Chapter XLVI: Appendix: I (19)

[1899] This monotheism is denied by Brinton (_Myths of the New World_, 52). “Of monotheism, either as displayed in the one personal definite God of the Semitic races, or in the dim pantheistic sense of the Brahmins, there was not a single instance on the American continent,”—the Iroquois “Neu” and “Hawaneu,” which, as Brinton says, have deceived Morgan and others, being but the French “Dieu” and “Le bon Dieu” rendered in Indian pronunciation (_Myths of the New World_, p. 53). The aborigines instituted, however, in two instances, the worship of an immaterial god, one among the Quichuas of Peru and another at Tezcuco (_Ibid._ p. 55).

Bandelier (_Archæol. Tour_, 185), examining the _Hist. de los Méxicanos por sus Pinturas_ (_Anales del Museo_, ii. 86), Motolinía, Gómara, Sahagún, Tobar, and Durán, finds no trace of monotheism till we come to Acosta. Torquemada speaks of supreme _gods_; and Bandelier thinks that Ixtlilxochitl, in conveying the idea of a single god, evidently distorts and disfigures Torquemada.

Bancroft (iii. 198) accords honesty to Ixtlilxochitl’s account of the religion of the Tezcucan ruler Nezahualcoyotl, as reaching the heights of Mexican monotheistic conception, because he thinks his descendants, if he had fabled, would never have ended his description with so pagan a statement as that which makes the Tezcucan recognize the sun as his father and the earth as his mother.

Max Müller tells us that we should distinguish between monotheism and henotheism, which is the temporary preeminence of one god over the host of gods, and which was as near monotheism as the American aborigines came.

[1900] He also masses the evidence which shows, as he thinks, that “on Catholic missions has followed the debasement, and on Protestant missions the destruction, of the Indian race.” _Amer. Hero-Myths_, pp. 206, 238.

[1901] Unfortunately, Brinton enforces this view and others with a degree of confidence that does not help him to convince the cautious reader, as when he speaks of the opinions of those who disagree with him as “having served long enough as the last refuge of ignorance” (_Amer. Hero-Myths_, 145).

[1902] The whole question of comparative mythology involves in its broad aspects the subject of American myths. The literature of this general kind is large, but reference may be made to Girard de Rialle’s _La Mythologie Comparée_ (Paris, 1878); for the idea of God, Dawson’s _Fossil Men_, ch. 9 and 10; Lubbock’s _Origin of Civilization_, ch. 4, 5, 6; J. P. Lesley’s _Man’s origin and destiny_, ch. 10; and for the geographical distribution of myths, Tylor’s _Early Hist. of Mankind_, ch. 12; Max Müller’s _Chips_, vol. ii.; and in a general way, Brinton’s _Religious sentiment, its source and aim_ (N. Y., 1876). Reference may also be made to Joly’s _Man before Metals_, ch. 7; Dabry de Thiersant’s _Origine des indiens_ (Paris, 1883); and G. Brühl’s _Culturvölker Alt-Amerikas_ (Cincinnati, 1876-78), ch. 10 and 19. Brinton (_Myths_, 210) tracks the Deluge myth among the Indians, and Bancroft gives many instances of it (_Native Races_, v., index). Brinton thinks a paper by Charencey, “Le Déluge d’après les traditions indiennes de l’Amérique du Nord,” in the _Revue Américaine_, a help for its extracts, but complains of its uncritical spirit.

We find sufficient data of the aboriginal belief in the future life both in Bancroft’s final chapter (vol. iii. part i.) and in Brinton’s _Myths_, ch. 9. Brinton delivered an address on the “Journey of the soul,” which is printed in the _Proceedings_ (Jan., 1883) of the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia.

[1903] In studying the mythology of these tribes we must depend mainly on confined monographs. Mrs. E. A. Smith treats the myths of the Iroquois in the _Second Annual Rept. Bureau of Ethnology_. Charles Godfrey Leland has covered _The Algonquin legends of New England; or, myths and folk-lore of the Micmac, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscot tribes_ (Boston, 1884). Brinton has a book on _The Lenâpé and their legends_ (Philad., 1885); and one may refer to the _Life and Journals of David Brainard_. S. D. Peet has a paper on “The religious beliefs and traditions of the aborigines of North America” in the _Journal of the Victoria Institute_ (London, 1888, vol. xxi. 229); one on “Animal worship and Sun worship in the east and west compared” in the _American Antiquarian_, Mar., 1888; and a paper on the religion of the moundbuilders in _Ibid._ vi. 393. The _Dahcotah, or life and legends of the Sioux around Fort Snelling_ (N. Y., 1849) of Mrs. Mary Eastman has been a serviceable book. S. R. Riggs covers the mythology of the Dakotas in the _Amer. Antiquarian_ (v. 147), and in this periodical will be found various studies concerning other tribes.

[1904] Bandelier, _Archæol. Tour_, 185, calls it the earliest statement of the Nahua mythology.

[1905] There is more or less of original importance on the Aztec myths in Alfredo Chavero’s “La Piedra del Sol,” likewise in the _Anales_ (vol. i.). Cf. also the “Ritos Antiguos, sacrificios e idolatrias de los indios de la Nueva España,” as printed in the _Coleccion de doc. ined. para la hist. de España_ (liii. 300).

Bancroft (vol. iii. ch. 6-10), who is the best source for reference, gives also the best compassed survey of the entire field; but among writers in English he may be supplemented by Prescott (i. ch. 3, introd.); Helps in his _Spanish Conquest_ (vol. ii.); Tylor’s _Primitive Culture_; Albert Réville’s _Lectures on the origin and growth of religion as illustrated by the native religions of Mexico and Peru_, translated by P. H. Wicksteed (London, 1884, being the Hibbert lectures for 1884); on the analogies of the Mexican belief, a condensed statement in Short’s _No. America of Antiq._, 459; a popular paper in _The Galaxy_, May, 1876. Bandelier intended a fourth paper to be added to the three printed in the _Peabody Mus. Repts._ (vol. ii.), namely, one on “The Creeds and Beliefs of the Ancient Mexicans,” which has never, I think, been printed.

Among the French, we may refer to Ternaux-Compans’ _Essai sur la théogonie Méxicaine_ (Paris, 1840) and the works of Brasseur. Klemm’s _Cultur-Geschichte_ and Müller’s _Urreligionen_ will mainly cover the German views. Of the Mexican writers, it may be worth while to name J. M. Melgar’s _Examen comparativa entre los signos simbolicos de las Teogonias y Cosmogonias antiguas y los que existen en los manuscritos Méxicanos_ (Vera Cruz, 1872).

The readiest description of their priesthood and festivals will be found in Bancroft (ii. 201, 303, with references). Tenochtitlan is said to have had 2,000 sacred buildings, and Torquemada says there were 80,000 throughout Mexico; while Clavigero says that a million priests attended upon them. Bancroft (iii. ch. 10) describes this service. There is a chance in all this of much exaggeration.

The history of human sacrifice as a part of this service is the subject of disagreement among the earlier as well as with the later writers. Bancroft (iii. 413, 442) gives some leading references. Cf. Prescott (i. 77) and Nadaillac (p. 296). Las Casas in his general defence of the natives places the number of sacrifices very low. Zumárraga says there were 20,000 a year. The Aztecs, if not originating the practice, as is disputed by some, certainly made much use of it.

[1906] _Anales del Museo Nacional_, ii. 247; Bancroft, iii. 240, 248.

[1907] Bandelier thinks Durán the earliest to connect St. Thomas with Quetzalcoatl. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 456.

[1908] Müller agrees with Ixtlilxochitl that Quetzalcoatl and Huemac were one and the same, and that Ternaux erred in supposing them respectively Olmec and Toltec deities. Cf. Brasseur’s _Palenqué_, 40, 66. Cf. D. Daly on “Quetzalcoatl, the Mexican Messiah” in _Gentleman’s Mag._, n. a., xli. 236.

[1909] For the later views in general see Clavigero, Tylor, Brasseur (_Nations Civil._, i. 253), Prescott (i. 62), Bancroft (iii. 248, 263; v. 24, 200, 255, 257), and Short (267, 274).

[1910] The god Paynal was a sort of deputy war-god. See H. H. Bancroft’s _Native Races_.

[1911] Cf. references in _Peabody Mus. Rept._, ii. 571; Short, p. 206.

[1912] Cf. _Relacion de las ceremonias y Ritos de Michoacan_, a manuscript in the library of Congress, of which there is a copy in Madrid, which is printed in the _Coleccion de doc. ined. para la hist. de España_, liii.

[1913] For further modern treatment see Schultz-Sellack’s “Die Amerikanischen Götter der vier Weltgegenden und ihre Tempel in Palenque” in _Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, xi.(1879); Brasseur’s Landa, p. lx; Ancona’s _Yucatan_ (i. ch. 10); Powell’s _First Report Bureau of Ethnology_; for sacrifices, Nadaillac (p. 266); and for festivals and priestly service, Bancroft (ii. 689). For Yucatan folk-lore, see Brinton in _Folk-lore Journal_ (vol. i. for 1883).

[1914] _First series_: vol. iv., W. Sargent on articles from an old grave at Cincinnati, exhumed in 1794; vol. v., G. Turner on the same; vol. vi., W. Dunbar on the Indian sign language; J. Madison on remains of fortifications in the west; B. S. Barton on affinities of Indian words. _New series_: vol. i., H. H. Brackenridge on Indian populations and tumuli; C. W. Short on an Indian fort near Lexington, Ky.; vol. iii., D. Zeisberger on a Delaware grammar; vol. iv., J. Heckewelder on Delaware names, etc.

[1915] It celebrated its centennial in 1880, when an impromptu address was delivered by R. C. Winthrop, which is printed by this society, and is also contained, with a statement of the occasion of it, in his _Speeches and Addresses_, 1878-1886. For a record of the interest in archæological studies about 1790, see _Reports_ of the American Philosophical Society, xxii. no. 119.

[1916] _First series_: vol. i., S. H. Parsons on discoveries in the western country; vol. iii., E. A. Kendall and J. Davis on an examination of the much controverted inscription of the so-called Dighton Rock; E. Stiles on an Indian idol. _New series_: vol. i., Rasle’s Abenaki dictionary; vol. v., W. Sargent’s plan of the Marietta mounds, etc.

[1917] This society published the original edition of S. G. Morton’s _Inquiry into the distinctive characteristics of the aboriginal race of America_ (2d ed., Philadelphia, 1844), which glances at their moral and intellectual character, their habits of interment, their maritime enterprise, and their physical condition.

[1918] Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1564.

[1919] Vol. ii., S. S. Haldeman on linguistic ethnology; vol. iii., J. C. Nott and L. Agassiz on the unity of the human race; vol. v., Col. Whittlesey on ancient human remains in Ohio; vol. vi., J. L. Leconte on the California Indians; vol. xi., Whittlesey on ancient mining at Lake Superior; Morgan on Iroquois laws of descent; D. Wilson on a uniform type of the American crania; vol. xiii., Morgan on the bestowing of Indian names; vol. xvii., Whittlesey on the antiquity of man in America; W. De Haas on the archæology of the Mississippi Valley; W. H. Dall on the Alaska tribes; vol. xix., Dall on the Eskimo tongue, etc.

[1920] _Abstracts of the Transactions prepared by J. W. Powell_ (Washington, 1879, etc.).

[1921] The student will find some general help, at least, from the publications of such as these: the Peabody Academy of Science (Salem, Mass.), _Memoirs_, 1869, etc.; Essex Institute (Salem, Mass.), _Bulletin_, 1869, and _Proceedings_, 1848, etc.; Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, _Memoirs_, 1810-16; _Transactions_, 1866, etc.; the Lyceum of Natural History, became in 1876 the New York Academy of Sciences, _Annals_, 1823, etc.; _Proceedings_, 1870, etc.; Transactions; the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, _Proceedings_; Wyoming Historical and Geological Society, _Proceedings and Collections_ (Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 1884, etc.); the Cincinnati Society of Natural History, _Journal_ and _Proceedings_, 1876; Indianapolis Academy of Sciences, _Transactions_, 1870, etc.; Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, _Bulletin_, 1870, and _Transactions_, 1870; Davenport (Iowa) Academy of Science, _Proceedings_, 1867; St. Louis Academy of Science, _Transactions_, 1856; Kansas Academy of Science, _Transactions_, 1872; California Academy of Sciences, _Proceedings_, 1854, etc., and _Memoirs_, 1868, etc.; Geographical Society of the Pacific, its official organ _Kosmos_,—not to name others.

In British America we may refer to the Natural History Society of Montreal, publishing _The Canadian Naturalist_, 1857, etc.; the Canadian Institute, _Proceedings_; the Royal Society of Canada, _Proceedings_; the Nova Scotia Institute of Natural Science, _Proceedings and Transactions_, 1867,—not to mention others; and among periodicals the _Canadian Monthly_, the _Canadian Antiquarian_, and the _Canadian Journal_.

[1922] The tendency of general periodicals to questions of this kind is manifest by the references in _Poole’s Index_, under such heads as American Antiquities, Anthropology, Archæology, Caves and Cave-dwellers, Ethnology, Lake Dwellings, Man, Mounds and Moundbuilders, Prehistoric Races, etc.

[1923] The history of its incipiency and progress can be gathered from the _Reports_ of the Museum, with summaries in those numbered i., xi. and xix.

[1924] Cf. Waldo Higginson’s _Memorials of the Class of 1833, Harvard College_, p. 60, and the contemporary tributes from eminent associates noted in _Poole’s Index_, p. 1434.

[1925] The documentary history, by W. J. Rhees, of the Smithsonian Institution, forms vol. xvii. of its _Miscellaneous Collections_. Cf. J. Henry on its organization in the _Proceedings_ of the Amer. Asso. for the Adv. of Science, vol. i. A _Catalogue of the publications of the S. I. with an alphabetical index of articles_, by William J. Rhees (Washington, 1882), constitutes no. 478 of its series.

The early management of the Smithsonian decided that the “knowledge” of its founder meant science, and from the start gave not a little attention to archæology as a science. When the Bureau of Ethnology became a part of the Institution, and its _Reports_ included papers necessarily historical as well as archæological, the way was prepared for a broader meaning to the term “knowledge,” and as a significant recognition of the allied field of research the present government of the Smithsonian gave hearty concurrence to the act of Congress which in Dec., 1888, made also the American Historical Association, which had existed without incorporation since 1884, a section of the Smithsonian Institution.

[1926] Its mound explorations have been conducted by Cyrus Thomas; those among the Pueblos of the southwest by James Stevenson (d. 1888); while Major Powell himself has controlled personally the body of searchers in the linguistic fields (_American Antiquarian_, viii. 32). It would seem that its profession “to organize anthropological research” is not to its full extent true, since the physiological side of the subject seems to be left in Washington to the Army Medical Museum.

[1927] Cf. Charles Rau’s _Archæological Collections of the United States National Museum_ (1876) in _Smithsonian Contributions_, xx., with many illustrative woodcuts; and a paper by Ernest Ingersoll in _The Century_, January, 1885. Cf. also F. W. Putnam’s contribution on American Archæological Collections in the _American Naturalist_, vii. 29.

[1928] B. P. Poore’s _Descriptive Catal. Govt. Pub._, p. 593; Field’s _Ind. Bibliog._, no. 1379; Allibone’s _Dictionary_, iii. p. 1952, for references and opposing criticisms. Some of the condemnation of the book is too sweeping, for amid its ignorance, confusion, and indiscrimination there is much to be picked out which is of importance. Cf. Parkman’s _Jesuits_, p. lxxx; Wilson’s _Prehistoric Man_, ii. ch. 19; Brinton’s _Myths_, p. 40. Cf. on Schoolcraft’s death (with a portrait) _Historical Mag._, April, 1865; _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1865.

F. S. Drake’s _Indian Tribes of the United States_ (Philad., 1884) is, with some additional matter, a rearrangement of Schoolcraft, the omission to acknowledge which on the title-page being an unworthy bibliographical deceit. Schoolcraft’s rivalry of Geo. Catlin and his ignoring of Catlin’s work is commented on at some length by Donaldson in the _Smithsonian Inst. Report_, 1885, part ii. pp. 373-383.

[1929] For full details of this and other publications mentioned in this paper, see S. H. Scudder’s _Catalogue of Scientific Serials, 1633-1876_, published by the library of Harvard University in 1879.

[1930] Sabin, xvii., no. 70354. The Congrès Archéologique de France began its Séances générales in 1834, but the interest of its _Comptes rendus_ for Americanists is for comparative illustration. The two volumes of _Mémoires de la Société Ethnologique_ (Paris, 1841-45) contain nothing bearing directly on American archæology. Much the same may be said of the _Annales Archéologiques fondées par Didron aîné_, in 1844, and continued to 1870; of the _Bulletin Archéologique_ (1844-46) of the Athénæum Français, and of its continuation, the _Bulletin Archéologique Français_ (1846-56); and of the _Annales_ of the Institut Archéologique (1844, etc.).

[1931] _Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1876.

[1932] A _Revue Ethnographique_ was begun in 1869. A Societé Ethnologique, publishing _Bulletin_ (1846-47) and _Mémoires_ (1841-45), is a distinct organization.

[1933] S. H. Scudder, in his _Catalogue of Scientific Serials_, no. 1528, endeavors to put into something like orderly arrangement the exceedingly devious devices of duplication of this and allied publications.

[1934] A _Revue d’Anthropologie_ was begun at Paris, under the direction of Broca, in 1872. A Société d’Anthropologie began two series, _Bulletins_ and _Mémoires_, in 1860. Mortillet conducted _L’Homme_ from 1883 to 1887, when he and his associates in this work suspended its publication to devote themselves to a _Dictionnaire des Sciences Anthropologiques_ and to a _Bibliothèque Anthropologique_.

[1935] Rosny died April 23, 1871.

[1936] Its publications began in 1665. Cf. synopsis in Scudder’s _Catalogue_, pp. 26-27. Cf. C. A. Alexander on the origin and history of the Royal Society, in _Smithsonian Rept._, 1863.

[1937] Some of the local societies deal to some extent in American subjects; _e. g._, the _Journal of the Manchester Geographical Society_, begun in 1885.

[1938] Not to be confounded with _The Ethnological Journal_, vol. i., 1848-49, and vol. ii., 1854, incomplete; and _The Ethnological Journal_, 1 vol., 1865-66.

[1939] Cf. J. R. Bartlett on an Antwerp meeting, in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, 1868.

[1940] Such periodicals as _Nature_ and _Popular Science Review_ show how anthropological science is attracting attention.

[1941] See Scudder’s _Catalogue_.

[1942] The third volume of Bastian’s _Culturländer des Alten America_ (Berlin, 1886) comprises “Nachträge und Ergänzungen aus den Sammlungen des Ethnologischen Museums.”

[1943] _Congrès des Américanistes, Compte Rendus_, Nancy, ii. 271.

[1944] Cf. Oscar Montelius, _Bibliographie de l’archéologie préhistorique de la Suède pendant le 19e siècle, suivie d’un exposé succinct des sociétés archéologiques suédoises_ (Stockholm, 1875).

[1945] It is described by Tylor in his _Anahuac_, ch. 9; by Brocklehurst in his _Mexico to-day_, ch. 21; by Bandelier in the _American Antiquarian_ (1878), ii. 15; in Mayer’s _Mexico_; and in the summary of information (fifteen years old, however) in Bancroft’s _Mexico_, iv. 553, etc., with references, p. 565, which includes references to the Uhde collection at Heidelberg, the Christy collection in London (Tylor), that of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia (_Trans._, iii. 570), not to name the Mexican sections of the large museums of America and Europe. Henry Phillips, Jr. (_Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc._, xxi. p. 111) gives a list of public collections of American Archæology. There are some private collections mentioned in the _Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, Nouv. Ser._, vol. i. A. de Longperier’s _Notice des Monuments dans la Salle des Antiquités Américaines_ (Paris, 1880) covers a part of the great Paris exhibition of that year. Something is found in E. T. Stevens’s _Flint Chips, a guide to prehistoric archæology as illustrated in the Blackmore Museum_ [at Salisbury, England], London, 1870.

[1946] There is an account of Mendoza in the _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc._, April, 1888, p. 172.

[1947] _Coleccion de las Antigüedades Mexicanas que ecsisten en el Museo Nacional, litografiadas por Frederico Waldeck_ (Mexico, 1827—fol.); Sabin, iv. 15796. See miscellaneous references on Mexican relics in Bancroft’s _Nat. Races_, iv. 565.

* * * * * *

Transcriber’s note:

—Obvious errors were corrected.