Chapter XXXII: Appendix: A (5)

[419] We quote Bancroft’s rendering from the _Vues_, tom. ii, p. 176 _et seq._: “From Colhuacan, the Mexican Ararat, fifteen chiefs or tribes reach Aztlan, ‘land of flamingoes,’ north of 42°, which they leave in 1038, passing through Tocolco, ‘humiliation,’ Oztotlan, ‘place of grottoes,’ Mizquiahuala, Teotzapotlan, ‘place of divine fruit,’ Iluicatepec, Papantla, ‘large-leaved grass,’ Tzompanco, ‘place of human bones,’ Apazco, ‘clay vessel,’ Atlicalaguian, ‘crevice in which rivulet escapes,’ Quauhtitlan, ‘eagle grove,’ Atzcapotzalco, ‘ant hill,’ Chalco, ‘place of precious stones,’ Pantitlan, ‘spinning-place,’ Tolpetlac, ‘rush mat,’ Quauhtepec, ‘eagle mountain,’ Tetepanco, ‘wall of many small stories,’ Chicomoztoc, ‘seven caves,’ Huitzquilocan, ‘place of thistles,’ Xaltepozauhcan, ‘place where the sand issues,’ Cozcaquauhco, ‘a vulture,’ Techcatitlan, ‘place of obsidian mirrors,’ Azcaxochitl, ‘ant flower,’ Tepetlapan, ‘place of tepetate,’ Apan, ‘place of water,’ Teozomaco, ‘place of divine apes,’ Chapultepec, ‘grasshopper hill.’”—_Native Races_, vol. v, p. 324, note.

[420] The following account is from Franc. Gemelli Carreri’s _Voyage Round the World_, Churchill’s _Voyages_, London, 1732, 6 vol. fol. (book iv, cap. iii), p. 485: “The ancient histories of Mexico make mention of a flood, in which all men and beasts perished, and only one man and woman were saved in a boat, which in their language they call _Acalle_. The man, according to the character by which his name is expressed, was called Cox-cox, and the woman Chichequetzal. This couple coming to the foot of the mountain, which, according to the picture, was named Culhuacan, went ashore, and there they had many children, all born dumb. When they multiplied to a great number, one day a pigeon came, and from the top of a tree gave them their speech, but not one of them understood the others’ language, and therefore they divided and dispersed, every one going to take possession of some country. Among these they reckoned fifteen heads of families who happened to speak the same language, joined together and went about to find some land to inhabit. When they had wandered one hundred and four years they came to the place they call Antlan, and continuing their journey thence, came first to the place called _Capultepec_, then to Culhuacan, and lastly to the place where Mexico now stands.”

[421] See communication in Garcia y Cubas’ _Atlas Geografico, Estadistico e Histórico de la República Mejicana_, April 1858, entrega 29, and Bancroft, iii, p. 68, note.

[422] We should be guilty of a fault if we were to convey the idea that no deluge legend other than this was current among the Aztecs. The Codex Chimalpopoca records a flood in which mankind were drowned and turned into fishes. In Mr. Bancroft’s graceful rendering we learn that “the waters and sky drew near each other; in a single day all was lost, the day Four Flower consumed all that there was of our flesh. And this was the year Ce-Calli; on the first day, Nahui-Atl, all was lost. The very mountains were swallowed up in the flood, and the waters remained, lying tranquil during fifty and two spring-times. But before the flood began, Titlacahuan had warned the man Nata and his wife Nena, saying: Make now no more pulque, but hollow out to yourselves a great cypress, into which you shall enter when, in the month Tozoztli, the waters shall near the sky. Then they entered into it, and when Titlacahuan had shut them in, he said to the man: Thou shalt eat but a single ear of maize, and thy wife but one also. And when they had finished eating, each an ear of maize, they prepared to set forth, for the waters remained tranquil and their log moved no longer; and opening it they began to see the fishes. Then they lit a fire by rubbing pieces of wood together and they roasted fish.” The account states that the deities then descended and transformed the fishes into dogs. (Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 425–7. Bancroft, vol. iii, pp. 69, 70.) We cannot with gravity give the Tezpi legend preserved in Michoacan. If the reader will refer to the Mosaic account of the flood, he will only need to substitute the name of Tezpi for Noah, a vulture for the raven, and a humming-bird for the dove, and the Tezpi legend substantially will be before him. Of course the detail of the Mosaic account is wanting; nevertheless it is certain that the Tezpi legend is the product of the fancy of some over-zealous priest, who thought he could see a stricter analogy between the Nahua deluge tradition and the Scriptural account than really exists.

[423] _Native Races_, vol. v, p. 325.

[424] See note 1, page 261, this chapter.

[425] Bancroft, vol. v, p. 325.

[426] E. G. Squier in _Notes on Cent. Am._, p. 349, makes the following remark: “It is a significant fact, that in the map of their migrations, presented by Gemelli, the place of the origin of the Aztecs is designated by the sign of water (Atl standing for Atzlan), a pyramidal temple with grades, and near these a _palm-tree_. This circumstance did not escape the attention of the observant Humboldt, who says, ‘I am astonished at finding a palm-tree near this teocalli. This tree certainly does not indicate a northern origin.’” We might add that we are equally surprised that so generally able a writer as Mr. Squier should resort to so absolutely weak an argument. Sr. Ramirez has clearly explained that all the figures and their adjuncts are but hieroglyphic parts of proper names. The palm-tree no doubt plays its part. M. Waldeck (_Voyage Pitt._, p. 45) makes the same remark as Mr. Squier—that it indicates a southern origin. Gondra (Prescott’s _Historia Conq. Mex._, cited by Bancroft, vol. v, p. 306, note) replies that this may be a thoughtless insertion of the painter. The possibility that an unskillful artist should unintentionally represent a tree of which he had no knowledge is so great, that any argument dependent upon it hangs upon a slender thread. Over against Mr. Squier’s claim we desire to place the simple inquiry, Does the Elephant Mound of Wisconsin indicate that its constructors were natives of Asia, where the elephant is common, or that they lived in the epoch of the American Mastodon? It is well-known that the latter phase of the question could not be true, since the condition of the mound contradicts such great antiquity.

[427] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 245 _et seq._, states that a band of people came from the north by way of Panuco, dressed in long black robes; that they thence went to Tulla, where they were well received, but that region being already thickly populated, they went to Cholula. They were great artists, were skilled in working metals; with them was Quetzalcoatl, with a fair and ruddy complexion and a long beard. ‘He was their leader.’

[428] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecl._, pp. 82, 86, 92, 397–8; also cited by Bancroft, vol. iii, pp. 250–2, and Clavigero, _Hist. Ant. Del. Messico_, pp. 11–13.

[429] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i, lib. iii, p. 245, and Torquemada, tom. ii, p. 47 _et seq._, do not agree fully as to the details.

[430] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 47 _et seq._, and Sahagun, tom. i, chap. iii, p. 245 _et seq._

[431] _Ibid._

[432] Mendieta, _Hist. Ecl._, p. 82 _et seq._

[433] Goatzacoalco, described as a province near the sea, one hundred and fifty leagues from Cholula (Torquemada, tom ii, pp. 48–52). The same author traces him to Yucatan and identifies him with Cukulcan. See preceding chapter.

[434] On a raft, according to Sahagun.

[435] See Müller, _Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen_, p. 599.

[436] Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. ii, p. 50. In presenting these legends we have employed nearly the same language which we used in treating the same subject in an article entitled “Culture-Heroes of the Ancient Americans,” published in _Appleton’s Journal_ for March 1877.

[437] See Bancroft, vol. v. p. 256, and the authorities cited.

[438] The sources of the Quetzalcoatl legends have been cited in connection with our version of the fables applying to the name. On the relation of Ceacatl Quetzalcoatl, the Toltec king, to the subject, see Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. ii, lib. viii, p. 266, but especially see Bancroft, vol. v, p. 256 _et seq._, for a fuller account. The same author has treated the subject with an unprecedented fullness in his third volume, chap. vii. The able examination of Quetzalcoatl’s character by Müller, in his _Geschichte d. Am. Urreligionen_ (pp. 577 _et seq._), has been of great value to us in the preparation of this sketch.

[439] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 404 _et seq._

[440] _Personal Narrative of Explorations and Incidents in Texas, New Mexico, California, Sonora, and Chihuahua._ New York, 1854, vol. ii, pp. 348 _et seq._

[441] _Ensayo sobre Chihuahua_, p. 74.

[442] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 621 _et seq._

[443] Published in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iv, tom. i, pp. 282 _et seq._, translated in Schoolcraft’s _Hist. and Condition of Indian Tribes_, vol. iii, pp. 300 _et seq._, and Bartlett’s _Pers. Narrative_, vol. ii, pp. 281–2. Quoted in _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 622–23.

[444] Bernal in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 804.

[445] Sedelmair, _Relacion_, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 847, copied by Orosco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 108–10. Also cited by Bancroft.

[446] _Pers. Narrative_, vol. ii, pp. 278–80.

[447] Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 81–3.

[448] Johnston’s _Journal_ in _Ibid._, pp. 567–600.

[449] _Pers. Nar._, pp. 271–284.

[450] Browne’s _Apache Country_, pp. 114–24.

[451] Coronado, on his trip from Culiacan to the “seven cities of Cibola” in 1540, saw a roofless building called Chichilticale, or “red house.” Castañeda says it was built of red earth and had formerly been occupied by people from Cíbola. This is of interest, especially since it is quite certain that the seven cities visited were identical with the Pueblo towns around old Zuñi on the Zuñi River in New Mexico (see Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 673–4, and Morgan in _North American Review_, April, 1869. The best treatment of Coronado’s march is by Simpson in _Smithsonian Report_, 1859, pp. 309 _et seq._ See further _Castañeda_, in Ternaux-campans, _Voy._, série i, tom. ix, pp. 40–1, 161–2. Gallatin in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, and Whipple in _Pac. R. R. Report_, vol. iii.

[452] _Relacion_ in _Doc. Hist. Mex._, série iii, tom. iv, p. 847. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 634.

[453] Velarde in _ibid._, série iv, tom. i, p. 363, and _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 634.

[454] Bartlett’s _Pers. Nar._, vol. ii, pp. 242–8. Johnston in Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 596–600. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 636.

[455] Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 14, 15.

[456] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 636.

[457] Whipple in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 91–4.

[458] Emory’s _Reconnoissance_, pp. 63–9, 80, 133–4. _Ibid._, pp. 581–96. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 638–9, has copied three plans.

[459] _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 640.

[460] Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_.

[461] First published in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, Nos. 3, 4 and 5, for January, February and March, 1875.

[462] _Cañons of the Colorado_, in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, p. 528. Powell’s _Explorations of the Colorado River of the West_. Washington. 1875. 4to.

[463] “It was ever a source of wonder to us why these ancient people sought such inaccessible places for their homes. They were doubtless an agricultural race, but there were no lands here of any considerable extent which they could have cultivated. To the west of Oraiby, and of the towns of the Province of Tusayan, in northern Arizona, the inhabitants have actually built little terraces along the face of the cliff, where a spring gushes out, and there made their site for gardens. It is possible that the ancient inhabitants of this place made their lands in the same way. But why should they seek such spots? Surely the country was not so crowded with population as to demand the utilization of a region like this. The only solution which suggests itself is this: We know that for a century or two after the settlement of Mexico, many expeditions were sent into the country now comprising Arizona and New Mexico for the purpose of bringing the town-building people under the dominion of the Spanish government. Many of their villages were destroyed, and the inhabitants fled to regions at that time unknown, and there are traditions among the people who now inhabit the pueblos which remain, that the cañons were these unknown lands. It may be that these buildings were erected at that time. Sure it is that they had a much more modern appearance than the ruins scattered over Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.”—_Major Powell in Scribner_, vol. ix, p. 525. _Id._, _Explorations of the Colorado River of the West_, pp. 87, 88.

[464] _Cañons of the Colorado_, in _Scribner’s Monthly_, vol. ix, p. 402; Powell’s _Exploration of the Colorado River of the West_, pp. 68–9. Major Powell on the 125th page of his report on the Colorado, gives a brief description of remains in a side cañon, a few miles from the great river.

[465] Sitgreaves’ _Report, Zuñi and Colorado Rivers_, pp. 8–9; Whipple, _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 46–50; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 642–3.

[466] Whipple, _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 76–7.

[467] Sitgreaves, _Zuñi Ex._, p. 6; Whipple, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 39, 71; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 645, 673.

[468] See authorities cited on page 281, note 1, of this chapter.

[469] See Whipple, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, p. 67, with beautiful full-page view. Simpson’s _Jour. of Mil. Recon._, pp. 90–3; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 645, 667, 673.

[470] Whipple in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 68, 70, 66, 40–8, views of old Zuñi, and sacred spring; Möllhausen, _Reisen in die Felsengebirge N. Am._, tom. ii, pp. 196, 402; _Id._, _Tagebuch_, pp. 283–4, 278, with cut; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 645–7, with cut.

[471] Möllhausen’s _Journey_, vol. ii, p. 82; Whipple _et al._, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, p. 39; Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 95–7; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 647–8.

[472] Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 89–109, 60–1, 65–74, 100, with cuts, views and plans; Whipple, Ewbank and Turner, in _Pacific R. R. Report_, vol. iii, pp. 22, 52, 63–4; see also Möllhausen’s _Tagebuch_ and _Journey_; Bancroft, vol. iv., pp. 645–50.

[473] In Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 131–3, and copied in a note by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 657.

[474] See on Chaco ruins, Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 34–43, 131–3. Domenech’s _Deserts_, vol. i, pp. 199–200, 379–81, 385. Baldwin’s _Anc. Am._, pp. 86–9, cut; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 652–62, which we have found of valuable assistance; especially see _Ruins of the Chaco Cañon, examined in 1877_, by W. H. Jackson, in _Tenth Annual Report of U. S. Geol. Survey_. Washington, 1879. Best account.

[475] Simpson’s _Jour. Mil. Recon._, pp. 74–5, plates 53–4, copied by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 652; also see Domenech’s _Deserts_, vol i, p. 201, and _Annual Scienc. Discov._, 1850, p. 362.

[476] W. H. Jackson in _Bulletin of U. S. Geol. and Geog. Survey of the Territories_, 2d series, No. 1, Washington, 1875, and in the _Annual Report_ of the same, Washington, 1876, pp. 369 _et seq._ A condensed though excellent account is furnished by Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 718 _et seq._ Also a condensed account by Prof. Edwin A. Barber in _Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877. _Seconde Session_, tom. i, pp. 22–38. Also _Ibid._, _The Ancient Pueblos, or Ruins of the Valley of the Rio San Juan_. Parts I, II.

[477] _Bulletin No. 1_, vol. ii, pp. 11, 12.

[478] Published in _Bulletin of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories_, vol. ii, No. 1. Washington, 1876. Mr. Bancroft’s account in the _Native Races_, necessarily terminates with the close of Mr. Jackson’s labors in 1874.

[479] See _A Notice of the Ancient Ruins of South-western Colorado, examined during the summer of 1875, by W. H. Holmes_, in _Bulletin of the Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories_, vol. ii, No. 1. Washington, 1876.

[480] Ives’ _Colorado River of the West_, pp. 119–26, with plates. The same extract condensed into nearly the same form as above is given by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 667–80.

[481] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 662 _et seq._, and the authors cited therein.

[482] _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 663, and Simpson’s _Journal Mil. Recon._, p. 114.

[483] I have carefully examined Father Escalante’s _Diario_ in the MS. copy deposited in the Congressional Library at Washington, but find nothing to contradict the opinion of recent explorers. The reader will also see Dominguez and Escalante’s _Diario y Derrotero Sante Fé à Monterey_, 1776, in _Doc. Hist. Mex._ Serie ii, tom. i.

[484] _Ninth Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, p. 12. Cambridge, 1876.

[485] _Eleventh Annual Report of Peabody Museum_, Cambridge, 1878, pp. 198–200, 267–80.

[486] _Smithsonian Report_ for 1872, pp. 413 _et seq._; and this work, chapter I.

[487] The facts claimed in the following account are drawn from Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii., pp. 171–74 and 175–7. Ward, in _Ind. Aff. Report_, 1864, pp. 192–3. Brinton’s _Myths of the New World_, p. 190. Ten Broeck in Schoolcraft’s _History and Condition of the Indian Tribes_, vol. iv, p. 73, and Tyler’s _Primitive Culture_, vol. ii, p. 384.

[488] Davidson, in _Ind. Aff. Report_, 1865, pp. 131–3, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 75–77.

[489] This feature of the legend is beautifully developed by Mr. Bancroft.

[490] In this account of Montezuma I have used, with few variations, the same language employed by me in treating the subject in an article entitled, “Culture-Heroes of the Ancient Americans,” published in _Appleton’s Journal_ for March, 1877, pp. 275–6.

[491] Hindoo Mounds, see Squier’s observations on Dr. Westerman in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, April, 1851; and Atwater, in _Am. Ethnol. Soc. Trans._, vol. i, pp. 196–267.

[492] Chief among whom are Dupaix, in Kingsborough’s _Mexican Antiquities_; Waldeck (exploration performed in 1832–3), Pub. 1866 fol.; Stevens and Catherwood in 1840; M. Morelet in 1846, and Charney in 1858; for best bibliographical treatment, see Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 289–294, note.

[493] Stephens, vol. ii, p. 310: Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. 2, and Brasseur in _Ibid._, p. 17; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 300.

[494] _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 300–1.

[495] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. vii. See also Stephens, vol. ii, p. 310; Dupaix, pl. xi.; Kingsborough, vol. iv, pl. xiii; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 307.

[496] _Ibid._, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 312.

[497] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 303.

[498] Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 339–43, and Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 323–27.

[499] On the tower, see Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. iii, pl. xviii, xix. Morelet’s _Voyage_, tom. i, p. 266. Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 315, and Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. 86–7.

[500] Stephens’ _Incidents of Travel in Yucatan_. New York (1st ed. 1843, and others subsequently).

[501] Waldeck, _Voyage Pittoresque et Archéologique dans la Province d’Yucatan_, Paris, 1838, large fol., 22 illustrations. Norman, _Rambles in Yucatan_, New York, 1843, 8vo, illustrated. Baron von Friederichstal, _Les Monuments de l’Yucatan_, in _Nouvelles Annales des Voyages_, 1841, tom. xcii, pp. 297, 314. Charnay, _Cités et Ruines Américaines_, Paris, 1863, large folio. Of many general notices made up from these sources we consider Bancroft’s as the most critical and satisfactory. His note on the bibliography of the subject is also of interest.

[502] We have followed the measurements of Stephens; seeming to us most accurate. (See _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 165 _et seq._) Norman, Charnay and Waldeck all differ in their measurements. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 154–5 has given a good condensation of the description.

[503] _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 175. Reproduced in Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 156, and Baldwin, _Anc. America_, p. 132.

[504] _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 174. Reproduced by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 160, and Baldwin, _Anc. America_, p. 132.

[505] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 301. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 176–7. Baldwin’s _Anc. America_, p. 136.

[506] Waldeck reports that a turtle was sculptured upon each of the blocks of the pavement. See _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xii, where four are figured. Stephens, however, found no traces of them. See Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 175.

[507] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 313. Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pp. 95–6, pl. ix, x, xi. Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, pp. 425 _et seq._ Charnay’s _Ruines Americ._, pp. 70 _et seq._ Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 192 _et seq._

[508] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 397, view of Kabah edifice. See a sectional view in Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 207.

[509] D’abord j’ai été frappé de la ressemblance qu’offrent ces étranges figures des édifices mayas avec la tête de l’éléphant. Cet appendice, placé entre deux yeux et depassant la bouche de presque toute la longueur, m’a semblé ne pouvoir être autre chose que l’image de la trompe d’un proboscidian, car le museau charnu et saillant du tapir n’est pas de cette longueur.—_Waldeck, Voy. Pitt._, p. 74, pl. xiv, xv. Also _Humboldt, Vues_, ed. 1810, p. 92.

[510] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 311–17; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 230–36, with plans and cuts from Stephens’ and Baldwin’s _Anc. Amer._, p. 140.

[511] _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 130–9; Baldwin, _Anc. Amer._, p. 129.

[512] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 387 _et seq._; Bancroft, vol iv, pp. 254–9.

[513] The original accounts furnished by actual explorers of Copan are as follows: 1st, by the Licenciado Diego García de Palacio, who prepared an account of his duties and their performance, for the king, Felipe II of Spain, dated March 8, 1576, and preserved in the Muñoz collection of MSS. The account has been published several times, at least once in the United States, in Palacio, _Carta Dirijida al Rey_, Albany, 1860, and translated into English by E. G. Squier; 2d, an account by Fuentes y Guzman, in a MS. dated 1689. However, so much as related to Copan was published in 1808 in Juarros, _Compendio de la Hist. de la Ciudad de Guatemala_, trans. in English in 1823; 3d, by Col. Juan Galindo, an officer in Central American service (explorations made in 1835), published communication in _Am. Antiq. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, pp. 545–50, and in _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, pp. 73, 76; 4th, Stephens and Catherwood in 1839, published in _Incidents and Travels in Central America_, vol. i, pp, 95–160. New York, 1841.

The ruins have been visited by two or three persons since described by Stephens, but the public has not enjoyed the benefit of their researches, as we believe nothing has since been published on Copan. Brasseur de Bourbourg, who visited the ruins in 1863 and 1866, testifies to the perfect accuracy of the descriptions and plates in Stephens’ and Catherwood’s work. A considerable number of notices of Copan have been made up by different writers from these sources. The latest and best of such notices is that by Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 77–105, from whose bibliographical note we have drawn somewhat for the above facts.

[514] Juarros, _Hist. Guat._, pp. 56–7; Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. i, p. 144, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 82–3.

[515] Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. ii, pp. 171, 182–8, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 124–8.

[516] Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, p. 15, and cited by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 131.

[517] The only comprehensive and satisfactory treatment of the entire field in detail is that by Mr. Bancroft, _Native Races_, chaps. vii, viii, ix, x.

[518] Dupaix, _Third Expedition_, pp. 6–7, pl. iii–v, fig. 6–9; Kingsborough, _Mex. Ant._, vol. vi, p. 469, and Mayer’s _Observations on Mexican History and Archæology_, pp. 25–6, and cuts (Smithsonian contribution, No. 86), 1856; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 368–71, with cuts.

[519] _Reisen_, tom. ii, p. 282, and Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 375.

[520] Dupaix, _Seconde Expédition_, published in Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 255–68, vol. vi, pp. 447–56, vol. iv, pl. xxvii–xli, fig. 81–95, and in _Antiq. Mex.; Seconde Expédition_, pp. 30–44, pl. xxix–xlvi, figs. 78–93.; Charnay, _Cités et Ruines Américaines_, pp. 261–9, photographs ii–xviii, and Viollet-le-Duc in _Ibid._, pp. 74–104; Humboldt obtained his information and plates from the survey and drawings of Don Luis Martin and Col. de la Laguna, who visited the ruins in 1802; see _Vues_, tom. ii, pp. 278–85, pl. xvii–xviii, and in his other works on the same subject. The remaining original works are Mühlenpfordt in the _Ilustracion Mejicana_, tom. ii, pp. 493–8; Tempsky’s _Mitla_, pp. 250–3, with plates; Garcia, in _Soc. Mex. Georg. Boletin_, tom. ii, pp. 271–2; Sawkins in Mayer’s _Observations_; Fossey in his _Mexique_, pp. 365–70, and Müller, _Reisen_, tom. ii, pp. 279–81. We might append a large number of notices made second-hand from the above, but as they contain nothing original we omit them, and refer the reader who is desirous of examining them, to Bancroft’s note in _Native Races_, vol. iv. p. 391. Our examination of the subject has been confined to the accounts of Dupaix, Humboldt, and Charnay, together with Mr. Bancroft’s critical review of the field. From the latter we draw some of our bibliographical material.

[521] Charnay, _Mexique_, Phot. iv; also _Cités et Ruines Amér._, Phot. v, vi. Other views in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 396–405.

[522] Fossey, _Mexique_, p. 367, finds twenty-two different styles of grecques in this front, while Mühlenpfordt gives cuts of sixteen different styles in _Ilustracion Mej._, tom. ii, p. 501.

[523] See full discussion by Viollet le Duc in Charnay’s _Ruines Amér._, pp. 78–9.

[524] Charnay, phot. x. Mr. Bancroft was not ignorant of this error. Tempsky’s plate served as the guide for Baldwin’s cut.

[525] Dupaix, _Seconde Exped._, pp. 40–1, pl. xliv–v, fig. 93–4. Kingsborough, vol. v, p. 265; vol. vi, p. 455; vol. iv, pl. xl–i, fig. 95, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 413.

[526] See especially a communication from Mr. Hugo Finck, for twenty-eight years a resident of the region, published in the _Smithsonian Report_ for 1870, an extract from which is published in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 431–3.

[527] Sr. Gondra received considerable information concerning these ruins from some unnamed person, which he published in _Mosaico Mexicano_, tom. ii, pp. 368–72.

[528] Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 442. This author has given quite a full description of the fortification, and two plates.

[529] Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, pp. 8–9, pl. ix–xi, fig. 9–12; Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 215–16; vol. vi, pp. 425–6, pl. v–vi, fig. 11–15; an account in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 368–72 and cut.

[530] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco y Arqueolójico sobre la República Mejicana_, 1829–34, Paris, 1839, fol.; Mayer’s _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp. 199–200; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 247–8, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 47, 55–8, with two illustrations. We have cited Nebel from the latter.

[531] The original describers of Papantla are Diego Ruiz, in _Gaceta de Mexico_, July 12, 1785, tom. i, pp. 349–51, copied in _Diccionario Univ. Geog._, tom x, pp. 120–1; also Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_. Humboldt states that Dupaix and Castañeda visited the locality, but they published no description, his own description may have been from information received from them; _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 102–3; _Ibid._, _Essai Pol._, p. 274; _Ibid._, in _Ant. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, p. 12. Of the many descriptions drawn from these sources, those of Mayer, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp. 196–7; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 248–9, and Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 452–4, with cut from Nebel, are probably the best.

[532] Of a large number of notices of Cholula, the most important of the original class are those of Humboldt, _Essai Pol._, pp. 239–40; _Ibid._, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 96–124, fol. 2d, pl. vii–viii; Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, p. 2, pl. xvi, fig. 17, and Kingsborough, vol. v, p. 218, vol. iv, pl. viii, fig. 20; Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. ii, pl. 33–4; Mayer, _Mexico As it Was_, p. 26, and _Mex. Aztec_, etc., vol. ii, p. 328, cuts. For most recent reference, though not very scientific, see Evens’ _Our Sister Republic_, pp. 428–32 (1869), and Haven’s _Mexico, Our Next Door Neighbor_, pp. 109–202, 1875. Mr. Bancroft has given a short, though satisfactory notice, especially valuable for its citation of authorities. In a note (11) vol. iv, p. 471–2, a full list of the authors who have written on Cholula will be found, _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 469–77.

[533] _Reisen_, pp. 131–2.

[534] Heller, _Reisen_, pp. 131–2, cited by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 473.

[535] Exploration performed in 1777, and account published in _Gaceta de Literatura_, November, 1791, also tom. ii, p. 127 of the same.

[536] Copied the proceedings to a considerable extent in _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 129–37, pl. ix, and in _Essai Pol._, pp. 189–90.

[537] Dupaix’s _First Expedition_, pp. 14–18, pl. xxxi–ii, figs. 33–6; Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 222–4, vol. iv, pl. xv–vi.

[538] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_, pl. ix–x, xix–xx.

[539] The Government exploration report in _Revista Mexicana_, tom. i, pp. 539–50, and in _Deccionario Univ. Geog._, tom. x, pp. 938–42; Mayer’s _Mexico As It Was_, pp. 185–7; _Ibid._, _Mex. Aztec_, etc., vol. ii, pp. 283–5, with cuts; Tylor’s _Anáhuac_, pp. 183–95. To these original accounts many compiled notices might be added. Mr. Bancroft’s critical review of the sources, supplemented with full bibliographical notes, is valuable and should receive the attention of the reader. See _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 483–98, with several cuts after Nebel. We have found this writer’s summary of facts of great service in making up the following description.

[540] The vandalic destruction of this Acropolis of Mexican architecture is due to the vulgar cupidity of a neighboring sugar manufacturer, who despoiled it in order to build the furnaces of his refinery.

[541] See Tylor, _Anahuac_, p. 149, and on the subject in hand.

[542] See Prescott, book iv, caps. i, ii, vol. ii, Kirk’s ed. of 1875, pp. 100–51.

[543] See chapter vi, p. 248, this work.

[544] Almaraz, _Apuntes sobre las Pirámides de San Juan Teotihuacan_. _Mexico_, 1864.

[545] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 529–44, and a good bibliographical note on p. 530.

[546] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, p. 533. On page 548, the same author in a note translates the following interesting passage from Sr. Garcia y Cubas: “The pyramids of Teotihuacan, as they exist to day, are not in their primitive state. There is now a mass of loose stones whose interstices covered with vegetable earth have caused to spring up the multitude of plants and flowers with which the faces of the pyramids are now covered. This mass of stones differs from the plan of construction followed in the body of the monuments and besides the falling of these stones, which has taken place chiefly on the eastern face of the Moon, has laid bare an inclined plane perfectly smooth, which seems to be the true face of the pyramid. This isolated observation would not give so much force to my argument if it were not accompanied by the same circumstances in all the monuments.” This inner smooth surface has an inclination of 47°, differing from the angle of the outer faces. Sr. Garcia y Cubas, conjectures that the Toltecs, the descendants of the civilized architects of these monuments, fearing that they would be despoiled by the savages who followed them, covered up their sacred places with the outer coatings described. See Appendix.

[547] Quemada was at first mentioned by early writers as one of the stations in the Aztec migration. Captain Lyon published in his _Journal_, vol. i. pp. 225–44, the result of explorations performed by him at Los Edificios in 1826. Another report was made by Sr. Esparza from data furnished him by Pedro Rivera in 1830, which appeared in Esparza’s _Informe presentado al Gobierno_, pp. 56–8, and _Museo Mex._, tom. i, pp. 185 _et seq._ Herr Berghes made a pretty good survey of the ruins in 1831: his observations were published by Nebel. Herr Burkart, a companion of Berghes, published a description in his _Aufenthalt und Reisen in Mexico_, tom. ii, pp. 97–105. Nebel published his observations in his _Viaje_. Several authors have made up notices from these sources without adding any original information. A list of these, as well as those given above, may be found in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 578–9.

[548] Stephens’ _Central America_, vol. ii, pp. 438 _et seq._

[549] Viollet-le-Duc in Charnay’s _Cités et Ruines, Introduct._, pp. 28 _et seq._

[550] Garcia y Cubas, _Ensayo de un Estudio comparativo entre las Pirámides Egípcias y Mexicanas_; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 543–4, and vol. v, pp. 55–6. See Appendix.

[551] Delafield, _Inquiry into the Origin of American Antiquities_, pp. 57–61. 1839. 4to.

[552] _Mexique_, pp. 274–5. Leipzig, 1843.

[553] _Historical Researches_, p. 355.

[554] See further, Clavigero, _Storia del Messico_, tom. iv, pp. 19–20; Jones, _Hist. Anc. Amer._, p. 122; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 474; Prescott, _Mex._, tom. iii, p. 407; Humboldt, _Essai Pol._, tom. i, p. 265; Tylor’s _Early History_, p. 206.

[555] Humboldt, _Vues_, p. 92 (fol. ed., 1810), considers that this people was originally from Asia and preserved some remembrance of the elephant, or that in their traditions they had accounts of the mammoth of the American continent.

[556] Waldeck, p. v, pl. xii, xiii. Stephens, _Cent. Am._, vol ii, pp. 311, 116–17. Dupaix, pp. 20, 37, 75–6, pl. xiv–xxii. Kingsborough, vol. iv, pl. xxvi. Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol iv, pp. 304–6.

[557] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. xiv, xv, shows both groups. Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 313. Dupaix, pl. xxiii–iv.

[558] Waldeck, pl. xiv.

[559] Waldeck, pl. xvii. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 317–18. Stephens, vol. ii, p. 318. Morelet, p. 97.

[560] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. iii, pl. 42. Dupaix, pl. xxxiii, Fig. 37. Kingsborough, pl. xxxv, fig. 37. Stephens, vol. ii, p. 355. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 328–30.

[561] Waldeck, p. vii, pl. xxi–ii. Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 345–7. Charnay, p. 419, pl. xxi. Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 332–6. Especially see Rau’s _Palenque Tablet_ (Smithsonian Contrib., No. 331), for the best account of Tablet of the Cross.

[562] Waldeck, pl. 23–24; Stephens, vol. ii, p. 352; Dupaix, p. 24, pl. xxxvii–viii; mention in Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 332–3.

[563] Waldeck, pl. 25; Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 344, 349; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 336–7, with cut.

[564] Waldeck, pl. xxvi–xxxii; Stephens, vol. ii, pp. 351–4; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 338–41.

[565] Plates, Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xv–xvii; Charnay’s photographs have attested the accuracy of Waldeck’s drawings; Waldeck’s views reproduced in Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 182–3.

[566] Stephens’ _Yuc._, vol. i, p. 306; Waldeck’s pl. xvi; also see Charnay’s phot. 39; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 182–4; Viollet-le-Duc’s drawing in Charnay, p. 65.

[567] Cut from Waldeck’s _Voy. Pitt._, pl. xiii–xviii and p. 100; reproduced by Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 185, of which ours is an electrotype copy. See also Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 302–3; Charnay, _Ruines Amer._, phot. 40, 41, 44; Norman’s _Rambles in Yucatan_, p. 162.

[568] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 303–11; Charnay’s _Ruines Amér._, pp. 140–1, phot. 33, 34; Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iv, pp. 220–36.

[569] Mr. Salisbury, with the most liberal courtesy, has furnished the heliotypes and photos from which the accompanying engravings were made. We take this opportunity of expressing publicly our thanks for this rare favor.

[570] _Archæological Communication on Yucatan_, by Dr. Le Plongeon in Salisbury’s _Maya Archæology_, p. 65, and _Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Soc._, October 21, 1878.

[571] _Maya Archæology_, p. 61.

[572] _Ibid._, p. 62.

[573] See Torquemada, _Monarchia Indiana_, lib. iv, cap. 8, and Herrera, _Hist. Gen. Ind._, decade ii, lib. iv, cap. 17, quoted by Salisbury, _Maya Archæology_, pp. 33–35.

[574] See _Terra-cotta Figure from Isla Mugeres_, by Stephen Salisbury, Jr., in _Maya Archæology_ (heliotypes).

[575] Stephens, _Cent. Amer._, vol. i, pp. 103–4, 134–43 with plates; Foster, _Pre-Historic Races_, pp. 302–322, 338–9; Galindo in _Amer. Antiq. Soc. Trans._, vol. ii, pp. 548–9; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 89–105, with cuts.

[576] Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 371, 381, 385, 387, 414, 415, 421, 427, 428, 435, 436, 455, 457, 462, has figured some of these, but all indicate an order of art inferior to the Maya.

[577] Nebel, _Viaje Pintoresco_; Mayer’s _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, pp. 199, 200; Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 457–8.

[578] Vetch, in _London Geog. Soc. Jour._, vol. vii, pp. 1–11, plate; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 462.

[579] Dupaix, _Third Expedition_, p. 5, pl. i–ii; _Ibid._, _First Expedition_, pp. 3–4, pl. i–ii, fig. 1, 2; p. 10, pl. xii; pp. 12–13, pl. xvii–xxii, fig. 19, 24; _Second Expedition_, p. 51, pl. lxi, fig. 117; Kingsborough, vol. v, pp. 285–6; vol. iv, pl. i–ii, fig. 1–3; vol. vi, p. 467; vol. v, pp. 209–10; vol. vi, pp. 421–2; vol. iv, pl. i, fig. 1–4; vol. v, p. 217; vol. iv, p. vi, fig. 16, and Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 467–69.

[580] Dupaix, _First Expedition_, p. 14; Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 481.

[581] This work, p. 372.

[582] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 499, has reproduced some of them.

[583] Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 332 _et seq._; tom. ii, pp. 1 _et seq._ and 84–5, pl. viii, (fol. ed. pl. xxiii); _Mayer, Mexico As it Was_, pp. 126–8; Prescott, _Conq. Mex._, vol. i, pp. 126, 145–6; vol. ii, pp. 112, ed. 1875; Bancroft, vol. iv. pp. 505–9, and cut.

[584] Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. ii, pp. 148–61 (fol. ed., pl. xxix); _Ibid._, _Antiq. Mex._, tom. i, div. ii, pp. 25–7, suppl. pl. vi; Nebel, _Viaje_, with large plate; Mayer, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. i, pp. 108–11; _Ibid._, _Mexico As it Was_, pp. 109–14; Bullock’s _Mexico_, pp. 337–42; Leon y Gama, _Dos Piedras_, pt. i, pp. 1–3, 9, 10, 34, and five plates latterly cited by Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 512–15, four plates.

[585] Bancroft, vol. iv, p. 517; Mayer, _Mexico As it Was_, pl. 100–1; _Ibid._, _Mex. Aztec_, vol. ii, p. 274.

[586] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, pl. 55.

[587] Waldeck’s _Palenqué_, p. viii, pl. xliv. Tylor’s _Anahuac_, pp. 110, 337, for information concerning the masks. Also Bancroft, vol. iv, pp. 557–9.

[588] _Smithsonian Contribution_, No. 287, pp. 82–7 (1876).

[589] _Hist. Kingdom Guatemala_, p. 19. Lond., 1823.

[590] F. Giordan, _Description et colonization de l’Isthme de Tehuantepec_, p. 57. Paris, 1838.

[591] Melgar in _Mex. Geog. Soc. Bolletin_, 2d época, tom. iii, p. 112 _et seq._

[592] Dr. Max Uhlmann, _Handbuch der gesamten Ægyptischen Alterthumskunde_, I _Theil. Geschichte der Egyptologie_, p. 108. Leipzig, 1857.

[593] Botta, _Mon. de Ninive_, vol. ii, pl. 58, and _Edinburgh Review_ for Jan. 1870, p. 231.

[594] John Newton in Appendix to Inman’s _Ancient Pagan and Modern Christian Symbolism_, p. 116. London, 1874.

[595] _Saturn_, lib. i, cap. 20.

[596] Zoeckler, _Das Kreutz Christi_, p. 9, Güterslo, 1875, and _Edinburgh Review_, Jan. 1870, p. 232.

[597] Mr. Bancroft remarks, “He happens, however, here to have selected two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America. In the preceding volume of this work, page 333, is given a cut of what is called the ‘Tablet of the Cross’ at Palenque. In this we see a cross and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two human figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering. In Mr. Stephens’ representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost the same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented Latin cross, we have here a _crux commissa_, or _patibulata_; that instead of one bird there are two, not on the cross but immediately above it, and that the figures, though in profile and holding the same general positions, are dressed in a different manner, and are apparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making an offering to it; in Mr. Stephens’ representation from the obelisk of Carnac, however, a priest is evidently making an offering to a large bird perched upon an altar; and here again the human figures occupy the same position. The hieroglyphics, though the characters are of course different, are, it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in much the same manner. The frontispiece of Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, described on p. 352, represents the tablet, on the back wall of the altar, Casa No. 3 at Palenque. Once more here are two priests clad in all the elaborate insignia of their office, standing one on either side of a table or altar, upon which are erected two batons, crossed in such a manner as to form a _crux decussata_, and supporting a hideous mask. To this emblem they are making an offering.”—_Bancroft’s Native Races_, vol. v, pp. 60–1, note.

[598] W. H. Holmes in _Bulletin of the Geog. and Geol. Survey of the Territories_, Vol. II, No. I, p. 20, Pl. 11 and 12.

[599] Landa, _Relacion_, p. 44. Villagutierre, _Conq.Itza_, pp. 393–4. Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 768.

[600] _Relacion_, p. 316.

[601] Peter Martyr, Dec. iv, lib. viii. Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 769–70.

[602] Stephens’ _Cent. Amer._, vol. ii, pp. 342, 453–5.

[603] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 780. Brasseur’s admission will be found in the _Bibliothéque Mexico-Guatemalienne_, Paris, 1871, p. xxvii. The translation, prefaced with 136 quarto pages devoted to a consideration of the Maya characters, is published under the title, _MS. Troano: Etudes sur le systéme graphique et la langue des Mayas_. Paris, 1869–70. 4to, 2 vols., 70 colored plates.

[604] Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 773, plate, p. 774.

[605] The original of Landa’s explanation is as follows: “De sus letras porne aqui un _a_, _b_, _c_, que no permite su pesadumbre mas porque usan para todas las aspiraciones de las letras de un caracter, y despues, al puntar de las partes otro, y assi viene a hazer _in infinitum_, como se podra ver en el siguiente exemplo: _Lé_, quiere dezir laço y caçar con el; para escrivirle con sus carateres, haviendoles nosotros hecho entender que son dos letras, lo escrivian ellos con tres, puniendo a la aspiracion de la _l_ la vocale _é_ que antes de si trae, y en esto no hierran. aunque usense, si quisieren ellos de su curiosidad, exemplo: _e L e Lé._ Despues al cabo le pegan la parte junta. _Ha_ que quiere dezir agua, porque la _haché_ tiene _a_, _h_, antes de si la ponen ellos al prinicipio con _a_, y al cabo deste manera, _ha_. Tambien lo escriven a partes pero de la una y otra manera, yo no pusiera aqui ni tratara dello sino por dar cuenta enters de las cosas desta gente. _Ma in kati_ quiere dezir no quiero, ellos lo escriven a partes desta manera: _ma i n ka ti._”—_Landa, Relacion_, p. 318, translated by Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 778.

[606] _Relacion_, p. 322.

[607] Bollaert, _Examination of Central American Hieroglyphs_, in _Memoirs of Anthropological Soc. of London_, vol. iii, pp. 288–314. London, 1870.

[608] Charencey, _Essai de Déchiffrement d’un fragment d’inscription palenquéenne_, in _Actes de la Société Philologique_, tom. i. March, 1870.

[609] Rosny, _Essai sur le Déchiffrement de L’Écriture Hiératique de L’Amérique Centrale_, Paris, 1876, folio, with large colored plates and fac-similes. In three parts, two of which only have as yet appeared (Oct. 1878). The author informs me (Feb. 1879) that a fourth part will be required to complete the work.

[610] Bollaert in _Memoirs of Anthropol. Soc. of London_, vol. iii, p. 298.

[611] _Ibid._, p. 301.

[612] _Ibid._, p. 307.

[613] See a review of these attempts in Rosny’s _Essai_, pp. 12–13, and remarks on Charencey in Appendix D of Baldwin’s _Ancient America_.

[614] _Examination of Cent. Am. Hier._, p. 306.

[615] _The Ancient Phonetic Alphabet of Yucatan_, p. 6, N. Y., 1870, cited by Rosny, _Essai_, p. 25.

[616] _Essai_, p. 26; Rosny cites Bancroft’s opinion to the same effect, _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 782.

[617] _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 529–33.

[618] _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 537.

[619] Gemelli Carreri, Humboldt, Kingsborough, Ramirez in Garcia y Cubas, and Bancroft; see this work, chapter vi, p. 262.

[620] Vol. ii, pp. 544–5.

[621] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. i, pl. lxi; explanation, vol. v, pp. 96–7; Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 538–40.

[622] Delafield, _Antiq. of Am._, pp. 42–7. M. Ed. Madier de Montjau has recently added much to our understanding of Aztec picture-writing in his Chronologie hieroglyphico-phonétic des rois Aztèques de 1352–1522 retrouvée dans diverses mappes américaines antiques, expliquée et précédée d’une introduction sur l’Écriture mexicaine. A valuable article on the same subject is found in the _Congrès des Américanistes_, Luxembourg, 1877, tom. ii, pp. 346–362, by M. l’Abbé Jules Pipart, entitled Eléments phonétiques dans les Ecritures figuratives des anciens Mexicains.

[623] An excellent account of the various collections of Aztec picture-writing will be found in the introduction to Domenech’s _Manuscrit Pictographique_, Paris, 1860, 8vo; a book which would be valueless but for that feature. See also account of M. Aubun’s collection in Brasseur de Bourbourg, _Hist. Nat. Civ._, tom. i, pp. lxxvi–lxxviii. For general description of hieroglyphic principles see Tylor, _Researches_, pp. 89–101, and Humboldt, _Vues_, tom. i, pp. 177–9, 162–202. See also Boturini, _Idea de una Hist._, pp. 5, 77, 87, 96, 112, 116. Prescott, _Conq. Mex._ (Kirk’s ed., 1875), vol. i, pp. 94, 99, 107–9. Clavigero, _Storia Ant. del Messico_, tom. ii, pp. 187–94. Mendoza, in _Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin_, 2d época, tom. i, pp. 896–904. Gallatin in _Amer. Ethno. Soc. Transact._, vol. i, pp. 126, 165–69. Kingsborough’s _Mex. Ant._, vol. vi, p. 87, and Ixtlilxochitl’s _Hist. Chich._ in Kingsborough, vol. ix, p. 201. Torquemada, _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, p. 149. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 521–52.

[624] Landa, _Relation_, pp. 204–316, and the work by Perez, entitled _Cronologia Antigua de Yucatan_, with Brasseur’s translation into French in the above work, pp. 366–429. Also see English translation in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 434–59. See also Orozco y Berra, _Geografia_, pp. 104–8, and an able discussion in Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 755–67.

[625] Landa’s _Relacion_, p. 204. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 756.

[626] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 757.

[627] See Perez’s Appendix to Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 458–59, and in Landa’s _Relacion_, Appendix, pp. 370–382, and Brasseur in the same. Especially Rosny, _Essai sur le Dech. de L’Écrit. Hiérat. de L’Amér. Cent._, pp. 15–24.

[628] Landa, _Relacion_, p. 234. Perez in Landa, pp. 394 _et seq._, and in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 439; also see Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 759 _et seq._

[629] Perez in Landa, _Relacion_, pp. 366–8; also cited by Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 759.

[630] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. ii, pp. 318–19. Stephens was unable to assign any use to the pillars referred to. He counted upwards of 380. Dr. Le Plongeon accords with our view.

[631] Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, pp. 441 _et seq._

[632] See Landa, _Relacion_, pp. 313, 400–412; Stephens, _Yucatan_, Perez, vol. i, pp. 441–447, MS. cited in vol. ii, pp. 465–469; Bancroft, _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 762–765; M. Delaporte, _Le Calendrier Yucatèque_, MS. cited by Rosny, _Essai sur le déchiffrement de L’Écriture Hiératique_, p. 25.

[633] Perez in Stephens’ _Yucatan_, vol. i, p. 447.

[634] Sahagun, _Hist. Gen._, tom. i, lib. ii, pp. 49–76; lib. iv, pp. 282–310, gives a partial though very satisfactory account. Leon y Gama, _Dos Piedras_, is critical and learned, but often incorrect. Humboldt, _Vues_, furnishes an elaborate account, which is very valuable though complicated. Veytia’s explanation is the result of thorough research, _Hist. Ant. Mej._, tom. i. Gallatin is extremely clear and reliable in _Amer. Ethno. Soc. Transactions_, vol. i. McCulloch’s _Researches in Amer._, pp. 201–25. Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, pp. 502–22, furnishes us an account, clear and full, as are all of his discussions. Several cuts enhance the value of the chapter. We especially refer the reader to his rich bibliography of the subject, appended in notes. A number of additional authors are before us: Ixtlilxochitl, Müller, Herrera, Clavigero, Brasseur de Bourbourg, Boturini, Prichard, but last and best is the ingenious and masterly _Vortrag über den Mexicanischen Calender stein gehalten von Prof._ _Ph. Valentini, am 30 April, 1878_ (in Republican Hall, New York), _vor dem Deutsch ges. wissenschaftlichen Verein_, 32 pp. 8vo, recently translated and published by Stephen Salisbury, Jr.

[635] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 508.

[636] Mr. Bancroft also follows the opinion that the above date is the correct one.—_Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 515.

[637] Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 512.

[638] Prof. Valentini, _Vortrag_, p. 16.

[639] _Native Races_, vol. ii, p. 513.

[640] Mr. Bancroft incorrectly states that thirteen days were intercalated at the end of each tlalpilli (13 years). It is plain that if 365 days constitute a year, the lost time would not amount to thirteen days before fifty-two years.

[641] Prof. Valentini quotes the terms given above, and Mr. Bancroft states that the same process of computation was pursued in both divisions.

[642] See _The Nation_ for Aug. 8, 1878, p. 84, and for Sept. 19, 1878. Also Mr. Salisbury’s translation of Valentini’s _Vortrag_, Worcester, 1879.

[643] Prof. Valentini cites _Codex Vaticanus_, pl. 91, _Codex Boturini_, pl. 10, _Codex Tellerianus_, pl. 6 and 8. The Professor in making the comparison, remarks: “Auf beiden senkt sich ein Schaft in ein rundes Loch, von welchem aus sich etwas volutenähnliches hervorwindet. Wir gewahren auf den gemalten Bildern, dass jede der Voluten in 2 Hälften getheilt ist, die eine grau die andere roth gemalt. Dieselbe Abtheilung finden wir auch auf der Sculptur. Was dieses Symbol bedeute, wird uns aus der Beobachtung klar, dass wir es in den gemalten Jahrestafeln immer nur dann wiederkehrend finden, sobald 52 Jahre verflossen sind. Wir sehen es immer gerade an das Symbol dieses 52ten Jahres angehängt, an einer Stelle, in Cod. Tell. IV, Pl. 8. 1. Kingsb. Coll., vol. i, es erscheint auch mit einem erklärenden Texte. Er lautet: ‘_Dieses ist das Zeichen für die Zusammenbindung der 52 Jahre._’”—_Vortrag_, pp. 23, 24.

[644] Prof. Valentini, _Vortrag_, pp. 24, 25, cites _Codex Selden_, pl. 10, _Codex Laud_, pl. 8, and _Codex Veletri_, fol. 34.

[645] Prof. Valentini cites a Codex from the Squier collection, where the symbol occurs accompanied with the word _Molpiynxihuitl_, which translated means “the binding of the years.” He also cites _Codex Boturini_, pl. 10, Kingsborough Collection.—_Vortrag_, pp. 25, 26.

[646] Dr. Le Plongeon in _Yucatan_, by Stephen Salisbury, Jr., p. 88. Worcester, 1877.

[647] _Monarq. Ind._, tom. i, pp. 254 _et seq._

[648] Humboldt, _Vues_, pp. 148 _et seq._ (Ed. 1810.)

[649] _Vues_, p. 152. On page 150 he furnishes tables of comparison which show unmistakably the analogy between the Mexican Calendar and that of the people of Eastern Asia.

[650] Cabrera, _Teatro_ in _Rio’s Description_, pp. 103–5.

[651] Delafield’s _American Antiquities_, pp. 52–3.

[652] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. vi, pp. 174, 182.

[653] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. vi, p. 163.

[654] _Mexican Antiquities_, vol. viii, p. 19.

[655] “It is impossible on reading what Mexican mythology records of the war in heaven, and of the fall of Zoutemoque and the other rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the word Touacatecutli, and of the division of the waters; of the sin of Yztlacohuhqui, and his blindness and nakedness; of the temptation of Suchiquecal and her disobedience in gathering roses from a tree, and the consequent misery and disgrace of herself and all her posterity—not to recognize scriptural analogies. But the Mexican tradition of the deluge is that which bears the most unequivocal marks of having been derived from a Hebrew source. This tradition records that a few persons escaped in the Ahuehuete, or ark of fir, when the earth was swallowed up by the deluge, the chief of whom was named Patecatle or Cipaquetona; that he invented the art of making wine; that Xelua, one of his descendants, at least one of those who escaped with him in the ark, was present at the building of a high tower, which the succeeding generation constructed with a view of escaping from the deluge should it again occur; that Tonacatecutli, incensed at their presumption, destroyed the tower with lightning, confounded their language and dispersed them; and that Xelua led a colony to the New World.”—_Mex. Antiq._, tom. vi, p. 401.

[656] Ixtlilxochitl’s _Relaciones_ in _Mex. Ant._, vol. ix, and this work, chap. vi.

[657] See Bancroft’s _Native Races_, vol. iii, pp. 66, 68.

[658] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, p. 27.

[659] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 246.

[660] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 253.

[661] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. vi, p. 361.

[662] _Mex. Antiq._, vol. viii, p. 67.

[663] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 137.

[664] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 382.

[665] _Ibid._, vol. viii, p. 238; washing of hands after meals, see p. 53, Appendix.

[666] _Ibid._, vol. vi, p. 414; vol. viii, p. 18.