Chapter XV: The Culture of the Civilized Tribes.1 (3)

To understand how the years in this cycle were arranged and
numbered, we must refer once more to the Mayas, for though they
did not use the cycle themselves, yet they give us a hint as to
how it was obtained, and afford one more reason why we should
think the Mayas were the originators of this calendar system. We
give a table showing the arrangement of the days of the year
among the Mayas. We will take the year Kan—that is, we remember,
when Kan was the first day of every month. We would naturally
think they would describe a day by giving the name of the day and
the month—as, the day Kan, of the month Xul, or the first day of
the month Xul—but instead of so doing, they made use of the
period of thirteen days.

For instance, we see, by looking at the table, that the day ten
Kan can not be any other day during the year than the day above
mentioned; so that, for all purposes, it is sufficient to give
the day and its number in the week. We notice, however, that the
last five columns of figures for week days of thirteen are just
the same as the first five. But this did not confuse any, for the
last five columns of days belong to the “sun-reckoning,” the
others to the moon-reckoning. And though the number of the day in
the week was the same, yet a different deity ruled over them than
in the corresponding days of the first five columns. We can not
affirm that we know this to be true of the Mayas. Such, however,
we know to be the case among the Mexicans.76

Almanac.

Now we notice in this almanac that the last day of the year Kan,
is number one of the week. As the count goes right along, the
first day of the next year, Muluc, must be number two. If we
would make an almanac for that year, we would find the first day
of the third year would be number three of the week. If we were
to continue this, we would find that the first days of the years,
would range from one to thirteen. This table shows the number in
the week of the first day of the first fourteen years. The first
day of the fourteenth year would be number one of the week again,
but this time one Muluc, and not Kan. If we would continue our
researches, we would quickly discover that fifty-two years would
go by before we would have a year Kan in which the first day of
the year would be number one again.

Arrangement of Years in a Mexican Cycle. Years.

We think the above explains the origin of the Mexican cycle of
fifty-two years. The Mayas either never had this cycle, or had
abandoned its use.77 The Mexicans however, used this period of
time, and they numbered their years in it in such a way that we
can not explain it, unless we suppose they derived it in some
such a way as just set forth. We give a table showing the order
of the years in a cycle, and also notice that all that was needed
was the number and name of the year to show at once what year of
the cycle it was. The year seven Calli, for instance, could never
be any other year than the twentieth of the cycle.78

Day Date. Year Date.

To express the dates, they of course painted the hieroglyphic of
the day, and dots for the number of days. This cut, for instance,
expresses the day-date “seven Acatl.” They generally wrote the
dots in sets of five. Seven was sometimes expressed in the above
manner. When they wished to express a year-date, they made a
little frame and painted in the hieroglyphics of the year, and
dots for the number. This date here expressed is their thirteen
Acatl, which, by the above table, is seen to be the twenty-sixth
year of the cycle.

We have already dwelt too long on this part of the subject.
Glancing back over the ground, we see there is nothing implying
astronomical knowledge, more than we would expect to find among a
rude people. We find there are several particulars of the Mexican
system which we could not understand, except by reference to the
Maya system. It would bother us to explain why they should choose
the days Tochli, Acatl, Tecpatl, and Calli, to be the names of
their years, if we did not know how the Mayas proceeded. We would
be at a loss to explain why they choose the number of fifty-two
years for the cycle, and arranged their years in it as they did,
if we had not learned the secret from the construction of the
Mayas’ almanac. From this comparison, we should say the Mexican
calendar was the simpler of the two. As the Mayas had twenty days
in the month, and, for priestly use, weeks of thirteen days, so
they took twenty years, which, as they imagined, were supported
by four other years, as a pedestal for their next longer period,
the ahau; and for apparently no other reason than that they had
weeks of thirteen days, they took thirteen of these ahuas for
their longest period of time. They did not use the cycle of
fifty-two years, but they numbered their years in such a way
that, in effect, they were possessed of it. The Mexican did away
with all but the cycle of fifty-two years.

Calendar Stone.

No account of the calendar system of the Mexicans would be
complete without reference to the so-called calendar stone. The
stone, the face of which is sculptured as represented in this
cut, was dug up from the square in front of the cathedral of the
City of Mexico, where it had been buried in 1557. When the temple
was destroyed, this stone still remained entire. Finally the
authorities, fearing it attracted too much attention from the
natives, ordered it buried. It was brought to light again in
1790, but its early history was completely forgotten. The
astronomer Gama pronounced it a calendar stone, and his
interpretation of the characters engraved on it have been the
foundation for the idea that the Mexicans had considerable
knowledge of astronomy.79 Prof. Valentine and others have,
however, shown that it was simply a sacrificial stone, which the
artist had decorated in a peculiar manner. This stone is
considered by some to be so important that we will condense Prof.
Valentine’s description of it as being the best at hand. Not all
of out scholars accept it, however. The central figure is the
face of the sun-god. It is decorated in a truly savage style. It
has ear-rings, neck-chain, lip-pendant, feathers, etc. The
artist’s design has been to surround this central figure with all
the symbols of time. We notice on each side of the sun a small
circle or oval with hieroglyphics resembling claws. In Mexican
traditions these represent two ancient astrologers who were
supposed to have invented the calendar. According to Nahua
traditions of the world, there had been four ages of the world;
at the end of each age, the world was destroyed. Right above and
below the ovals with the claws, we see four squares containing
hieroglyphics.

Each of these squares refers to one of the destructions of the
world. The upper right hand square contains the head of a tiger.
This represents the first destruction of the world, which was by
tigers. The four dots seen, in this square do not refer to a date
as they generally do; it is a sacred number, and constantly
reappears in all hieroglyphics referring to feasts of the sun. To
the left of this square, crowded between it and the pointer, can
be seen the hieroglyphic of the day Tecpatl. The little dot is
one, so this day one tecpatl probably refers to the day in which
the feast in reference to this destruction was celebrated. The
second age was terminated by a hurricane. The upper left hand
square containing the hieroglyphic for wind refers to this
destruction. Between this square and the pointer is crowded in
the hieroglyphic of one Calli, referring to the feast in memory
of this destruction. The third destruction of the world was by
rain, the lower left hand square containing the hieroglyphic of
rain. Below, not very distinctly, is the date of this feast, one
quiahuitl. The last destruction was by water, represented by the
lower right hand square. The date of this feast as represented
below is seven Ozomatl.80

Passing out of this central zone we notice the hieroglyphics for
the days of the month arranged in a circle. The A shaped ray from
the head of the sun indicates where we are to commence to read;
and we notice they must be read from right to left. Resting on
this circle of day, we notice four great pointers not unlike a
large capital A. They are supposed to refer to sunrise, noon,
sunset, and midnight. Next in order after the days we notice a
circle of little squares, each containing five dots. Making
allowance for the space covered by the legs of the pointers just
mentioned, there are found to be two hundred and sixty of these
days; they, therefore, refer to the days of the moon reckoning.
We notice four smaller pointers not quite so elaborate as those
already referred to, resting in this circle. They probably refer
to smaller divisions of the days. The next circle contains a row
of glyphs not unlike kernels of corn. One hundred and five are
represented on this circle; they refer to the days of the sun
reckoning.

Sign of Rain.

Resting on this circle of days are small towers; they, like the
smaller pointers, refer to divisions of the day. Adjoining each
of these little towers is a figure; this cut represents one of
them. We notice they form a circle extending clear around the
stone. The meaning of this circle is gathered from other painted
records. It represents a rain storm; four drops are seen falling
to the ground. The ground is cultivated, as shown by the three
ridges; a grain of corn is represented lying on the ground. This
band on the stone is in honor of the rain-god.

Sign of a Cycle.

There remains only to explain the outer row or band. At the
bottom is a rude representation of two heads with helmets. The
meaning of these figures is unknown. From each of these figures
extend in a semicircle a row of figures of this shape, ending
with pointers at the top, between which is a year-date. Near the
points on each side is what might be described as four bundles
tied together. Each of the small figures just described is the
representation of a cycle of fifty-two years.

The date on the top is the year date, Thirteen Acatl. This is an
easily determinable date. From Mexican paintings, we know the
conquest of Mexico occurred in the year Three Calli. From this
tracing their years back by the table given earlier (Arrangement
of Years in a Mexican Cycle), we would find that the first
Thirteen Acatl we meet was in the year 1479. This is exactly the
date when, according to tradition, the great temple was finished,
and this stone dedicated by bloody sacrifices. If we count the
number of signs for cycles, we find that there are just twelve on
each side, twenty-four in all. As the artist could easily have
made this number more or less, the probabilities are that it
means something. The most plausible explanation is, that in the
year 1479, they had traditions of twenty-four cycles. But this
number of cycles is equivalent to twelve hundred and forty-eight
years, which would carry us back to about the year 231, A.D.,
which date we must bear in mind; not that we think there is any
scientific value to it, but for its bearing on other matter at
the close of the chapter.81

We come now to consider the subject of their picture writings.
The germ of writing is found in the rude attempts to assist the
memory to recall past events. Some of the northern Indian tribes
resorted for this purpose to belts of wampum. When a new sachem
was to be invested with office among the Iroquois, the historical
wampum belts were produced; an old man taking them in hand, and
walking back and forth, proceeded to “read” from them the
principles of the confederacy. In this case, particular events
were connected with particular strings of wampum.82 Pictorial
representation would be the next stage. At first the aim of the
artist would be to make his drawings as perfect as possible. A
desire to save labor would soon lead them to use only the lines
necessary to show what was meant. This seems to be about the
stage of picture writing, reached by some Indian tribes, who have
left here and there specimens carved on rocks.

Indian Picture Writing.

This cut is a specimen of such writing from the cañon of the San
Juan in Arizona. Although quite impossible to read it, there is
no doubt but what it expressed a meaning at the time it was
engraved.

Chapultepec.

From this stage of development would naturally arise symbolical
paintings. Thus “footsteps” might signify the idea of going. A
comma-shaped figure, issuing from a person’s mouth, would stand
for speech. The next step is what we might call rebus-writing,
where not the thing itself was meant but the sound. Thus this cut
represents Chapultepec—meaning grasshopper-hill, or locust mount.
It is evident, here, the pictures of the objects represent the
name. They, probably, did not use this principle farther than to
represent the proper names of persons and things before the
coming of the Spaniards.

Amen.

Some think that, in addition to the above, the Mexicans used, to
a very limited extent, a true phonetic writing—one in which the
figures refer not to the thought, but to the sound of the
thought.83 Others are not ready to concede that point. They could
not have been further along than the threshold of the discovery,
at all events. The Spanish missionaries were very desirous of
teaching the Indians the Pater-noster, the Ave-Maria, and the
Credo. Either the Indians themselves, or the priests (probably
the latter), hit on the device of using painted symbols for the
words and syllables of the church prayers and formulas. Thus in
this manner was painted the word Amen. The first sign is the
conventional figure for water, in Mexican “atl,” which stood for
A. For the second syllable they put the picture of a maguey
plant, in Mexican “metl.” The whole, then, was “atl-metl,” which
was as near as they could express the word amen. We must observe,
that this was after the conquest.84

Historical Sheet.

The plate opposite is one of the paintings of the Mendoza
collection. This collection, we must remember, was made after the
conquest, simply to gratify the curiosity of the King of Spain.
The matter treated of is the events connected with time when
Motecuma the fifth “chief-of-men” held office. Around the edge we
see the hieroglyphics of the years. We notice he was chief-of-men
from the year one calli to two tecpatl. About the only thing
recorded of him is the different pueblos he conquered. In all he
subdued thirty-three; but only eleven are shown in this plate.
The pueblos are indicated by a house toppling over—flames issuing
from under the roof. The other little hieroglyphics are the names
of the pueblos. The last one in the second transverse line from
the bottom is the hieroglyphic of Chalco, which we thus learn was
reduced to tribute under this chief. All the events indicated in
this cut took place before the discovery of America.85

Chilapi—Tribute.

A second part of this codex has reference to the tribute received
from various tribes. In this cut the left-hand figure is the
hieroglyphic of the town of Chilapi, and is an excellent
representation of their rebus-writing we have just referred to.
It is a tub of water, on which floats a red-pepper pod. The
Mexican word for this last is chilli, for water it is “atl.”. The
word “pa” means above. For the full word we have “chilli-atl-pa.”
Contracted, it becomes chilapi. The figure to the right is the
tribute. The five flags denotes one hundred. Below is represented
a copper ax-blade—from which we infer that the Pueblo of Chilapi
had to furnish a tribute of one hundred copper axes.

Child Training.

A third part of this same collection refers to the Mexican
customs. In this cut we have represented the training of a boy at
the different ages of four, six, thirteen and fourteen years of
age. The little round marks number the years of his age. The
little elliptical-shaped figures show the number of tortullas the
child is allowed at a meal. The boy is trained to carry and make
various things, to row a boat, and to fish.

Migration Chart.

The most interesting of Mexican picture-writings is the record of
their wanderings. This was formerly supposed to represent their
migrations from Asia—but is now known to refer only to their
wanderings in the Valley of Mexico. De Lafield, in his
“Antiquities of America,” gives a full representation of this
picture-writing. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, pp. 548-49,
give a very good reduced copy. We will not attempt to reproduce
it all. This cut represents the beginning of it. A man is seen
crossing a stream in a boat. The figure behind him may mean an
island, on which are represented some pueblos and human figures.
On the opposite bank of the stream, to which the footsteps lead,
is the hieroglyphic of Culhuacan, “the curved mountain.” The year
date of this movement is “one tecpatl.” The character within that
of Culhuacan is Huitzilopochtli, their national god. The flakes
issuing from his mouth signify that he is guiding them. The
principal figures about this map are the hieroglyphic names of
various places where they stopped, and the time spent at each
place.

The Mayas seem to have been further advanced in the art of
writing than their Nahua neighbors. Specimens of their
hieroglyphic writings have been given in the preceding chapter.
The hopes of our scholars were greatly raised when, in 1863, the
announcement was made that there had been discovered, in Madrid,
a Maya alphabet, which, it was expected, would unlock the
mysterious tablets just mentioned.

The alphabet thus discovered is represented in the next cut. It
will be seen that some of the letters have a number of different
forms. This discovery was hailed as of the greatest importance,
and a number of scholars at once set about to decipher the
tablets. They were speedily undeceived. The alphabet is,
practically, of no help whatever. Prof. Valentine even goes so
far as to declare that this alphabet was not of native origin.

Landa Alphabet. Maya T.

He thinks that Bishop Landa, who is the authority for this
alphabet, and who was Bishop of Yucatan from 1549 to 1579, being
anxious to assist the natives in learning the new faith, set
about the manufacture of an alphabet for them. This he did by
having the natives paint some native object which came the
nearest to the sound of our alphabet. Thus, for instance, this
symbol there are excellent reasons for supposing represents the
sun, or the word “day.” The Maya word for this is _te._ We find
that this is the symbol that Landa employs for the letter T,
only, in his drawing, the central dot has fallen into the lower
dashes. Nearly all the other letters can be traced to a similar
source.86 But the professor’s reasoning does not satisfy all. He
is believed to be right in a number of his identifications; but
still the characters might have been used in a phonetic way.87

Maya Manuscript.

There is no doubt but that the Mayas had a different system than
that in use among the Nahua people. The knowledge how to use it
was, probably, confined to the priests; and, furthermore, the
system was, doubtless, a mixed one. A few phonetic characters
might have been used; but they also used picture-writing. The
plate above is a sample of the manuscripts they left behind. It
is in the nature of a religious almanac, and refers to the feasts
celebrated at the end of a year. The line of characters on the
left hand are the days characters Eb and Been. In the lower
division, a priest offers a headless fowl to the idol on the
left. In the middle division, the priest is burning incense to
drive away the evil-spirit. In the upper division, the assistant,
with the idol on his back, is on his march through the village.
As yet, we know but very little about the tables. We know the
hieroglyphics of days and of months.

Hieroglyphics—Tablet of the Cross.

Examining the tablets in the Temple of the Cross, at Palenque,
represented below, we notice a large glyph, at the commencement
of the tablet, something like a capital letter. This, Mr.
Valentine thinks, represents the censers which stood in the
temples before the idols, in which fire was constantly kept.88
Running through the tablets we notice glyphs, in front of which
are either little dots, or one or more bars with little dots in
front of them. These are day-dates. The dots count one—the little
upright bars, five. The probabilities are that this tablet is a
sort of list of feast-days in honor of the gods represented by
the central tablet.

As we have made a considerable effort to acquaint ourselves with
the social organization and customs of the various tribes, and
have spent some time in learning the details of their calendar
system, and their advance in the art of writing, it will not be
out of place to inquire as to their history—to determine, if
possible, some of the dates to be given for the arrival of the
tribes, and some of the important points of their prehistoric
life. Whatever difficulties we have experienced in acquiring a
knowledge of their customs will be greatly increased now. Their
architecture, social organization, and general enlightenment
could be perceived by the conquering Spaniards, and our
information in regard to the same should have been full and
complete. We have seen, however, how meager it is. The only light
thrown on these disputed points is the result of the labors of
modern scholars. When we were made acquainted with some of the
first principles of Indian society, we could read with profit the
accounts of the early writers.

But, when we come to ask for dates in their history, we are
almost entirely at sea. The traditions, in this respect, are
almost worthless. So, all that we shall attempt to do, is to
present some of the thoughts of our scholars as to the probable
connection of the civilized tribes with each other, and what
value is to be given to the few dates at our command. We will
begin, first, with the Maya tribes. This includes those tribes
that speak the Maya language, and its dialects. It was in their
territory that the most striking ruins were found. They include
the tribes of Yucatan, Guatemala, Chiapas, and Tobasco. Then
there comes a break; but they were also settled on both banks of
the River Panuco. Many theories have been advanced as to the
origin of the Mayas. As yet, the question is not solved.

Not a few have supposed them to be the same as the Mound Builders
of the United States. Dr. Brinton has pointed out that the
language of the Natchez Indians contains some words of the
Maya.89 A Mexican scholar, Señor Orozco-y-Berra, thinks it
probable that the Mayas once occupied the Atlantic sea-board of
the United States; that they passed from the peninsula of Florida
to Cuba, and thence to the other Caribbean Islands, and so to
Yucatan. He states that the traditions of the Mayas uphold this
view.90 But others are not ready to admit it. We have found a
number of points of resemblance between the Mayas and the Nahuas.
Differences we would, of course, expect to find; but still the
points of resemblance are sufficiently strong to indicate either
that the tribes were once subject to the same influence, from
whence they derived their culture, or else that they are
descended from the same stock. We have reverted to the worship of
Quetzalcohuatl, and shown how the Quichés, under the name of
Gucumatz, worshiped a similar deity. We have also referred to the
great similarity of the calendar system.

From the limited space at our command, it is not possible to
refer to the traditions of the Maya tribes. We will refer to but
one manuscript bearing on this question; but this is, probably,
the most important one. This manuscript was written by a native
with the Spanish letter, but in the Maya language. It was written
not far from the time of the conquest of Yucatan by the
Spaniards, and the account is, doubtless, as full a one, from the
native stand-point, as can be given. The period of time used by
the author is Ahau, which we have seen is either twenty, or
twenty-four years.

Carefully going over this manuscript, Prof. Valentine arrives at
the following conclusions: About the Year 137, A.D., the Mayas
started from some place they called Tulla, or Tullapan, on their
migration. Where this place was we do not know. The traditions of
all the civilized nations refer to this place as a
starting-point. It was a “land of abundance.” It may be that this
was but some fabled place, such as almost all primitive people
have traditions of.91 About the year 231, A.D., they arrived on
the coast of Central America, and spread themselves over a large
part of it. This same manuscript speaks of the “discovery” of
Chichen-Itza, 522, A.D. The date of the founding of Uxmal is
given as about the year 1000, A.D. From 1000 to 1200, A.D., was
the golden era of the Mayas in Yucatan.

The tribes at Uxmal, Mayapan, and Chichen-Itza formed a
confederacy of which Mayapan seems to have been the head. About
the year 1200, inter-tribal war broke out. It seems to have been
caused by the arrival of Nahua tribes, who established themselves
in Mayapan. They were finally expelled, but they left the Mayas
in such a state of exhaustion that they could not present a
united front against the Spaniards. Such are the conclusions of
Prof. Valentine. He estimates the length of an Ahau at twenty
years, and it does seem that the author of the manuscript used
that number of years.92

Of the other branch of the civilized tribes we know but very
little. The historical picture writings of the Mendoza
collection, a collection compiled, remember, after the conquest,
and, therefore, representing the traditions then current among
the Mexicans, takes us back to 1325, A.D., to the first
settlement in the Pueblo of Mexico. Sahagun, a Franciscan monk,
who went to Mexico as early as the year 1529, and remained there
until his death in 1590, wrote a very voluminous account of the
Mexicans, their customs and history, and as he was in Mexico at
the time when their traditions were still fresh in the minds of
the natives, his account is probably as good as any. He obtained
his information in a very credible manner. He gathered together
some old Indians, well acquainted with the traditional history of
their country. They are supposed to have “refreshed” their memory
by inspecting a number of picture writings, which have since
disappeared.

It is manifest that this history is valuable, just in proportion
as the traditions are valuable. He makes one statement that Prof.
Valentine has dwelt upon with great ability. He states that
numberless years ago the first settlers came in ships and landed
at a northern port, which, from that cause, was called Pauntla.
This is supposed to be the Panuco River. After they had settled
here, a large part of them, including their leaders and the
priests, went off south; Sahagun says as far as Guatemala. The
party left behind organized themselves into an independent body.
They reconstructed from memory the calendar; they increased and
became powerful, until pushing over the mountain, they built the
pyramid of Cholula, and finally reached the city of Teotihuacan,
where they built a central sanctuary. For some reason they
abandoned their homes, all except the Otomies, and wandered off
across the plains, and high, cold, desert places, that they might
discover new lands.93

No dates are mentioned for these occurrences, and we are not
aware that this tradition is mentioned by other writers. We
recall that from the mouth of the Panuco River southward, we
found evidence of considerable population in olden times. We also
recall that in this section are the ruined pyramids of Tuzpan and
Papantla. Prof. Valentine is inclined to think that this date is
referred to on the calendar stone; that is, 231 A.D. Just
twenty-four cycles elapsed from this time to the date of the
dedication of the calendar stone in 1479.

He also thinks that the Maya traditions refer to this same
occurrence. One more reference to this same mysterious date is
contained in the traditions of the Tezcucan tribe. According to
the traditions, the beginning of things were in the year 245 A.D.
According to this view, then, the ancestors of both Nahua and
Maya people appeared on the gulf coast about 231 A.D.; in the
same place where a Maya-speaking tribe are found to-day. From
here those who developed the Maya culture went to the south and
south-west; those who developed the Nahua went to the west and
north-west.

We do not profess to be a judge as to the value of this
tradition. Our scholars will, probably, at no distant day, come
to more definite conclusions in the matter. Prof. Short thinks
the strangers who at this early time made their appearance on the
gulf shore were colonies of Mound Builders from the Mississippi
Valley.94 We think it best to be very cautious about coming to
any such conclusions. We must not forget that back of the twelfth
century is nothing but vague traditions. Mr. Bandelier tells us
that “nothing positive can be gathered, except that even during
the earliest times Mexico was settled or overrun by sedentary, as
well as by nomadic tribes that both acknowledged a common
origin.”95 The savage tribes have the general name of
Chichimecas, but by right this term ought to be applied to the
sedentary tribes as well; however, the word Toltec stands for
these sedentary tribes. We have all read about the great Toltec
Empire in Mexico. This is a ridiculous use of words. There was no
tribe or nation of people of the name of Toltecs.96 All these
prehistoric aborigines were probably Chichimecas; but by Toltecs
we refer to the sedentary tribes, the skillful workers among
them. If we are to judge any thing of traditions, the original
home of these people were somewhere to the north of Mexico.

There was doubtless the usual state of inter-tribal warfare, but
after a prolonged period the sedentary tribes—the Toltecs—were
exterminated or expelled. Their successors were utter savages,
coming from the north also. We doubt very much whether any date
can be given for this event, but traditions assign it to about
the year 1064. Prof. Valentine thinks he finds a reference to it
in the calendar of stone. If we will notice, in the outer band
near the top are four little bundles, or knots, in all, eight. We
are told that each of these bundles refers to a cycle of
fifty-two years, or in all four hundred and sixteen years. The
date of the inauguration of the stone is 1479. If we subtract the
number of years just mentioned, we have the date 1063. Whether
this is simply a coincidence, or was really intended to refer to
that event, we can not say.

Considerable speculations have been indulged in as to where the
Toltecs went when driven out of Mexico. Some have supposed they
went to Yucatan, and that to them we are to look for the builders
of the ruined cities. This is the view of a very late explorer,
M. Charney.97 Some have supposed we yet see certain traces of
their presence in Guatemala, where they helped to build up a
great Quexche “monarchy.”98 But we know very little about it. It
is not probable that more than a feeble remnant of them escaped
with their lives.

From the same mysterious regions from where had issued the
aboriginal Chichimecas and Toltec people, there subsequently came
still other bands of sedentary Indians, who finally came to
settle around the lakes of Anahuac. These settlers all spoke
closely related dialects of the same language as their
predecessors, the Toltecs. Finally the Aztecs appeared on the
scene, coming from the same mysterious land of the “Seven Caves.”
According to their historical picture-writings, they founded the
Pueblo of Mexico in 1325. It is somewhat singular that no record
of this event appears on the calendar stone. If the artist was
ingenious enough, as Prof. Valentine thinks he was, to represent
the dispersion of the Toltecs in the eleventh century, he surely
would have found some way to refer to such an important event as
the founding of their Pueblo. From this date the Mexicans
steadily rose in power, until they finally became the leading
power of the valley.99

REFERENCES

The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to A. F. Bandelier
for criticism. The part bearing on religion was subsequently
rewritten. Absence from the country prevented his examining it.

Mr. Bandelier is the author of three essays on the culture of
the ancient Mexicans. These are published in Volume II of
“Peabody Museum Reports.” We wish to make a general reference
to these essays. They are invaluable to the student. Every
position is sustained by numerous quotations from the early
writers. In order to save constant references to them, we will
here state that, unless other authorities are given for
striking statements as to the culture of the Mexicans, their
social organizations, etc., it is understood that our authority
is found in these essays.

In Mexican, “Tlaca-tecuhtli.”

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 572.

“Contribution to North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 229.

Morgan’s “Contributions to N.A. Ethnology,” p. 256.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 576.

“Who over heard of an imperfectly developed race decorating so
profusely and so delicately their ordinary abodes, in a manner
usually reserved for temples and palaces?” S. F. Haven, in
Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1880, p. 57.

Morgan’s “Contribution to N.A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 186.

Cortez saw “trinkets made of gold and silver, of lead, bronze,
copper, and tin.” They were on the confines of a true Bronze
Age. Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1879, p. 81.

“History of the Conquest of Mexico.”

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II.

“History of America,” 1818, Vol. III, book viii, p. 9.

Wilson’s “Conquest of Mexico.”

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 91.

But, on this point, see “Peabody Reports,” Vol. II, p. 685
—note, p. 282.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 197.

Ibid., p. 205.

“Ancient Society,” p. 118.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 147.

We refer again to Mr. Bandelier’s articles. A careful reading
of them will convince any one that the picture of Mexican
Government as set forth in Mr. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol.
II, is very erroneous. Mr. Bancroft’s views are, however, those
of many writers.

“Ancient Society,” p. 528.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 537.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 435.

It is needless to remark that these results are greatly at
variance with those generally held, as will be seen by
consulting Mr. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, Chap. xiv.
Mr. Bancroft, however, simply gathers together what other
writers have stated on this subject. We follow, in this matter,
the conclusions of an acknowledged leader in this field, Mr.
Bandelier, who has fully worked out Mr. Morgan’s views,
advanced in “Ancient Society.”

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 193.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 95.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 194.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 94.

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 195.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. I, p. 344.

Valentine, in Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society,
April, 1879.

Gallatin: “American Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol.
I, p. 119.

Valentine: Proceedings American Antiq. Soc., October, 1880, p.
75.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 381. Proceedings
American Antiquarian Society, April, 1879, p. 110.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 193.

“Fifth Annual Report Archæological Institute of America,” p.
83.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 389.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 325.

Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1879, p. 90.

Ibid., p. 111.

_North American Review,_ Oct. 1880, p. 310.

See “Copper Age in Wisconsin,” in Proceedings American
Antiquarian Society, No. 69, p. 57.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 483.

Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, Oct., 1881, P. 66. (Valentine.)

Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, Oct., 1881, p. 66. (Valentine.)

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 489.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, pp. 182-199. In this
connection, see also Bandolier: “An Archæological Tour in
Mexico,” p. 185, note 2. It seems that none of the early
writers speak of such a belief. The idea of one single God is
first found in the writings of Ixtilxochitl.

Brinton’s “Myths of the New World,” p. 45.

Tezcatlipoca, the tutelar deity of Tezcuco; Huitzilopochtli,
the tutelar deity of Mexico; Camaxtli, the tutelar deity of
Tlaxcala; Quetzalcohuatl, the tutelar deity of Cholula.

Bandelier: “An Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 188.

This subject is fully treated of in Brinton’s “Myths of the New
World.”

“Among the Indians it is very easy to become deified. The
development of the Montezuma myth among the Pueblo Indians of
New Mexico is an instance.” (Bandelier.)

Brinton’s “Myths of the New World.”

Bandelier: “An Archæological Tour in Mexico.” pp. 168-213.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 298, note 9.

“American Antiquarian,” January, 1883, p. 78.

“An Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 67.

“Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 600. Dr. Brinton in
“Myths of the New World,” p. 281, gives some instances that
might be thought to show the contrary. But even in those
extracts we notice the parties had to deserve the office, and
that in no case was it confined to certain persons.

Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 335.

Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 500.

Mr. Bandelier remarks that the numbers from five to ten should
be macuil-pa-oc-ce, etc. We give the same table as both Mr.
Gallatin and Mr Bancroft.

For authorities on this subject see Gallatin in “American
Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p, 49; Bancroft’s
“Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 497; Valentine, in Am. Antiq. Soc.
Proceedings, Oct., 1880, p. 61.

Perez “Chronology of Yucatan,” in Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. I,
p. 435.

See Valentine: “The Katunes of Maya History,” in Proceedings
Am. Antiq. Soc., October, 1879, p. 114.

We refer to the division of five days, not to the thirteen day
period, of which we will soon speak.

Bandelier: “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 579. Note 29.

Mr. Bancroft, “Native Races,” p. 508, gives a table showing the
variation of authors in this respect. Gallatin “American
Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 66, says, “the
published hieroglyphics are dissimilar in many respects.”

Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. I, p. 438.

Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 513, note 15.

Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1878, p. 99.

Gallatin: “American Ethnological Soc. Trans.,” Vol. I, p. 71.

See Valentine, in Proceedings American Antiq. Society, April,
1878, p. 106. Gallatin, who is also good authority, gives the
order different, viz., Tochtli, Acatl, Tecpatl, Calli.

Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Soc., Oct., 1879, p. 84, _et
seq._

Thomas: “A study of the Manuscript Troano,” in “Contributions
to North American Ethnology,” Vol. V, p. 29.

According to the teachings of the Mexican priests nine deities
governed the days. They had painted lists of these weeks, and
the deities governing each.

Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Soc., Oct., 1879, p. 85.

In this table we have followed Mr. Gallatin. According to Prof.
Valentine, the order of the years is different. This, however,
is immaterial to an understanding of the system.

Gallatin: “Am. Eth. Soc. Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 94, _et
seq._

Thus says Prof. Valentine. The cast of this stone in the
Smithsonian Institution gives the date eight, instead of seven
Ozomatl.

For information on the Calendar Stone, consult, “American
Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 94, _et seq.;_
Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, chap. xvi, and p. 755, _et
seq.;_ Valentine: American Antiquarian Society’s Proceedings,
April, 1878, p. 92, _et seq.;_ Short’s “North Americans of
Antiquity,” p. 419, _et seq._

Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 143.

Brinton: “Introduction to the Study of the Manuscript Troano.”

Valentine: Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society, April,
1880.

Gallatin: “American Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol.
I, p. 131.

Valentine: Amer. Antiq. Society’s Transactions, April, 1880,
pp. 59-91.

Brinton’s “Introduction to Study of manuscript Troans,” p.
xxvi.

American Antiquarian Society, April, 1881, p. 294.

“Myths of the New World.” The doctor now thinks his statement
just referred to, too strong. There is, indeed, a resemblance,
as he pointed out; but it is not strong enough to found any
theories on.

Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 474.

Brinton’s “Myths of the New World.”

This historical manuscript represents the traditions of the
Maya people shortly after the conquest. It is very likely its
author had before him picture records of what he wrote. Such
records have since disappeared. The manuscript itself, the
interpretation of it, and Perez’s remarks are found in
Stephen’s “Yucatan,” Vol. II, Appendix. The same in Bancroft’s
“Native Races,” Vol. V, p. 628. The fullest and most complete
discussion is by Prof. Valentine in Proceedings Am. Antiq.
Soc., October, 1879, p. 80, _et seq._ Whether there is any
thing worthy of the name of history is doubtful.

Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, Oct., 1882.

“North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 578.

“Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 387.

Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, October, 1882, p.
209.

_North American Review,_ from Sept., 1880, to 1883.

Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 218.

This historical notice is a mere outline. Such, however, is all
we wished to give. Those who wish for more details can not do
better than to refer to Mr. Bancroft’s fifth volume on the
“Native Races.” We do not believe, however, that any thing
definite is known of the early periods of which some writers
give such glowing descriptions. When they talk about the doings
of monarchs, the rise and fall of dynasties, and royal
governors, we must remember the majority of the descriptive
matter is mere nonsense, consequently our faith in the dates
given can not be very great.