Chapter XXXI: Appendix: A (4)

[223] After presenting several arguments together with accompanying proofs, Agassiz says: “This coincidence between the circumscription of the races of man and the natural limits of different zoological provinces characterized by peculiar distinct species of animals, is one of the most important and unexpected features in the Natural History of Mankind, which the study of the geographical distribution of all the organized beings now existing upon earth has disclosed to us. It is a fact which cannot fail to throw light at some future time upon the very origin of the differences existing among men, since it shows that man’s physical nature is modified by the same laws as that of animals, and that any general results obtained from the animal kingdom regarding the organic differences of its various types must also apply to man. Now there are only two alternatives before us at present: 1st. Either mankind originated from a common stock, and all the different races with their peculiarities, in their present distribution, are to be ascribed to subsequent changes—an assumption for which there is no evidence whatever, and leads at once to the admission that the diversity among animals is not an original one, nor their distribution determined by a general plan established in the beginning of the creation; or 2d, we must acknowledge that the diversity among animals is a fact determined by the will of the Creator, and their geographical distribution part of the general plan which unites all organized beings into one great organic conception; whence it follows that what are called human races down to their specializations as nations are distinct primordial forms of the type of man.” * * * He concludes in these words: “The laws which regulate the diversity of animals and their distribution upon earth apply equally to man _within the same limits and in the same degree_; and all our liberty and moral responsibility, however spontaneous, are yet instinctively directed by the All-wise and Omnipotent to fulfill the great harmonies established in Nature.”—_Types of Mankind_, pp. lxxv and lxxvi.

[224] Agassiz in Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 78.

[225] _Ibid._

[226] _Manual of the Anatomy of the Vertebrated Animals_, p. 420. N. Y., 1872.

[227] Note to Retzius’ article in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 264.

[228] As an illustration of complex classification, we have the following: “From an old and well-filled European graveyard may be selected specimens of _klimocephalic_ (slope or saddle skull), _conocephalic_ (cone-skull), _brachycephalic_ (short-skull), _dolichocephalic_ (long-skull), _platycephalic_ (flat-skull), _leptocephalic_ (slim-skull), and other forms of crania equally worthy of penta or hexa-syllabic Greek epithets.”—_Owen (R.)_, _Anatomy of Vertebrates_, vol. ii, p. 570. London, 1866, 8vo. Foster, in _Pre-Historic Rates of the United States_, in addition to the long and short skulls, adopts also the _orthocephalic_ (erect-head), with the longitudinal diameter 100; he assumes the transverse diameter for dolichocephalæ to be less than 73; for orthocephalæ, to range between 74 and 79, and for brachycephalæ, 80 and upwards.

[229] _Pre-Historic Man_, chap. xx. 3d ed. London, 1876. 2 vols. 8vo.

[230] Dr. Wilson’s _American Cranial Type_ in _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, pp. 250 _et seq._ Dr. Wilson clearly shows that in one set there is the characteristic Mongol auxiliary of prominent cheek bones, while in the other the bones of the face are small and delicate. In twenty-six measurements he finds proof that the Peruvians were distinct from the Mexicans. Thirty-one dolichocephalic crania as compared with twenty-two brachycephalic crania convince him of the error of Morton and establish a diversity among the tribes of the North-east. He thinks analogies are traceable between the Esquimaux and the type of elongated skull; at all events he is satisfied that the form of the skull is as little constant among the tribes of the new world as among those of the old.

[231] This author (Dr. Morton), who has given us such numerous and valuable facts, as well as the linguists who have studied these American languages with indefatigable zeal, have arrived at the conclusion that both race and language in the new world are unique. I am obliged to avow that the facts advanced by Morton himself, and that the study of numerous skulls with which he has enriched the museum of Stockholm, have conducted me to a wholly different result. I can only explain the fact by surmising that this remarkable man has allowed the views of the naturalist to be warped by his linguistic researches. For, if the form of the skull has anything to do with the question of races, we cannot fail to see that it is scarcely possible to find anywhere a more distinct distribution into dolichocephalæ and brachycephalæ than in America. It would be only necessary, in order to show this, to direct attention to certain of the delineations in his own work, where the skull of the Peruvian infant (Pl. 2), the Lenni-Lenape (Pl. 32), the Pawnee (Pl. 38), the Blackfoot (Pl. 40), etc., as clearly present the dolichocephalic form as on the other hand his Natchez (Pl. 30 and 31) and the greater part of his representations of the skulls of Chile, Peru, Mexico, Oregon, etc., are distinct types of the brachycephalic. Conclusive, however, as the plates are, I should scarcely have ventured to advance these remarks, if the rich series of our own collection, and the numerous and excellent figures of Blumenbach, Sandifort, Van der Hoeven, etc., did not declare in favor of my opinion. (_Retzius_ in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 264.)

Latham, in _Natural History of the Varieties of Man_, p. 452, says: “As to the conformation of the skull, a point where (with great deference) I differ with the author of the excellent _Crania Americana_, the Americans are said to be _brakhy_-kephalic, the Eskimo _dolikho_-kephalic.” He quotes Morton’s tables to contradict his (Morton’s) conclusions.

[232] “Tried by Dr. Morton’s own definitions and illustrations, the Scioto Mound skull differs from the typical cranium in some of its most characteristic features. Instead of the low, receding, unarched forehead, it has a finely-arched frontal bone with corresponding breadth of forehead. The wedge-shaped vertex is replaced by a well-rounded arch curving equally throughout; and with the exception of the flattened occiput, due to artificial though probably undesigned compression in infancy, the cranium is a uniformly proportioned example of an extreme brachycephalic skull.”—_Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 127.

[233] Chapter II, p. 127.

[234] Henry Gillman, _The Ancient Men of the Great Lakes_, in _Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science_, 24th meeting, at Detroit, 1875, p. 317; also _American Journal of Arts and Science_, 1874, vol. cvii, p. 1 _et seq._, and _Sixth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, pp. 12–20.

[235] Opportunity did not permit to obtain the exact (absolute) capacity.

[236] Artificially perforated.

[237] Very retreating frontal.

[238] Very protuberant occipital.

[239] Artificially perforated.

[240] With epactal bone 1.5 in length. It may be interesting to mention that I find occasionally in our mounds a tendency to the formation of the epactal bone by a sudden approach of the sutures immediately below the apex of the occipital—a sort of transitional state.

[241] _Recent Explorations of Mounds near Davenport, Iowa_, in _Proceedings of American Association for the Advancement of Science_, 24th meeting, 1875, pp. 297 _et seq._

[242] Dr. Farquharson considers that some of his measurements in inches are scarcely accurate enough, and gives the following table in the decimals of a metre:

MEASUREMENTS OF MOUND SKULLS; ALSO OF SIOUX SKULLS IN DECIMALS OF A METRE.

FORAMINAL DISTANCE TAKEN WITH WYMAN’S INSTRUMENT.

A. _Horizontal Circumference._
B. _Long Diameter._
C. _Transverse Diameter._
D. _Vertical Diameter._
E. _Capacity in Cubic Centimetres._
F. _Foraminal Distance._
G. _Foraminal Ratio._
H. _Ratio of Diameter._

+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
|_No._| A. | B. | C. | D. | E. | F. | G. | H. | _Mounds._ |
+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
| 1 |.546|.200|.120|.140|1190| | |.600|Albany, Ill. |
| 2 |.483|.162|.128|.140|1190|.062|.382|.790|Albany, Ill. |
| 3 |.495|.174|.130|.135|1020|.077|.442|.752|Albany, Ill. |
| 7 |.508|.170|.140|.125| | | |.823|Albany, Ill. |
| 8 |.495|.175|.135|.140|1249|.065|.370|.771|Davenport, Mound No. 9.|
| 9 |.508|.171|.140|.140|1334|.062|.362|.818|Rock River, Ill. |
| 10 |.508|.167|.148|.140|1135|.070|.419|.886|Rock River, Ill. |
| 11 |.533|.180|.150|.145|1362| | |.833|Rock River, Ill. |
| 12 |.457|.167|.128|.140|1021| | |.766|Rock River, Ill. |
| 13 |.522|.185|.130|.150|1362|.089|.427|.702|Rock River, Ill. |
| 14 |.483|.171|.138|.140|1192|.079|.460|.807|Henry County, Ill. |
| 15 |.508|.185|.138|.145|1306|.081|.443|.745|Henry County, Ill. |
| 16 |.457|.170|.130|.140|1135|.078|.448|.764|Henry County, Ill. |
| 17 |.533|.185|.135|.146|1249|.072|.389|.703|Henry County, Ill. |
| 18 |.508|.180| |.140| | | | |Rock River, Ill. |
| 19 |.533|.196|.140|.140| | | |.704|Rock River, Ill. |
| 20 | |.200|.128| | | | |.640|Rock River, Ill. |
| 21 | |.180|.137| | | | |.761|Henry County, Ill. |
| 23 | |.178|.140|.140| |.073|.410|.730|Albany, Ill. |
| 24 | |.184|.139|.150| |.088|.478|.755|Rock River, Ill. |
| 26 | |.200| | | | | | |Shell Bed, Rock Island.|
| 27 |.482|.170|.125|.140| 936|.076|.388|.735|Albany, Ill. |
| 28 | |.177|.135|.140| | | |.762|Albany, Ill. |
| 29 |.507|.177|.130|.145|1137|.088|.440|.734|Albany, Ill. |
| +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
| |.503|.179|.134|.140|1188|.075|.432|.755|Mean. |
| +----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+
| | 18 | 24 | 22 | 21 | 15 | 14 | 14 | 22 |No. of skulls measured.|
+-----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+-----------------------+

[243] Dr. Jones found skeletons six feet, and in one instance seven feet in length. (_Antiquities of Tennessee_, pp. 44 and 53.)

[244] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 72; also note other similarities on p. 119.

[245] _Ancient Men of the Great Lakes._ _Proceedings of the American Association for Advancement of Science_, meeting of 1875, pp. 322–3.

[246] _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xx, pp. 145, 158, 165.

[247] The Aztecs are represented in our museum by three skulls found in an ancient cemetery near Mexico, which was uncovered in digging intrenchments to protect the Mexican capital against the armies of the United States. They are remarkable for the shortness of their axis, large flattened occiput, obliquely truncated behind, the height of the semicircular line of the temples, the shortness and trapezoid form of the parietal plane. They present an elevation or ridge along the sagittal suture; the base of the skull is very short, the face slightly prognathic, as among the Mongol Kalmucs. (Retzius in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 268.)

[248] _Crania Americana_, p. 98.

[249] See Dr. Morton in _Nott & Gliddon_.

[250] _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xx.

[251] See especially _Eleventh Annual Report Peabody Museum_, pp. 294–304.

[252] _Geography_, book i, chap. ii, § 35, and book xi, chap, xi, § 7.

[253] _Natural History_, book vii, chap. iv.

[254] _De Situ Orbis_, lib. i, chap. xix, l. 78 (ed. 1782).

[255] _Description of a Deformed Fragmentary Skull found in an Ancient Quarry-cave at Jerusalem_, by Dr. J. A. Meigs, _Transactions of Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences_, 1859.

[256] We can no longer doubt, then, that this practice of giving an artificial form to the skull has subsisted from a remote epoch among the Oriental nations. As Thierry, moreover, pronounces it to be a Mongol usage, I have submitted the question in the memoir before spoken of, whether this fact does not speak in favor of an ancient communication between the old and the new world? Such a communication seems, indeed, to be now placed beyond doubt by the proofs which have been accumulated from time to time, through the efforts of numerous and zealous inquirers. It would seem likely that the usage in question has been introduced by the Mongols into America, where it has become diffused even among tribes not of the Mongol stock. (Retzius in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 270; also the same author in _Arch. des Sciences Naturelles_, Geneva, 1860; _Proceedings of American Association for Advancement of Science_, 1867, and _Edinburgh Phil. Journal_, new series, vol. vii.)

[257] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 286.

[258] _Essai sur les Deformations Artificielles du Crâne_, p. 74.

[259] _Crania Britannica_, chap. iv, p. 38.

[260] Retzius, _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, pp. 269–70.

[261] Prof. Wilson, _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 221, and Retzius in the Reviews referred to in note 1, p. 180.

[262] J. B. Davis in _Crania Britannica_, decade iii.

[263] _Races of Man_ (Bohn), p. 45; Dr. Nott in _Types of Mankind_, p. 436; Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol ii, p. 221.

[264] _Smithsonian Report_, 1862, p. 291.

[265] Du Pratz’s _History of Louisiana_, vol. ii, p. 162.

[266] Adair’s _History of American Indians_, p. 284.

[267] On skull flattening, see Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, chap. xxi. Prof. Jones’ _Antiquities of Tennessee, Smithsonian Contributions_, 1876, pp. 118 _et seq._ Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 181. Catlin’s _North American Indians_, vol. ii, p. 40 and other places. Townsend’s _Tour to the Columbia River_, pp. 178 _et seq._ Bancroft’s _Native Races_ as follows: I, 151, 158, 180, 210, 226–8, 256–7; Among the Mexicans, I, 651; II, 281; Central Americans, I, 717, 754; II, 681–2, 731–2, 802; IV, 304, and the accompanying literary apparatus.

[268] “This is certainly not a common disease now, and although rare, the instances of cure by bony anchylosis (the only way in which a true cure can take place), are even yet more rare. Nelaton, in his _Pathologie Chirurgicale_, has only been able to note twenty-five recorded cases of such an event. Now, as the space of one year is the shortest possible time allowed by authorities for such a cure to take place, and as during all this time the parts must be kept absolutely at rest, and the person so afflicted being entirely helpless, the inference is a strong one that these people were not in a savage state. They must necessarily have been in such a state, in the progress of advancement in civilization, as to be possessed of an accumulation of food, the requisite leisure of persons nursing the sick, and of dwellings sufficiently comfortable to protect them from inclemency of the weather in this latitude; without those elements of civilization those persons would inevitably have perished.”—_Dr. Farquharson in Proceedings of Am. Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxiv, p. 314.

[269] Prof. Jones, _Antiquities of Tennessee_, gives a good summary of the discussion from the first writers to the present time, p. 65 _et seq._

[270] “This flattening of the leg-bone was of a degree unheard of—I might almost say undreamt of—in any other part of this country or of the world. In many of the more extreme cases of those flattened tibiæ with sabre-like curvature which I had exhumed at the Rouge, the transverse diameter was only 0.48 of the antero-posterior, less than half, while in that most marked and isolated case recorded by Broca, from the cave at Cro-Magnon, France, it was 0.60. In the chimpanzee and gorilla the compression is 0.67. Shortly afterward, even this extreme degree of compression was cast in the shade by my bringing to light from a mound on the Detroit River, rich in relics, among a number of the flattened tibiæ, two specimens of this bone in which the latitudinal indices were respectively 0.42 and 0.40.”—_Henry Gillman_ in _Proceedings American Association for Advancement of Science_, vol. xxiv, pp. 316–17. _The Sixth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of Archæology and Ethnology, Dr. Jeffries Wyman._ _The American Journal of Arts and Sciences_, 3d series, vol. vii, January 1874. _Gillman_ in _Smithsonian Report for 1873_, and _Dr. Farquharson_ in _Proceedings of A. A. A. S._, vol. xxiv, p. 313. 1875.

[271] Gillman in _American Naturalist_ for August, 1875, and _Proceedings of A. A. A. Science_, 1875, p. 327.

[272] Prof. Wilson has pathetically described the disinterment of a Peruvian family, consisting of the father, mother and child, and has especially dwelt upon the color and qualities of the hair as distinguishing them from the Red Indians. (_Pre-Historic Man_, pp. 440 _et seq._)

[273] _Commentarios Reales_, book v, chap. xxix; book iii, chap. xx.

[274] Haywood’s _Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee_, p. 191.

[275] Haywood, _op. cit._, pp. 163–6, 169, 100, 148–9, 338–9. On the mummies of Lexington, Kentucky, see Atwater’s _Archæologia Americana_, p. 318. Mammoth Cave, p. 359, _et passim_.

[276] _Antiquities of Tennessee_, p. 5.

[277] Squier and Davis’ _Ancient Monuments of Mississippi Valley_, pp. 243 _et seq._ Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. i, pp. 365 _et seq._ Charles Rau, _Smithsonian Contributions No. 287_, 1876, pp. 84, 55. Prof. Joseph Jones’ _Aboriginal Remains of Tennessee_, _passim_, _Smithsonian Contributions_, No. 259.

[278] Bryant’s _History of United States_, vol. i, chap. ii.

[279] Prichard, _Researches into the Physical Hist. of Mankind_, 4th ed., 1841, vol. i, p. 269, after reviewing the question of the unity of the American race, remarks: “It will be easy to prove that the American races, instead of displaying a uniformity of color in all climates, show nearly as great a variety in this respect as the nations of the old continent; that there are among them white races with a florid complexion inhabiting temperate regions, and tribes black or of very dark hue in low and inter-tropical countries; that their stature, figure and countenances are almost equally diversified. Of these facts I shall collect sufficient evidence when I proceed to the ethnography of the American nations.” He fulfils this promise ably enough in vol. v, pp. 289, 374, 542, and other places. We respectfully refer the reader to the facts there accumulated.

[280] Wilson’s _Pre-Historic Man_, vol. ii, p. 189.

[281] See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 262, note, where reference is made to Charnay, _Ruines Amér._, pp. 32, 45, 97, 103.

[282] _The American Migration_, by Frederick von Hellwald. _Smithsonian Report_ for 1866, pp. 329, 330.

[283] Jean Lamarck, _Philosophic Zoologique_, etc., Paris, 1809, 2 vols., and _Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertebres_, 1815.

[284] See Hæckel, _History of Creation_, vol. ii, pp. 255–6, and Professor Huxley’s reference to the genus _Equus_ (embracing the horse, ass and zebra from specimens collected by Prof. Marsh). New York Lectures, September, 1876.

[285] Dr. McCosh in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 88; Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 192 (New York ed.).

[286] _Smithsonian Report_, 1866.

[287] _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 188. Also, “The Simiadæ then branched off into two great stems, the new world and old world monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 204. Again, “We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears, probably arboreal in its habits and an inhabitant of the old world.”—_Descent of Man_, vol. ii, p. 372.

[288] _History of Creation_, (N. Y. ed.), 1876, vol. ii, p. 318.

[289] “Nowhere can lines of demarcation be so clearly drawn, so imperceptibly do the families of mankind blend at their circumferences. The various classifications which have been attempted are so many proofs of unity of origin; and their confliction shows the fallacy of the theory of diversity. * * * * We cannot admit that mankind can have diversity of origin while so united by one great plan. If a species or variety of the _genus homo_ sprang up in Europe and another in America by agency of conditions existing in those localities, it would be beyond probability that they should both be formed on the same plan.”—_H. Tuttle’s Origin and Antiquity of Physical Man Scientifically Considered_, pp. 34–5. Boston, 1866, 12mo.

[290] Darwin’s _Descent of Man_, vol. i, p. 224, and Nilsson’s _The Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia_, Lubbock’s trans., 1868, p. 104.

[291] See _Early History of Fire_, by Prof. N. Joly of the Faculty of Toulouse in _Popular Science Monthly_, November, 1876, p. 17; also Darwin, as above cited.

[292] Waitz’s _Anthropology_, Eng. trans., pp. 226–28.

[293] Pallas was the first to show the fallacy of the theory in _Act. Académie St. Petersburg_, 1780, Part II, p. 69; followed by Rudolphi in his _Beyträge zur Anthropologia_, 1812, and especially by Godron, _De l’Espèce_, 1859, vol. ii, p. 246 _et seq._; see Darwin’s _Descent_, vol. i, p. 232.

[294] Nott and Gliddon’s _Indigenous Races_; Duke of Argyll’s _Primeval Man_, p. 99.

[295] _Primeval Man_, p. 100.

[296] “We ourselves, when visiting the famous cavern of Abou Simbel, were far from finding all that the writings of certain anthropologists and partisans of Egyptian art, such as Gliddon, Nott, etc., had promised us. Doubtless one can perfectly distinguish certain types, that is indisputable; but to desire to find _a people_ in each portrait—Scythians, Arabs, Philistines, Lydians, Kurds, Hindoos, Jews, Chinese, Tyrians, Pelasgians, Ionians, etc.—is it not to give too great an influence to the Egyptian artists, who were copyists without skill, and but clumsy inventors?”—_Pouchet’s Plurality of the Human Race_, Eng. trans., p. 50. London, 1864.

[297] Duke of Argyll’s _Primeval Man_, p. 101.

[298] Darwin’s _Variation of Animals under Domestication_, vol. ii, pp. 227–335, and many places.

[299] Harlan’s _Medical Researches_, p. 532, and _Quatrefanges_ (_Unité de l’Espèce Humaine_, 1861, p. 128), cited by Darwin, _Descent_, vol. i, p. 237.

[300] _Descent_, vol. i, p. 233, Bradford (A. W.) discusses the origin of color and other racial peculiarities, and attributes to the tendency of a species to vary, and cites the production of Albinoes, Xanthous, and Sedigidi or six-fingered individuals. “It must be admitted,” he says, “that this theory is sufficiently supported by an irrefragable mass of testimony to establish the _original unity_ of the human race, and to indicate that varieties of mankind are descended from the same primitive stock.”—_American Antiquities_, pp. 238–9.

[301] See instances in Darwin’s _Descent_, vol. i, p. 234; Nott and Gliddon’s _Types of Mankind_, p. 68, and especially Pouchet’s _Plurality of the Human Race_ (trans.), p. 60.

[302] “I doubt not that there will be found continuous and uninterrupted causes which shall explain all the diversities of the different branches of the human family without the necessity of resorting to independent creations.”—_Foster’s Pre-Historic Races_, p. 355.

[303] See an excellent treatment of this subject by the Duke of Argyll, _Primeval Man_, pp. 94 _et seq._

[304] “When speaking in a former work of the distinct races of mankind, I remarked that if all the leading varieties of the human family sprang originally from a single pair (a doctrine to which then, as now, I could see no valid objection), a much greater lapse of time was required for the slow and gradual formation of such races as the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro, than was embraced in any of the popular systems of chronology.”—_Sir Charles Lyell’s Antiquity of Man_, p. 385. Dr. J. P. Thompson says: “For such works [alluding to Babel] and especially for founding such an empire as was ancient Egypt, there was need of centuries for the growth of a population in numbers and resources, equal to the gigantic structures that crown the banks of the Nile. The less than two centuries between Archbishop Usher’s date of the cessation of the flood, and Piazzi Smith’s calculation of the date of the great pyramid, was far too short an interval for results upon a scale so magnificent. * * * Either then we must place the flood much farther back upon the chronological scale, or must admit not only that it was not universal in territorial extent, which is altogether probable, but that it was not universal in the destruction of mankind, which would seem to contradict both the letter and the spirit of the sacred record.”—_Man in Genesis and Geology_, p. 100. New York, 1870. 12mo.

[305] See Humboldt’s _Essai Polit._, vol. i, p. 79, Paris, 1811. He considers not only the Red Indians, but the Toltecs and Aztecs, to be of Asiatic Origin. See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Nat. Civil. Ant._, tom. i, p. 27. McCullough’s _Researches_, _Phil. and Ant._, pp. 175 _et seq._ Crowe, _The Gospel in Central America_, p. 61. Bradford, _American Antiquities_, in chapter xii, gives his reasons for declaring the Americans to have been a “primitive and cultivated branch of the human family.” Mayer (Brantz) in _Mexico as it Was_, p. 260, expresses his agreement with the opinion entertained by Bradford. Carver, in _Travels through the Interior Parts of North America_, repeats the opinion of Charlevoix, that the Americans are of old world origin. Tylor, _Anahuac_, London, 1861, p. 104, says: “On the whole, the most probable view of the origin of the Mexican tribes seems to be the one ordinarily held, that they really came from the old world, bringing with them several legends, evidently the same as the histories recorded in the book of Genesis.”

[306] “La teoria de la diversidad especifica de razas es tan intenible, que sin mas decir podemos, dejar esta cuestion, la cual ultimamente, en especial en Norte-América, ha escitado alguna controversia. Quédanos, pues, un origen primordial para toda la raza humana y entonces la cuestion es, saber de qué tronco ó familia del antiguo continente se pobló el nuevo, ó bien vice-versa, que tambien es possible, aunque improbable, que del que llamamos nuevo se haya poblado el viego continente.”—_Ezequiel Uricoechea_ in _Soc. Mex. Bol._ 2d. ep. iv, 1854, p. 128. “For my own part I have long been convinced of the consanguinity between the brachycephalæ of America and those of Asia and the Pacific islands, and that this characteristic type may be traced uninterruptedly through the long chain of tribes inhabiting the west coast of the American Continent from Behring Straits to Cape Horn.”—_Retzius, Smithsonian Report_, 1859, p. 267.

[307] “The era of their existence as a distinct and isolated race must probably be dated as far back as that time which separated into nations the inhabitants of the old world, and gave to each branch of the human family its primitive language and individuality.”—_J. C. Prichard’s Natural History of Man_, p. 356. London, 1845.

[308] _Hist. Ant. del Messico_ (Eng. trans., 1807), vol. i.

[309] “Quoique Votan soit le veritable fondateur de la civilisation et de l’empire des Quichés, le Codex Chimalpopoca, attribue néanmoins la fondation de l’empire à son Igh ou Ik, appelé par les Mexicains _Ehecatl_ ou _Cipactonac_, parceque ce prince vint le premir amener une colonie sur le continent américain. Cipactonac est composé de _Cipactli_, et de _Tonacayo_. Le premier vient de _ce_ un, _Ipan_, sur ou au-dessus, et _tlactli_, qui est le corps humain, c’est-à-dire, _Un homme supérieur aux autres hommes_, ou encore de _notre race_, toutes choses qui conviennent parfaitement au père de la race des chànes. Tonacayo, veut dire _notre chair_ ou le _corps humain_, le mot tout entier Cipactonac ayant la signification suivante: ‘Celui qui est sorti du premier de notre race.’ _Ehecatl_ est en mexicain l’air, ou le souffle, Igh ou Ik, en langua maya et tzendale. Dans les calendriers d’Oxaca, Soconusco, Chiappas et d’Yucatan, il suit immediatement le nom de Nin, Imos ou Imox, comme celui d’Ehecatl suit dans le mexicain celui de Cipactli.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg, Cartas_, note, p. 71. He then proceeds to sustain his conclusions by citing analogies between the name and its significance among the Egyptians.

[310] _Chimalpopoca_, MS., Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh._, p. lxxxviii; see also _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo, Reyno de Guatemala_, por Franc. de Paula Garcia Pelaez (Guatemala, 1851). Pelaez states that Votan founded the ancient Culhuacan, now known as Palenque, in the year 3000 of the world and in the tenth century B. C.

[311] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxx, on the authority of Ordoñez.

[312] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 159.

[313] _Ordoñez_, Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxvii.

[314] _Constituciones Diocesanes del Obispado de Chiappas._ Rome, 1702.

[315] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 160: “It is not altogether improbable that a genuine Maya document similar to the Manuscript _Troano_ or _Dresden Codex_, preserved from early times, may have found a native interpreter at the time of the Conquest, and have escaped in its disguise of Spanish letters the destruction which overtook its companions.”

[316] “The memoir in his possession consists of five or six folios of common quarto paper, written in ordinary characters in the Tzendal language, an evident proof of its having been copied from the original in hieroglyphics, shortly after the Conquest. At the top of the first leaf, the two continents are painted in different colors, in two small squares, placed parallel to each other in the angles; the one representing Europe, Asia and Africa is marked with two large S’S upon the upper arms of two bars drawn from the opposite angles of each square, forming the point of union in the centre; that which indicates America has two S’S placed horizontally on the bars, but I am not certain whether upon the upper or lower bars, but I believe upon the latter. When speaking of the places he had visited on the old continent, he marks them on the margin of each chapter with an upright S and those of America with a horizontal S. Between these squares stands the title of his history: ‘Proof that I am Culebra (a Snake),’ which title he proves in the body of the work by saying that he is Culebra because he is Chivim.”—_Cabrera, Teatro Critico Amer._, pp. 33–4.

[317] Title of Ordoñez in brief: _Historia de la Creation del Cielo y de la Tierra Conforme al Sistema de la Gentilidad Americana_.

[318] See his _Teatro Critico Americano_, p. 32 _et seq._, in Rio’s _Description of the Ruins of an American City_. London, 1822, quarto.

[319] “Mais il y défigura complètement l’ouvrage d’Ordoñez qu’il no connaissait pas assez et auquel il ajouta des opinions extrêmement hasardées. D. Ramon se plaignit amèrement de ce plagiat et des fausses idées que Cabrera donnait de son travail, obtint contre lui un jugement, où le plagiaire fut condamné par le tribunal de l’audience royale de Guatémalà, le 30 Juin, 1794. Mais Cabrera, tout en pillant les idées du savant antiquaire, n’en rendait pas moins justice à son talent et à son merite.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg on Ordoñez MS. Cartas_, p. 8.

[320] The explanation given by Cabrera is as follows: “Let us suppose then, with Calmet and other authors whom he quotes, that some of the Hivites who were descendants from Heth, son of Canaan, were settled on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea and known from the most remote parts under the name of Hivim or Givim, from which region they were expelled, some years before the departure of the Hebrews from Egypt, by the Caphtorims or Philistines, who, according to some writers, were colonists from Cappadocia, others considering them to be from Cyprus, and more probably, according to a third opinion, from Crete, now Candia; that to strengthen their native country Egypt, and to protect themselves from all assault, they built five large cities, viz.: Accaron, Azotus, Ascalon, and Gaza [fifth wanting in account], from whence they made frequent sallies upon the Canaanite towns and all their surrounding neighbors (except the Egyptians, whom they always respected), and carried on many wars in the posterior ages against the Hebrews. The Scriptures (Deuteronomy, chap. ii, verse 23, and Joshua, chap. xiii, verse 4) inform us of the expulsion of the Hivites (Givim) by the Caphtorims, from which it appears that the latter drove out the former, who inhabited the countries from Azzah to Gaza. Many others were settled in the vicinity of the mountains of Eval and Azzah, among whom were reckoned the Sichemites and the Gabaonites; the latter by stratagem made alliance with Joshua, or submitted to him. Lastly, others had their dwellings about the skirts of Mount Hermon, beyond Jordan to the eastward of Canaan (Joshua, chap. ii, verse 3). Of these last were Cadmus and his wife Hermione or Hermonia, both memorable in sacred as well as profane history, as their exploits occasioned their being exalted to the rank of deities, while in regard to their metamorphosis into snakes (Culebras) mentioned by Ovid, _Metam._, lib. 3, their being Hivites may have given rise to this fabulous transmutation, the name in the Phœnician language implying a snake, which the ancient Hebrew writers suppose to have been given from this people being accustomed to live in caves under ground like snakes.”—_Cabrera, Teatro Critico_, pp. 47–8. On p. 95 he reaches the conclusion that the Votanites were Carthaginians.

[321] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 163.

[322] _Cartas_, p. 12.

[323] The description of its contents drawn by Brasseur de Bourbourg from the part in his possession is briefly as follows: The second volume of Ordoñez comprised the history of the ancestors of Votan, a descendant of Shem by the Hivo-Phœnician line; of their emigration from the Eastern Continent to the Occident; of their voyage with their first legislator by the Usumasinta River and its affluents to the Plain Palenque; the foundation of the great monarchy of the Quichés as well as that of Nachan, which was the capital; of the founding of the three royal cities of Mayapan, Tulha, and Chiquimula. The Abbé finds allusion to this work in Torquemada, Juarros, Cogolludo, Lizana, and particularly in Sahugun, book iii of his _Hist. Gen._, where it is claimed to treat of the original inhabitants of Palenque. He then states that the work was written in Guatemala at the close of the eighteenth century, and was sent to Spain or taken thither by its author for publication. In 1803 it was found in the hands of Sr. Gil Lemos of Madrid, where it had been left for publication. Its contents becoming known to the Council of the Indias, it was suppressed like many others on the early history of America. Ordoñez, who for ten years afterwards was canon of the Cathedral at Ciudad Real, died without seeing his work published. See Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Cartas_, p. 12 _et seq._

[324] These are as follows: Chontal, Quiché, Zutugil, Kachiquel, Mam, Pokoman, Pokonchi, Caichi Coxoh, Ixil, Tzendal, Tozotzil, Chol, Huaxteco, and Totonaco; besides those of the islands of Cuba and Hayti, Borquia and Jamaica.—_Geografia de los Linguas_, p. 98. Mexico, 1864, 4to.

[325] _Ibid._, p. 128.

[326] “Il y a plus d’un trait de ressemblance entre le personnage mysterieux qui parut à Carthage et le Votan des Tzendales. Les chemins souterraines où celui-ci fut admis, lesquels traversent le terre pour arriver à la racine du ciel, indiquent une suite d’épreuves qui rappellent les initiations Égyptiennes et dont on trouve des traces jusqu’à l’époque même de la conquête dans les épreuves de la chevalerie Mexicaine.”—_Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh_, p. cviii.

[327] _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. ii, p. 124. Mexico, 1865, 8vo.

[328] MS. Quiché de Chichicastenango in Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, vol. i, pp. 105–6. See also Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 21.

[329] The _Popol Vuh_ was first published by Dr. Scherzer in Vienna, in 1857, under the title of _Las Historias del Origen de los Indios de esta Provincia de Guatemala, traducidas de la Lengua Quiché al Castellano para mas Comodidad de los Ministros del S. Evangelio_, por el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenez, cura doctrinero por el real patronato del Pueblo de S. Thomas, Chuila,—Exactamente segun el texto español del manuscrito original que se halla en la biblioteca de la Universidad de Guatemala, publicado por la primera vez, y aumentado con una introduccion y anotaciones por el Dr. C. Scherzer. Father Ximenez, a Dominican and curate of Chichicastenango of Guatemala, wrote about 1720, and subsequently. His work, because of its condemnation of the oppression of the Indians, was suppressed, but was finally discovered in June, 1854, in the library of the University of San Carlos, in Guatemala, by Dr. Scherzer. Father Ximinez describes the work as a literal copy of an original Quiché book, made in Roman letters by Quiché copyists, after the introduction of Christianity into Guatemala. The copy is stated ambiguously to have been made to replace the original _Popol Vuh_—national book—which was lost. How a book which had been lost could be copied literally, the Father fails to tell us. Internal evidence, however, sustains the claim that it was written by native Quichés. In 1860, Brasseur de Bourbourg undertook a new translation of the _Popol Vuh_, from the Ximinez document (containing the Quiché and Spanish). This he did among the Quichés and with the aid of the natives, and as a result it is believed that a much more literal translation than that made by Ximenez was obtained. In our examination of Quiché history we have compared both translations and shall draw from them directly, but shall also take advantage of the excellent condensations and renderings which Mr. Hubert H. Bancroft has made. See _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 42, note, for the leading facts as we have stated them.

[330] We must refer the reader either to the originals or to that treasure-house of American traditional lore, Mr. Bancroft’s third volume, which is a repository of poetic renderings as well. Nor have we endeavored in every instance to avoid the use of that author’s incomparable terminology, so expressive of the spirit of the original.

[331] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, p. 7; Ximinez, _Hist. Ind. Guat._, pp. 5–6; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 44.

[332] Mr. Bancroft’s rendering, _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 45.

[333] Mr. Bancroft’s graceful and truly poetic rendering, _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 47, 48.

[334] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 54. Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages 1858_, tome iv, p. 268, and _Hist. de Tlaxcallan_ in the same, tome xcix, 1843, p. 179, where reference is made to these bundles.

[335] _Popol Vuh_, p. lxxxv, note, et _Ibid._, p. ccliv. The Abbé places that Tulan among the ruins of the valley of Palenque near the modern town of Comitan in the state of Chiapas. He adds: “Siége principal des princes de la race Nahuatl, cette ville aurait été fondée à une époque contemporaine de la capitale des Xibalbides, plusieurs siècles avant l’ère chrétienne, et au rapport de toutes les traditions, elle aurait rivalisé constamment avec sa métropole dont elle cherchait à se rendre indépendante.”

[336] _Popol Vuh_, notes, pp. xci–ii. We have used Mr. Bancroft’s rendering of the passage.

[337] _Geografia de las Linguas Mexicanas_, pp. 96–8 and pp. 127–29. A linguistic argument.

[338] Brasseur de Bourbourg is the authority cited by Mr. Bancroft, vol. v, p. 188.

[339] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 188.

[340] _Popol Vuh_, p. 195. Bancroft, vol. v, 172–80.

[341] _Popol Vuh_, p. cclvi. Bancroft, vol. v, p. 545. The Abbé has largely drawn upon his imagination in this instance as in some others, and the opinion is only interesting because of its authorship.

[342] Las Casas, _Hist. Apologética_, MS., tom. iii, cap. cxxiv et cxxv.

[343] Torquemada, tom. ii, pp. 53–4. Ximinez renders the word Xibalby “Inferno.”

[344] It will be remembered that Votan deposited his treasure in the “house of gloom” or “darkness.”

[345] Mr. Bancroft’s rendering of the paragraph. Vol. v, p. 179.

[346] See Bancroft, vol. v, p. 184.

[347] _Ibid._, vol. v, p. 187.

[348] _Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala._ Guatemala, 1857.

[349] _Nations Civilisées_, tom. i, p. 126. Also see the following from the _Popol Vuh_, p. clx: “Quant aux évènements dont Tulan fût le théâtre à cette époque, on ne saurait se dissimuler, en comparant l’ensemble des détails qu’on trouve dans ce chaos, qu’il ne se fût opéré alors un vaste mouvement parmi les populations de l’empire de Xibalba, mouvement causé sans doute par les efforts d’une caste souveraine pour garder le pouvoir et par l’invasion de races nouvelles, sorties des mêmes contrées, septentrionales, d’où étaient venus les Nahuas, ou des regions plus sauvages du nord-ouest; barbares ou civilisées, il y eut naturellement de leurs essaims qui s’amalgamèrent aux nations soumises à l’empire, tandis que d’autres, continuant leur route vers l’Amérique méridionale, y portèrent, sinon les institutions entières des Quinamés et des Nahuas, au moins les symboles qui les avaient le plus frappés au passage ou qui convenaient davantage à leur génie.”

[350] “De la creation, pues, tenien esta opinion. Decian que antes de ella ni habia cielo ni tierra ni sol, ni luna ni estrellas. Ponian que hubo un marido y una muger divinos que lamaron Aehel Atcamma. Estos habian tenido padre y madre los cuales engendaron trece hijos, y que él mayor con algunos con él se ensoberbecieron y guiso hacer criaturas contra la voluntad del padre y madre; pero no pudieron por que lo que hicieron fueron unos vasos viles de servicio como jarros y ollas y semejantes. Los hijos menores que se llamaban Huncheven hunahan, pidieron licencia à su padre y madre para hacer creaturas, y concedieransela, diciendoles que saldrian con ellos por que se habian humillado. Y asi lo primero hicieron los Cielos y Planetas, luego Ayre, Agua y Tierra. Despues dicen que de la tierra formaron al hombre y á la muger. Los otros que fueron soberbios presumiendo hacer criaturas contra la voluntad de los padres fueron en el infierno lanzados.”—_Las Casas, Historia Apologética, MS._, cap. 235, p. 324; see also _Torquemada, Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 53–4; _Help’s Spanish_ _Conquest_, vol. ii, p. 140; _Garcia, Origen de los Indios_, p. 519, Valencia ed., 1607, and _Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civil._, tom. ii, pp. 74–5.

[351] _Historia Apologética, MS._, cap. 235, p. 327.

[352] Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 28, and Herrera, Dec. iv, lib. x, cap. ii.

[353] “Y antiguamente dezian al oriente cen-ial, pequena-baxada, y al puniente nohen-ial, la grande-baxada.”—_Lizana’s Devocionario_, p. 354 in _Landa’s Relacion_.

[354] Cogolludo’s _Historia de Yucatan_, lib. iv. cap. iii, p. 178.

[355] _Geografia de las Linguas_, p. 128.

[356] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 618.

[357] Bancroft, vol. iii, p. 463; Lizana in Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 356; Cogolludo’s _Hist. de Yuc._, p. 197; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 76, tom. ii, pp. 10–13.

[358] Landa, pp. 35–9, and 300–1.

[359] See Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 18; Torquemada’s _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 52; Herrera’s _Hist. Gen. Dec._, iv, lib. x, cap. ii; Landa’s _Relacion_, pp. 35–9, 300 _et seq._; _Echevarria y Veitia, MS._, cap. 19, p. 116 _et seq._, and Las Casas’ _Hist. Apologética, MS._, cap. cxxiii.

[360] See for those annals the Perez document in Stephen’s _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 465–9; Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa, pp. 120–9, and Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 762–5, and vol. v, p. 624 _et seq._

[361] Las Casas, _Hist. Apologética, MS._, cap. cxxiii, p. 10, Cogolludo’s _Hist. Yuc._, p. 190; Torquemada’s _Monarq. Ind._, tom. iii, p. 133.

[362] Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones_, in Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. ix, p. 322.

[363] _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. ii.

[364] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 199.

[365] Ixtlilxochitl fixes the date of the destruction in the year 229 A. D., Veytia in 107. See further on the Quinames, Echevarria y Veitia, _Historia del Origen de Gentes_, MS., tom. i, p. 33, and Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. viii, cap. iii, p. 179. Mendieta’s _Hist. Eccl._, p. 96, Mexico, 1870. Pineda in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, tom. iii, p. 346. Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxviii, and _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 66. Oviedo’s _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, p. 539. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, p. 125. Boturini, _Idea de Una Nueva Historia_, pp. 130–5. Humboldt, _Vues des Cordilleres_, p. 205, and Orozco y Berra, _Geografia de las Lenguas_, pp. 119–24.

[366] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, lib. iii, cap. vii. Bancroft, vol. v., p. 206. Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 120, 125, 133. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 154.

[367] Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, p. 127. Pimentel, _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. i, p. 223. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 204.

[368] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 278. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 151–61.

[369] _Historia Chichimeca_, cap. i, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, p. 205.

[370] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 196, and vol. ii, p. 112. Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 32. Mendieta’s _Hist. Eccl._, p. 146.

[371] “Celebraron assimismo los Indios su dicho origen en antiguos cantares, y tuvieron tan viva la memoria de la torre de Babel, que la quisieron imitar en America con varios monstruosos edificias.” He then cites the Pyramid of Cholula as having been built in commemoration of the Tower of Babel. See Boturini, _Idea de Una Nueva Historia_, p. 113.

[372] Boturini’s _Idea_, p. 111 _et seq._ Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 129–31, et tom. ii, p. 6. Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, especially vol. vi, p. 401, and _Spiegazione delle Tavole del Codice Mexicano_, tav. vii, in _Mex. Ant._, vol. v, pp. 164–5, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, p. 67; vol. v, p. 200 _et seq._

[373] A portion of the work has been printed at Mexico.

[374] _Historia Antigua de la Nueva España_, MS., tom. i, cap. i, pp. 6–7.

[375] Alcedo (_Diccionario Geografico Historico_, tom. iii, p. 374) says that the Olmecs subsequently migrated southward and settled Guatemala. While this statement may be true in part, still it is not probable that any general migration took place, and Guatemala was certainly populated long before the Olmec power existed.

[376] Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones_, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 321–2.

[377] Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. viii, p. 25.

[378] See Prescott’s _Conq. Mexico_, vol. i, p. 171, on the Censorial Council; also Ixtlilxochitl, Clavigero and Veytia as cited by him.

[379] Echevarria y Veitia, _Hist. Gentes_, MS., tom. i, p. 29, and Kingsborough, vol. viii, p. 176. Panes, _Fragmentos de Historia_, MS., p. 3 (copy in Congressional Library, Washington), as well as several other authorities.

[380] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 193–5.

[381] _Codex Chimalpopoca_ in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 53, 71.

[382] _Codex Chimal._ in Brasseur’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 117, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 194.

[383] Sahagun, _Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España_, p. xviii, tom. i, Mexico, 1829.

[384] _Hist. Gen._, tom. iii, lib. x, p. 139 _et seq._ A translation and summary of facts is also given by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 189 _et seq._

[385] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 211, in a note has summarized the dates of departure from Hue hue Tlapalan, as given by different authors, with the following result: Date of departure according to Veytia (tom. i, p. 208), 596 A. D.; Clavigero (tom. iv, p. 46), 544 A. D.; but in the 1st tom., p. 126, he gives 596, agreeing with Veytia; Müller (_Reisen_, tom. iii, p. 94 _et seq._, 439 A. D.; Brasseur de Bourbourg (_Popol Vuh_, p. clv), last of the fourth century; Cabrera (_Teatro_, pp. 90–1), 181 B. C. The commonly accepted date is that of Clavigero—544 A. D. But after comparing these authors and considering the grounds upon which they base their calculations, we are convinced that it is useless to attempt to arrive at the true date, just as it is impossible to determine any date with certainty in all the ancient American chronology. We will not go so far as Mr. Bancroft, who says that “the departure from Hue hue Tlapalan seems to have taken place in the fifth or sixth century.” The claims for the fourth century, we think, are just as good as for the others, if not better.

[386] On the migration see Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relacions_, in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 321–4; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 100, 136, and _Popol Vuh_, p. clv, clix–xi: Veytia’s _Hist. Ant. Mej. Tom._ _1st passim_; Clavigero’s _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, p. 426; tom. iv, pp. 46, 51; Müller’s _Reisen in den Vereinigten-Staaten, Canada and Mexico_, Bd. iii, ss. 91–7, Leipzig, 1864; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 192–223.

[387] See _Geografia de las Lenguas de Mexico_, the _Carta ethnografica_ affixed, and the text, pp. 1–76.

[388] Ixtlilxochitl, _Hist. Chichimeca_, cap. ii. Kingsborough, _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, p. 206. On page 450 see also another and different account.

[389] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 214.

[390] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 214–15; Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Popol Vuh_, pp. lxiv, cxii, cxxvi–viii, clix; Ixtlilxocbitl in Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, p 446; Alvarado in _Ternaux-Compans Voy._, série i, tom. x, p. 147.

[391] Baldwin’s _Ancient Am._, p. 202.

[392] See E. Q. Squier, _Nicaragua, its People, Scenery_, etc. _Archæology and_ _Ethnology of Nicaragua_, part i, vol. iii, _Trans. of Am. Ethnol. Soc._, and _Notes on Cent. Am._, chap. xvi.

[393] Buschmann (Johann Carl Ed.), especially his _Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprachen im Nördlichen Mexico und Höhern Amerikanischen Norden_. Berlin, 1859. Quarto.

[394] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 688 _et seq._; vol. v, p. 215, and numerous places.

[395] “All around the lakes of Mexico there are traces of ancient potteries, and I noticed that the bits of broken red earthenware scattered about them are identical in composition and color with those I have picked up in the valley of the Mississippi, and supposed to be relics of the ancient Mound-builders.”—_Evens (A. S.), Our Sister Republic_, p. 330. Hartford, 1870. Octavo.

[396] Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relaciones_, Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. ix, p. 322.

[397] _Monarq. Ind._, lib. i, cap. 19.

[398] _Relaciones_, in many places, and in _Hist. Chichimecs_, cap. 13.

[399] _Relacion_, MS. written 1582 in Sr. Icazbalceta’s collection.

[400] _Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_, tom. i, p. 154.

[401] _Fragmentos de Historia de Nueba España_, MS., p. 45, Library at Washington.

[402] Duran’s _Historia Antigua_, tom. i, cap. i, p. 9, MS.

[403] Duran’s _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. 27; also cited in the Spanish by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 306. Aztlan, translated “whiteness” above, may be rendered “colorless” with equal propriety. Hue hue Tlapalan, on the contrary, is translated ancient red-land, or land of color, just the opposite of Aztlan, a fact which may serve to prove that they were two quite different localities.

[404] Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 156–9 (north of Colorado River); Humboldt, _Vues_, ii, p. 179, and _Essai Pol._, tom. i, p. 53 (north of 42° north latitude); Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 81–2, and 136–7; Prichard’s _Nat. Hist of Man_, vol. ii, pp. 514–16 (Arazonia); Pimentel, _Lenguas Indig. Mex._, tom. i, p. 158. Most writers indefinitely assign the name to a region in the North, without attempting to designate the locality.

[405] Acosta, _Hist. de las Ind._, p. 454; Schoolcraft’s _Archives of Ab. Knowledge_, vol. i, p. 68; M. Aubin places it in Lower California; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 292; Pickering’s _Races in U. S. Ex. Ex._, vol. ix, p. 41.

[406] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecles._, p. 144 (Xalisco); Veytia, _Hist. Ant. Mej._ (Sonora); Möllhausen, _Reisen in d. Felsengebirge N. Am._, tom. ii, p. 143 _et seq._

[407] Chief among these we may cite: Squier’s _Notes on Central Amer._, p. 349; Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, p. 45, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 221, 305–6, 322–5; Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, pp. 530–4, the latter, though inclined to assign Aztlan to a southern locality, still recognizes the fact that the Nahua family was originally a northern people.

[408] _Historia Antigua_, MS., tom. i, cap. i, p. 9.

[409] _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, p. 292.

[410] Chief among whom are Gallatin, Gama and Veytia, who suppose that the adjustment of the calendar took place in 1090 A.D., and that the year Ce Tochtli corresponds with that date.

[411] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 324, and seems to be the opinion of Brasseur, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. ii, pp. 292–5.

[412] Garcia Cubas’ _Republic of Mexico in 1876_ (Eng. trans.), p. 58.

[413] Veytia, tom. ii, pp. 91–8, and as summarized by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 323.

[414] Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, pp. 5–8, and Bancroft, vol. v, p. 323.

[415] _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. i, pp. 156–63.

[416] See Acosta, _Hist. Nat. Ind._, pp. 454–62. Herrera, _Histor. Gen._, dec. iii, lib. ii, cap. x–xi. Duran, MS., _Hist. Antig._, cap. i, ii, iii of tom. i.

[417] “Pero porque la noticia que tengo de su origen y principio no es mas, ni ellos saben dar mas relacion sino desde aqullas siete cuebas donde habitaron tan largo tiempo, las cuales desampararon para venir a vuscar esta Tierra unos primero que otros, otros despues, otros muy despues hasta dejarlas desiertas. Estas cuebas son en Teo-culhuican, que por otro nombre le llaman Aztlan, tierra de que todos tenemos noticia caer hacia la parte del Norte y Tierra-firma con la Florida; por tanto desde este lugar de estas cuebas dare verdadera relacion de estas Naciones y de sus sucessos. * * * Salieron pues siete Tribus de Gentes de aquellas cuebas donde habitaban para venir á vuscar esta Tierra, á las cuales llamaban Chicomostoc, de donde vienen a fingir que sus Padres nacieron de unas cuebas, no teniendo noticia de lo de atras de la salida.”—_Duran_, _Hist. Antig._, MS., tom. i, cap. i, p. 9.

[418] The _Fragmentos de Historia de Nueba España_, MS. (Congressional Library) of Diego Panes alludes to this event. “Como los Tarascos se adelantaron luego que pasaron el estrecho de mar, en los troncos de Arboles, y balsas, y otros instrumentos del pasaje y se metieron á vida y avitar en las siete cuebas espelnucas, y Tabernas de la Tierra, hasta que hicieron abitaciones, y moradas y como desde alli fueron cresciendo, y tomnado, el tiento de la Tierra y disposiciones de ella para poblarla.”