[740] A view of the Amer. Indians, shewing them to be the descendants of the Ten Tribes of Israel (Lond., 1828).

[741] Discourse on the evidences of the Amer. Indians being the descendants of the lost tribes of Israel (N. Y., 1837). It is reprinted in Maryatt’s Diary in America, vol. ii.

[742] Hist. of the Wyandotte Mission (Cincinnati, 1840); Thomson’s Ohio Bibliog., 409.

[743] Manners, &c. of the N. Amer. Indians (Lond., 1841). Cf. Smithsonian Rept., 1885, ii. 532.

[744] Mainly in vol. vii.; but see vi. 232, etc. Cf. Short, 143, 460, and Bancroft, Nat. Races (v. 26), with an epitome of Kingsborough’s arguments (v. 84). Mrs. Barbara Anne Simon in her Hope of Israel (Lond., 1829) advocated the theory on biblical grounds; but later she made the most of Kingsborough’s amassment of points in her Ten Tribes of Israel historically identified with the aborigines of the Western Hemisphere (London, 1836).

[745] The recognition of the theory in the Mormon bible is well known. Bancroft (v. 97) epitomizes its recital, following Bertrand’s Mémoires. There is a repetition of the old arguments in a sermon, Increase of the Kingdom of Christ (N. Y., 1831), by the Indian William Apes; and in An Address by J. Madison Brown (Jackson, Miss., 1860). Señor Melgar points out resemblances between the Maya and the Hebrew in the Bol. Soc. Méx. Geog., iii. Even the Western mounds have been made to yield Hebrew inscriptions (Congrès des Amér., Nancy, ii. 192).

Many of the general treatises on the origin of the Americans have set forth the opposing arguments. Garcia did it fairly in his Origen de los Indios (1607; ed. by Barcia, 1729), and Bancroft (v. 78-84) has condensed his treatment. Brasseur (Hist. Nat. Civ., i. 17) rejects the theory of the ten tribes; but is not inclined to abandon a belief in some scattered traces. Short (pp. 135, 144) epitomizes the claims. Gaffarel covers them in his Etude sur les rapports de l’Amérique (p. 87) with references, and these last are enlarged in Bancroft’s Nat. Races, v. 95-97.

[746] Varnhagen’s L’origine touranienne des Américains Tupis-Caraïbes et des anciens Egyptiens, indiquée principalement par la philologie comparée: traces d’une ancienne migration en Amérique, invasion du Brésil par les Tupis (Vienne, 1876). Labat’s Nouveau Voyage aux isles de l’Amérique (Paris, 1722), vol. ii. ch. 23. Sieur de la Borde’s Relation de l’origine, mœurs, coutumes, etc. des Caraibes (Paris, 1764). Robertson’s America. James Kennedy’s Probable origin of the Amer. Indians, with particular reference to that of the Caribs (Lond., 1854), or Journal of the Ethnolog. Soc. (vol. iv.). London Geog. Journal, iii. 290.

[747] Cf. Peter Martyr, Torquemada, and later writers, like La Perouse, McCulloh, Haven (p. 48), Gaffarel (Rapport, 204), J. Perez in Rev. Orientale et Amér., viii., xii.; Bancroft, Nat. Races, iii. 458. Brinton (Address, 1887) takes exception to all such views. Cf. Quatrefages’ Human Species (N. Y., 1879, pp. 200, 202).

[748] Cf. Beccari in Kosmos, Apr., 1879; De Candolle in Géographie botanique (1855).

[749] Santarem, Hist. de la Cartog., iii. 76, refers to maps of the fourteenth century in copies of Ranulphus Hydgen’s Polychronicon, in the British Museum and in the Advocates’ library at Edinburgh, which show a land in the north, called in the one Wureland and in the other Wyhlandia.

[750] Mag. Am. Hist., April, 1883, p. 290. Cf. Vol. II. p. 28. The name used is “Grinlandia.”

[751] Mauro’s map was called by Ramusio, who saw it, an improved copy of one brought from Cathay by Marco Polo. It is preserved in the Biblioteca Marciana at Venice. It was made by Mauro under the command of Don Alonso V., and Bianco assisted him. The exact date is in dispute; but all agree to place it between 1457 and 1460. A copy was made on vellum in 1804, which is now in the British Museum. Our cut follows one corner of the reproduction in Santarem’s Atlas. A photographic fac-simile has been issued in Venice by Ongania, and St. Martin (Atlas, p. vii) follows this fac-simile. Ruge (Geschichte des Zeitalters der Entdeckungen) gives a modernized and more legible reproduction. There are other drawings in Zurla’s Fra Mauro; Vincent’s Commerce and Navigation of the Ancients (1797, 1807); Lelewel’s Moyen Age (pl. xxxiii). Cf. Studi della Soc. Geografia Italia (1882), ii. 76, for references.

[752] Rafn gives a large map of Iceland with the names of a.d. 1000. On the errors of early and late maps of Iceland see Baring-Gould’s Ultima Thule, i. 253. On the varying application of the name Thule, Thyle, etc., to the northern regions or to particular parts of them, see R. F. Burton’s Ultima Thule, a Summer in Iceland (London, 1875), ch. 1. Bunbury (Hist. Anc. Geog., ii. 527) holds that the Thule of Marinus of Tyre and of Ptolemy was the Shetlands. Cf. James Wallace’s Description of the Orkney islands (1693,—new ed., 1887, by John Small) for an essay on “the Thule of the Ancients.”

[753] There are other reproductions of the map in full, in Nordenskjöld’s Vega, i. 51; in his Broderna Zenos, and in his Studien, p. 31. Cf. also the present History, II., p. 28, for other bibliographical detail; Hassler, Buchdruckergeschichte Ulm’s; D’Avezac’s Waltzemüller, 23; Wilberforce Eames’s Bibliography of Ptolemy, separately, and in Sabin’s Dictionary; and Winsor’s Bibliog. of Ptolemy’s Geography.

[754] Cf. D’Avezac in Bull. de la Soc. de Géog., xx. 417.

[755] See Vol. II. p. 41. There is another sketch in Nordenskjöld’s Studien, etc., p. 33, which is reduced from a fac-simile given in José de Lacerda’s Exame dos Viagens do Doutor Livingstone (Lissabon, 1867). The present extract is from Santarem, pl. 50. Cf. O. Peschel in Ausland, Feb. 13, 1857, and his posthumous Abhandlungen, i. 213.

[756] See references in Vol. II. p. 105.

[757] See Vol. II. p. 108.

[758] See post, Vol. IV. p. 35; and Kohl’s Discovery of Maine, p. 174. Cf. Winsor’s Bibliog. of Ptolemy, sub anno 1511.

[759] He holds that the 1513 Ptolemy map was drawn in 1501-4, and was engraved before Dec. 10, 1508.

[760] See Vol. II. p. 115.

[761] Winsor’s Bibliog. of Ptolemy, sub anno 1511.

[762] See Vol. II. p. 111. Winsor’s Ptolemy, sub anno 1513. Reisch, in 1515, seems to have been of the same opinion. Cf. the bibliography of Reisch’s Margarita Philosophia in Sabin’s Dictionary, vol. xvi., and separately, prepared by Wilberforce Eames. Reisch’s map is given post, Vol. II. p. 114. Another sketch of this map, with an examination of the question, where the name “Zoana Mela,” applied on it to America, came from, is given by Frank Wieser in the Zeitschrift für Wissensch. Geographie (Carlsruhe), vol. v., a sight of which I owe to the author, who believes Waldseemüller made the map.

[763] The map is given, post, Vol. II. 175. Cf. also Nordenskjöld, Studien, p. 53.

[764] Cf. Winsor’s Bibliog. of Ptolemy, sub anno 1522.

[765] Winsor’s Bibliog. of Ptolemy, sub anno 1525. This map is no. 49, “Gronlandiæ et Russiæ.” Cf. Witsen’s Noord en Oost Tartctrye (1705), vol. ii.

[766] Winsor’s Kohl Collection, no. 102.

[767] Given post, Vol. III. p. 17.

[768] Given post, Vol. III. p. 11.

[769] Jahrb. des Vereins für Erdkunde in Dresden (1870), tab. vii. A similar feature is in the map described by Peschel in the Jahresbericht des Vereins für Erdkunde in Leipzig (1871). It is also to be seen in the Homem map of about 1540 (given in Vol. II. p. 446), and in the map which Major assigns to Baptista Agnese, and which was published in Paris in 1875 as a Portulan de Charles Quint. (Cf. Vol. II. p. 445.)

[770] There is a fac-simile of Ziegler’s map in Vol. II. 434; also in Goldsmid’s ed. of Hakluyt (Edinb., 1885), and in Nordenskjöld’s Vega, i. 52.

[771] The map (1551) of Gemma Frisius in Apian is much the same.

[772] In the Basle ed. of the Historia de Gentium. Cf. Nordenskjöld’s Vega, vol. i., who says that the map originally appeared in Magnus’s Auslegung und Verklarung der Neuen Mappen von den Alten Goettenreich (Venice, 1539); and is different from the map which appeared in the intermediate edition of 1555 at Rome, a part of which is also annexed.

[773] The same is done in the Ptolemy of 1548 (Venice). There is a fac-simile in Nordenskjöld’s Studien, p. 35.

[774] See Vol. IV. p. 84.

[775] We find it in the Nancy globe of about 1540 (see Vol. IV. p. 81); in the Mercator gores of 1541 (Vol. II. p. 177); and in the Ruscelli map of 1544 (Vol. II. p. 432), where Greenland (Grotlandia) is simply a neck connecting Europe with America; and in Gastaldi “Carta Marina,” in the Italian Ptolemy of 1548, where it is a protuberance on a similar neck (see Vol. II. 435; IV. 43; and Nordenskjöld’s Studien, 43). The Rotz map of 1542 seems to be based on the same material used by Mercator in his gores, but he adds a new confusion in calling Greenland the “Cost of Labrador.” Cf. Winsor’s Kohl Maps, no. 104. The “Grutlandia” of the Vopellio map of 1556 is also continuous with Labrador (see Vol. II. 436; IV. 90).

[776] See Vol. IV. pp. 42, 82.

[777] In the edition of 1562, which repeated the map, the cartographer Moletta (Moletius) testified that its geography had been confirmed “by letters and marine charts sent to us from divers parts.”

[778] Winsor’s Bibliog. of Ptolemy, sub anno 1561.

[779] Lok’s map of 1582 calls it “Groetland,” the landfall of “Jac. Scolvus,” the Pole. Cf. Vol. III. 40.

[780] For Mercator’s map, see Vol. II. 452; IV. 94, 373. Ortelius’ separate map of Scandia is much the same. It is the same with the map of Phillipus Gallæus, dated 1574, but published at Antwerp in 1585 in the Theatri orbis terrarum Enchiridion. Gilbert’s map in 1576 omits the “Grocland” (Vol. III. 203). Both features, however, are preserved in the Judæis of 1593 (Vol. IV. 97), in the Wytfliet of 1597 (Vol. II. 459), in Wolfe’s Linschoten in 1598 (Vol. III. 101), and in Quadus in 1600 (Vol. IV. 101). In the Zaltière map of 1566 (Vol. II. 451; IV. 93), in the Porcacchi map of 1572 (Vol. II. 96, 453; IV. 96), and in that of Johannes Martines of 1578, the features are too indefinite for recognition. Lelewel (i. pl. 7) gives a Spanish mappemonde of 1573.

[781] In fac-simile in Nordenskjöld’s Vega, i. 247.

[782] Vol. III p. 98.

[783] A paper by H. Rink in the Geografisk Tidskrift (viii. 139) entitled “Ostgrönländerne i deres Forhold till Vestgrönländerne og de övrige Eskimostammer,” is accompanied by drafts of the map of G. Tholacius, 1606, and of Th. Thorlacius, 1668-69,—the latter placing East Bygd on the east coast near the south end. K. J. V. Steenstrup, on Osterbygden in Geog. Tidskrift, viii. 123, gives facsimiles of maps of Jovis Carolus in 1634; of Hendrick Doncker in 1669. Sketches of maps by Johannes Meyer in 1652, and by Hendrick Doncker in 1666, are also given in the Geografisk Tidskrift, viii. (1885), pl. 5.

[784] Voyages des Pais Septentrionaux,—a very popular book.

[785] Chips from a German Workshop, i. 327.

[786] Archæological Tour, p. 202.

[787] The earliest fixed date for the founding of Tenochtitlan (Mexico city) is 1325. Brasseur tells us that Carlos de Sigüenza y Gongora made the first chronological table of ancient Mexican dates, which was used by Boturini, and was improved by Leon y Gama,—the same which Bustamante has inserted in his edition of Gomara. Gallatin (Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans., i.) gave a composite table of events by dates before the Conquest, which is followed in Brantz Mayer’s Mexico as it was, i. 97. Ed. Madier de Montjau, in his Chronologie hiéroglyphico-phonétique des Rois Astéques de 1352 à 1522, takes issue with Ramirez on some points.

[788] Bancroft (v. 199) gives references to those writers who have discussed this question of giants. Bandelier’s references are more in detail (Arch. Tour, p. 201). Short (p. 233) borrows largely the list in Bancroft. The enumeration includes nearly all the old writers. Acosta finds confirmation in bones of incredible largeness, often found in his day, and then supposed to be human. Modern zoölogists say they were those of the Mastodon. Howarth, Mammoth and the Flood, 297.

[789] See Native Races, ii. 117; v. 24, 27.

[790] Sometimes it is said they came from the Antilles, or beyond, easterly, and that an off-shoot of the same people appeared to the early French, explorers as the Natchez Indians. We have, of course, offered to us a choice of theories in the belief that the Maya civilization came from the westward by the island route from Asia. This misty history is nothing without alternatives, and there are a plenty of writers who dogmatize about them.

[791] Constituciones diocesanas del obispado de Chiappas (Rome, 1702).

[792] Nat. Races, v. 160.

[793] Hist. Nations Civilisées, i. 37, 150, etc. Popul Vuh, introd., sec. v. Bancroft relates the Votan myth, with references, in Nat. Races, iii. 450. Brasseur identifies the Votanites with the Colhuas, as the builders of Palenqué, the founders of Xibalba, and thinks a branch of them wandered south to Peru. There are some stories of even pre-Votan days, under Igh and Imox. Cf. H. De Charency’s “Myth d’Imos,” in the Annales de philosophie Chrétienne, 1872-73, and references in Bancroft, v. 164, 231.

[794] Native Races, ii. 121, etc.

[795] Bancroft (v. 236) points to Bradford, Squier, Tylor, Viollet-le-Duc, Bartlett, and Müller, with Brasseur in a qualified way, as in the main agreeing in this early disjointing of the Nashua stock, by which the Maya was formed through separation from the older race.

[796] Enforced, for instance, by one of the best of the later Mexican writers, Orozco y Berra, in his Geografía de las lenguas y Carta Ethnografica de México (Mexico, 1865).

[797] Tylor, Anahuac, 189, and his Early Hist. Mankind, 184. Orozco y Berra, Geog., 124. Bancroft, v. 169, note. The word Maya was first heard by Columbus in his fourth voyage, 1503-4. We sometimes find it written Mayab. It is usual to class the people of Yucatan, and even the Quiché-Cakchiquels of Guatemala and those of Nicaragua, under the comprehensive term of Maya, as distinct from the Nahua people farther north.

[798] Nat. Races, v. 186.

[799] Brinton, with his view of myths, speaks of the attempt of the Abbé Brasseur to make Xibalba an ancient kingdom, with Palenqué as its capital, as utterly unsupported and wildly hypothetical (Myths, 251).

[800] Perhaps by Gucumatz (who is identified by some with Quetzalcoatl), leading the Tzequiles, who are said to have appeared from somewhere during one of Votan’s absences, and to have grown into power among the Chanes, or Votan’s people, till they made Tulan, where they lived, too powerful for the Votanites. Bancroft (v. 187) holds this view against Brasseur.

[801] Perhaps Ococingo, or Copan, as Bancroft conjectures (v. 187).

[802] As Sahagún calls it, meaning, as Bancroft suggests, Tabasco.

[803] Short (p. 248) points out that the linguistic researches of Orozco y Berra (Geografía de las Lenguas de México, 1-76) seem to confirm this.

[804] See p. 158.

[805] Kirk says (Prescott’s Mexico): “Confusion arises from the name of Chichimec, originally that of a single tribe, and subsequently of its many offshoots, being also used to designate successive hordes of whatever race.” Some have seen in the Waiknas of the Mosquito Coast, and in the Caribs generally, descendants of these Chichimecs who have kept to their old social level. The Caribs, on other authority, came originally from the stock of the Tupis and Guaranis, who occupied the region south of the Amazon, and in Columbus’s time they were scattered in Darien and Honduras, along the northern regions of South America, and in some of the Antilles (Von Martius, Beiträge sur Ethnographie and Sprachenkunde Amerika’s zumal Brasilìens, Leipzig, 1867). Bancroft (ii. 126) gives the etymology of Chichimec and of other tribal designations. Cf. Buschmann’s Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen (Berlin, 1853). Bandelier (Archæol. Tour, 200; Peabody Mus. Repts., ii. 393) says he fails to discover in the word anything more than a general term, signifying a savage, a hunter, or a warrior, Chichimecos, applied to roving tribes. Brasseur says that Mexican tradition applies the term Chichimecs generically to the first occupants of the New World.

[806] These names wander and exchange consonants provokingly, and it may be enough to give alphabetically a list comprised of those in Prichard (Nat. Hist. Man) and Orozco y Berra (Geografía), with some help from Gallatin in the American Ethno. Soc. Trans., i., and other groupers of the ethnological traces: Chinantecs, Chatinos, Cohuixcas, Chontales, Colhuas, Coras, Cuitatecs, Chichimecs, Cuextecas (Guaxtecas, Huastecs), Mazetecs, Mazahuas, Michinacas, Miztecs, Nonohualcas, Olmecs, Otomís, Papabucos, Quinames, Soltecos, Totonacs, Triquis, Tepanecs, Tarascos, Xicalancas, Zapotecs. It is not unlikely the same people may be here mentioned under different names. The diversity of opinions respecting the future of these vapory existences is seen in Bancroft’s collation (v. 202). Torquemada tells us about all that we know of the Totonacs, who claim to have been the builders of Teotihuacan. Bancroft gives references (v. 204) for the Totonacs, (p. 206) for the Otomís, (p. 207) for the Mistecs and Zapotecs, and (p. 208) for the Huastecs.

[807] Bancroft, ii. 97. Brasseur, Nat. Civ., i. ch. 4, and his Palenqué ch. 3.

[808] Called Huehue-Tlapallan, as Brasseur would have it.

[809] Following Motolinía and other early writers.

[810] Native Races, v. 219, 616.

[811] Bandelier, Archæol. Tour, 253.

[812] Kingsborough, ix. 206, 460; Veytia, i. 155, 163. Of the Quetzalcoatl myth there are references elsewhere. P. J. J. Valentini has made a study of the early Mexican ethnology and history in his “Olmecas and Tultecas,” translated by S. Salisbury, Jr., and printed in the Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., Oct. 21, 1882. On Quetzalcoatl in Cholula, see Torquemada, translated in Bancroft, iii. 258.

[813] This wide difference covers intervening centuries, each of which has its advocates. Short carries their coming back to the fourth century (p. 245), but Clavigero’s date of a.d. 544 is more commonly followed. Veytia makes it the seventh century. Bancroft (v. 211, 214) notes the diversity of views.

[814] Bancroft (v. 322) in a long note collates the different statements of the routes and sojourns in this migration. Cf. Short, p. 259.

[815] Cf. Kirk in Prescott, i. 10. It must be confessed that it is rather in the domain of myth than of history that we must place all that has been written about the scattering of the Toltec people at Babel (Bancroft, v. 19), and their finally reaching Huehue-Tlapallan, wherever that may have been. The view long prevalent about this American starting-point of the Nahuas, Toltecs, or whatever designation may be given to the beginners of this myth and history, placed it in California, but some later writers think it worth while to give it a geographical existence in the Mississippi Valley, and to associate it in some vague way with the moundbuilders and their works (Short, No. Amer. of Antiq., 251, 253). There is some confusion between Huehue-Tlapallan of this story and the Tlapallan noticed in the Spanish conquest time, which was somewhere in the Usumacinta region, and if we accept Tollan, Tullan, or Tula as a form of the name, the confusion is much increased (Short, pp. 217-220). Bancroft (v. 214) says there is no sufficient data to determine the position of Huehue-Tlapallan, but he thinks “the evidence, while not conclusive, favors the south rather than the north” (p. 216). The truth is, about these conflicting views of a northern or southern origin, pretty much as Kirk puts it (Prescott, i. 18): “All that can be said with confidence is, that neither of the opposing theories rests on a secure and sufficient basis.” The situation of Huehue-Tlapallan and Aztlan is very likely one and the same question, as looking to what was the starting-point of all the Nahua migrations, extending over a thousand years.

[816] Bancroft, v. 217.

[817] Torquemada, Boturini, Humboldt, Brasseur, Charnay, Short, etc.

[818] Nat. Races (v. 222).

[819] In support of the California location, Buschmann, in his Ueber die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache im nördlichen Mexico und höheren Amerikanischen Norden (Berlin, 1854), finds traces of the Mexican tongue in those of the recent California Indians. Linguistic resemblances to the Aztec, even so far north as Nootka, have been traced, but later philologists deny the inferences of relationship drawn from such similarity (Bancroft, iii. p. 612). The linguistic confusion in aboriginal California is so great that there is a wide field for tracing likenesses (Ibid. iii. 635). In the California State Mining Bureau, Bulletin no. 1 (Sacramento, 1888), Winslow Anderson gives a description of some desiccated human remains found in a sealed cave, which are supposed to be Aztec. There are slight resemblances to the Aztec in the Shoshone group of languages (Bancroft, iii. 660), and the same author arranges all that has been said to connect the Mexican tongue with those of New Mexico and neighboring regions (iii. 664). Buschmann, who has given particular attention to tracing the Aztec connections at the north, finds nothing to warrant anything more than casual admixtures with other stocks (Die Lautveränderung Aztekischer Wörter, Berlin, 1855, and Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprachen, Berlin, 1859). See Short (p. 487) for a summary.

[820] Bancroft (v. 305) cites the diverse views; so does Short to some extent (pp. 246, 258, etc.). Cf. Brinton’s Address on “Where was Aztlan?” p. 6; Short, 486, 490; Nadaillac, 284; Wilson’s Prehistoric Man, i. 327.

Brinton (Myths of the New World, etc., 89; Amer. Hero. Myths, 92) holds that Aztlan is a name wholly of mythical purport, which it would be vain to seek on the terrestrial globe. This cradle region of the Nahuas sometimes appears as the Seven Caves (Chicomoztoc), and Duran places them “in Teoculuacan, otherwise called Aztlan, a country toward the north and connected with Florida.” The Seven Caves were explained by Sahagún as a valley, by Clavigero as a city, by Schoolcraft and others as simply seven boats in which the first comers came from Asia; Brasseur makes them and Aztlan the same; others find them to be the seven cities of Cibola,—so enumerates Brinton (Myths, 227), who thinks that the seven divisions of the Nahuas sprung from the belief in the Seven Caves, and had in reality no existence.

Gallatin has followed out the series of migrations in the Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans., i. 162. Dawson, Fossil Men (ch. 3), gives his comprehensive views of the main directions of these early migrations. Brasseur follows the Nahuas (Popul Vuh, introd., sect. ix.). Winchell (Pre-Adamites) thinks the general tendency was from north to south. Morgan finds the origin of the Mexican tribes in New Mexico and in the San Juan Valley (Peabody Mus. Rept., xii. 553. Cf. his article in the North Am. Rev., Oct., 1869). Humboldt (Views of Nature, 207) touches the Aztec wanderings.

There are two well-known Aztec migration maps, first published in F. G. Carreri’s Giro del Mondo; in English as “Voyage round the world,” in Churchill’s Voyages, vol. iv., concerning which see Bancroft, ii. 543; iii. 68, 69; Short, 262, 431, 433; Prescott, iii. 364, 382. Orozco y Berra (Hist. Antiq. de Mexico, iii. 61) says that these maps follow one another, and are not different records of the same progress. Humboldt (Vues, etc., ii. 176) gives an interpretation of them in accordance with Sigüenza’s views, which is the one usually followed, and Bancroft (v. 324) epitomizes it. Ramirez says that the copies reproduced in Humboldt, Clavigero, and Kingsborough are not so correct as the engraving given in Garcia y Cubas’s Atlas geogrâfico, estadistico e histórico de la Republica Mejicana (April, 1858). Bancroft (ii. 544) gives it as reproduced by Ramirez. It is also in the Mexican edition of Prescott, and in Schoolcraft’s Indian Tribes. Cf. Delafield’s Inquiry (N. Y., 1839) and Léon de Rosny’s Les doc. écrits de l’antiq. Amér. (Paris, 1882). The original is preserved in the Museo Nacional of Mexico. A palm-tree on the map, near Aztlan, has pointed some of the arguments in favor of a southern position for that place, but Ramirez says it is but a part of a hieroglyphic name, and has no reference to the climate of Aztlan (Short, p. 266). F. Von Hellwald printed a paper on “American migrations,” with notes by Professor Henry, in the Smithsonian Report, 1866, pp. 328-345. Short defines as “altogether the most enlightened treatment of the subject” the paper of John H. Becker, “Migrations des Nahuas,” in the Compte rendu, Congrès des Américanistes (Luxembourg, 1877), i. 325. This paper finds an identification of the Tulan Zuiva of the Quichés, the Huehue-Tlapallan of the Toltecs, the Amaquemecan of the Chichimecs, and the Oztotlan (Aztlan) of the Aztecs in The valleys of the Rio Grande del Norte and Rio Colorado, as was Morgan’s view. Short (p. 249) summarizes his paper. Bancroft (v. 289) shows the diversity of views respecting Amaquemecan.

[821] Native Races, v. 167, recapitulates the proofs against the northern theory. J. R. Bartlett, Personal Narrative, ii. 283, finds no evidence for it. The successive sites of their sojourns as they passed on their journeys are given as Tlapallan, Tlacutzin, Tlapallanco, Jalisco, Atenco, Iztachnexuca, Tollatzinco, Tollan or Tula,—the last, says Bancroft, apparently in Chiapas. If there was not such confusion respecting the old geography, these names might decide the question.

[822] Writers usually place the beginnings of credible history at about this period. Brasseur and the class of writers who are easily lifted on their imagination talk about traces of a settled government being discernible at periods which they place a thousand years before Christ.

[823] References in Bancroft, v. 247, with Brasseur for the main dependence, in his use of the Codex Chimalpòpoca and the Memorial de Colhuacan.

[824] Charnay (Eng. trans., ch. 8 and 9) calls it a rival city of Tula or Tollan, rebuilt by the Chichimecs on the ruins of a Toltec city.

[825] If one wants the details of all this, he can read it in Veytia, Brasseur (Nat. Civilisées and Palenqué, ch. viii.), and Bancroft, the latter giving references (v. 285).

[826] It is frequently stated that there was a segregated migration to Central America. Bancroft (v. 168, 285), who collates the authorities, finds nothing of the kind implied. He thinks the mass remained in Anáhuac. The old view as expressed by Prescott (i. 14) was that “much the greater number probably spread over the region of Central America and the neighboring isles, and the traveller now speculates on the majestic ruins of Mitla and Palenqué as possibly the work of this extraordinary people.” Kirk, as Prescott’s editor, refers to the labors of Orozco y Berra (Geografía de las Lenguas de México, 122), followed by Tylor, (Anahuac, 189) as establishing the more recent view that this southern architecture, “though of a far higher grade, was long anterior to the Toltec dominion.”

[827] Amer. Ethno. Soc. Trans., i.

[828] Bancroft (v. 287) says: “It is probable that the name Toltec, a title of distinction rather than a national name, was never applied at all to the common people.”

[829] Brinton’s main statement is in his Were the Toltecs an historic nationality? Read before the American Philosophical Society, Sept. 2, 1887 (Phila., 1887); published also in their Proceedings, 1887, p. 229. Cf. also Brinton’s Amer. Hero. Myths (Phil., 1882), p. 86, where he throws discredit on the existence of the alleged Toltec king Quetzalcoatl (whom Sahagún keeps distinct from the mythical demi-god); and earlier, in his Myths of the New World (p. 29), he had suggested that the name Toltec might have “a merely mythical signification.” Charnay, who makes the Toltecs a Nahuan tribe, had defended their historical status in a paper on “La Civilisation Tolteque,” in the Revue d’Ethnographie (iv., 1885); and again, two years later, in the same periodical, he reviewed adversely Brinton’s arguments. (Cf. Saturday Review, lxiii. 843.) Otto Stoll, in his Guatemala, Reisen und Schilderungen (Leipzig, 1886), is another who rejects the old theory.

[830] Archæol. Tour, 253.

[831] Archæol. Tour, 7. Sahagún identifies the Toltecs with the “giants,” and if these were the degraded descendants of the followers of Votan, Sahagún thus earlier established the same identity.

[832] Archæol. Tour, 191. The fact that the names which we associate with the Toltecs are Nahua, only means that Nahua writers have transmitted them, as Bandelier thinks. Cf. also Bandelier’s citation in the Peabody Mus. Reports, vol. ii. 388, where he speaks of our information regarding the Toltecs as “limited and obscure.” He thinks it beyond question that they were Nahuas; and the fact that their division of time corresponds with the system found in Yucatan, Guatemala, etc., with other evidences of myths and legends, leads him to believe that the aborigines of more southern regions were, if not descendants, at least of the same stock with the Toltecs, and that we are justified in studying them to learn what the Toltecs were. He finds that Veytia, in his account of the Toltecs, beside depending on Sahagún and Torquemada, finds a chief source in Ixtlilxochitl, and locates Huehue-Tlapallan in the north; and Veytia’s statements reappear in Clavigero.

The best narratives of the Toltec history are those in Veytia, Historia Antigua de Méjico (Mexico, 1806); Brasseur’s Hist. Nations Civilisées (vol. i.), and his introduction to his Popul Vuh; and Bancroft (v. ch. 3 and 4): but we must look to Ixtlilxochitl, Torquemada, Sahagún, and the others, if we wish to study the sources. In such a study we shall encounter vexatious problems enough. It is practically impossible to arrange chronologically what Ixtlilxochitl says that he got from the picture-writings which he interpreted. Bancroft (v. 209) does the best he can to give it a forced perspicuity. Wilson (Prehisoric Man, i. 245) not inaptly says: “The history of the Toltecs and their ruined edifices stands on the border line of romance and fable, like that of the ruined builders of Carnac and Avebury.”

[833] Short (page 255) points out that Bancroft unadvisedly looks upon these Chichimecs as of Nahua stock, according to the common belief. Short thinks that Pimentel (Lenguas indigenas de México, published in 1862) has conclusively shown that the Chichimecs did not originally speak the Nahua tongue, but subsequently adopted it. Short (page 256) thinks, after collating the evidence, that it is impossible to determine whence or how they came to Anáhuac.

[834] Bancroft, v. 292, gives the different views. Cf. Kirk in Prescott, i. 16.

[835] These events are usually one thing or another, according to the original source which you accept, as Bancroft shows (v. 303). The story of the text is as good as any, and is in the main borne out by the other narratives.

[836] Bancroft, v. 308. Cf., on the arrival of the Mexicans in the valley, Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Reports, ii. 398) and his references.

[837] Prescott, i., introduction ch. 6, tells the story of their golden age.

[838] Cf. the map in Lucien Biart’s Les Aztèques (Paris, 1885). Prescott says the maps in Clavigero, Lopez, and Robertson defy “equally topography and history.” Cf. note on plans of the city and valley in Vol. II. pp. 364, 369, 374, to which may be added, as showing diversified views, those in Stevens’s Herrera (London, 1740), vol. ii.; Bordone’s Libro (1528); Icazbalceta’s Coll. de docs., i. 390; and the Eng. translation of Cortes’ despatches, 333.

[839] This is placed a.d. 1325. Cf. references in Bancroft (v. 346).

[840] On the conquest of the Tecpanecas by the Mexicans, see the references in Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Reports, ii. 412).

[841] For details of the period of the Chichimec ascendency, see Bancroft (v. ch. 5-7), Brasseur (Nat. Civil. ii.), and the authorities plentifully cited in Bancroft.

[842] On the nature of the Mexican confederacy see Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Reports, ii. 416). He enumerates the authorities upon the point that no one of the allied tribes exercised any powers over the others beyond the exclusive military direction of the Mexicans proper (Peabody Mus. Reports, ii. 559). Orozco y Berra (Geografía, etc.) claims that there was a tendency to assimilate the conquered people to the Mexican conditions. Bandelier claims that “no attempt, either direct or implied, was made to assimilate or incorporate them.” He urges that nowhere on the march to Mexico did Cortés fall in with Mexican rulers of subjected tribes. It does not seem to be clear in all cases whether it was before or after the confederation was formed, or whether it was by the Mexicans or Tezcucans that Tecpaneca, Xochimilca, Cuitlahuac, Chalco, Acolhuacan, and Quauhnahuac, were conquered. Cf. Bandelier in Peabody Mus. Reports, ii. 691. As to the tributaries, see Ibid. 695.

[843] Cf. Brasseur’s Nations Civ. ii. 457, on Tezcuco in its palmy days.

[844] Sometimes written Mochtheuzema, Moktezema. The Aztec Montezuma must not, as is contended, be confounded with the hero-god of the New Mexicans. Cf. Bancroft, iii. 77, 171; Brinton’s Myths, 190; Schoolcraft’s Ind. Tribes, iv. 73; Tylor’s Prim. Culture, ii. 384; Short, 333.

[845] This has induced some historians to call these wars “holy wars.” Bandelier discredits wholly the common view, that wars were undertaken to secure victims for the sacrificial stone (Archæol. Tour, 24). But in another place (Peabody Mus. Reports, ii. 128) he says: “War was required for the purpose of obtaining human victims, their religion demanding human sacrifices at least eighteen times every year.”

[846] As to these carvings, which have not yet wholly disappeared, see Peabody Mus. Reports, ii. 677, 678. There is a series of alleged portraits of the Mexican kings in Carbajal-Espinosa’s Hist. de Mexico (Mexico, 1862). See pictures of Montezuma II. in Vol. II. 361, 363, and that in Ranking, p. 313.

[847] Bancroft (v. 466) enumerates the great variety of such proofs of disaster, and gives references (p. 469). Cf. Prescott, i. p. 309.

[848] Tezozomoc (cap. 106) gives the description of the first bringing of the news to Montezuma of the arrival of the Spaniards on the coast.

[849] Brinton’s Amer. Hero Myths, 139, etc. See, on the prevalence of the idea of the return at some time of the hero-god, Brinton’s Myths of the New World, p. 160. “We must remember,” he says, “that a fiction built on an idea is infinitely more tenacious of life than a story founded on fact.” Brinton (Myths, 188) gathers from Gomara, Cogolludo, Villagutierre, and others, instances to show how prevalent in America was the presentiment of the arrival and domination of a white race,—a belief still prevailing among their descendants of the middle regions of America who watch for the coming of Montezuma (Ibid. p. 190). Brinton does not seem to recognize the view held by many that the Montezuma of the Aztecs was quite a different being from the demi-god of the Pueblas of New Mexico.

[850] It is not easy to reconcile the conflicting statements of the native historians respecting the course of events during the Aztec supremacy, such is the mutual jealousy of the Mexican and Tezcucan writers. Brasseur has satisfied himself of the authenticity of a certain sequence and character of events (Nations Civilisées), and Bancroft simply follows him (v. 401). Veytia is occupied more with the Tezcucans than with the Aztecs. The condensed sketch here given follows the main lines of the collated records. We find good pictures of the later history of Mexico and Tlascala, before the Spaniards came, in Prescott (i. book 2d, ch. vi., and book 3d, ch. ii.). Bancroft (v. ch. 10) with his narrative and references helps us out with the somewhat monotonous details of all the districts of Mexico which were outside the dominance of the Mexican valley, as of Cholula, Tlascala, Michoacan, and Oajaca, with the Miztecs and Zapotecs, inhabiting this last province.

[851] Bancroft (v. 543-553).

[852] It is so held by Stephens, Waldeck, Mayer, Prichard, Ternaux-Compans, not to name others.

[853] Vol. v. 617.

[854] The Maya calendar and astronomical system, as the basis of the Maya chronology, is explained in the version which Perez gave into Spanish of a Maya manuscript (translated into English by Stephens in his Yucatan), and which Valentini has used in his “Katunes of Maya History,” in the Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., Oct. 1879. On the difficulties of the subject see Brasseur’s Nations Civilisées (ii. ch. 1). Cf. also his Landa, section xxxix., and page 366, from the “Cronologia antigua de Yucatan.” Cf. further, Cyrus Thomas’s MS. Troano, ch. 2, and Powell’s Third Report Bur. of Ethn., pp. xxx and 3; Ancona’s Yucatan, ch. xi.; Bancroft’s Nat. Races, ii. ch. 24, with references; Short, ch. 9; Brinton’s Maya Chronicles, introduction, p. 50.

[855] Bancroft (v. 624) epitomizes the Perez manuscript given by Stephens, the sole source of this Totul Xiu legendary.

[856] Brasseur’s Nations Civilisées (i., ii.), with the Perez manuscript, and Landa’s Relacion, are the sufficient source of the Yucatan history. Bancroft’s last chapter of his fifth volume summarizes it.

[857] See Vol. II. p. 402.

[858] See Vol. II. p. 397.

[859] Central America, ii. 452.

[860] See Vol. II. p. 414.

[861] See Vol. II. p. 343.

[862] See Vol. II. p. 412.

[863] See Vol. II. p. 417. Cf. Prescott’s Mexico, i. 50; Bancroft (Nat. Races, ii. ch. 14) epitomizes the information on the laws and courts of the Nahua; Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Repts., ii. 446), referring to Zurita’s Report, which he characterizes as marked for perspicacity, deep knowledge, and honest judgment, speaks of it as embodying the experience of nearly twenty years,—eleven of which were passed in Mexico,—and in which the author gave answers to inquiries put by the king. “If we could obtain,” says Bandelier, “all the answers given to these questions from all parts of Spanish America, and all as elaborate and truthful as those of Zurita, Palacio, and Ondegardo, our knowledge of the aboriginal history and ethnology of Spanish America would be much advanced.” Zurita’s Report in a French translation is in Ternaux-Compans’ Collection; the original is in Pacheco’s Docs. inéditos, but in a mutilated text.

[864] See Vol. II. p. 346.

[865] It is much we owe to the twelve Franciscan friars who on May 13, 1524, landed in Mexico to convert and defend the natives. It is from their writings that we must draw a large part of our knowledge respecting the Indian character, condition, and history. These Christian apostles were Martin de Valencia, Francisco de Soto, Martin de Coruña, Juan Xuares, Antonio de Ciudad Rodrigo, Toribio de Benavente, Garcia de Cisneros, Luis de Fuensalida, Juan de Ribas, Francisco Ximenez, Andrés de Cordoba, Juan de Palos.

From the Historia of Las Casas, particularly from that part of it called Apologética historia, we can also derive some help. (Cf. Vol. II. p. 340.)

[866] Brasseur, Bib. Mex.-Guat., p. 147; Leclerc, p. 168.

[867] Herrera is furthermore the source of much that we read in later works concerning the native religion and habits of life. See Vol. II. p. 67.

[868] Cf. Vol. II. p. 418.

[869] Anales del Museo Nacional, iii. 4, 120; Brinton’s Am. Hero Myths, 78. Bandelier, in N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc., November, 1879, used a portion of the MS. as printed by Sir Thomas Phillipps (Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., i. 115) under the title of Historia de los Yndios Mexicanos, por Juan de Tovar; Cura et impensis Dni Thomæ Phillipps, Bart. (privately printed at Middle Hill, 1860. See Squier Catalogue, no. 1417). The document is translated by Henry Phillipps, Jr., in the Proc. Amer. Philosophical Soc. (Philad.), xxi. 616.

[870] Vol. II. p. 419. Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Bibl. Mex.-Guat., p. 59. He used a MS. copy in the Force collection.

[871] This is true of Acosta and Davila Padilla. The bibliography of Acosta has been given elsewhere (Vol. II. p. 420). His books v., vi., and vii. cover the ancient history of the country. He used the MSS. of Duran (Brasseur, Bibl. Mex.-Guat., p. 2), and his correspondence with Tobar, preserved in the Lenox library, has been edited by Icazbalceta in his Don Fray Zumárraga (Mexico, 1881). Of the Provincia de Santiago and the Varia historia of Davila Padilla, the bibliography has been told in another place. (Cf. Vol. II. pp. 399-400[; Sabin, v. 18780-1; Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Bibl. Mex.-Guat., p. 53; Del Monte Library, no. 126.) Ternaux was not wrong in ascribing great value to the books.]

[872] Peter of Ghent. Cf. Vol. II. p. 417.

[873] Chronica Compendiosissima ab exordio mundi per Amandum Zierixcensem, adjectæ sunt epistolæ ex nova maris Oceani Hispania ad nos transmissæ (Antwerp, 1534). The subjoined letters here mentioned are, beside that referred to, two others written in Mexico (1531), by Martin of Valencia and Bishop Zumárraga (Sabin, i. no. 994; Quaritch, 362, no. 28583, £7 10). Icazbalceta (Bib. Mex. del Siglo xvi., i. p. 33) gives a long account of Gante. There is a French version of the letter in Ternaux’s Collection.

[874] See Vol. II. p. 397. Cf. Prescott, ii. 95. The first part of the Historia is on the religious rites of the natives; the second on their conversion to Christianity; the third on their chronology, etc.

[875] Cf. Icazbalceta’s Bibl. Mexicana, p. 220, with references; Pilling’s Proof-sheets, no. 2600, etc.

[876] Pilling, no. 2817, etc.

[877] Properly, Bernardino Ribeira; named from his birthplace, Sahagún, in Spain. Chavero’s Sahagún (Mexico, 1877).

[878] A few data can be added to the account of Sahagún given in Vol. II. p. 415. J. F. Ramirez completes the bibliography of Sahagún in the Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia de Madrid, vi. 85 (1885). Icazbalceta, having told the story of Sahagún’s life in his edition of Mendieta’s Hist. Eclesiastica Indiana (México, 1870), has given an extended critical and bibliographical account in his Bibliografía Mexicana (México, 1886), vol. i. 247-308. Other bibliographical detail can be gleaned from Pilling’s Proof-sheets, p. 677, etc.; Icazbalceta’s Apuntes; Beristain’s Biblioteca; the Bibliotheca Mexicana of Ramirez. The list in Adolfo Llanos’s Sahagún y su historia de México (Museo Nac. de Méx. Anales, iii., pt. 3, p. 71) is based chiefly on Alfredo Chavero’s Sahagún (México, 1877). Brasseur de Bourbourg, in his Palenqué (ch. 5), has explained the importance of what Brevoort calls Sahagún’s “great encyclopædia of the Mexican Empire.” Rosny (Les documents écrits de l’Antiquité Américaine, p. 69) speaks of seeing a copy of the Historia in Madrid, accompanied by remarkable Aztec pictures. Bancroft, referring to the defective texts of Sahagún in Kingsborough and Bustamante, says: “Fortunately what is missing in one I have always found in the other.” He further speaks of the work of Sahagún as “the most complete and comprehensive, so far as aboriginal history is concerned, furnishing an immense mass of material, drawn from native sources, very badly arranged and written.” Eleven books of Sahagún are given to the social institutions of the natives, and but one to the conquest. Jourdanet’s edition is mentioned elsewhere (Vol. II.).

[879] See Vol. II. p. 421.

[880] Those who used him most, like Clavigero and Brasseur de Bourbourg, complain of this. Torquemada, says Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Repts. ii. 119), “notwithstanding his unquestionable credulity, is extremely important on all questions of Mexican antiquities.”