Chapter X: The Pampas to the Land of Fire (2)

The Fuegians are a vanishing people,--even in a vanishing race. They have long and often been cited as a people without religion. After recounting what is here narrated of their beliefs, Dr. Hyades concludes: "In all these legends, we see no reason seriously to admit a _belief_ in supernatural beings or in a future life, and consequently a religious sentiment, among the Fuegians." This judgement, however, is not wholly supported by the observations of others. According to the fathers of the Salesian mission[221] the Alakaluf believe in "an invisible being called Taquatú, whom they imagine to be a giant who travels by day and night in a big canoe, over the sea and rivers, and who glides as well through the air over the tops of the trees without bending their branches; if he finds any men or women idle or not on the alert he takes them without more ado into his great boat and carries them far away from home." Captain Low, of the Fitzroy expedition, asserted that there was not only a belief in "an immense black man" (Yaccy-ma) responsible for all sorts of evil, among the west Patagonian channel natives, but also that they believed in "a good spirit whom they called Yerri Yuppon," invoked in time of distress and danger. On the other point, of belief in a future life, there is no doubt but that the Fuegians recognize some form of ghost, or breath-spirit, which haunts the walks of men. One missionary says of the Yahgan that he thinks that "when a man dies, his breath goes up to heaven"; nothing similar occurs in the case of animals.

Of myth in the legendary form only meagre fragments have been gathered from the Fuegians, and of these the greater part come from the Ona, who are akin to the Tehuelche.[222] According to Ona lore there formerly "lived on earth bearded white men; the sun and moon were then husband and wife; when men began to war, the sun and moon returned to the sky and sent down a red star, the planet Mars, which turned into a giant on the way; the giant killed all men, then made two mountains or clods of clay, from one of which rose the first Ona man and from the other the first Ona woman." The same tribe have a tradition of a cataclysm which separated the island on which they dwell from the mainland. Both the Ona and the Yahgan have traditions of a flood and tales of earth-born men; and each of these peoples has also a mythic hero (Kuanip is the Ona, Oumoara the Yahgan name) concerning whom tales are told. Some of their stories appear to relate to historical transformations in the mode of tribal life, as the tradition (maintained by both tribes) that in former times the women were the tribal rulers, that the men rebelled, and invented initiation rites and the ruse of masked spirits in order to keep the women in subjection--a type of myth which, however, is rather more plausibly of an aetiological than of an historical character. In the main, nature is the theme of mythic thought, and there is perhaps no more unique a group of ideas among these peoples of the Far South than the Yahgan conception of the relations of the celestial beings: the moon, they say, is the wife of the rainbow, while the sun is elder brother to the moon and to shining Venus.

* * * * *

There is much in the culture and fancies of these peoples of austral America to recall the culture and fancies of their remote kinsmen of the Polar North. The two Americas measure, as it were, the longitude of human habitation, marked off zone by zone into every variety of climate and terrain to which men's lives can be accommodated. Moreover, the native peoples of this New World show a oneness of race nowhere else to be found over so great an area; so that, in spite of differences in culture almost as great as those which mark the heights and depths of human condition in the more anciently peopled hemisphere, there is a recognizable unity binding together Eskimo and Aztec, Inca and Yahgan. Now what is surely most impressive is that this unity is best represented neither by physical appearance nor material achievement (where, indeed, the differences are most magnified), but by a conservation of ideas and of the symbolic language of myth which is at bottom one. Not that there is any single level of thought common to all, for there is surely a world of intelligence between the imaginative splendour of Mayan art and science and tradition and the dimly haunted soul of the Fuegian who "supposes the sun and moon, male and female, to be very old indeed, and that some old man, who knew their maker, had died without leaving information on this subject";[223] but that no matter what the failure to build or the erosion of superstructure, or indeed no matter what the variety of superstructures as, for example, made apparent in the characteristic colours of North American and South American mythologies, there is still _au fond_ a single racial complexion of mind, with a recognizable kinship of the spiritual life. Through vast geographical distances, among peoples long mutually forgotten if ever mutually known, in every variety of natural garb, polar and tropical, forest and sea, this kinship persists, not favoured by, but in spite of, environments the most changing. It is not necessary here invariably to assume migrations of ideas, passed externally from tribe to tribe, although evidence of these, recent and remote, is frequent enough; it is not sufficient to postulate merely the psychical unity of our common human nature, although this, too, is a factor which we should not neglect; but along with these we may reasonably conceive that the American race, through its long isolation, even in its most tenuously connected branches retains a certain deep communion of thought and feeling, a lasting participation in its own mode of insight and its own quest of inspiration, which unites it across the stretches of time and space. The arctic tern is said to summer in the two polar zones, arctic and antarctic, trued to its enormous flight by the most mystifying of all animal instincts. Perhaps it is some human instinct as profound and as mystifying which joins in one thought the scattered peoples of the two continents, charting in modes more subtle than their obvious forms can suggest the impulses which lead men to see their environmental world not as their physical eyes perceive it, but, belied by their eyes, as inner and whispering voices proclaim it to be.

NOTES

[1] That there is an ultimate community of culture and thought between the Andean and Mexican regions can hardly be doubted. Furthermore, it is not merely primitive, but belongs to an era of some advancement in the arts. Spinden (_Ancient Civilizations of Mexico and Central America_ [New York, 1917], and elsewhere) has termed the early stage the "archaic period," and he plausibly argues for its Mexican origination and southward migration. But at any rate since near the beginning of the Christian Era the civilizations of the two regions have developed in virtual independence.

[2] The most admirable general introduction to the whole subject of American ethnography is Wissler, _The American Indian_ (New York, 1917).

[3] The transition from the Antilles to Guiana is, however, rather more marked than is that from the Orinoco to the Amazonian regions. Virtually the whole South American region bounded by the Andes, the Caribbean Sea, and the Argentinian Pampas is one ethnographically; so that, in the present work, Chapters VIII and IX are descriptive of a single region. However, the great rivers have always been natural routes of exploration, and this has given to the river systems an ethnographically factitious, but bibliographically real differentiation.

[4] Wm. Henry Brett, _Legends and Myths of the Aboriginal Indians of British Guiana_ (London, no date).

[5] For a history of this interesting movement in certain phases of European culture see Gilbert Chinard, _L'Exotisme américain_ (Paris, 1911).

[6] Among early writers on Antillean religion the most important are Christopher Columbus, Ramon Pane, and Peter Martyr d'Anghiera. Columbus left Fray Ramon Pane in Haiti with instructions to report on the religious beliefs of the natives; and in Fernando Columbus's _Historie_, ch. lxii, Pane's narrative is incorporated, introduced by a brief quotation from Christopher Columbus, describing Zemiism. After Pane, the account of Haitian religion in Peter Martyr's "First Decade" is the most important source, although Benzoni, Gómara, Herrera, Las Casas, and Oviedo give additional or corroborative information. Of recent writings those of J. W. Fewkes, embodying the results of careful archaeological studies, form the most important contribution. Part ii of Joyce's _Central American and West Indian Archaeology_ gives a general survey of the field, which is more briefly treated in livre ii, 3e partie, of Beuchat's _Manuel_, and in its comparative aspects by Wissler, _The American Indian_.

[7] Beuchat, Joyce [a], and Fewkes [b] describe the condition of the Antilleans at the time of the discovery as reconstructed from early accounts and archaeological investigations. Of the early writings, the descriptions of Las Casas are the most detailed. The use of _Taïno_ to designate the island Arawakan tribes follows Fewkes [b], p. 26: "Among the first words heard by the comrades of Columbus when they landed in Guadeloupe were '_Taïno! taïno!_'--'Peace! peace!' or 'We are friends.' The designation '_taïno_' has been used by several writers as a characteristic name for the Antillean race. Since it is both significant and euphonious, it may be adopted as a convenient substitute for the adjective 'Antillean' to designate a cultural type. The author applies the term to the original sedentary people of the West Indies, as distinguished from the Carib." The incident to which reference is made is described in _Select Letters of Columbus (HS)_, p. 28. It is perhaps worth while to note that Peter Martyr (tr. MacNutt, i. 66, 81) says that _taïno_ signifies "a virtuous man." The word _carib, caniba,_ is the source of our _cannibal_. It is possible that it means "man-eater" and is of Taïno origin. Columbus, in the _Journal_ of the first voyage (tr. Bourne, p. 223), is authority for the statement that "Carib" is the Hispaniolan form of the name. Im Thurn (p. 163) says that the Guiana Carib call themselves _Carinya_, which would seem to show that the word is an autonym, in which case it may mean, as Herrera says (III. v), "valiant." It is rather curious, if the insular Carib were the inveterate cannibals the earlier writers make them to be, that those of the mainland should have held the practice in abhorrence, for which we have Humboldt's statement, _Voyage_ (tr. Ross, ii. 413).

[8] A term of some interest is _cacique_, which is generally regarded as Haitian in origin, being, says Peter Martyr (tr. MacNutt, i. 82) their word for "king." Bastian, however, affirms that it is Arabic (ii. 293, note): "Das Wort Cazique ist nicht amerikanisch, sino arabigo, usado entre los alarabes de Africa en el Reyno de Mazagan, con el qual nombran al principal y cabeças de los aduares, como tambien le nombran Xeque (meint Simon)."

[9] The literature of the discovery is summarized by Beuchat, "Bibliographie," ch. iv. Christopher Columbus's _Letters_ and _Journal_, tr. Major, Markham, and Bourne, are here quoted.

[10] The question of Amazons (cf. _infra_, Ch. IX, i), is a curious commingling of Old and New World myth, with, perhaps, some foundation in primitive custom, especially linguistic. Thus Beuchat, p. 509 (citing Raymond Breton and Lucien Adam; cf. also Ballet, citing du Tertre, pp. 398-99), states that the Caribs of the Isles had separate vocabularies, in part at least, for men and women, and that the women's speech contained a majority of Arawak words. This argument should not be pushed too far, however, for there are a number of South American languages with well-differentiated man-tongue and woman-tongue, where a similar origin of the difference is not shown. On his first voyage Columbus (letters to de Santangel and Sanchez), though he did not meet them, heard of "ferocious men, eaters of human flesh, wearing their hair long like women." On the second voyage--as described by Chanca in his "Letter to the Chapter of Seville" (_Select Letters_)--the Caribs were encountered and found to be holding in slavery many Taïno women: "In their attacks upon the neighbouring islands, these people capture as many of the women as they can, especially those who are young and beautiful, and keep them as concubines; and so great a number do they carry off, that in fifty houses no men were to be seen" (p. 31). It is added that the Caribs ate the children born of these captive women (a custom ascribed also to some South American cannibalistic tribes); but as it is said in the same connexion that captive boys were not devoured until they grew up, "for they say that the flesh of boys and women is not good to eat," the story is scarcely plausible. Herrera repeats that the Caribs ate no women, but kept them as slaves, in association with the statement that the natives of Dominica ate a friar, and dying of a flux caused by his flesh, gave over their cannibalism. These stories seem to point to a ritualistic element in the cannibalism, for to the Carib the flesh of warriors was the only man's meat. Of course, in the notion of Amazons there was an element of myth as well as of custom, and the myth was certainly known to Columbus, if we may trust the authenticity (and there is small reason to doubt it) of the paragraph with which Ramon Pane's narrative is introduced. For the myth in question see _supra_, pp. 31-32, and cf. Pane, chh. iii-v.

[11] The story of the search for the Fountain of Youth and of the colony of Antillean Indians in Florida is to be found in Fontaneda, pp. 17-19. The influence of Antillean culture has been traced well to the north of Florida, where it may have been extended by the pre-Muskhogean population; see also Herrera, III. v.

[12] The story of Hathvey, or Hatuey, is given by Fewkes [b], pp. 211-12, and by Joyce [a], p. 244; its source is Las Casas [a], III. xxv.

[13] West Indian idolatry, called Zemiism, is earliest described in the passage attributed to Christopher Columbus (Fernando Columbus, ch. lxi); other authorities here quoted are Benzoni, pp. 78-80; Peter Martyr, "First Decade," ix (tr. MacNutt, i. 167-78); Ramon Pane, ch. xix-xxiv (tr. Pinkerton, xii. 87-89); and Las Casas [b], chh. clxvi-vii; cf. also Fewkes, especially [b], [e], Joyce [a], and Beuchat.

[14] The most interesting artifacts from the Antilles are the stone rings, triangles, and elbows, which must be regarded as certainly ritualistic in character, and probably as used in fertility rites. This is not only indicated by Columbus and Ramon Pane, but is supported by numerous analogies. Ramon Pane (ch. xix) says: "The stone _cemis_ are of several sorts: some there are which, they say, the physicians take out of the body of the sick, and those they look upon as best to help women in labour. Others there are that speak, which are shaped like a long turnip, with the leaves long and extended, like the shrub-bearing capers. Those leaves, for the most part, are like those of the elm. Others have three points, and they think they cause the yucca to thrive." It is perhaps not far-fetched to see in the triangular stones analogues of the mountain-man images of the Tlaloque in Mexico, or of the similar images from South America, certainly used in connexion with rain ceremonies. Very likely separate forms were employed for different plants, as maize or yucca. The stone rings, again, could very reasonably be those which were supposed to help women in labour, as seems to have been the case with the analogous rings and yokes from Yucatan (see Fewkes, _25 ARBE_, pp. 259-61). Even if the two types of stones were combined, as seems altogether likely, at least for magic and divination, there is congruity in the relationship of both types to fertility, animal and vegetable respectively. Señor J. J. Acosta has suggested that the Antillean stone rings represent the bodies, and the triangular stones the heads, of serpents; and this is not without plausibility in view of the frequency with which serpents are regarded as fertility emblems. It may be worth recalling, too, that an Antillean name for doctor, or medicine-man, signified "serpent."

[15] There is no reason to assume any essential difference in character in the shamans or medicine-men of the North and South American Indians. In general, the lower the tribe in the scale of political organization, the more important is the shaman or doctor, and the more distinctly individual and the less tribal are the offices which he performs; as organization grows in social complexity, the function of priest emerges as distinct from that of doctor, the priest becoming the depository of ritual, and the doctor or shaman, on a somewhat lower level, attending the sick or practising magic and prophecy. Apparently in the Antilles the two offices were on the way to differentiation, if, indeed, they were not already distinct. The _bohutis, buhuitihus, boii,_ or, as Peter Martyr latinizes, _bovites_ of this region were evidently both doctors and priests. Certainly both Ramon Pane's and Peter Martyr's descriptions imply this; though there are some hints which would seem to point to a special class of ritual priests, who may or may not have been doctors, as when priests are said to act as mouthpieces of the cacique in giving oracles from hollow statues, or as when Martyr (following Pane) says that "only the sons of chiefs" are allowed to learn the traditional chants of the great ceremonials (p. 172). The term _peaiman_, applied to the shamans of the Guiana tribes, is, says im Thurn (p. 328), an Anglicized form of the Carib word _puyai_ or _peartzan_. The _peaiman_, im Thurn states, "is not simply the doctor, but also, in some sense, the priest or magician." As matter of fact, the priestly element is slight among the continental Caribs, their practice being pure shamanism; and Fewkes ([b], p. 54) says that they "still speak of their priests as _ceci-semi_"--a term clearly related to _zemi_. "The prehistoric Porto Ricans," he says again (ib. p. 59), "had a well-developed priesthood, called _boii_ (serpents), _mabouya_, and _buhiti_, which are apparently dialect or other forms of the same word." It was in Porto Rico, of course, that Carib and Taïno elements were most mixed. Brett [a], p. 363, in a note, derives the word _piai_ from Carib _puiai_, which, he says, is in Ackawoi _piatsan_; while the Arawak use _semecihi_, and the Warau _wisidaa_, for the same functionary. Certainly the resemblance of _boye_ and _puiai_, and of _zemi_ and _semecihi_, or _ceci-semi_, indicates identities of origin, though the particular meanings are not altogether the same.

[16] Little is preserved of Antillean myth, and that little is contained almost wholly in the narrative of Ramon Pane. The authorities here quoted are Ramon Pane, chh. i, ix-xi, ii-vii (tr. Pinkerton, xii); Peter Martyr (tr. MacNutt, i. 167-70); Benzoni; and Ling Roth, in _JAI_ xvi. 264-65. Stoddard gives free versions of several of the tales.

[17] Peter Martyr, _loc. cit._ (quoting pp. 166-67, 172-76).

[18] Gómara [a], ch. xxvii, p. 173, ed. Vedia (tr. Fewkes [b], pp. 66-67); cf. Benzoni, pp. 79-82; Las Casas [b], ch. clxvii. The plate representing the Earth Spirit ceremony is taken from (cf. Fewkes [b], Plate IX) Picart, _The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Several Nations of the known World_, London, 1731-37, Plate No. 78.

[19] Im Thurn, pp. 335-38; cf. Fewkes [e], p. 355.

[20] Ramon Pane, chh. xiv, xxv; Gómara [a], ch. xxxiii, pp. 175-76, ed. Vedia, gives supplementary information.

[21] Authorities cited for Carib lore are Columbus, _Select Letters_, pp. 29-37; im Thurn, pp. 192, 217, 222; Fewkes [b], pp. 27, 217-20, 68; Ballet, citing du Tertre and others, pp. 421-22, 433-38, 400-01; Davies, cited by Fewkes [b], pp. 60, 65; Currier, citing la Borde, pp. 508-09.

[22] Holmes, "Areas of American Culture" (in _AA_, new series, xvi, 1914) gives a chart of North America showing five culture areas for Mexico and Central America, in general corresponding to the grouping here made. The _American Indian_ of Wissler, the _Ancient Civilizations_ of Spinden, the _Manuel_ of Beuchat and the _Mexican Archaeology_ of Joyce follow approximately the same lines. E. G. Tarayre's "Report" in _Archives de la commission scientifique du Mexique_, iii (Paris, 1867) contains "Notes ethnographiques sur les régions mexicaines." For linguistic divisions the standard works are Orozco y Berra [b], Nicolás León [a], and especially Thomas and Swanton, _Indian Languages of Mexico and Central America (44 BBE)_; cf. Mechling [b]. Contemporary ethnography is described in Lumholtz [a], [b], [c], in McGee, and in Starr [a], [b].

[23] Doubtless it should be stated at the outset that there is serious and reasonable question on the part of not a few students of aboriginal Mexico as to whether Aztec institutions merit the name "empire" in any sense analogous to those of the imperial states of the Old World. "A loose confederacy of democratic Indians" is the phrase employed by Waterman [a], p. 250, in describing the form of the Mexican state as it is pictured by Morgan, Bandelier, Fiske, and others (see Waterman, _loc. cit._, for sources); and it is altogether reasonable to expect that Americanist studies will eventually show that the great Middle American nations were developed from, and retained characteristics of, communities resembling the Pueblos of our own Southwest rather than the European states which the Spaniards had in the eye when they made their first observations. It is to be expected, too, that a changed complexion put upon the interpretation of Mexican society will eventually modify the interpretation of Mexican ritual and mythology, giving it, for example, something less of the uranian significance upon which scholars of the school of Förstermann and Seler put so great weight, and something more, if not of the Euhemerism of Brasseur de Bourbourg, at least of reliance upon social motives and historical traditions.

[24] Of all regions of primitive America, ancient Mexico is represented by the most extensive literature; and here, too, more has been transmitted directly from native sources than is the case elsewhere. The hieroglyphic codices, the anonymous _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas_ and _Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico_ (better known and commonly cited as _The Annals of Quauhtitlan_), and the writings of men of native blood in the Spanish period, notably Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and Chimalpahin, are the most important of these sources; unless, as is doubtless proper, the works of Sahagun, originally written in Nahuatl from native sources, be here included--undoubtedly the single source of greatest importance. Among Spanish writers of the early period, after Sahagun, the most important are Cristobal del Castillo, Diego Durán, Gómara, Herrera, Mendieta, Motolinia, Tobar, and Torquemada. Boturini, Clavigero, Veytia, Kingsborough, Prescott, and Brasseur de Bourbourg are important names of the intermediate period; while recent scholarship is represented by Brinton, Bancroft, Hamy, García Icazbalceta, Orozco y Berra, Peñafiel, Ramirez, Rosny, and most conspicuously by Seler. The most convenient recent introductions to the subject are afforded by Beuchat, _Manuel_; Joyce, _Mexican Archaeology_; Spinden, _Ancient Civilizations of Mexico_; while the best guide to the whole literature is Lehmann's "Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexikanistischen Forschung," in _Archiv für Anthropologie_, new series, vi, 1907 (translated as _Methods and Results in Mexican Research_, Paris, 1909). But while the material is relatively abundant, it is so only for the dominant race represented by the Aztec. For the non-Nahuatlan civilizations of Mexico the literature is sparse, especially upon the side of mythology. Sahagun gives certain details, mainly incidental, except in X. xxix, which is devoted to a brief description of the peoples of Mexico. Gómara, Herrera, and Torquemada afford added materials, touching several regions. For the Totonac-Huastec region the sources are particularly scanty, except for such descriptions of externals as naturally appear in the chronicles of Cortez, Bernal Diaz, and other _conquistadores_ who here made their first intimate acquaintance with the mainland natives. Fewkes [g] deals with the monuments of the Totonac region, and expresses the opinion (p. 241, note) that the Codex Tro-Cortesianus, commonly said to be Maya, was obtained in this region, near Cempoalan; Holmes [b], and Seler, in numerous places, are also material sources for interpretation of the monuments. For the Tarascans of Michoacan the most important source is an anonymous _Relacion de las ceremonias, rictos, poblacion y gobernacion de los Indios de Michuacan hecha al illmo. Sr. D. Ant. de Mendoza_ (Madrid, 1875; Morelia, 1903), while of recent studies Nicolás León's _Los Tarascos_ (see León [c]) is the most comprehensive. The Mixtec-Zapotec area fares better, both as to number of sources and later studies. Burgoa, Juan de Córdoba, Gregorio García, Balsalobre, Herrera, Las Casas, and Torquemada are the primary authorities; while the most significant later studies are doubtless those of Seler, "The Mexican Chronology with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," and "Wall Paintings of Mitla," both in _28 BBE_. Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], bk. ix, deals with the Mixtec-Zapotec and Tarascan peoples, and is still a good introduction to the literature. Cf. also Alvarez; Castellanos (himself a Zapotec); Génin; León [d]; Mechling; Portillo; Radin.

[25] The works of Clavigero, Helps, Prescott, Orozco y Berra [b], and Veytia are the best-known histories narrating the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Of the earlier writers Bernal Diaz, who took part in the expeditions of Cordova and Grijalva, as well as in that of Cortez, is the most important (of his work there are several English translations besides that of Maudsley in _HS_--by Maurice Keatinge, London, 1800, by John G. Lockhart, London, 1844, and a condensed version by Kate Stephens, _The Mastering of Mexico_, New York, 1915).

[26] Bernal Diaz, ch. xcii (quoted), describes the ascent of the temple overlooking Tlatelolco. Seler [a], ii. 769-70, says that on the upper platform were two shrines, one to Tlaloc, the other to the three idols described by Bernal Diaz, of which the principal was not "Huichilobos" (Huitzilopochtli), but Coatlicue, the earth goddess. The "page" Seler regards as the tutelary of Tlatelolco, called Tlacauepan. The great temple of Huitzilopochtli was in the centre of the city, on the site of the present Cathedral. See León y Gama; Seler [a], _loc. cit._; and cf. Zelia Nuttall, "L'Évèque Zumárraga et les principales idoles du Templo Mayor de Mexico," in _SocAA_ xxx (1911).

[27] General descriptions of the Aztec pantheon are given by Beuchat, livre ii, Ie partie, chh. v, vi, and by Joyce [b], ch. ii. The most important early source is Sahagun, bk. i; other primary sources are Mendieta, bk. ii (derived from de Olmos), León y Gama (in part from Cristobal del Castillo), Ruiz de Alarcón, Jacinto de la Serna, the _Tratado de los ritos y ceremonias y dioses_ of the _Códice Ramirez_ (see Tobar, in Bibliography), and the explanations of the Codices Vaticanus A and Telleriano-Remensis (Kingsborough, v, vi). Of recent works the most significant are Seler [a] (collected essays), and [b], [c], [d], [e] (analyses of divinatory or astrological codices).

[28] For data concerning the use of these numbers by American peoples north of Mexico, see _Mythology of All Races_, Boston, 1916, x, Ch. IX, iv, and Notes 11, 31, 42, 50, with references there given. Further allusions to the nine and thirteen of Mexican cosmology will be found _infra_, Ch. III, i, iii. The origin of the peculiar uses of the number thirteen is a puzzle without satisfactory solution. In the explanation of Vaticanus A (Kingsborough, vi. 198, note), it is said--referring to the statement that "Tonacatecotle" presides over the "thirteen causes"--that "the causes are really only nine, corresponding in number with the heavens. But since four of them are reckoned twice in every series of thirteen days, in order that each day might be placed under some peculiar influence, they are said to be thirteen." This, however, is probably assuming effect for cause (cf. Ch. III, iii).

[29] Sahagun, VI. xxxii. Other references to Sahagun are, III, Appendix i; X. xxi.

[30] Seler [b], p. 31; [c], pp. 5, 10, 14.

[31] Seler [c], pp. 5-31, where he discusses the whole problem of cruciform and caryatid figures; as also in [e], ii., 107, 126-34; [d], pp. 76-93.

[32] Seler [a], index, _s. w_., is a guide to the manifold attributes of the Aztec gods. The most important myths concerning them are related by Sahagun, bk. iii, and by the authorities cited with respect to cosmogonies, _infra_, Ch. III, i, ii.

[33] See especially Seler [a], ii, "Die Ausgrabungen am Orte des Haupttempels in Mexico"; [c], p. 112; Sahagun, III. i; _Tratado de los Ritos_, etc. (see Tobar, in Bibliography); Robelo [a], _s. v._; and Charency, _L'Origine de la légende d'Huitzilopochtli_ (Paris, 1897); cf. also _infra_, Ch. III, v. The story of Tlahuicol is given by Clavigero, V. vi.

[34] See Seler [b], p. 60; [c], pp. 33, 205; [d], pp. 77, 95-96; [e], index. The prayers quoted are in Sahagun, VI. i, iv, v, vi; while the famous sacrifice is described in II. v, xxiv (also by Torquemada, VII. xix and X. xiv; and picturesquely by Prescott, I. iii). The myths are in Sahagun, III. iv ff.; a version with a different list of magicians (Ihuimecatl and Toltecatl are the companions of Tezcatlipoca) is given by Ramirez, _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, pp. 17-18.

[35] See Seler, indexes, and the picturesque and romantic treatment by Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], iii. The more striking early sources are Sahagun, III. iii-xv; VI. vii, xxv (quoted), xxxiv (quoted); IX. xxix; X. iii, iv; Ixtlilxochitl, _Historia Chichimeca_, I. i, ii; _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, pp. 17-23; Mendieta, II. v; and _Explicación del Codex Telleriano-Remensis_ (Kingsborough, v). For later discussions see Léon de Rosny, "Le Mythe de Quetzalcoatl," in _Archives de la société des américanistes de France_ (Paris, 1878); Seler [a], iii, "Ueber die natürlichen Grundlagen mexikanischer Mythen"; [b], pp. 41-48 (p. 45 here quoted); and Joyce [b], pp. 46-51. Duplicates or analogues of Quetzalcoatl are described in _Mythology of All Races_, Boston, 1916, x, Ch. IX, iii, v; Ch. XI, ii (p. 243); and _infra_, Ch. IV, ii; Ch. V, iv; Ch. VI, iv; Ch. VII, iv; Ch. VIII, ii.

[36] For Tlaloc see especially Seler [a], iii. 100-03; [b], pp. 62-67; Sahagun, I. iv, xxi; II. i, iii, xx (quoted), and Appendix, where is given the description of the curious octennial festival in which the rain-gods were honoured with a dance at which live frogs and snakes were eaten; the feast was accompanied by a fast viewed as a means of permitting the deities to resuscitate their food-creating energies, which were regarded as overworked or exhausted by their eight years' labour. See also _Historia de los Mexicanos for sus Pinturas_, chh. ii, vi; and Hamy [b]. References to Chalchiuhtlicue will be found in Seler [a], index; [b], pp. 56-58; etc. The ritual prayer is recorded by Sahagun, VI. xxxii.

[37] Sahagun, bk. i; Seler [a], index; and Robelo [a], are guides to the analysis and grouping of the Aztec deities.

[38] See Seler [d], pp. 130-131.

[39] Seler [a], ii. 1071-78, and _CA_ xiii. 171-74 (hymn to Xipe Totec, here freely rendered). See, also, Seler [b], pp. 100-104, and [a], ii, "Die religiösen Gesänge der alten Mexikaner" (cf. Brinton [d], [e]), where a number of deities are characterized by translations and studies of hymns preserved in a Sahagun MS. A description of the Pawnee form of the arrow sacrifice will be found in _Mythology of All Races_, Boston, 1916, x. 76 (with plate), and Note 58. The Aztec form is pictured in Codex Nuttall, No. 83, as is also the famous _sacrificio gladiatorio_ (as the Spaniards called it), of which Durán, _Album_, gives several drawings. The _sacrificio gladiatorio_ was apparently in some rites a first stage leading to the arrow sacrifice (see Seler [e], i. 170-73, where several figures are reproduced).

[40] Tonacatecutli is treated by Seler [d], pp. 130 ff. See also, _supra_, Ch. II, iii; _infra_, Ch. III, i.

[41] Seler [d], p. 133; and for discussion of Xochiquetzal, Seler [b], pp. 118-24.

[42] Sahagun, I. vi, xii. Seler [b], pp. 92-100, discusses Tlazolteotl, on p. 93 giving the story of the sacrifice of the Huastec, taken from Ramirez, _Anales_, pp. 25-26.

[43] The conception of sacrifice as instituted to keep the world vivified, and especially to preserve the life of the Sun, appears in a number of documents, particularly in connexion with cosmogony (see Ch. III, i, ii), as Sahagun, III, Appendix, iv; VI. iii; VII. ii; _Explicacion del Codex Telleriano-Remensis_ (Kingsborough, v. 135); and especially in the _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas_; see also Payne, i. 577-82; Seler [a], iii. 285; [b], pp. 37-41; "Die Sage von Quetzalcouatl," in _CA_ xvi (Vienna, 1910).

[44] Sahagun, III, Appendix, i (quoted); cf. Seler [b], pp. 82-86. See also Sahagun, _loc. cit._, ch. ii, for a description of Tlalocan, and ch. iii. for a description of the celestial paradise (cf. I. x and VI. xxix).

[45] The meaning of _Tamoanchan_ is discussed by Preuss, "Feuergötter," who regards it as an underworld region; by Beyer, in _Anthropos_, iii, who explains it as the Milky Way; and by Seler [a], ii, "Die religiösen Gesänge der alten Mexikaner," and [e] (see index), who identifies it with the western region, the house of the evening sun. Xolotl is discussed, in the same connexions, by Seler; see especially [b], pp. 108-12. The myth from Sahagun is in VII. ii; those from Mendieta in II. i, ii.

[46] The limbo of children's souls is described in the _Spiegazione dette tavole del Códice Mexicano_ (here quoting Kingsborough, vi. 171).

[47] Mexican cosmogonies are discussed by Robelo [a], art. "Cosmogonia," in _AnMM_, 2a época, iii; Bancroft, III. ii (full bibliographical notes); R. H. Lowie, art. "Cosmogony and Cosmology (Mexican and South American)," in _ERE_; Brühl, pp. 398-401; Brinton [a], vii; Charency [a]; Müller, pp. 510-12; Spence [b], iii. A literary version of some of the old cosmogonic stories is given by Castellanos [b].

[48] Herrera, III. iii. 10 (quoted by León, in _AnMM_, 2a época, i. 395).

[49] Mixtec and Zapotec myth are studied by Seler, _28 BBE_, pp. 285-305 (pp. 289, 286 are here quoted); the source cited for the Mixtec myth is Gregorio García, _Origen de los Indios_, V. iv; for Zapotec, Juan de Córdoba, _Arte del Idioma Zapoteca_.

[50] Sahagun, VI. vii, with reference to the Chichimec (elsewhere he speaks of Mixcoatl as an Otomian god); X. xxix. I, with reference to the Toltec; III. i, ii, and VII. ii, with reference to the origin of the sun, etc.

[51] Seler [b], p. 38.

[52] Mendieta (after Fray Andrés de Olmos), II. i-iv.

[53] The fullest versions of the Mexican cosmic ages, or "Suns," are: (a) Ixtlilxochitl (_Historia Chichimeca_, I. i; _Relaciones_, ed. Kingsborough, ix. 321 ff., 459); (b) _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas_, i-viii--the narrative which most resembles a primitive myth; (c) _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_ (ed. Ramirez, pp. 9-11), partly translated into French by Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], i. Appendice, pp. 425-27, where the version of the deluge myth is given; (d) _Spiegazione dette tavole del Codice Mexicano_ (i.e. Codex Vaticanus A), where Plates VII-X are described as symbols of the Suns; though a discordant explanation is given in connexion with Plate V. Other authorities are Gómara [b], p. 431; Muñoz Camargo, p. 132; Humboldt [a], ii, Plate XXVI; and especially Charency [a], who makes a comparative study of the myth. Monumental evidences are discussed by Seler [a], ii, "Die Ausgrabungen am Orte des Haupttempels in Mexico," and by MacCurdy [a]. Maya forms of the myth are sketched _infra_, pp. 153-55; cf. pp. 159 ff.

[54] The _Spiegazione_ contains the description of the deluge (Kingsborough, vi. 195-96), chiefly in connexion with Plate XVI. Similar material, briefly treated, is in the _Explicación del Codex Telleriano-Remensis_.

[55] The literature dealing with the Mexican calendar is voluminous. Summary treatments of the subject, based on recent studies, are to be found in Beuchat, II. i. 5; Joyce [b], iii.; Preuss, art. "Calendar (Mexican and Mayan)," in _ERE_. The primary sources for knowledge of the calendar are three: (1) writings of the early chroniclers, among whom the most noteworthy are Sahagun, books ii, iv, vii, and León y Gama, who derives in part from Cristobal del Castillo; (2) calendric codices, the more important being Codex Borgia, studied by Fábrega, in _AnMM_ v, and by Seler [a], i, and [e]; Codex Borbonicus, studied by Hamy [a], and de Jonghe; Codex Vaticanus B (3773), studied by Seler [d]; Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer, studied by Seler [c]; Codex Bologna (or Cospianus), studied by Seler [a], i; Codex Nuttall, studied by Nuttall; and the _Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection_, studied by Seler [b]; (3) monuments, especially calendar stones: León y Gama, _Dos Piedras_; Chavero [a]; MacCurdy [a]; and Róbelo [b] are studies of such monuments. Recent investigations of importance, in addition to papers by Seler ([a] and elsewhere), are Z. Nuttall, "The Periodical Adjustments of the Ancient Mexican Calendar," in _AA_, new series, vi (1904), and Preuss, "Kosmische Hieroglyphen der Mexikaner," in _ZE_ xxxiii (1901). Studies of the Maya calendar (especially the important contributions of Förstemann, in _28 BBE_) and of that of the Zapotec (Seler, "The Mexican Chronology, with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," ib.) are, of course, intimately related to the Aztec system. For statement of current problems, see Lehmann [a], pp. 164-66.

[56] For Mexican astronomy, in addition to the studies of the codices, see Sahagun, bk. vii; Tezozomoc, lxxxii; Seler, _28 BBE_, "The Venus Period in the Picture Writings of the Borgian Codex Group" (tr. from art. in _Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte_, 1898); Hagar [a], [b]; Chavero [b]; and Nuttall [a], especially pp. 245-59. On the question of the zodiac, advocated by Hagar, see H. J. Spinden, "The Question of the Zodiac in America," in _AA_, new series, xviii (1916), and the bibliography there given.

[57] Accounts of the archaeology of Tollan, or Tula, are to be found in Charnay [a], iv-vi, and in Joyce [b], especially in the Appendix. Sahagun's description of the Toltec is in X. xxix. 1. The _Spiegazione_ of Codex Vaticanus A, Plate X, gives interesting additions (here quoted from Kingsborough, vi. 178). The chief authority, however, is Ixtlilxochitl, whose accounts of the Toltec, Chichimec, and especially Tezcucan powers have frequently been regarded with suspicion, as coloured by too free a fancy. Nevertheless, as Lehmann points out ([a], p. 121), it is certain that Ixtlilxochitl had at his command sources now lost. Much of his material is clearly in a native vein, and there is no impossibility that it is a version of history which is only slightly exalted.

[58] Spanish and French versions of the elegy of Nezahualcoyotl (here rather freely adapted) are in _TC_ xiv. 368-73.

[59] The Aztec migration is a conspicuous feature of native tradition, and is, therefore, prominent in the histories, being figured by several of the codices, as well as in Durán's _Album_. An early narration of the Aztec myth forms chh. ix ff. of the _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas_, while the _Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de México_, the narrative of the "Anónimo Mexicano," and Tezozomoc, i-iii, give other native versions. Mendieta, Sahagun, and Durán, are other sources for the myth. Seler [a], ii, "Wo lag Aztlan, die Heimat der Azteken?" gives a careful study of the mythical elements in the migration-story as displayed in the Codex Boturini and elsewhere. Orozco y Berra [a], iv, presents a comparative study of the Aztec rulers, drawn from the various accounts. Buelna's _Peregrinación_ is generally regarded as the completest study of the migration from both legendary and archaeological evidence. Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], VI. iv, contains an account of the Aztlan myth, while VII sketches the development of Nahuatlan power in Tezcuco and Mexico; in ii. 598-602, the Abbé gives his chronological restoration of the history of Anahuac. Motezuma's _Corona Mexicana_ should be mentioned as a partly native source for the records of the Aztec monarchs; while Chimalpahin represents not only a native record, but one composed in the native tongue.

[60] Mendieta, II. xxxiii-xxxiv.

[61] Sahagun, X. xxix. 12.

[62] Best known is the Codex Boturini (reproduced in Kingsborough, i; see also García Cubas [b], where Codex Boturini is compared with a supplementary historical painting; interesting reproductions of related Acolhua paintings, the "Mappe Tlotzin" and the "Mappe Quinatzin," are in Aubin [a]).

[63] Durán, xxvii.

[64] Accounts of the portents that preceded the coming of Cortez are conspicuous in nearly all the early narratives; among them Acosta, VI. xxii; Clavigero, V. xii, etc.; Chimalpahin, "Septième relation"; Durán, lxi, lxiii, etc.; Ixtlilxochitl, _Historia Chichimeca_, II. lxxii; Sahagun, XII. i; Tezozomoc, xcvii; Torquemada, III. xci.

[65] The Papago myth is given by Bancroft, III. ii (after Davidson, _Report on Indian Affairs_ [Washington, 1865], pp. 131-33); cf. Lumholtz [c], p. 42.

[66] For identification of the Nicaraguan divinities (originally described by Oviedo) see Seler [a], ii. 1029-30. Phases of contemporary pagan myth in Mexico are treated by Lumholtz (_passim_), Preuss, Mechling [a], Mason, and Radin. Interesting ritualistic analogies are suggested by Fewkes, Evans, Génin, Nuttall, and Preuss.

[67] Preuss [a], [b], and Lumholtz [b], I. xxix.

[68] Preuss, "Die magische Denkweise der Cora-Indianer," in _CA_ xviii (London, 1913), pp. 129-34.

[69] Seler [a], iii. 376, regards the Huichol Tamats as the Morning Star, which is certainly plausible in view of his similarity to Chuvalete of the Cora. Huichol myth and deities are described by Lumholtz [a], ii (p. 12 here quoted); [b], II. ix; cf., also, Preuss.

[70] Lumholtz [b], i. 356.

[71] The physiography and ethnography of the Maya region are summarized in Spinden [a]; Beuchat, II, ii; and in Joyce [b], ch. viii. Wissler, _The American Indian_ in this, as in other fields, most effectively presents the relations--ethnical, cultural, historical--to the other American groups. Recent special studies of importance are Tozzer [a]; Starr, _In Indian Mexico_, etc.; Sapper [b]; and the more distinctively archaeological studies of Holmes, Morley, Spinden, and others.

[72] It is unfortunate that the region of Maya culture was the subject of no such full reports, dating from the immediate post-Conquest period, as we possess from Mexico. The more important of the Spanish writers who deal with the Yucatec centres are Aguilar, Cogolludo, Las Casas, Landa, Lizana, Nuñez de la Vega, Ordoñez y Aguiar, Pio Pérez, Pedro Ponce, and Villagutierre, with Landa easily first in significance. The histories of Eligio Ancona and of Carrillo y Ancona are the leading Spanish works of later date. Native writings are represented by three hieroglyphic pre-Cortezian codices, namely, Codex Dresdensis, Codex Tro-Cortesianus, and Codex Peresianus, as well as by the important _Books of Chilam Balam_ and the _Chronicle_ of Nakuk Pech from the early Spanish period (for description of thirteen manuscripts and bibliography of published works relating to their interpretation, see Tozzer, "The Chilam Balam Books," in _CA_ xix [Washington, 1917]). Yet what Mayan civilization lacks in the way of literary monuments is more than compensated by the remains of its art and architecture, to which an immense amount of shrewd study has been devoted. The more conspicuous names of those who have advanced this study are mentioned in connexion with the literature of the Maya calendar, Note 92, _infra_. The region has been explored archaeologically with great care, the magnificent reports of Maudsley (in _Biologia Centrali-Americana_) and of the Peabody Museum expeditions (_Memoirs_), prepared by Gordon, Maler, Thompson, and others, being the collections of eminence. Brasseur de Bourbourg can scarcely be mentioned too often in connexion with this field. His fault is that of Euhemerus, but he is neither the first nor the last of the tribe of this sage; while for his virtues, he shows more constructive imagination than any other Americanist: probably the picture which he presents would be less criticized were it less vivid.

[73] Landa, chh. v-xi (vi, ix, being here quoted).

[74] The sources for the history of the Maya are primarily the native chronicles (the _Books of Chilam Balam_), the _Relaciones de Yucatán_, and the histories of Cogolludo, Landa, Lizana, and Villagutierre. The deciphering of the monumental dates of the southern centres has furnished an additional group of facts, the correlation of which to the history of the north has become a special problem, with its own literature. The most important attempts to synchronize Maya dates with the years of our era are by Pio Pérez (reproduced both by Stephens [b] and by Brasseur de Bourbourg [b]); Seler [a], i, "Bedeutung des Maya-Kalenders für die historische Chronologie"; Goodman [a], [b]; Bowditch [a]; Spinden [a], pp. 130-35; [b] (with chart); Joyce [b], Appendix iii (with chart); and Morley [a], [b], [c] and [d]. Bowditch, Spinden, Joyce, and Morley are not radically divergent and may be regarded as representing the conservative view--here accepted as obviously the plausible one. Carrillo y Ancona, ch. ii, analyzes some of the earlier opinions; while the first part of Ancona's _Historia de Yucatán_ is devoted to ancient Yucatec history and is doubtless the best general work on the subject.

[75] Brinton [f], p. 100 ("Introduction" to the _Book of Chilan Balam of Mani_).

[76] Spinden [b]; Joyce [b], ch. viii. But cf. Morley's chronological scheme, _infra_; and Spinden [a], pp. 130-35.

[77] Morley [c], ch. i.

[78] Morley [b], p. 140. In this connection (p. 144) Morley summarizes the various speculations as to the causes which led to the abandonment of the southern centres, as reduction of the land by primitive agricultural methods (Cook), climatic changes (Huntington), physical, moral and political decadence (Spinden). He adds: "Probably the decline of civilization in the south was not due to any one of these factors operating singly, but to a combination of adverse influences, before which the Maya finally gave way."

[79] The culture heroes of Maya myth have taken possession of the imaginations of the Spanish chroniclers, and indeed of not a few later commentators, rather as clues to native history than to mythology. Bancroft, iii. 450-55, 461-67, summarizes the materials from Spanish sources; which is treated also, from the point of view of possible historical elucidation, by Ancona, I. iii; Carrillo y Ancona, ii, iii; Comte de Charency [b]; García Cubas, in _SocAA_ xxx, nos. 3-6; and Santibáñez, in _CA_ xvii. 2.

[80] The primary sources for the Votan stories are Cogolludo, Ordoñez y Aguiar, and Nuñez de la Vega, whose narratives are liberally summarized by Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], I. i, ii (pp. 68-72 containing the passages from Ordoñez here quoted).

[81] For Zamna (or Itzamna) the sources are Cogolludo, Landa, and Lizana, summarized by Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], I. pp. 76-80. Quotations are here made from Cogolludo, IV. iii, vi; Brasseur de Bourbourg [f], ii, "Vocabulaire générale"; and Lizana (ed. Brasseur de Bourbourg), pp. 356-59; cf. also Seler [a], index; Landa, chh. xxxv, xxxvi.

[82] Identifications of images of Itzamna and Kukulcan are discussed by Dieseldorff, in _ZE_ xxvii. 770-83; Spinden [a], pp. 60-70; Joyce [b], ch. ix, and Morley [c], pp. 16-19.

[83] Cogolludo, Landa, and Lizana are the chief sources for the Kukulcan stories,--especially Landa, chh. vi, xl, being here quoted. Tozzer [a], p. 96, is quoted; cf., for Yucatec survival, p. 157.

[84] Citations from Landa in this section are from chh. xxvii, xl (which records the new year's festivals), xxxiii (describing the future world), and xxxiv. Landa is our chief source for knowledge of the Yucatec rites and of the deities associated with them; additional or corroborative details being furnished by Aguilar, Cogolludo, Lizana, Las Casas, Ponce, and Pio Pérez.

[85] Interpretations of the names of the Maya deities, as here given, are from Brasseur de Bourbourg [f], ii, "Vocabulaire"; and Seler [a], index.

[86] Lizana (ed. Brasseur de Bourbourg), pp. 360-61.

[87] Schellhas [b] gives his identifications and descriptions of the gods of the codices; additional materials are contained in Fewkes [i]; Förstemann [b]; Joyce [b], ch. ix; Morley [c], pp. 16-19; Spinden [b], pp. 60-70; and Bancroft, iii, ch. xi.

[88] Tozzer [a], pp. 150 ff.; also, for the Lacandones, pp. 93-99. The names of the deities, Maya and Lacandone, are here in several cases altered slightly from the form in which Tozzer gives them, for the sake of avoiding the use of unfamiliar phonetic symbols; the result is, of course, phonetic approximation only.

[89] Landa, chh. xxvi, xxvii.

[90] Las Casas [b], ch. cxxiii.

[91] Landa, ch. xxxiv. In chh. iii, xxxii, he gives information in regard to the goddess Ixchel.

[92] The literature of the Maya calendar system is, of course, intimately connected with that of the Mexican (see Note 55). The native sources for its study are the Codices and the monumental inscriptions, while of early Spanish expositions the most important are those of Landa and Pio Pérez. In recent times a considerable body of scholars have devoted special attention to the Maya inscriptions and to the elucidation of the calendar, foremost among them being, in America, Ancona, Bowditch, Chavero, Goodman, Morley, Spinden, Cyrus Thomas, and in Europe, Brasseur de Bourbourg, Förstermann, Rosny, and Seler. The foundation of the elucidation of Maya astronomical knowledge is Förstermann's studies of the Dresden Codex, while the study of mythic elements associated with the calendar is represented by Charency, especially "Des ages ou soleils d'après la mythologie des peuples de la Nouvelle Espagne," section ii, in _CA_ iv. 2; and by J. H. Martínez, "Los Grandes Ciclos de la historia Maya," in _CA_ xvii. 2. Summary accounts of the Maya calendar are to be found in Spinden [a], Beuchat, Joyce [b], Arnold, and Frost, while Bowditch [b] and Morley [c] are in the nature of text-book introductions to the subject.

[93] Morley [d], "The Hotun," in _CA_ xix (Washington, 1917).

[94] Morley [c], p. 32.

[95] Tozzer [a], pp. 153-54.

[96] J. Martínez Hernández, "La Creación del Mundo según los Mayas," in _CA_ xviii (London, 1913), pp. 164-71. Señor Hernández notes that the tense of the verb in the first sentence of the myth is for the sake of literal translation.

[97] For ethnic analysis Thomas and Swanton is followed here and throughout the chapter. Of the earlier Spanish authors Las Casas (especially [b], chh. cxxii-cxxv, clxxx, ccxxxiv ff.) is the most weighty. See also Morley [e], "The Rise and Fall of the Maya Civilizations," in _CA_ xix (Washington, 1917).

[98] Brinton [h], p. 69.

[99] ib. p. 149.

[100] Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], pp. lxxx-lxxxiii.

[101] The _Popul Vuh_, described by Brasseur de Bourbourg in his _Histoire du Mexique_ under the title _Manuscrit Quiché de Chichicastenango_ ([a], i. pp. lxxx ff.), is a Quiché document, part myth and part legendary history, supposed to have been put in writing in the seventeenth century, when it was copied and translated into Spanish by Francisco Ximenes, of the Order of Predicadores. The manuscript was found by C. Scherzer in 1855 in the library of the university of San Carlos, Guatemala. The Spanish text of Ximenes was published at Vienna in 1856, and again, with French translation and notes, by Brasseur de Bourbourg, Paris, 1861; a second Spanish version, by Barberena, appeared in San Salvador, 1905. None of these translations is regarded as accurate, or indeed as other than filled with error and misinterpretation; but pending the appearance of a scholarly rendering from the native text they are our only sources for a document of profound interest. The edition of Brasseur de Bourbourg is that here employed, translations being from parts i, ii, and iii, while interpretations of names are drawn chiefly from Brasseur's footnotes. Las Casas [b], ch. cxxiv, contains some account of the gods and heroes mentioned in the _Popul Vuh_.

[102] For discussion of the bat-god, Zotz, see Seler, _28 BBE_, pp. 231 ff., "The Bat God of the Maya Race"; also, Dieseldorff, ib., p. 665, "A Clay Vessel with a Picture of a Vampire-headed Deity"; cf. Giglioli, _CA_ xvi (Vienna and Leipzig, 1910).

[103] The _Manuscrit Cakchiquel_, or _Mémorial de Tecpan-Atitlan_, as he calls it, was given to Brasseur de Bourbourg by Juan Gavarrete, of the Convent of Franciscans of Guatemala. Its author, says the Abbé ([a], i. p. lxxxiii) was Don Francisco Ernandez Arana Xahila, of the Princes Ahpotzotziles of Guatemala, grandson of King Hunyg, who died of the plague, five years before the Spaniards set foot in this country, in 1519. The manuscript was brought down to 1582 by this author, and thence carried forward to 1597 by Don Francisco Diaz Gebuta Queh, of the same family. Brinton published his translation under the title, _The Annals of the Cakchiquels_, in Philadelphia, 1885, and the work now commonly is referred to under this name. It is Brinton's version which is here followed, with some inconsequential alterations of phraseology. In his introduction Brinton gives (pp. 39-48) interesting comments on the "Religious Notions."

[104] Brinton [h], pp. 25-26.

[105] ib. p. 14.

[106] Of works dealing with the religious beliefs of the natives of Honduras and Nicaragua, the writings of Oviedo and of Las Casas (especially [b], ch. clxxx) are the most important of early date. Among works of later date Squier's books are of the first significance. Bancroft, iii, ch. xi, gives a summary of most that is known of the myths of this region; Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], livre v, ch. iii, livre viii, ch. iv, contains additional materials. The archaeology is described by Squier [a], [b], [c], _passim_; Joyce [a], part i; Brinton [h], introduction; and, with ethnological analysis, Lehmann [c].