Chapter I: General Considerations on the Red Race (2)

Still more forcibly does nature herself bear witness to this antiquity of possession. Botanists declare that a very lengthy course of cultivation is required so to alter the form of a plant that it can no longer be identified with the wild species; and still more protracted must be the artificial propagation for it to lose its power of independent life, and to rely wholly on man to preserve it from extinction. Now this is precisely the condition of the maize, tobacco, cotton, quinoa, and mandioca plants, and of that species of palm called by botanists the _Gulielma speciosa_; all have been cultivated from immemorial time by the aborigines of America, and, except cotton, by no other race; all no longer are to be identified with any known wild species; several are sure to perish unless fostered by human care.[37-1] What numberless ages does this suggest? How many centuries elapsed ere man thought of cultivating Indian corn? How many more ere it had spread over nearly a hundred degrees of latitude, and lost all semblance to its original form? Who has the temerity to answer these questions? The judicious thinker will perceive in them satisfactory reasons for dropping once for all the vexed inquiry, "how America was peopled," and will smile at its imaginary solutions, whether they suggest Jews, Japanese, or, as the latest theory is, Egyptians.

While these and other considerations testify forcibly to that isolation I have already mentioned, they are almost equally positive for an extensive intercourse in very distant ages between the great families of the race, and for a prevalent unity of mental type, or perhaps they hint at a still visible oneness of descent. In their stage of culture, the maize, cotton, and tobacco could hardly have spread so widely by commerce alone. Then there are verbal similarities running through wide families of languages which, in the words of Professor Buschmann, are "calculated to fill us with bewildering amazement,"[38-1] some of which will hereafter be pointed out; and lastly, passing to the psychological constitution of the race, we may quote the words of a sharp-sighted naturalist, whose monograph on one of its tribes is unsurpassed for profound reflections: "Not only do all the primitive inhabitants of America stand on one scale of related culture, but that mental condition of all in which humanity chiefly mirrors itself, to wit, their religious and moral consciousness, this source of all other inner and outer conditions, is one with all, however diverse the natural influences under which they live."[38-2]

Penetrated with the truth of these views, all artificial divisions into tropical or temperate, civilized or barbarous, will in the present work, so far as possible, be avoided, and the race will be studied as a unit, its religion as the development of ideas common to all its members, and its myths as the garb thrown around these ideas by imaginations more or less fertile, but seeking everywhere to embody the same notions.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.

As the subject of American mythology is a new one to most readers,
and as in its discussion everything depends on a careful selection
of authorities, it is well at the outset to review very briefly
what has already been written upon it, and to assign the relative
amount of weight that in the following pages will be given to the
works most frequently quoted. The conclusions I have arrived at are
so different from those who have previously touched upon the topic
that such a step seems doubly advisable.

The first who undertook a philosophical survey of American
religions was Dr. Samuel Farmer Jarvis, in 1819 (A Discourse on the
Religion of the Indian Tribes of North America, Collections of the
New York Historical Society, vol. iii., New York, 1821). He
confined himself to the tribes north of Mexico, a difficult portion
of the field, and at that time not very well known. The notion of a
state of primitive civilization prevented Dr. Jarvis from forming
any correct estimate of the native religions, as it led him to look
upon them as deteriorations from purer faiths instead of
developments. Thus he speaks of them as having "departed less than
among any other nation from the form of primeval truth," and also
mentions their "wonderful uniformity" (pp. 219, 221).

The well-known American ethnologist, Mr. E. G. Squier, has also
published a work on the subject, of wider scope than its title
indicates (The Serpent Symbol in America, New York, 1851). Though
written in a much more liberal spirit than the preceding, it is
wholly in the interests of one school of mythology, and it the
rather shallow physical one, so fashionable in Europe half a
century ago. Thus, with a sweeping generalization, he says, "The
religions or superstitions of the American nations, however
different they may appear to the superficial glance, are
rudimentally the same, and are only modifications of that primitive
system which under its physical aspect has been denominated Sun or
Fire worship" (p. 111). With this he combines the favorite and (may
I add?) characteristic French doctrine, that the chief topic of
mythology is the adoration of the generative power, and to rescue
such views from their materializing tendencies, imagines to
counterbalance them a clear, universal monotheism. "We claim to
have shown," he says (p. 154), "that the grand conception of a
Supreme Unity and the doctrine of the reciprocal principles existed
in America in a well defined and clearly recognized form;" and
elsewhere that "the monotheistic idea stands out clearly in _all_
the religions of America" (p. 151).

If with a hope of other views we turn to our magnificent national
work on the Indians (History, Conditions, and Prospects of the
Indian Tribes of the United States: Washington, 1851-9), a great
disappointment awaits us. That work was unfortunate in its editor.
It is a monument of American extravagance and superficiality. Mr.
Schoolcraft was a man of deficient education and narrow prejudices,
pompous in style, and inaccurate in statements. The information
from original observers it contains is often of real value, but the
general views on aboriginal history and religion are shallow and
untrustworthy in the extreme.

A German professor, Dr. J. G. Mueller, has written quite a
voluminous work on American Primitive Religions (_Geschichte der
Amerikanischen Ur-religionen_, pp. 707: Basel, 1855). His theory is
that "at the south a worship of nature with the adoration of the
sun as its centre, at the north a fear of spirits combined with
fetichism, made up the two fundamental divisions of the religion of
the red race" (pp. 89, 90). This imaginary antithesis he traces out
between the Algonkin and Apalachian tribes, and between the Toltecs
of Guatemala and the Aztecs of Mexico. His quotations are nearly
all at second hand, and so little does he criticize his facts as to
confuse the Vaudoux worship of the Haitian negroes with that of
Votan in Chiapa. His work can in no sense be considered an
authority.

Very much better is the Anthropology of the late Dr. Theodore Waitz
(_Anthropologie der Naturvoelker_: Leipzig, 1862-66). No more
comprehensive, sound, and critical work on the indigenes of America
has ever been written. But on their religions the author is
unfortunately defective, being led astray by the hasty and
groundless generalizations of others. His great anxiety, moreover,
to subject all moral sciences to a realistic philosophy, was
peculiarly fatal to any correct appreciation of religious growth,
and his views are neither new nor tenable.

For a different reason I must condemn in the most unqualified
manner the attempt recently made by the enthusiastic and
meritorious antiquary, the Abbe E. Charles Brasseur (de Bourbourg),
to explain American mythology after the example of Euhemerus, of
Thessaly, as the apotheosis of history. This theory, which has been
repeatedly applied to other mythologies with invariable failure, is
now disowned by every distinguished student of European and
Oriental antiquity; and to seek to introduce it into American
religions is simply to render them still more obscure and
unattractive, and to deprive them of the only general interest they
now have, that of illustrating the gradual development of the
religious ideas of humanity.

But while thus regretting the use he has made of them, all
interested in American antiquity cannot too much thank this
indefatigable explorer for the priceless materials he has unearthed
in the neglected libraries of Spain and Central America, and laid
before the public. For the present purpose the most significant of
these is the Sacred National Book of the Quiches, a tribe of
Guatemala. This contains their legends, written in the original
tongue, and transcribed by Father Francisco Ximenes about 1725. The
manuscripts of this missionary were used early in the present
century, by Don Felix Cabrera, but were supposed to be entirely
lost even by the Abbe Brasseur himself in 1850 (_Lettre a M. le Duc
de Valmy_, Mexique, Oct. 15, 1850). Made aware of their importance
by the expressions of regret used in the Abbe's letters, Dr. C.
Sherzer, in 1854, was fortunate enough to discover them in the
library of the University of San Carlos in the city of Guatemala.
The legends were in Quiche with a Spanish translation and scholia.
The Spanish was copied by Dr. Scherzer and published in Vienna, in
1856, under the title _Las Historias del Origen de los Indios de
Guatemala, por el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenes_. In 1855 the Abbe
Brasseur took a copy of the original which he brought out at Paris
in 1861, with a translation of his own, under the title _Vuh Popol:
Le Livre Sacre des Quiches et les Mythes de l'Antiquite Americaine_.
Internal evidence proves that these legends were written down by a
converted native some time in the seventeenth century. They carry
the national history back about two centuries, beyond which all is
professedly mythical. Although both translations are colored by the
peculiar views of their makers, this is incomparably the most
complete and valuable work on American mythology extant.

Another authority of inestimable value has been placed within the
reach of scholars during the last few years. This is the _Relations
de la Nouvelle France_, containing the annual reports of the
Jesuit missionaries among the Iroquois and Algonkins from and
after 1611. My references to this are always to the reprint at
Quebec, 1858. Of not less excellence for another tribe, the Creeks,
is the brief "Sketch of the Creek Country," by Col. Benjamin
Hawkins, written about 1800, and first published in full by the
Georgia Historical Society in 1848. Most of the other works to
which I have referred are too well known to need any special
examination here, or will be more particularly mentioned in the
foot-notes when quoted.

FOOTNOTES:

[2-1] Waitz, _Anthropologie der Naturvoelker_, i. p. 256.

[2-2] Carriere, _Die Kunst im Zusammenhang der Culturentwickelung_, i. p. 66.

[6-1] It is said indeed that the Yebus, a people on the west coast of Africa, speak a polysynthetic language, and _per contra_, that the Otomis of Mexico have a monosyllabic one like the Chinese. Max Mueller goes further, and asserts that what is called the process of agglutination in the Turanian languages is the same as what has been named polysynthesis in America. This is not to be conceded. In the former the root is unchangeable, the formative elements follow it, and prefixes are not used; in the latter prefixes are common, and the formative elements are blended with the root, both undergoing changes of structure. Very important differences.

[9-1] Grimm, _Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache_, p. 571.

[11-1] Peter Martyr, _De Insulis nuper Repertis_, p. 354: Colon. 1574.

[12-1] They may be found in Waitz, _Anthrop. der Naturvoelker_, iv. p. 173.

[13-1] The only authority is Diego de Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, ed. Brasseur, Paris, 1864, p. 318. The explanation is extremely obscure in the original. I have given it in the only sense in which the author's words seem to have any meaning.

[14-1] Humboldt, _Vues des Cordilleres_, p. 72.

[14-2] Desjardins, _Le Perou avant la Conquete Espagnole_, p. 122: Paris, 1858.

[16-1] An instance is given by Ximenes, _Origen de los Indios de Guatemala_, p. 186: Vienna, 1856.

[17-1] George Copway, _Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation_, p. 130: London, 1850.

[18-1] Morse, _Report on the Indian Tribes_, App. p. 352.

[21-1] Gomara states that De Ayllon found tribes on the Atlantic shore not far from Cape Hatteras keeping flocks of deer (_ciervos_) and from their milk making cheese (_Hist. de las Indias_, cap. 43). I attach no importance to this statement, and only mention it to connect it with some other curious notices of the tribe now extinct who occupied that locality. Both De Ayllon and Lawson mention their very light complexions, and the latter saw many with blonde hair, blue eyes, and a fair skin; they cultivated when first visited the potato (or the groundnut), tobacco, and cotton (Humboldt); they reckoned time by disks of wood divided into sixty segments (Lederer); and just in this latitude the most careful determination fixes the mysterious White-man's-land, or Great Ireland of the Icelandic Sagas (see the _American Hist. Mag._, ix. p. 364), where the Scandinavian sea rovers in the eleventh century found men of their own color, clothed in long woven garments, and not less civilized than themselves.

[23-1] The name Eskimo is from the Algonkin word _Eskimantick_, eaters of raw flesh. There is reason to believe that at one time they possessed the Atlantic coast considerably to the south. The Northmen, in the year 1000, found the natives of Vinland, probably near Rhode Island, of the same race as they were familiar with in Labrador. They call them _Skralingar_, chips, and describe them as numerous and short of stature (Eric Rothens Saga, in Mueller, _Sagaenbibliothek_, p. 214). It is curious that the traditions of the Tuscaroras, who placed their arrival on the Virginian coast about 1300, spoke of the race they found there as eaters of raw flesh and ignorant of maize (Lederer, _Account of North America_, in Harris, Voyages).

[25-1] Richardson, _Arctic Expedition_, p. 374.

[25-2] The late Professor W. W. Turner of Washington, and Professor Buschmann of Berlin, are the two scholars who have traced the boundaries of this widely dispersed family. The name is drawn from Lake Athapasca in British America.

[25-3] The Cherokee tongue has a limited number of words in common with the Iroquois, and its structural similarity is close. The name is of unknown origin. It should doubtless be spelled _Tsalakie_, a plural form, almost the same as that of the river Tellico, properly Tsaliko (Ramsey, _Annals of Tennessee_, p. 87), on the banks of which their principal towns were situated. Adair's derivation from _cheera_, fire, is worthless, as no such word exists in their language.

[27-1] The term Algonkin may be a corruption of _agomeegwin_, people of the other shore. Algic, often used synonymously, is an adjective manufactured by Mr. Schoolcraft "from the words Alleghany and Atlantic" (Algic Researches, ii. p. 12). There is no occasion to accept it, as there is no objection to employing Algonkin both as substantive and adjective. Iroquois is a French compound of the native words _hiro_, I have said, and _koue_, an interjection of assent or applause, terms constantly heard in their councils.

[27-2] Apalachian, which should be spelt with one p, is formed of two Creek words, _apala_, the great sea, the ocean, and the suffix _chi_, people, and means those dwelling by the ocean. That the Natchez were offshoots of the Mayas I was the first to surmise and to prove by a careful comparison of one hundred Natchez words with their equivalents in the Maya dialects. Of these, _five_ have affinities more or less marked to words peculiar to the Huastecas of the river Panuco (a Maya colony), _thirteen_ to words common to Huasteca and Maya, and _thirty-nine_ to words of similar meaning in the latter language. This resemblance may be exemplified by the numerals, one, two, four, seven, eight, twenty. In Natchez they are _hu_, _ah_, _gan_, _uk-woh_, _upku-tepish_, _oka-poo_: in Maya, _hu_, _ca_, _can_, _uk_, _uapxae_, _hunkal_. (See the Am. Hist. Mag., New Series, vol. i. p. 16, Jan. 1867.)

[28-1] Dakota, a native word, means friends or allies.

[28-2] Rep. of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1854, p. 209.

[29-1] According to Professor Buschmann Aztec is probably from _iztac_, white, and Nahuatlacatl signifies those who speak the language _Nahuatl_, clear sounding, sonorous. The Abbe Brasseur (de Bourbourg), on the other hand, derives the latter from the Quiche _nawal_, intelligent, and adds the amazing information that this is identical with the English _know all_!! (_Hist. du Mexique_, etc., i. p. 102). For in his theory several languages of Central America are derived from the same old Indo-Germanic stock as the English, German, and cognate tongues. Toltec, from _Toltecatl_, means inhabitant of Tollan, which latter may be from _tolin_, rush, and signify the place of rushes. The signification _artificer_, often assigned to Toltecatl, is of later date, and was derived from the famed artistic skill of this early folk (Buschmann, _Aztek. Ortsnamen_, p. 682: Berlin, 1852). The Toltecs are usually spoken of as anterior to the Nahuas, but the Tlascaltecs and natives of Cholollan or Cholula were in fact Toltecs, unless we assign to this latter name a merely mythical signification. The early migrations of the two Aztec bands and their relationship, it may be said in passing, are as yet extremely obscure. The Shoshonees when first known dwelt as far north as the head waters of the Missouri, and in the country now occupied by the Black Feet. Their language, which includes that of the Comanche, Wihinasht, Utah, and kindred bands, was first shown to have many and marked affinities with that of the Aztecs by Professor Buschmann in his great work, _Ueber die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache im noerdlichen Mexico und hoeheren Amerikanischen Norden_, p. 648: Berlin, 1854.

[31-1] His opinion was founded on an analysis of fifteen words of the secret language of the Incas preserved in the Royal Commentaries of Garcilasso de la Vega. On examination, they all proved to be modified forms from the _lengua general_ (Meyen, _Ueber die Ureinwohner von Peru_, p. 6). The Quichuas of Peru must not be confounded with the Quiches of Guatemala. Quiche is the name of a place, and means "many trees;" the derivation of Quichua is unknown. Muyscas means "men." This nation also called themselves Chibchas.

[32-1] The significance of Carib is probably warrior. It may be the same word as Guarani, which also has this meaning. Tupi or Tupa is the name given the thunder, and can only be understood mythically.

[33-1] The Araucanians probably obtained their name from two Quichua words, _ari auccan_, yes! they fight; an idiom very expressive of their warlike character. They had had long and terrible wars with the Incas before the arrival of Pizarro.

[34-1] Since writing the text I have received the admirable work of Dr. von Martius, _Beitraege zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerika's zumal Brasilians_, Leipzig, 1867, in which I observe that that profound student considers that there is no doubt but that the Island Caribs, and the Galibis of the main land are descendants from the same stock as the Tupis and Guaranis.

[35-1] _Comptes Rendus_, vol. xxi. p. 1368 sqq.

[35-2] The two best authorities are Daniel Wilson, _The American Cranial Type_, in _Ann. Rep. of the Smithson. Inst._, 1862, p. 240, and J. A. Meigs, _Cranial Forms of the Amer. Aborigs._: Phila. 1866. They accord in the views expressed in the text and in the rejection of those advocated by Dr. S. G. Morton in the Crania Americana.

[36-1] _Second Visit to the United States_, i. p. 252.

[37-1] Martius, _Von dem Rechtzustande unter den Ureinwohnern Brasiliens_, p. 80: Muenchen, 1832; recently republished in his _Beitraege zur Ethnographie und Sprachenkunde Amerika's_: Leipzig, 1867.

[38-1] _Athapaskische Sprachstamm_, p. 164: Berlin, 1856.

[38-2] Martius, _Von dem Rechtzustande unter den Ureinwohnern Brasiliens_, p. 77.