Chapter XXXVIII: Appendix: I (11)

[673] Wilson’s _Prehist. Man_, ii. 98; _Amer. Asso. Adv. Science, Proc._, 1856, p. 214; _Séance annuelle de la Soc. des Antiq. du Nord_, May 14, 1859; H. W. Haynes in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Jan., 1888, p. 56. The Monhegan inscription, as examined by the late C. W. Tuttle and J. Wingate Thornton, was held to be natural markings (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, ii. 308; _Pulpit of the Revolution_, 410). Charles Rau cites a striking instance of the way in which the lively imagination of Finn Magnusen has misled him in interpreting weather cracks on a rock in Sweden (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, ii. 83).

[674] _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, 1854, p. 185.

[675] _Antiquitates Americanæ_, 335, 371, 401; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1868, p. 13; W. J. Miller’s _Wampanoag Indians_.

[676] Cf. list of inscribed rocks in the _Proceedings_ (vol. ii.) of the Davenport Acad. of Natural Sciences.

[677] The stone with its inscription early attracted attention, but Danforth’s drawing of 1680 is the earliest known. Cotton Mather, in a dedicatory epistle to Sir Henry Ashurst, prefixed to his _Wonderful Works of God commemorated_ (Boston, 1690), gave a cut of a part of the inscription; and he communicated an account with a drawing of the inscription to the Royal Society in 1712, which appears in their _Philosophical Transactions_. Dr. Isaac Greenwood sent another draft to the Society of Antiquaries in London in 1730, and their _Transactions_ in 1732 has this of Greenwood. In 1768 Professor Stephen Sewall of Cambridge made a copy of the natural size, which was sent in 1774 by Professor James Winthrop to the Royal Society. Dr. Stiles says that Sewall sent it to Gebelin, of the French Academy, whose members judged them to be Punic characters. Stiles himself, in 1783, in an election sermon delivered at Hartford, spoke of “the visit by the Phœnicians, who charged the Dighton Rock and other rocks in Narragansett Bay with Punic inscriptions remaining to this day, which last I myself have repeatedly seen and taken off at large.” Cf. Thornton’s _Pulpit of the Revolution_, p. 410. The _Archæologia_ (London, viii. for 1786) gave various drawings, with a paper by the Rev. Michael Lort and some notes by Charles Vallancey, in which the opinion was expressed that the inscription was the work of a people from Siberia, driven south by hordes of Tartars. Professor Winthrop in 1788 filled the marks, as he understood them, with printer’s ink, and in this way took an actual impression of the inscription. His copy was engraved in the _Memoirs of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences_ (vol. ii. for 1793). It was this copy by Winthrop which Washington in 1789 saw at Cambridge, when he pronounced the inscription as similar to those made by the Indians, which he had been accustomed to see in the western country during his life as a surveyor. Cf. _Belknap Papers, Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, ii. 76, 77, 81; _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, x. 114. In 1789 there was also presented to the Academy a copy made by Joseph Gooding under the direction of Francis Baylies (_Belknap Papers_, ii. 160). In the third volume of the Academy’s _Memoirs_ there are papers on the inscription by John Davis and Edward A. Kendall; Davis (1807) thinking it a representation of an Indian deer hunt, and Kendall later, in his _Travels_ (vol. ii. 1809), assigns it to the Indians. This description is copied in Barber’s _Historical Collections of Mass._ (p. 117). In 1812 a drawing was made by Job Gardner, and in 1825 there was further discussion in the _Mémoires de la Société de Géographie de Paris_, and in the _Hist. of New York_ by Yates and Moulton. In 1831 there was a cut in Ira Hill’s _Antiquities of America explained_ (Hagerstown, Md.) This was in effect the history of the interest in the rock up to the appearance of Rafn’s _Antiquitates Americanæ_, in which for the first time the inscription was represented as being the work of the Northmen. This belief is now shared by few, if any, temperate students. The exuberant Anderson thinks that the rock removes all doubt of the Northmen discovery (_America not discovered by Columbus_, pp. 21, 23, 83). The credulous Gravier has not a doubt. Cf. his _Notice sur le roc de Dighton et le séjour des Scandinaves en Amérique au commencement du XI^e siècle_ (Nancy, 1875), reprinted from the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, i. 166, giving Rafn’s drawing. The Rev. J. P. Bodfish accepts its evidence in the _Proc. Second Pub. Meeting U. S. Cath. Hist. Soc._ (N. Y., 1886).

[678] _Pre-Columbian Discovery of America_, p. lvii. The _Brinley Catalogue_, iii. 5378, gives Dammartin’s _Explification de la Pierre de Taunston_ (Paris? 1840-50) as finding in the inscription an astronomical theme by some nation foreign to America. Buckingham Smith believed it to be a Roman Catholic invocation, around which the Indians later put their symbols (_Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Apr. 29, 1863, p. 32). For discussions more or less extensive see Laing’s _Heimskringla_, i. 175; Haven in _Smithsonian Contributions_, 1856, viii. 133, in a paper on the “Archæology of the United States;” Charles Rau in _Mag. Amer. Hist._, Feb., 1878; Apr., 1879; and in _Amer. Antiquarian_, i. 38; Daniel Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. 97; J. R. Bartlett in _Rhode Island Hist. Soc. Proc._, 1872-73, p. 70; Haven and others in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1864, and Oct., 1867; H. H. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, v. 74; Drake’s _N. E. Coast; North American Rev._, 1874; _Amer. Biblical Repository_, July, 1839; _Historical Mag._, Dec., 1859, and March, 1869; Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_, iii.; H. W. Williams’s transl. of Humboldt’s _Travels_, i. 157, etc.

[679] Schoolcraft wavered in his opinion. (Cf. Haven, 133.) He showed Gooding’s drawing to an Algonkin chief, who found in it a record of a battle of the Indians, except that some figures near the centre did not belong to it, and these Schoolcraft thought might be runic, as De Costa has later suggested; but in 1853 Schoolcraft made no reservation in pronouncing it entirely Indian (_Indian Tribes_, i. 112; iv. 120; pl. 14). Wilson (_Prehist. Man_, ii., ch. 19) is severe on Schoolcraft. On the general character of Indian rock inscriptions,—some of which in the delineations accompanying these accounts closely resemble the Dighton Rock,—see Mallery in the _Bureau of Ethnology, Fourth Report_, p. 19; Lieut. A. M. Wheeler’s Report on Indian tribes in _Pacific Rail Road Reports_, ii.; J. G. Bruff on those of Green River in the Sierra Nevada, in _Smithsonian Rept._ (1872); _American Antiquarian_, iv. 259; vi. 119; _Western Reserve Hist. Soc. Tracts_, nos. 42, 44, 52, 53, 56; T. Ewbank’s _No. Amer. Rock Writing_ (Morrisania, 1866); Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 10; Tylor’s _Early Hist. Mankind_; Dr. Richard Andree’s _Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche_ (Stuttgard, 1878). It is Mallery’s opinion that no “considerable information of value in an historical point of view will be obtained directly from the interpretations of the Pictographs in North America.”

[680] Palfrey, i. p. 57; Higginson’s _Larger Hist._, 44; Gay’s _Pop. Hist._, i. 59, 60; Laing’s _Heimskringla_, i. 183; Charles T. Brooks’s _Controversy touching the old stone mill in Newport_ (Newport, 1851); Peterson’s _Rhode Island_; Drake’s _New England Coast_; Schoolcraft’s _Indian Tribes_, iv. 120; Bishop’s _Amer. Manufactures_, i. 118; C. S. Pierce in _Science_, iv. 512, who endeavored by measurement to get at what was the unit of measure used,—an effort not very successful. Cf. references in _Poole’s Index_, p. 913.

Gaffarel accepts the Rafn view in his _Etudes sur la rapports_, etc., 282, as does Gravier in his _Normands sur la route_, p. 168; and De Costa (_Pre-Columbian Disc._, p. lviii) intimates that “all is in a measure doubtful.” R. G. Hatfield (_Scribner’s Monthly_, Mar., 1879) in an illustrated paper undertook to show by comparison with Scandinavian building that what is now standing is but the central part of a Vinland baptistery, and that the projection which supported the radiating roof timbers is still to be seen. This paper was answered by George C. Mason (_Mag. Amer. Hist._, iii. 541, Sept., 1879, with other remarks in the _Amer. Architect_, Oct. 4, 1879), who rehearsed the views of the local antiquaries as to its connection with Gov. Arnold. Cf. _Reminiscences of Newport_, by Geo. C. Mason, 1884.

[681] _Hist. Mag._, Apr., 1862, p. 123; _N. E. Hist. Geneal. Reg._, 1865, p. 372; Abner Morse’s _Traces of the Ancient Northmen in America_ (Aug., 1861), with a _Supplement_ (Boston, 1887).

[682] _Mémoires de la Soc. roy. des Antiq. du Nord_, 1843; _New Jersey Hist. Soc. Proc._, vi.; Stone’s _Brant_, ii. 593-94; Schoolcraft’s _Ind. Tribes_, i. 127; _Smithsonian Rept._, 1883, p. 902; Dr. Kneeland in _Peabody Mus. Repts._, no. 20, p. 543. The skeleton was destroyed by fire about 1843.

[683] Dawkins in his _Cave Hunters_ accounts them survivors of the cave dwellers of Europe. Cf. Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_. A. R. Grote (_Amer. Naturalist_, Apr., 1877) holds them to be the survivors of the palæolithic man.

[684] E. Beauvois’ _Les Skroelings, Ancêtres des Esquimaux_ (Paris, 1879); B. F. DeCosta in _Pop. Science Monthly_, Nov., 1884; A. S. Packard on their former range southward, in the _American Naturalist_, xix. 471, 553, and his paper on the Eskimos of Labrador, in _Appleton’s Journal_, Dec. 9, 1871 (reprinted in Beach’s _Indian Miscellany_, Albany, 1877). Humboldt holds them to have been driven across America to Europe (_Views of Nature_, Bohn’s ed., 123). Ethnologists are not wholly agreed as to the course of their migrations. The material for the ethnological study of the Eskimos must be looked for in the narratives of the Arctic voyagers, like Scoresby, Parry, Ross, O’Reilly, Kane, C. F. Hall, and the rest; in the accounts by the missionaries like Egede, Crantz, and others; by students of ethnology, like Lubbock (_Prehist. Times_, ch. 14); Prichard (_Researches_, v. 367); Waitz (_Amerikaner_, i. 300); the Abbé Morillot (_Mythologie et légendes des Esquimaux du Groenland in the Actes de la Soc. Philologique_ (Paris, 1875), vol. iv.); Morgan (_Systems of Consanguinity_, 267), who excludes them from his Ganowanian family; Irving C. Rosse on the northern inhabitants (_Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, 1883, p. 163); Ludwig Kumlien in his _Contributions to the natural history of Arctic America_, made in connection with the Howgate polar expedition, 1877-78, in _Bull. of the U. S. Naval Museum_ (Washington, 1879), no. 15; and his paper in the _Smithsonian Report_ (1878). There are several helpful papers in the _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_ (London), vol. i., by Richard King, on their intellectual character; vol. iv. by P. C. Sutherland; vol. vii. by John Rae on their migrations, and W. H. Flower on their skulls; vol. ix. by W. J. Sollars on their bone implements. For other references see Bancroft, _Native Races_, i. 41, 138; _Poole’s Index_, p. 424, and _Supplement_, p. 146.

[685] This evidence is of course rather indicative of a geological antiquity not to be associated with the age of the Northmen. Cf. Murray’s _Distribution of Animals_, 128; Howarth’s _Mammoth and Flood_, 285.

[686] Rink, born in 1819 in Copenhagen, spent much of the interval from 1853 to 1872 in Greenland. Pilling (_Bibl. Eskimo Language_, p. 80) gives the best account of Rink’s publications. His principal book is _Grönland geographisch und statistisch beschrieben_ (Stuttgart, 1860). The English reader has access to his _Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo_, translated by Rink himself, and edited by Dr. Robert Brown (London, 1875); to _Danish Greenland, its people and its products_, ed. by Dr. Brown (London, 1877). Rink says of this work that in its English dress it must be considered a new book. He also published _The Eskimo tribes; their distribution and characteristics, especially in regard to language. With a comparative vocabulary_ (Copenhagen, etc., 1887). He also considered their dialects as divulging the relationship of tribes in the _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_ (xv. 239); and in the same journal (1872, p. 104) he has written of their descent. Rink also furnished to the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_, a paper on the traditions of Greenland (Nancy, 1875, ii. 181), and (Luxembourg, 1877, ii. 327) another on “L’habitat primitif des Esquimaux.”

Dr. Brown has also considered the “Origin of the Eskimo” in the _Archæological Review_ (1888), no. 4.

[687] _Alaska and its Resources_, p. 374; and in _Contributions to Amer. Ethnology_, i. 93.

[688] “On the origin and migrations of the Greenland Esquimaux” in the _Journal Royal Geog. Soc._, 1865; “The Arctic highlanders” in the _Lond. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._ (1866), iv. 125, and in _Arctic Geography and Ethnology_ (London, 1875), published by the Royal Geog. Society.

[689] _American Antiquarian_, Jan., 1888. Cf. other papers by him in the _Proc. Roy. Soc. of Canada_, vol. v. “A year among the Eskimos” in the _Journal Amer. Geog. Soc._, 1887, xix. p. 383; “Reise in Baffinland” in the proceedings of the Berlin Gesellschaft für Erdkunde (1885). Cf. Pilling’s Eskimo Bibliog., p. 12; and for linguistic evidences of tribal differences, pp. 69-72, 81-82. Cf. also H. H. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, iii. 574, and Lucien Adam’s “En quoi la langue Esquimaude, deffère-t-elle grammaticalement des autres langues de l’Amérique du Nord?” in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Amér._ (Copenhagen), p. 337.

Anton von Etzel’s _Grönland, geographisch und statistisch beschrieben aus Dänischen Quellschriften_ (Stuttgart, 1860) goes cursorily over the early history, and describes the Eskimos. Cf. F. Schwatka in _Amer. Magazine_, Aug., 1888.

[690] There is an easy way of tracing these accounts in Joel A. Allen’s _List of Works and Papers relating to the mammalian orders of Cete and Sirenia_, extracted from the _Bulletin of Hayden’s U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey_ (Washington, 1882). It is necessary to bear in mind that Spitzbergen is often called Greenland in these accounts.

[691] His book, _Det gamle Grönlands nye Perlustration_, etc., was first published at Copenhagen in 1729. Pilling (_Bibliog. of the Eskimo language_, p. 26) was able to find only a single copy of this book, that in the British Museum. Muller (_Books on America_, Amsterdam, 1872, no. 648) describes a copy. This first edition escaped the notice of J. A. Allen, whose list is very carefully prepared (nos. 217, 220, 226, 230, 235). There were two German editions of this original form of the book, Frankfort, 1730, and Hamburg, 1740, according to the _Carter-Brown Catalogue_ (ii. 448, 647), but Pilling gives only the first. The 1729 edition was enlarged in the Copenhagen edition of 1741, which has a map, “Gronlandia Antiqua,” showing the east colony and west colony, respectively, east and west of Cape Farewell. This edition is the basis of the various translations: In German, Copenhagen, 1742, using the plates of the 1741 ed.; Berlin, 1763. In Dutch, Delft, 1746. In French, Copenhagen, 1763. In English, London, 1745; abstracted in the _Philosoph. Transactions Royal Soc._ (1744), xlii. no. 47; and again, London (1818), with an historical introduction based on Torfæus and La Peyrère. Crantz epitomizes Egede’s career in Greenland.

The bibliography in Sabin’s _Dictionary_ (vi. 22,018, etc.) confounds the Greenland journal (1770-78) of Hans Egede’s grandson, Hans Egede Saabye (b. 1746; d. 1817), with the work of the grandfather. This journal is of importance as regards the Eskimos and the missions among them. There is an English version: _Greenland: extracts from a journal kept in 1770 to 1778. Prefixed an introduction; illus. by chart of Greenland, by G. Fries. Transl. from the German_ _[by H. E. Lloyd]_ (London, 1818). The map follows that of the son of Hans, Paul Egede, whose _Nachrichten von Grönland aus einem Tagebuche von Bischof Paul Egede_ (Copenhagen, 1790) must also be kept distinct. Pilling’s _Bibliog. of the Eskimo language_ affords the best guide.

[692] An English translation by Macdougall was published in London in 1837 (Pilling, p. 38; Field, no. 619). A French version of Graah’s introduction with notes by M. de la Roquette was published in 1835. Cf. _Journal Royal Geog. Soc._, i. 247. After Graah’s publication Rafn placed the Osterbygden on the west coast in his map. Graah’s report (1830) is in French in the _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de Paris_, 1830.

[693] On the present scant, if not absence of, population on the east coast of Greenland, see J. D. Whitney’s _Climatic Changes of later geological times_ (_Mus. of Comp. Zoöl. Mem._, vii. p. 303, Cambridge, 1882).

[694] The changes in opinion respecting the sites of the colonies and the successive explorations are followed in the _Compte Rendu, Congrès des Américanistes_ by Steenstrup (p. 114) and by Valdemar-Schmidt, “Sur les Voyages des Danois au Groenland” (195, 205, with references). Cf. on these lost colonies and the search for them _Westminster Review_, xxvii. 139; _Harper’s Monthly_, xliv. 65 (by I. I. Hayes); _Lippincott’s Mag._, Aug., 1878; _Amer. Church Rev._, xxi. 338; and in the general histories, La Peyrère (Dutch transl., Amsterdam, 1678); Crantz (Eng. transl., 1767, p. 272); Egede (Eng. ed., 1818, introd.); and Rink’s _Danish Greenland_, ch. 1.

[695] The original of Bardsen’s account has disappeared, but Rafn puts it in Latin, translating from an early copy found in the Faröe Islands (_Antiquitates Américanæ_, p. 300). Purchas gives it in English, from a copy which had belonged to Hudson, being translated from a Dutch version which Hudson had borrowed, the Dutch being rendered by Barentz from a German version. Major also prints it in _Voyages of the Zeni_. He recognizes in Bardsen’s “Gunnbiorn’s Skerries” the island which is marked in Ruysch’s map (1507) as blown up in 1456 (see Vol. III. p. 9).

[696] Hakluyt, however, prints some pertinent verses by Meredith, a Welsh bard, in 1477.

[697] _Murphy Catal._, no. 1489; Sabin, x. p. 322; _Carter-Brown Catal._ for eds. of 1584, 1697, 1702, 1774, 1811, 1832, etc.

[698] In the seventeenth century there were a variety of symptoms of the English eagerness to get the claims of Madoc substantiated, as in Sir Richard Hawkins’s _Observations_ (Hakluyt Soc., 1847), and James Howell’s _Familiar Letters_ (London, 1645). Belknap (_Amer. Biog._, 1794, i. p. 58) takes this view of Hakluyt’s purpose; but Pinkerton, _Voyages_, 1812, xii. 157, thinks such a charge an aspersion. The subject was mentioned with some particularity or incidentally by Purchas, Abbott (_Brief Description_, London, 1620, 1634, 1677), Smith (_Virginia_), and Fox (_North-West Fox_). Sir Thomas Herbert in his _Relation of some Travaile into Africa and Asia_ (London, 1634) tracks Madoc to Newfoundland, and he also found Cymric words in Mexico, which assured him in his search for further proofs (Bohn’s _Lowndes_, p. 1049; Carter-Brown, ii. 413, 1166).

The _Nieuwe en onbekende Weereld_ of Montanus (Amsterdam, 1671) made the story more familiar. It necessarily entered into the discussions of the learned men who, in the seventeenth century, were busied with the question of the origin of the Americans, as in De Laet’s _Notæ ad dissertationem Hugonis Grotii_ (Paris, 1643), who is inclined to believe the story, as is Hornius in his _De Originibus Americaniis_ (1652).

[699] Cf. Catlin’s _No. Amer. Indians_, i. 207; ii. 259, 262.

[700] _Gentleman’s Magazine_. It is reprinted in H. H. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, v. 119, and in Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, 286. Cf. John Paul Marana, Letters writ by a Turkish Spy, 1691, and later. The story had been told in _The British Sailors’ Directory_ in 1739 (Carter-Brown, iii. 599).

[701] Warden’s _Recherches_, p. 157; Amos Stoddard’s _Sketches of Louisiana_ (Philad., 1812), ch. 17, and _Philad. Med. and Physical Journal_, 1805; with views _pro_ and _con_ by Harry Toulmin and B. S. Barton.

[702] The book was reprinted by Sabin, N. Y., 1865, with an introduction by Horatio Gates Jones.

[703] _An inquiry into the truth of the tradition concerning the discovery of America by Prince Madog_ (Lond., 1791), and _Further Observations ... containing the account given by General Bowles, the Creek or Cherokee Indian, lately in London, and by several others, of a Welsh tribe of Indians now living in the western parts of North America_ (Lond., 1792,—Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._, nos. 1664-65). Carey’s _American Museum_ (April, May, 1792), xi. 152, etc., gave extracts from Williams.

[704] _The Welsh Indians, or a collection of papers respecting a people whose ancestors emigrated from Wales to America with Prince Madoc, and who are now said to inhabit a beautiful country on the west side of the Mississippi_ (London, 1797). He finds these conditions in the Padoucas. Goodson, _Straits of Anian_ (Portsmouth, 1793), p. 71, makes Padoucahs out of “Madogwys”!

[705] _Chambers’ Journal_, vi. 411, mentioning the Asguaws.

[706] _Letter on the Manners, Customs, and Condition of the No. Amer. Indians_ (N. Y., 1842).

[707] He convinced, for instance, Fontaine in his _How the World was Peopled_, p. 142.

[708] On the variety of complexion among the Indians, see Short’s _No. Amer. of Antiq._, p. 189; McCulloh’s _Researches_; Haven, _Archæol. U. S._, 48; Morton in _Schoolcraft_, ii. 320; _Ethnolog. Journal_, London, July, 1848; App. 1849, commenting on Morton.

[709] Pilling, _Bibliog. of Siouan languages_ (Washington, 1887, p. 48), enumerates the authorities on the Mandan tongue. The tribe is now extinct. Cf. Morgan’s _Systems of Consanguinity_, p. 181.

[710] See also _Smithsonian Report_, 1885, Part ii. pp. 80, 271, 349, 449. Ruxton in _Life in the Far West_ (N. Y., 1846) found Welsh traces in the speech of the Mowquas, and S. Y. McMaster in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1865, heard Welsh sounds among the Navajos.

[711] Filson in his _Kentucke_ has also pointed out this possibility.

[712] The bibliography of the subject can be followed in Watson’s list, already referred to, and in that in the _Amer. Bibliopolist_, Feb., 1869. A few additional references may help complete these lists: Stephens’s _Literature of the Cymry_, ch. 2; the Abbé Domenech’s _Seven Years in the Great Desert of America_; Tytler’s _Progress of Discovery_; Moosmüller’s _Europäer in Amerika vor Columbus_ (Regensburg, 1879, ch. 21); Gaffarel’s _Rapport_ etc., p. 216; _Analytical Mag._, ii. 409; _Atlantic Monthly,_ xxxvii. 305; _No. Am. Rev._ (by E. E. Hale), lxxxv. 305; _Antiquary_, iv. 65; _Southern Presbyterian Rev._, Jan., April, 1878; _Notes and Queries_, index.

[713] This Ptolemy map is reproduced in Gravier’s _Les Normands sur la route_, etc., 6th part, ch. 1; and in Nordenskjöld’s _Studien und Forschungen_ (Leipzig, 1805), p. 25. The Ptolemy of 1562 has the same plate.

[714] J. R. Forster’s _Discoveries in the Northern Regions_. His confidence was shared by Eggers (1794) in his _True Site of Old East Greenland_ (Kiel), who doubts, however, if the descriptions of Estotiland apply to America. It was held to be a confirmation of the chart that both the east and west Greenland colonies were on the side of Davis’s Straits.

[715] Buache reproduced the map, and read in 1784, before the Academy of Inscriptions in Paris, his _Mémoire sur la Frisland_, which was printed by the Academy in 1787, p. 430.

[716] _Dissertazione intorno ai viaggi e scoperte settentrionali di Nicolo e Antonio Fratelli Zeni._ This paper was substantially reproduced in the same writer’s _Di Marco Polo e degli altri Viaggiatori veneziani più illustri dissertazioni_ (Venice, 1818).

[717] _Annales des Voyages_ (1810), x. 72; _Précis de la Géographie_ (1817).

[718] _Nordisk Tidsskrift for Oldkyndighed_ (Copenhagen, 1834), vol. i. p. 1; _Royal Geog. Soc. Journal_ (London, 1835), v. 102; _Annales des Voyages_ (1836), xi.

George Folsom, in the _No. Amer. Rev._, July, 1838, criticised Zahrtmann, and sustained an opposite view. T. H. Bredsdorff discussed the question in the _Grönlands Historiske Mindesmæker_ (iii. 529); and La Roquette furnished the article in Michaud’s Biog. _Universelle_.

[719] Major also, in his paper (_Royal Geog. Soc. Journal_, 1873) on “The Site of the Lost Colony of Greenland determined, and the pre-Columbian discoveries of America confirmed, from fourteenth century documents,” used the Zeno account and map in connection with Ivan Bardsen’s Sailing Directions in placing the missing colony near Cape Farewell. Major epitomized his views on the question in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, Oct., 1874. Sir H. C. Rawlinson commented on Major’s views in his address before the Royal Geog. Society (_Journal_, 1873, p. clxxxvii).

Stevens (_Bibl. Geographica_, no. 3104) said: “If the map be genuine, the most of its geography is false, while a part of it is remarkably accurate.”

[720] _I viaggi e la Carta dei Fratelli Zeno Veneziani_ (Florence, 1878), and a _Studio Secondo_ (_Estratto dall. Archivio Storico Italiano_) in 1885.

[721] “Zeniernes Rejse til Norden et Tolkning Forsoeg,” with a fac-simile of the Zeni map.

[722] Nordenskjöld’s _Om bröderna Zenos resor och de äldsta kartor öfner Norden_ was published at Stockholm in 1883, as an address on leaving the presidency of the Swedish Academy, April 12, 1882; and in the same year, at the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes, he presented his _Trois Cartes précolumbiennes, représentant une partie de l’Amérique_ (Greenland), which included facsimiles of the Zeno (1558) and Donis (1482) maps with that of Claudius Clavus (1427). This last represents “Islandia” lying midway alone in the sea between “Norwegica Regio” and “Gronlandia provincia.” The “Congelatum mare” is made to flow north of Norway, so as almost to meet the northern Baltic, while north of this frozen sea is an Arctic region, of which Greenland is but an extension south and west. The student will find these and other maps making part of the address already referred to, which also makes part in German of his _Studien und Forschungen veranlasst durch meine Reisen im hohen Norden, autorisirte deutsche Ausgabe_ (Leipzig, 1885). The maps accompanying it not already referred to are the usual Ptolemy map of the north of Europe, based on a MS. of the fourteenth century; the “Scandinavia” from the _Isolario_ of Bordone, 1547; that of the world in the MS. _Insularium illustratum_ of Henricus Martellus, of the fifteenth century, in the British Museum, copied from the sketch in José de Lacerda’s _Exame dos Viagens do Doutor Livingstone_ (Lisbon, 1867); the “Scandinavia” and the “Carta Marina” in the Venetian Ptolemy of 1548; the map of Olaus Magnus in 1567; the chart of Andrea Bianco (1436); the map of the Basle ed. (1532) of Grynæus’ _Novis Orbis_; that of Laurentius Frisius (1524). He gives these maps as the material possible to be used in 1558 in compiling a map, and to show the superiority of the Zeno chart. Cf. _Nature_, xxviii. 14; and Major in _Royal Geog. Soc. Proc._, 1883, p. 473.

[723] “Zeni’ernes Reiser i Norden” in the publication of the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries (Copenhagen, 1883), in which he compares the Zeno Frislanda with the maps of Iceland. He also communicated to the Copenhagen meeting of the Congrès des Américanistes “Les voyages des frères Zeni dans le Nord” (_Compte Rendu_, p. 150).

[724] This also appeared in the _Geog. Tidsskrift_, vii. 153, accompanied by facsimiles of the Zeni map, with Ruscelli’s alteration of it (1561), and of the maps of Donis (1482), Laurentius Frisius (1525), and of the Ptolemy of 1548.

[725] _Roy. Geog. Soc. Journal_ (1879), vol. xlix. p. 398, “Zeno’s Frisland is Iceland and not the Faröes,”—and the same views in “Nautical Remarks about the Zeni Voyages” in _Compte Rendu, Cong. des Amér._ (Copenhagen, 1883), p. 183.

[726] “Zeno’s Frisland is not Iceland, but the Faröes” in _Roy. Geog. Soc. Journal_ (1879), xlix. 412.

[727] _Géog. du Moyen Age_, iii. 103.

[728] _Discovery of Maine_, 92.

[729] Dudley, _Arcano del Mare_, pl. lii, places Estotiland between Davis and Hudson’s Straits; but Torfæus doubts if it is Labrador, as is “commonly believed.” Lafitau (_Mœurs des Sauvages_) puts it north of Hudson Bay. Forster calls it Newfoundland. Beauvois (_Les colonies Européenes du Markland at de l’Escociland_) makes it include Maine, New Brunswick, and part of Lower Canada. These are the chief varieties of belief. Steenstrup is of those who do not recognize America at all. Hornius, among the older writers, thought that Scotland or Shetland was more likely to have been the fisherman’s strange country. Santarem (_Hist. de la Cartographie_, iii. 141) points out an island, “Y Stotlandia,” in the Baltic, as shown on the map of Giovanni Leardo (1448) at Venice.

In P. B. Watson’s _Bibliog. of Pre-Columbian Discoveries of America_ there is the fullest but not a complete list on the subject, and from this and other sources a few further references may be added: Belknap’s _Amer. Biography_; Humboldt’s _Examen Critique_, ii. 120; Asher’s _Henry Hudson_, p. clxiv; Gravier’s _Découverte de l’Amérique_, 183; Gaffarel’s _Etude sur l’Amérique avant Colomb_, p. 261, and in the _Revue de Géog._, vii., Oct., Nov., 1880, with the Zeno map as changed by Ortelius; De Costa’s _Northmen in Maine_; Weise’s _Discoveries of America_, p. 44; Goodrich’s _Columbus_; Peschel’s _Gesch. des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_ (1858), and Ruge’s work of the same title; Guido Cora’s _I precursori di Cristoforo Colombo_ (Rome, 1886), taken from the _Bollettino della soc. geog. italiana_, Dec., 1885; Gay’s _Pop. Hist. U. S._ (i. 76); Foster’s _Prehistoric Races_; _Studi biog. e bibliog. soc. geog. ital._, 2d ed., 1882, p. 117; P. O. Moosmüller’s _Europäer in Amerika vor Columbus,_ ch. 24; _Das Ausland_, Oct. 11, Dec. 27, 1886; _Nature_, xxviii. p. 14.

Geo. E. Emery, Lynn, Mass., issued in 1877 a series of maps, making Islandia to be Spitzbergen, with the East Bygd of the Northmen at its southern end; Frisland, Iceland; and Estotiland, Newfoundland.

[730] Sabin, x., no. 42,675.

[731] There are editions with annotations by Robert Ingram, at Colchester, Eng., 1792; and by Santiago Perez Junquera, at Madrid, 1881. Theoph. Spizelius’ _Elevatio relationis Montezinianæ de repertis in America tribubus Israeliticis_ (Basle, 1661) is a criticism (Leclerc, 547; Field, 1473). One Montesinos had professed to have found a colony of Jews in Peru, and had satisfied Manasseh Ben Israel of his truthfulness.

[732] Cf. collations in Stevens’s _Nuggets_, p. 728, and his _Hist. Coll._, ii. no. 538; Brinley, iii. no. 5463; Field, no. 1551, who cites a new edition in 1652, called _Digitus Dei: new discoveryes, with some arguments to prove that the Jews (a nation) a people ... inhabit now in America ... with the history of Ant: Montesinos attested by Mannasseh Ben Israell_. A divine, John Dury, had urged Thorowgood to publish, and had before this, in printing some of the accounts of the work of Eliot and others among the New England Indians, announced his belief in the theory.

[733] Cotton Mather (_Magnalia_, iii. part 2) tells how Eliot traced the resemblances to the Jews in the New England Indians.

[734] 2d ed., 1727. Cf. Sibley’s _Harvard Graduates_, ii. p. 361; Carter-Brown, iii. 401.

[735] _The History of the American Indians, particularly those Nations adjoining to the Mississippi, East and West Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia: Containing an Account of their Origin, Language, Manners, Religious and Civil Customs, Laws, Form of Government, etc., etc., with an Appendix, containing a Description of the Floridas, and the Missisipi Lands, with their productions_ (London, 1775). His arguments are given in Kingsborough’s Mex. Antiq., viii. Bancroft (_Nat. Races_, v. 91) epitomizes them. Adair’s book appeared in a German translation at Breslau (1782).

[736] _Observations on the language of the Muhhekaneew Indians, in which ... some instances of analogy between that and the Hebrew are pointed out_ (New Haven, 1788). Cf. on the contrary, Jarvis before the N. Y. Hist. Soc. in 1819.

[737] _Essay upon the propagation of the Gospel, in which there are facts to prove that many of the indians in America are descended from the Ten Tribes_ (Philad., 1799; 2d ed., 1801).

[738] _A Star in the West, or an attempt to discover the long lost Ten Tribes of Israel_ (Trenton, N. J., 1816).

[739] _View of the Hebrews, or the tribe of Israel in America_ (Poultney, Vt., 1825).

[740] _A view of the Amer. Indians, shewing them to be the descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel_ (Lond., 1828).

[741] _Discourse on the evidences of the Amer. Indians being the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel_ (N. Y., 1837). It is reprinted in Maryatt’s _Diary in America_, vol. ii.

[742] _Hist. of the Wyandotte Mission_ (Cincinnati, 1840); Thomson’s _Ohio Bibliog._, 409.

[743] _Manners, &c. of the N. Amer. Indians_ (Lond., 1841). Cf. _Smithsonian Rept._, 1885, ii. 532.

[744] Mainly in vol. vii.; but see vi. 232, etc. Cf. Short, 143, 460, and Bancroft, _Nat. Races_ (v. 26), with an epitome of Kingsborough’s arguments (v. 84). Mrs. Barbara Anne Simon in her _Hope of Israel_ (Lond., 1829) advocated the theory on biblical grounds; but later she made the most of Kingsborough’s amassment of points in her _Ten Tribes of Israel historically identified with the aborigines of the Western Hemisphere_ (London, 1836).

[745] The recognition of the theory in the Mormon bible is well known. Bancroft (v. 97) epitomizes its recital, following Bertrand’s _Mémoires_. There is a repetition of the old arguments in a sermon, _Increase of the Kingdom of Christ_ (N. Y., 1831), by the Indian William Apes; and in _An Address_ by J. Madison Brown (Jackson, Miss., 1860). Señor Melgar points out resemblances between the Maya and the Hebrew in the _Bol. Soc. Méx. Geog._, iii. Even the Western mounds have been made to yield Hebrew inscriptions (_Congrès des Amér._, Nancy, ii. 192).

Many of the general treatises on the origin of the Americans have set forth the opposing arguments. Garcia did it fairly in his _Origen de los Indios_ (1607; ed. by Barcia, 1729), and Bancroft (v. 78-84) has condensed his treatment. Brasseur (_Hist. Nat. Civ._, i. 17) rejects the theory of the ten tribes; but is not inclined to abandon a belief in some scattered traces. Short (pp. 135, 144) epitomizes the claims. Gaffarel covers them in his _Etude sur les rapports de l’Amérique_ (p. 87) with references, and these last are enlarged in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, v. 95-97.

[746] Varnhagen’s _L’origine touranienne des Américains Tupis-Caraïbes et des anciens Egyptiens, indiquée principalement par la philologie comparée: traces d’une ancienne migration en Amérique, invasion du Brésil par les Tupis_ (Vienne, 1876). Labat’s _Nouveau Voyage aux isles de l’Amérique_ (Paris, 1722), vol. ii. ch. 23. Sieur de la Borde’s _Relation de l’origine, mœurs, coutumes, etc. des Caraibes_ (Paris, 1764). Robertson’s America. James Kennedy’s _Probable origin of the Amer. Indians, with particular reference to that of the Caribs_ (Lond., 1854), or _Journal of the Ethnolog. Soc._ (vol. iv.). _London Geog. Journal_, iii. 290.

[747] Cf. Peter Martyr, Torquemada, and later writers, like La Perouse, McCulloh, Haven (p. 48), Gaffarel (_Rapport_, 204), J. Perez in _Rev. Orientale et Amér._, viii., xii.; Bancroft, _Nat. Races_, iii. 458. Brinton (_Address_, 1887) takes exception to all such views. Cf. Quatrefages’ _Human Species_ (N. Y., 1879, pp. 200, 202).

[748] Cf. Beccari in _Kosmos_, Apr., 1879; De Candolle in _Géographie botanique_ (1855).

[749] Santarem, _Hist. de la Cartog._, iii. 76, refers to maps of the fourteenth century in copies of Ranulphus Hydgen’s _Polychronicon_, in the British Museum and in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, which show a land in the north, called in the one Wureland and in the other Wyhlandia.

[750] _Mag. Am. Hist._, April, 1883, p. 290. Cf. Vol. II. p. 28. The name used is “Grinlandia.”

[751] Mauro’s map was called by Ramusio, who saw it, an improved copy of one brought from Cathay by Marco Polo. It is preserved in the Biblioteca Marciana at Venice. It was made by Mauro under the command of Don Alonso V., and Bianco assisted him. The exact date is in dispute; but all agree to place it between 1457 and 1460. A copy was made on vellum in 1804, which is now in the British Museum. Our cut follows one corner of the reproduction in Santarem’s _Atlas_. A photographic fac-simile has been issued in Venice by Ongania, and St. Martin (_Atlas_, p. vii) follows this fac-simile. Ruge (_Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen_) gives a modernized and more legible reproduction. There are other drawings in Zurla’s _Fra Mauro_; Vincent’s _Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients_ (1797, 1807); Lelewel’s _Moyen Age_ (pl. xxxiii). Cf. _Studi della Soc. Geografia Italia_ (1882), ii. 76, for references.

[752] Rafn gives a large map of Iceland with the names of a.d. 1000. On the errors of early and late maps of Iceland see Baring-Gould’s _Ultima Thule_, i. 253. On the varying application of the name Thule, Thyle, etc., to the northern regions or to particular parts of them, see R. F. Burton’s _Ultima Thule, a Summer in Iceland_ (London, 1875), ch. 1. Bunbury (_Hist. Anc. Geog._, ii. 527) holds that the Thule of Marinus of Tyre and of Ptolemy was the Shetlands. Cf. James Wallace’s _Description of the Orkney islands_ (1693,—new ed., 1887, by John Small) for an essay on “the Thule of the Ancients.”

[753] There are other reproductions of the map in full, in Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, i. 51; in his _Broderna Zenos_, and in his _Studien_, p. 31. Cf. also the present _History_, II., p. 28, for other bibliographical detail; Hassler, _Buchdruckergeschichte Ulm’s_; D’Avezac’s _Waltzemüller_, 23; Wilberforce Eames’s _Bibliography of Ptolemy_, separately, and in Sabin’s _Dictionary_; and Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy’s Geography_.

[754] Cf. D’Avezac in _Bull. de la Soc. de Géog._, xx. 417.

[755] See Vol. II. p. 41. There is another sketch in Nordenskjöld’s _Studien_, etc., p. 33, which is reduced from a fac-simile given in José de Lacerda’s _Exame dos Viagens do Doutor Livingstone_ (Lissabon, 1867). The present extract is from Santarem, pl. 50. Cf. O. Peschel in _Ausland_, Feb. 13, 1857, and his posthumous _Abhandlungen_, i. 213.

[756] See references in Vol. II. p. 105.

[757] See Vol. II. p. 108.

[758] See _post_, Vol. IV. p. 35; and Kohl’s _Discovery of Maine_, p. 174. Cf. Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1511.

[759] He holds that the 1513 Ptolemy map was drawn in 1501-4, and was engraved before Dec. 10, 1508.

[760] See Vol. II. p. 115.

[761] Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1511.

[762] See Vol. II. p. 111. Winsor’s _Ptolemy_, sub anno 1513. Reisch, in 1515, seems to have been of the same opinion. Cf. the bibliography of Reisch’s _Margarita Philosophia_ in Sabin’s _Dictionary_, vol. xvi., and separately, prepared by Wilberforce Eames. Reisch’s map is given _post_, Vol. II. p. 114. Another sketch of this map, with an examination of the question, where the name “Zoana Mela,” applied on it to America, came from, is given by Frank Wieser in the _Zeitschrift für Wissensch. Geographie_ (Carlsruhe), vol. v., a sight of which I owe to the author, who believes Waldseemüller made the map.

[763] The map is given, _post_, Vol. II. 175. Cf. also Nordenskjöld, _Studien_, p. 53.

[764] Cf. Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1522.

[765] Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1525. This map is no. 49, “Gronlandiæ et Russiæ.” Cf. Witsen’s _Noord en Oost Tartctrye_ (1705), vol. ii.

[766] Winsor’s _Kohl Collection_, no. 102.

[767] Given _post_, Vol. III. p. 17.

[768] Given _post_, Vol. III. p. 11.

[769] _Jahrb. des Vereins für Erdkunde in Dresden_ (1870), tab. vii. A similar feature is in the map described by Peschel in the _Jahresbericht des Vereins für Erdkunde in Leipzig_ (1871). It is also to be seen in the Homem map of about 1540 (given in Vol. II. p. 446), and in the map which Major assigns to Baptista Agnese, and which was published in Paris in 1875 as a _Portulan de Charles Quint._ (Cf. Vol. II. p. 445.)

[770] There is a fac-simile of Ziegler’s map in Vol. II. 434; also in Goldsmid’s ed. of Hakluyt (Edinb., 1885), and in Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, i. 52.

[771] The map (1551) of Gemma Frisius in Apian is much the same.

[772] In the Basle ed. of the _Historia de Gentium_. Cf. Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, vol. i., who says that the map originally appeared in Magnus’s _Auslegung und Verklarung der Neuen Mappen von den Alten Goettenreich_ (Venice, 1539); and is different from the map which appeared in the intermediate edition of 1555 at Rome, a part of which is also annexed.

[773] The same is done in the Ptolemy of 1548 (Venice). There is a fac-simile in Nordenskjöld’s _Studien_, p. 35.

[774] See Vol. IV. p. 84.

[775] We find it in the Nancy globe of about 1540 (see Vol. IV. p. 81); in the Mercator gores of 1541 (Vol. II. p. 177); and in the Ruscelli map of 1544 (Vol. II. p. 432), where Greenland (Grotlandia) is simply a neck connecting Europe with America; and in Gastaldi “Carta Marina,” in the Italian Ptolemy of 1548, where it is a protuberance on a similar neck (see Vol. II. 435; IV. 43; and Nordenskjöld’s _Studien_, 43). The Rotz map of 1542 seems to be based on the same material used by Mercator in his gores, but he adds a new confusion in calling Greenland the “Cost of Labrador.” Cf. Winsor’s _Kohl Maps_, no. 104. The “Grutlandia” of the Vopellio map of 1556 is also continuous with Labrador (see Vol. II. 436; IV. 90).

[776] See Vol. IV. pp. 42, 82.

[777] In the edition of 1562, which repeated the map, the cartographer Moletta (Moletius) testified that its geography had been confirmed “by letters and marine charts sent to us from divers parts.”

[778] Winsor’s _Bibliog. of Ptolemy_, sub anno 1561.

[779] Lok’s map of 1582 calls it “Groetland,” the landfall of “Jac. Scolvus,” the Pole. Cf. Vol. III. 40.

[780] For Mercator’s map, see Vol. II. 452; IV. 94, 373. Ortelius’ separate map of Scandia is much the same. It is the same with the map of Phillipus Gallæus, dated 1574, but published at Antwerp in 1585 in the _Theatri orbis terrarum Enchiridion_. Gilbert’s map in 1576 omits the “Grocland” (Vol. III. 203). Both features, however, are preserved in the Judæis of 1593 (Vol. IV. 97), in the Wytfliet of 1597 (Vol. II. 459), in Wolfe’s Linschoten in 1598 (Vol. III. 101), and in Quadus in 1600 (Vol. IV. 101). In the Zaltière map of 1566 (Vol. II. 451; IV. 93), in the Porcacchi map of 1572 (Vol. II. 96, 453; IV. 96), and in that of Johannes Martines of 1578, the features are too indefinite for recognition. Lelewel (i. pl. 7) gives a Spanish mappemonde of 1573.

[781] In fac-simile in Nordenskjöld’s _Vega_, i. 247.

[782] Vol. III p. 98.

[783] A paper by H. Rink in the _Geografisk Tidskrift_ (viii. 139) entitled “Ostgrönländerne i deres Forhold till Vestgrönländerne og de övrige Eskimostammer,” is accompanied by drafts of the map of G. Tholacius, 1606, and of Th. Thorlacius, 1668-69,—the latter placing East Bygd on the east coast near the south end. K. J. V. Steenstrup, on Osterbygden in _Geog. Tidskrift_, viii. 123, gives facsimiles of maps of Jovis Carolus in 1634; of Hendrick Doncker in 1669. Sketches of maps by Johannes Meyer in 1652, and by Hendrick Doncker in 1666, are also given in the _Geografisk Tidskrift_, viii. (1885), pl. 5.

[784] _Voyages des Pais Septentrionaux,_—a very popular book.

[785] _Chips from a German Workshop_, i. 327.

[786] _Archæological Tour_, p. 202.

[787] The earliest fixed date for the founding of Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) is 1325. Brasseur tells us that Carlos de Sigüenza y Gongora made the first chronological table of ancient Mexican dates, which was used by Boturini, and was improved by Leon y Gama,—the same which Bustamante has inserted in his edition of Gomara. Gallatin (_Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, i.) gave a composite table of events by dates before the Conquest, which is followed in Brantz Mayer’s _Mexico as it was_, i. 97. Ed. Madier de Montjau, in his _Chronologie hiéroglyphico-phonétique des Rois Astéques de 1352 à 1522_, takes issue with Ramirez on some points.

[788] Bancroft (v. 199) gives references to those writers who have discussed this question of giants. Bandelier’s references are more in detail (_Arch. Tour_, p. 201). Short (p. 233) borrows largely the list in Bancroft. The enumeration includes nearly all the old writers. Acosta finds confirmation in bones of incredible largeness, often found in his day, and then supposed to be human. Modern zoölogists say they were those of the Mastodon. Howarth, _Mammoth and the Flood_, 297.

[789] See _Native Races_, ii. 117; v. 24, 27.

[790] Sometimes it is said they came from the Antilles, or beyond, easterly, and that an off-shoot of the same people appeared to the early French, explorers as the Natchez Indians. We have, of course, offered to us a choice of theories in the belief that the Maya civilization came from the westward by the island route from Asia. This misty history is nothing without alternatives, and there are a plenty of writers who dogmatize about them.

[791] _Constituciones diocesanas del obispado de Chiappas_ (Rome, 1702).

[792] _Nat. Races_, v. 160.

[793] _Hist. Nations Civilisées_, i. 37, 150, etc. _Popul Vuh_, introd., sec. v. Bancroft relates the Votan myth, with references, in _Nat. Races_, iii. 450. Brasseur identifies the Votanites with the Colhuas, as the builders of Palenqué, the founders of Xibalba, and thinks a branch of them wandered south to Peru. There are some stories of even pre-Votan days, under Igh and Imox. Cf. H. De Charency’s “Myth d’Imos,” in the _Annales de philosophie Chrétienne_, 1872-73, and references in Bancroft, v. 164, 231.

[794] _Native Races_, ii. 121, etc.

[795] Bancroft (v. 236) points to Bradford, Squier, Tylor, Viollet-le-Duc, Bartlett, and Müller, with Brasseur in a qualified way, as in the main agreeing in this early disjointing of the Nashua stock, by which the Maya was formed through separation from the older race.

[796] Enforced, for instance, by one of the best of the later Mexican writers, Orozco y Berra, in his _Geografía de las lenguas y Carta Ethnografica de México_ (Mexico, 1865).

[797] Tylor, _Anahuac_, 189, and his _Early Hist. Mankind_, 184. Orozco y Berra, _Geog._, 124. Bancroft, v. 169, note. The word Maya was first heard by Columbus in his fourth voyage, 1503-4. We sometimes find it written Mayab. It is usual to class the people of Yucatan, and even the Quiché-Cakchiquels of Guatemala and those of Nicaragua, under the comprehensive term of Maya, as distinct from the Nahua people farther north.

[798] _Nat. Races_, v. 186.

[799] Brinton, with his view of myths, speaks of the attempt of the Abbé Brasseur to make Xibalba an ancient kingdom, with Palenqué as its capital, as utterly unsupported and wildly hypothetical (_Myths_, 251).

[800] Perhaps by Gucumatz (who is identified by some with Quetzalcoatl), leading the Tzequiles, who are said to have appeared from somewhere during one of Votan’s absences, and to have grown into power among the Chanes, or Votan’s people, till they made Tulan, where they lived, too powerful for the Votanites. Bancroft (v. 187) holds this view against Brasseur.

[801] Perhaps Ococingo, or Copan, as Bancroft conjectures (v. 187).

[802] As Sahagún calls it, meaning, as Bancroft suggests, Tabasco.

[803] Short (p. 248) points out that the linguistic researches of Orozco y Berra (_Geografía de las Lenguas de México_, 1-76) seem to confirm this.

[804] See p. 158.

[805] Kirk says (Prescott’s _Mexico_): “Confusion arises from the name of Chichimec, originally that of a single tribe, and subsequently of its many offshoots, being also used to designate successive hordes of whatever race.” Some have seen in the Waiknas of the Mosquito Coast, and in the Caribs generally, descendants of these Chichimecs who have kept to their old social level. The Caribs, on other authority, came originally from the stock of the Tupis and Guaranis, who occupied the region south of the Amazon, and in Columbus’s time they were scattered in Darien and Honduras, along the northern regions of South America, and in some of the Antilles (Von Martius, _Beiträge sur Ethnographie and Sprachenkunde Amerika’s zumal Brasilìens_, Leipzig, 1867). Bancroft (ii. 126) gives the etymology of Chichimec and of other tribal designations. Cf. Buschmann’s _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_ (Berlin, 1853). Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, 200; _Peabody Mus. Repts._, ii. 393) says he fails to discover in the word anything more than a general term, signifying a savage, a hunter, or a warrior, Chichimecos, applied to roving tribes. Brasseur says that Mexican tradition applies the term Chichimecs generically to the first occupants of the New World.

[806] These names wander and exchange consonants provokingly, and it may be enough to give alphabetically a list comprised of those in Prichard (_Nat. Hist. Man_) and Orozco y Berra (_Geografía_), with some help from Gallatin in the _American Ethno. Soc. Trans._, i., and other groupers of the ethnological traces: Chinantecs, Chatinos, Cohuixcas, Chontales, Colhuas, Coras, Cuitatecs, Chichimecs, Cuextecas (Guaxtecas, Huastecs), Mazetecs, Mazahuas, Michinacas, Miztecs, Nonohualcas, Olmecs, Otomís, Papabucos, Quinames, Soltecos, Totonacs, Triquis, Tepanecs, Tarascos, Xicalancas, Zapotecs. It is not unlikely the same people may be here mentioned under different names. The diversity of opinions respecting the future of these vapory existences is seen in Bancroft’s collation (v. 202). Torquemada tells us about all that we know of the Totonacs, who claim to have been the builders of Teotihuacan. Bancroft gives references (v. 204) for the Totonacs, (p. 206) for the Otomís, (p. 207) for the Mistecs and Zapotecs, and (p. 208) for the Huastecs.

[807] Bancroft, ii. 97. Brasseur, _Nat. Civ._, i. ch. 4, and his _Palenqué_ ch. 3.

[808] Called Huehue-Tlapallan, as Brasseur would have it.

[809] Following Motolinía and other early writers.

[810] _Native Races_, v. 219, 616.

[811] Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 253.

[812] Kingsborough, ix. 206, 460; Veytia, i. 155, 163. Of the Quetzalcoatl myth there are references elsewhere. P. J. J. Valentini has made a study of the early Mexican ethnology and history in his “Olmecas and Tultecas,” translated by S. Salisbury, Jr., and printed in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, Oct. 21, 1882. On Quetzalcoatl in Cholula, see Torquemada, translated in Bancroft, iii. 258.

[813] This wide difference covers intervening centuries, each of which has its advocates. Short carries their coming back to the fourth century (p. 245), but Clavigero’s date of A.D. 544 is more commonly followed. Veytia makes it the seventh century. Bancroft (v. 211, 214) notes the diversity of views.

[814] Bancroft (v. 322) in a long note collates the different statements of the routes and sojourns in this migration. Cf. Short, p. 259.

[815] Cf. Kirk in Prescott, i. 10. It must be confessed that it is rather in the domain of myth than of history that we must place all that has been written about the scattering of the Toltec people at Babel (Bancroft, v. 19), and their finally reaching Huehue-Tlapallan, wherever that may have been. The view long prevalent about this American starting-point of the Nahuas, Toltecs, or whatever designation may be given to the beginners of this myth and history, placed it in California, but some later writers think it worth while to give it a geographical existence in the Mississippi Valley, and to associate it in some vague way with the moundbuilders and their works (Short, _No. Amer. of Antiq._, 251, 253). There is some confusion between Huehue-Tlapallan of this story and the Tlapallan noticed in the Spanish conquest time, which was somewhere in the Usumacinta region, and if we accept Tollan, Tullan, or Tula as a form of the name, the confusion is much increased (Short, pp. 217-220). Bancroft (v. 214) says there is no sufficient data to determine the position of Huehue-Tlapallan, but he thinks “the evidence, while not conclusive, favors the south rather than the north” (p. 216). The truth is, about these conflicting views of a northern or southern origin, pretty much as Kirk puts it (Prescott, i. 18): “All that can be said with confidence is, that neither of the opposing theories rests on a secure and sufficient basis.” The situation of Huehue-Tlapallan and Aztlan is very likely one and the same question, as looking to what was the starting-point of all the Nahua migrations, extending over a thousand years.

[816] Bancroft, v. 217.

[817] Torquemada, Boturini, Humboldt, Brasseur, Charnay, Short, etc.

[818] _Nat. Races_ (v. 222).

[819] In support of the California location, Buschmann, in his _Ueber die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache im nördlichen Mexico und höheren Amerikanischen Norden_ (Berlin, 1854), finds traces of the Mexican tongue in those of the recent California Indians. Linguistic resemblances to the Aztec, even so far north as Nootka, have been traced, but later philologists deny the inferences of relationship drawn from such similarity (Bancroft, iii. p. 612). The linguistic confusion in aboriginal California is so great that there is a wide field for tracing likenesses (_Ibid._ iii. 635). In the _California State Mining Bureau, Bulletin no. 1_ (Sacramento, 1888), Winslow Anderson gives a description of some desiccated human remains found in a sealed cave, which are supposed to be Aztec. There are slight resemblances to the Aztec in the Shoshone group of languages (Bancroft, iii. 660), and the same author arranges all that has been said to connect the Mexican tongue with those of New Mexico and neighboring regions (iii. 664). Buschmann, who has given particular attention to tracing the Aztec connections at the north, finds nothing to warrant anything more than casual admixtures with other stocks (_Die Lautveränderung Aztekischer Wörter_, Berlin, 1855, and _Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprachen_, Berlin, 1859). See Short (p. 487) for a summary.

[820] Bancroft (v. 305) cites the diverse views; so does Short to some extent (pp. 246, 258, etc.). Cf. Brinton’s _Address_ on “Where was Aztlan?” p. 6; Short, 486, 490; Nadaillac, 284; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, i. 327.

Brinton (_Myths of the New World_, etc., 89; _Amer. Hero. Myths_, 92) holds that Aztlan is a name wholly of mythical purport, which it would be vain to seek on the terrestrial globe. This cradle region of the Nahuas sometimes appears as the Seven Caves (Chicomoztoc), and Duran places them “in Teoculuacan, otherwise called Aztlan, a country toward the north and connected with Florida.” The Seven Caves were explained by Sahagún as a valley, by Clavigero as a city, by Schoolcraft and others as simply seven boats in which the first comers came from Asia; Brasseur makes them and Aztlan the same; others find them to be the seven cities of Cibola,—so enumerates Brinton (_Myths_, 227), who thinks that the seven divisions of the Nahuas sprung from the belief in the Seven Caves, and had in reality no existence.