieurs couples d’êtres
humains différant les uns des autres intérieurement et extérieurement;
chacun de des couples a été placé dans le climat approprié à son
organisation.”—_Lord Kames in Warden’s Recherches_, p. 203.
[220] The reader who has not given special attention to this phase of
the subject, will be surprised to learn how generally received has
been the autochthonic theory among writers in this field. Mr. Bancroft
has given several quotations to illustrate this fact. See Morelet’s
_Voyage_, vol. i, p. 177, Paris, 1857; Evens’ _Our Sister Republic_, p.
332; Catlin’s _North American Indians_, vol. ii, p. 232. We prepared
extracts for insertion at this point, but the limit of our space will
not permit a full consideration of the question.
Mr. Bancroft says of the theory, “If we may judge by the recent
results of scientific investigation, [it] may eventually prove to
be scientifically correct. To express belief, however, in a theory
incapable of proof, appears to me idle. Indeed such belief is not
belief, it is merely acquiescing in or accepting a hypothesis or
tradition until the contrary is proved.”—_Native Races_, vol. v, pp.
130–1.
[221] _Crania Americana_, p. 260. Philadelphia, 1839. Folio.
[222] Dr. Morton gives the following comparative table showing the
internal capacity and dimensions of the crania of different races:
+-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+
| | | _Mean | | |
| | _Number | Internal | _Largest|_Smallest|
| RACES. | of Skulls._| Capacity | in the | in the |
| | |in cubic in._| Series._| Series._|
+-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+
|Caucasian | 52 | 87 | 109 | 75 |
|Mongolian | 10 | 83 | 93 | 69 |
|Malay | 18 | 81 | 89 | 64 |
|American | 147 | 82 | 100 | 60 |
|Ethiopian | 29 | 78 | 94 | 65 |
+-----------+------------+-------------+---------+---------+
[223] After presenting several arguments together with accompanying
proofs, Agassiz says: “This coincidence between the circumscription
of the races of man and the natural limits of different zoological
provinces characterized by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one
of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History
of Mankind, which the study of the geographical distribution of all
the organized beings now existing upon earth has disclosed to us. It
is a fact which cannot fail to throw light at some future time upon
the very origin of the differences existing among men, since it shows
that man’s physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of
animals, and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom
regarding the organic differences of its various types must also apply
to man. Now there are only two alternatives before us at present: 1st.
Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all the different
races with their peculiarities, in their present distribution, are
to be ascribed to subsequent changes—an assumption for which there
is no evidence whatever, and leads at once to the admission that the
diversity among animals is not an original one, nor their distribution
determined by a general plan established in the beginning of the
creation; or 2d, we must acknowledge that the diversity among animals
is a fact determined by the will of the Creator, and their geographical
distribution part of the general plan which unites all organized
beings into one great organic conception; whence it follows that what
are called human races down to their specializations as nations are
distinct primordial forms of the type of man.” * * * He concludes
in these words: “The laws which regulate the diversity of animals
and their distribution upon earth apply equally to man _within the
same limits and in the same degree_; and all our liberty and moral
responsibility, however spontaneous, are yet instinctively directed by
the All-wise and Omnipotent to fulfill the great harmonies established
in Nature.”—_Types of Mankind_, pp. lxxv and lxxvi.
[224] Agassiz in Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 78.
[225] _Ibid._
[226] _Manual of the Anatomy of the Vertebrated Animals_, p. 420. N.
Y., 1872.
[227] Note to Retzius’ article in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 264.
[228] As an illustration of complex classification, we have the
following: “From an old and well-filled European graveyard may be
selected specimens of _klimocephalic_ (slope or saddle skull),
_conocephalic_ (cone-skull), _brachycephalic_ (short-skull),
_dolichocephalic_ (long-skull), _platycephalic_ (flat-skull),
_leptocephalic_ (slim-skull), and other forms of crania equally worthy
of penta or hexa-syllabic Greek epithets.”—_Owen (R.)_, _Anatomy
of Vertebrates_, vol. ii, p. 570. London, 1866, 8vo. Foster, in
_Pre-Historic Rates of the United States_, in addition to the long
and short skulls, adopts also the _orthocephalic_ (erect-head), with
the longitudinal diameter 100; he assumes the transverse diameter for
dolichocephalæ to be less than 73; for orthocephalæ, to range between
74 and 79, and for brachycephalæ, 80 and upwards.
[229] _Pre-Historic Man_, chap. xx. 3d ed. London, 1876. 2 vols. 8vo.
[230] Dr. Wilson’s _American Cranial Type_ in _Smithsonian Report_,
1862, pp. 250 _et seq._ Dr. Wilson clearly shows that in one set there
is the characteristic Mongol auxiliary of prominent cheek bones,
while in the other the bones of the face are small and delicate. In
twenty-six measurements he finds proof that the Peruvians were distinct
from the Mexicans. Thirty-one dolichocephalic crania as compared with
twenty-two brachycephalic crania convince him of the error of Morton
and establish a diversity among the tribes of the North-east. He thinks
analogies are traceable between the Esquimaux and the type of elongated
skull; at all events he is satisfied that the form of the skull is as
little constant among the tribes of the new world as among those of the
old.
[231] This author (Dr. Morton), who has given us such numerous and
valuable facts, as well as the linguists who have studied these
American languages with indefatigable zeal, have arrived at the
conclusion that both race and language in the new world are unique. I
am obliged to avow that the facts advanced by Morton himself, and that
the study of numerous skulls with which he has enriched the museum of
Stockholm, have conducted me to a wholly different result. I can only
explain the fact by surmising that this remarkable man has allowed the
views of the naturalist to be warped by his linguistic researches. For,
if the form of the skull has anything to do with the question of races,
we cannot fail to see that it is scarcely possible to find anywhere
a more distinct distribution into dolichocephalæ and brachycephalæ
than in America. It would be only necessary, in order to show this, to
direct attention to certain of the delineations in his own work, where
the skull of the Peruvian infant (Pl. 2), the Lenni-Lenape (Pl. 32),
the Pawnee (Pl. 38), the Blackfoot (Pl. 40), etc., as clearly present
the dolichocephalic form as on the other hand his Natchez (Pl. 30 and
31) and the greater part of his representations of the skulls of Chile,
Peru, Mexico, Oregon, etc., are distinct types of the brachycephalic.
Conclusive, however, as the plates are, I should scarcely have ventured
to advance these remarks, if the rich series of our own collection, and
the numerous and excellent figures of Blumenbach, Sandifort, Van der
Hoeven, etc., did not declare in favor of my opinion. (_Retzius_ in
_Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 264.)
Latham, in _Natural History of the Varieties of Man_, p. 452,
says: “As to the conformation of the skull, a point where (with
great deference) I differ with the author of the excellent _Crania
Americana_, the Americans are said to be _brakhy_-kephalic, the Eskimo
_dolikho_-kephalic.” He quotes Morton’s tables to contradict his
(Morton’s) conclusions.
[232] “Tried by Dr. Morton’s own definitions and illustrations, the
Scioto Mound skull differs from the typical cranium in some of its
most characteristic features. Instead of the low, receding, unarched
forehead, it has a finely-arched frontal bone with corresponding
breadth of forehead. The wedge-shaped vertex is replaced by a
well-rounded arch curving equally throughout; and with the exception
of the flattened occiput, due to artificial though probably undesigned
compression in infancy, the cranium is a uniformly proportioned example
of an extreme brachycephalic skull.”—_Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p.
127.
[233] Chapter II, p. 127.
[234] Henry Gillman, _The Ancient Men of the Great Lakes_, in
_Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science_, 24th meeting, at Detroit, 1875, p. 317; also _American
Journal of Arts and Science_, 1874, vol. cvii, p. 1 _et seq._, and
_Sixth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 12–20.
[235] Opportunity did not permit to obtain the exact (absolute)
capacity.
[236] Artificially perforated.
[237] Very retreating frontal.
[238] Very protuberant occipital.
[239] Artificially perforated.
[240] With epactal bone 1.5 in length. It may be interesting to mention
that I find occasionally in our mounds a tendency to the formation of
the epactal bone by a sudden approach of the sutures immediately below
the apex of the occipital—a sort of transitional state.
[241] _Recent Explorations of Mounds near Davenport, Iowa_, in
_Proceedings of American Association for the Advancement of Science_,
24th meeting, 1875, pp. 297 _et seq._
[242] Dr. Farquharson considers that some of his measurements in inches
are scarcely accurate enough, and gives the following table in the
decimals of a metre:
MEASUREMENTS OF MOUND SKULLS; ALSO OF SIOUX SKULLS IN DECIMALS OF A
METRE.
FORAMINAL DISTANCE TAKEN WITH WYMAN’S INSTRUMENT.
A. _Horizontal Circumference._
B. _Long Diameter._
C. _Transverse Diameter._
D. _Vertical Diameter._
E. _Capacity in Cubic Centimetres._
F. _Foraminal Distance._
G. _Foraminal Ratio._
H. _Ratio of Diameter._
+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
|_No._| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | _Mounds._ |
+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
| 1 |.546|.200|.120|.140|1190| | |.600|Albany, Ill. |
| 2 |.483|.162|.128|.140|1190|.062|.382|.790|Albany, Ill. |
| 3 |.495|.174|.130|.135|1020|.077|.442|.752|Albany, Ill. |
| 7 |.508|.170|.140|.125| | | |.823|Albany, Ill. |
| 8 |.495|.175|.135|.140|1249|.065|.370|.771|Davenport, Mound No. 9.|
| 9 |.508|.171|.140|.140|1334|.062|.362|.818|Rock River, Ill. |
| 10 |.508|.167|.148|.140|1135|.070|.419|.886|Rock River, Ill. |
| 11 |.533|.180|.150|.145|1362| | |.833|Rock River, Ill. |
| 12 |.457|.167|.128|.140|1021| | |.766|Rock River, Ill. |
| 13 |.522|.185|.130|.150|1362|.089|.427|.702|Rock River, Ill. |
| 14 |.483|.171|.138|.140|1192|.079|.460|.807|Henry County, Ill. |
| 15 |.508|.185|.138|.145|1306|.081|.443|.745|Henry County, Ill. |
| 16 |.457|.170|.130|.140|1135|.078|.448|.764|Henry County, Ill. |
| 17 |.533|.185|.135|.146|1249|.072|.389|.703|Henry County, Ill. |
| 18 |.508|.180| |.140| | | | |Rock River, Ill. |
| 19 |.533|.196|.140|.140| | | |.704|Rock River, Ill. |
| 20 | |.200|.128| | | | |.640|Rock River, Ill. |
| 21 | |.180|.137| | | | |.761|Henry County, Ill. |
| 23 | |.178|.140|.140| |.073|.410|.730|Albany, Ill. |
| 24 | |.184|.139|.150| |.088|.478|.755|Rock River, Ill. |
| 26 | |.200| | | | | | |Shell Bed, Rock Island.|
| 27 |.482|.170|.125|.140| 936|.076|.388|.735|Albany, Ill. |
| 28 | |.177|.135|.140| | | |.762|Albany, Ill. |
| 29 |.507|.177|.130|.145|1137|.088|.440|.734|Albany, Ill. |
| +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
| |.503|.179|.134|.140|1188|.075|.432|.755|Mean. |
| +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
| | 18 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 22 |No. of skulls measured.|
+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
[243] Dr. Jones found skeletons six feet, and in one instance seven
feet in length. (_Antiquities of Tennessee_, pp. 44 and 53.)
[244] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 72; also note other similarities
on p. 119.
[245] _Ancient Men of the Great Lakes._ _Proceedings of the American
Association for Advancement of Science_, meeting of 1875, pp. 322–3.
[246] _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xx, pp. 145, 158, 165.
[247] The Aztecs are represented in our museum by three skulls found
in an ancient cemetery near Mexico, which was uncovered in digging
intrenchments to protect the Mexican capital against the armies of the
United States. They are remarkable for the shortness of their axis,
large flattened occiput, obliquely truncated behind, the height of the
semicircular line of the temples, the shortness and trapezoid form
of the parietal plane. They present an elevation or ridge along the
sagittal suture; the base of the skull is very short, the face slightly
prognathic, as among the Mongol Kalmucs. (Retzius in _Smithsonian
Report_, 1859, p. 268.)
[248] _Crania Americana_, p. 98.
[249] See Dr. Morton in _Nott & Gliddon_.
[250] _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xx.
[251] See especially _Eleventh Annual Report Peabody Museum_, pp.
294–304.
[252] _Geography_, book i, chap. ii, § 35, and book xi, chap, xi, § 7.
[253] _Natural History_, book vii, chap. iv.
[254] _De Situ Orbis_, lib. i, chap. xix, l. 78 (ed. 1782).
[255] _Description of a Deformed Fragmentary Skull found in an Ancient
Quarry-cave at Jerusalem_, by Dr. J. A. Meigs, _Transactions of
Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences_, 1859.
[256] We can no longer doubt, then, that this practice of giving an
artificial form to the skull has subsisted from a remote epoch among
the Oriental nations. As Thierry, moreover, pronounces it to be a
Mongol usage, I have submitted the question in the memoir before
spoken of, whether this fact does not speak in favor of an ancient
communication between the old and the new world? Such a communication
seems, indeed, to be now placed beyond doubt by the proofs which have
been accumulated from time to time, through the efforts of numerous
and zealous inquirers. It would seem likely that the usage in question
has been introduced by the Mongols into America, where it has become
diffused even among tribes not of the Mongol stock. (Retzius in
_Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 270; also the same author in _Arch.
des Sciences Naturelles_, Geneva, 1860; _Proceedings of American
Association for Advancement of Science_, 1867, and _Edinburgh Phil.
Journal_, new series, vol. vii.)
[257] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 286.
[258] _Essai sur les Deformations Artificielles du Crâne_, p. 74.
[259] _Crania Britannica_, chap. iv, p. 38.
[260] Retzius, _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, pp. 269–70.
[261] Prof. Wilson, _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 221, and Retzius in
the Reviews referred to in note 1, p. 180.
[262] J. B. Davis in _Crania Britannica_, decade iii.
[263] _Races of Man_ (Bohn), p. 45; Dr. Nott in _Types of Mankind_, p.
436; Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol ii, p. 221.
[264] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 291.
[265] Du Pratz’s _History of Louisiana_, vol. ii, p. 162.
[266] Adair’s _History of American Indians_, p. 284.
[267] On skull flattening, see Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol.
ii, chap. xxi. Prof. Jones’ _Antiquities of Tennessee, Smithsonian
Contributions_, 1876, pp. 118 _et seq._ Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 181.
Catlin’s _North American Indians_, vol. ii, p. 40 and other places.
Townsend’s _Tour to the Columbia River_, pp. 178 _et seq._ Bancroft’s
_Native Races_ as follows: I, 151, 158, 180, 210, 226–8, 256–7; Among
the Mexicans, I, 651; II, 281; Central Americans, I, 717, 754; II,
681–2, 731–2, 802; IV, 304, and the accompanying literary apparatus.
[268] “This is certainly not a common disease now, and although rare,
the instances of cure by bony anchylosis (the only way in which a
true cure can take place), are even yet more rare. Nelaton, in his
_Pathologie Chirurgicale_, has only been able to note twenty-five
recorded cases of such an event. Now, as the space of one year is the
shortest possible time allowed by authorities for such a cure to take
place, and as during all this time the parts must be kept absolutely
at rest, and the person so afflicted being entirely helpless, the
inference is a strong one that these people were not in a savage state.
They must necessarily have been in such a state, in the progress of
advancement in civilization, as to be possessed of an accumulation
of food, the requisite leisure of persons nursing the sick, and of
dwellings sufficiently comfortable to protect them from inclemency of
the weather in this latitude; without those elements of civilization
those persons would inevitably have perished.”—_Dr. Farquharson in
Proceedings of Am. Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxiv,
p. 314.
[269] Prof. Jones, _Antiquities of Tennessee_, gives a good summary of
the discussion from the first writers to the present time, p. 65 _et
seq._
[270] “This flattening of the leg-bone was of a degree unheard of—I
might almost say undreamt of—in any other part of this country or
of the world. In many of the more extreme cases of those flattened
tibiæ with sabre-like curvature which I had exhumed at the Rouge, the
transverse diameter was only 0.48 of the antero-posterior, less than
half, while in that most marked and isolated case recorded by Broca,
from the cave at Cro-Magnon, France, it was 0.60. In the chimpanzee
and gorilla the compression is 0.67. Shortly afterward, even this
extreme degree of compression was cast in the shade by my bringing
to light from a mound on the Detroit River, rich in relics, among a
number of the flattened tibiæ, two specimens of this bone in which the
latitudinal indices were respectively 0.42 and 0.40.”—_Henry Gillman_
in _Proceedings American Association for Advancement of Science_, vol.
xxiv, pp. 316–17. _The Sixth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of
Archæology and Ethnology, Dr. Jeffries Wyman._ _The American Journal
of Arts and Sciences_, 3d series, vol. vii, January 1874. _Gillman_ in
_Smithsonian Report for 1873_, and _Dr. Farquharson_ in _Proceedings of
A. A. A. S._, vol. xxiv, p. 313. 1875.
[271] Gillman in _American Naturalist_ for August, 1875, and
_Proceedings of A. A. A. Science_, 1875, p. 327.
[272] Prof. Wilson has pathetically described the disinterment of
a Peruvian family, consisting of the father, mother and child, and
has especially dwelt upon the color and qualities of the hair as
distinguishing them from the Red Indians. (_Pre-Historic Man_, pp. 440
_et seq._)
[273] _Commentarios Reales_, book v, chap. xxix; book iii, chap. xx.
[274] Haywood’s _Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee_, p. 191.
[275] Haywood, _op. cit._, pp. 163–6, 169, 100, 148–9, 338–9. On the
mummies of Lexington, Kentucky, see Atwater’s _Archæologia Americana_,
p. 318. Mammoth Cave, p. 359, _et passim_.
[276] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 5.
[277] Squier and Davis’ _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley_,
pp. 243 _et seq._ Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, pp. 365 _et
seq._ Charles Rau, _Smithsonian Contributions No. 287_, 1876, pp. 84,
55. Prof. Joseph Jones’ _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_, _passim_,
_Smithsonian Contributions_, No. 259.
[278] Bryant’s _History of United States_, vol. i, chap. ii.
[279] Prichard, _Researches into the Physical Hist. of Mankind_, 4th
ed., 1841, vol. i, p. 269, after reviewing the question of the unity of
the American race, remarks: “It will be easy to prove that the American
races, instead of displaying a uniformity of color in all climates,
show nearly as great a variety in this respect as the nations of the
old continent; that there are among them white races with a florid
complexion inhabiting temperate regions, and tribes black or of very
dark hue in low and inter-tropical countries; that their stature,
figure and countenances are almost equally diversified. Of these facts
I shall collect sufficient evidence when I proceed to the ethnography
of the American nations.” He fulfils this promise ably enough in vol.
v, pp. 289, 374, 542, and other places. We respectfully refer the
reader to the facts there accumulated.
[280] Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 189.
[281] See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 262, note, where reference is made to
Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 32, 45, 97, 103.
[282] _The American Migration_, by Frederick von Hellwald. _Smithsonian
Report_ for 1866, pp. 329, 330.
[283] Jean Lamarck, _Philosophic Zoologique_, etc., Paris, 1809, 2
vols., and _Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres_, 1815.
[284] See Hæckel, _History of Creation_, vol. ii, pp. 255–6, and
Professor Huxley’s reference to the genus _Equus_ (embracing the horse,
ass and zebra from specimens collected by Prof. Marsh). New York
Lectures, September, 1876.
[285] Dr. McCosh in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 88;
Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 192 (New York ed.).
[286] _Smithsonian Report_, 1866.
[287] _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 188. Also, “The Simiadæ then
branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys,
and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of
the universe, proceeded.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 204. Again, “We
thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished
with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits and an
inhabitant of the old world.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. ii, p. 372.
[288] _History of Creation_, (N. Y. ed.), 1876, vol. ii, p. 318.
[289] “Nowhere can lines of demarcation be so clearly drawn, so
imperceptibly do the families of mankind blend at their circumferences.
The various classifications which have been attempted are so many
proofs of unity of origin; and their confliction shows the fallacy of
the theory of diversity. * * * * We cannot admit that mankind can have
diversity of origin while so united by one great plan. If a species
or variety of the _genus homo_ sprang up in Europe and another in
America by agency of conditions existing in those localities, it would
be beyond probability that they should both be formed on the same
plan.”—_H. Tuttle’s Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man Scientifically
Considered_, pp. 34–5. Boston, 1866, 12mo.
[290] Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 224, and Nilsson’s _The
Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia_, Lubbock’s trans., 1868, p. 104.
[291] See _Early History of Fire_, by Prof. N. Joly of the Faculty of
Toulouse in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 17; also
Darwin, as above cited.
[292] Waitz’s _Anthropology_, Eng. trans., pp. 226–28.
[293] Pallas was the first to show the fallacy of the theory in _Act.
Académie St. Petersburg_, 1780, Part II, p. 69; followed by Rudolphi
in his _Beyträge zur Anthropologia_, 1812, and especially by Godron,
_De l’Espèce_, 1859, vol. ii, p. 246 _et seq._; see Darwin’s _Descent_,
vol. i, p. 232.
[294] Nott and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races_; Duke of Argyll’s _Primeval
Man_, p. 99.
[295] _Primeval Man_, p. 100.
[296] “We ourselves, when visiting the famous cavern of Abou Simbel,
were far from finding all that the writings of certain anthropologists
and partisans of Egyptian art, such as Gliddon, Nott, etc., had
promised us. Doubtless one can perfectly distinguish certain types,
that is indisputable; but to desire to find _a people_ in each
portrait—Scythians, Arabs, Philistines, Lydians, Kurds, Hindoos, Jews,
Chinese, Tyrians, Pelasgians, Ionians, etc.—is it not to give too great
an influence to the Egyptian artists, who were copyists without skill,
and but clumsy inventors?”—_Pouchet’s Plurality of the Human Race_,
Eng. trans., p. 50. London, 1864.
[297] Duke of Argyll’s _Primeval Man_, p. 101.
[298] Darwin’s _Variation of Animals under Domestication_, vol. ii, pp.
227–335, and many places.
[299] Harlan’s _Medical Researches_, p. 532, and _Quatrefanges_ (_Unité
de l’Espèce Humaine_, 1861, p. 128), cited by Darwin, _Descent_, vol.
i, p. 237.
[300] _Descent_, vol. i, p. 233, Bradford (A. W.) discusses the origin
of color and other racial peculiarities, and attributes to the tendency
of a species to vary, and cites the production of Albinoes, Xanthous,
and Sedigidi or six-fingered individuals. “It must be admitted,” he
says, “that this theory is sufficiently supported by an irrefragable
mass of testimony to establish the _original unity_ of the human race,
and to indicate that varieties of mankind are descended from the same
primitive stock.”—_American Antiquities_, pp. 238–9.
[301] See instances in Darwin’s _Descent_, vol. i, p. 234; Nott
and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 68, and especially Pouchet’s
_Plurality of the Human Race_ (trans.), p. 60.
[302] “I doubt not that there will be found continuous and
uninterrupted causes which shall explain all the diversities of the
different branches of the human family without the necessity of
resorting to independent creations.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p.
355.
[303] See an excellent treatment of this subject by the Duke of Argyll,
_Primeval Man_, pp. 94 _et seq._
[304] “When speaking in a former work of the distinct races of mankind,
I remarked that if all the leading varieties of the human family
sprang originally from a single pair (a doctrine to which then, as
now, I could see no valid objection), a much greater lapse of time
was required for the slow and gradual formation of such races as the
Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro, than was embraced in any of the
popular systems of chronology.”—_Sir Charles Lyell’s Antiquity of Man_,
p. 385. Dr. J. P. Thompson says: “For such works [alluding to Babel]
and especially for founding such an empire as was ancient Egypt, there
was need of centuries for the growth of a population in numbers and
resources, equal to the gigantic structures that crown the banks of
the Nile. The less than two centuries between Archbishop Usher’s date
of the cessation of the flood, and Piazzi Smith’s calculation of the
date of the great pyramid, was far too short an interval for results
upon a scale so magnificent. * * * Either then we must place the flood
much farther back upon the chronological scale, or must admit not only
that it was not universal in territorial extent, which is altogether
probable, but that it was not universal in the destruction of mankind,
which would seem to contradict both the letter and the spirit of the
sacred record.”—_Man in Genesis and Geology_, p. 100. New York, 1870.
12mo.
[305] See Humboldt’s _Essai Polit._, vol. i, p. 79, Paris, 1811. He
considers not only the Red Indians, but the Toltecs and Aztecs, to be
of Asiatic Origin. See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Nat. Civil. Ant._,
tom. i, p. 27. McCullough’s _Researches_, _Phil. and Ant._, pp. 175
_et seq._ Crowe, _The Gospel in Central America_, p. 61. Bradford,
_American Antiquities_, in chapter xii, gives his reasons for declaring
the Americans to have been a “primitive and cultivated branch of the
human family.” Mayer (Brantz) in _Mexico as it Was_, p. 260, expresses
his agreement with the opinion entertained by Bradford. Carver, in
_Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_, repeats the
opinion of Charlevoix, that the Americans are of old world origin.
Tylor, _Anahuac_, London, 1861, p. 104, says: “On the whole, the most
probable view of the origin of the Mexican tribes seems to be the one
ordinarily held, that they really came from the old world, bringing
with them several legends, evidently the same as the histories recorded
in the book of Genesis.”
[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.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NORTH AMERICANS OF
ANTIQUITY ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the
United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the
Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work
on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format
other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain
Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
provided that:
* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation."
* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm
works.
* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
