{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_58464/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_58464","id":"gutenberg_58464","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/58464","summary":null,"tags":["America -- Antiquities","Category: American Literature","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Indians"],"text":"Produced by Richard Tonsing, Julia Miller and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                       Essays of an Americanist.\n\n\n                    I. ETHNOLOGIC AND ARCH\u00c6OLOGIC.\n                   II. MYTHOLOGY AND FOLK LORE.\n                  III. GRAPHIC SYSTEMS AND LITERATURE.\n                   IV. LINGUISTIC.\n\n\n                                    BY\n                     DANIEL G. BRINTON. A. M., M. D.,\n\n  PROFESSOR OF AMERICAN ARCH\u00c6OLOGY AND LINGUISTICS IN THE UNIVERSITY OF\n   PENNSYLVANIA, PRESIDENT OF THE NUMISMATIC AND ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY OF\n PHILADELPHIA, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN FOLK-LORE SOCIETY, MEMBER OF THE\n  AMERICAN ANTIQUARIAN SOCIETY, THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, THE\n    SOCI\u00c9T\u00c8 ROYALE DES ANTIQUAIRES DU NORD, THE SOCI\u00c9T\u00c8 AM\u00c9RICAINE DE\n FRANCE, THE BERLINER ANTHROPOLOGISCHE GESELLSCHAFT, THE REAL ACADEMIA DE\n                       HISTORIA, MADRID, ETC., ETC.\n\n\n                              PHILADELPHIA:\n                             PORTER & COATES.\n                                  1890.\n\n\n\n\n                               COPYRIGHT\n                           BY D. G. BRINTON.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                                PREFACE.\n\n\nThe word \u201cEssays\u201d appears on the title of this book in the sense in\nwhich old Montaigne employed it\u2014attempts, endeavors. The articles which\nmake up the volume have been collected from many scattered sources, to\nwhich I have from time to time contributed them, for the definite\npurpose of endeavoring to vindicate certain opinions about debated\nsubjects concerning the ancient population of the American continent.\n\nIn a number of points, as for example in the antiquity of man upon this\ncontinent, in the specific distinction of an American race, in the\ngeneric similarity of its languages, in recognizing its mythology as\noften abstract and symbolic, in the phonetic character of some of its\ngraphic methods, in believing that its tribes possessed considerable\npoetic feeling, in maintaining the absolute autochthony of their\nculture\u2014in these and in many other points referred to in the following\npages I am at variance with most modern anthropologists; and these\nessays are to show more fully and connectedly than could their separate\npublication, what are my grounds for such opinions.\n\nThere is a prevailing tendency among ethnologists of to-day to underrate\nthe psychology of savage life. This error arises partly from an\nunwillingness to go beyond merely physical investigations, partly from\njudging of the ancient condition of a tribe by that of its modern and\ndegenerate representatives, partly from inability to speak its tongue\nand to gain the real sense of its expressions, partly from preconceived\ntheories as to what a savage might be expected to know and feel. As\nagainst this error I have essayed to show that among very rude tribes we\nfind sentiments of a high character, proving a mental nature of\nexcellent capacity in certain directions.\n\nSeveral of the Essays have not previously appeared in print, and others\nhave been substantially re-written, so as to bring them up to the latest\nresearches in their special fields. Nevertheless, the reader will find a\ncertain amount of repetition in several of them, a defect which I hope\nis compensated by the greater clearness which this repetition gives to\nthe special subject discussed.\n\n_Philadelphia, February, 1890._\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\n PREFACE                                                         iii, iv\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                 v-xii\n\n\n                                 PART I.\n\n                       ETHNOLOGIC AND ARCH\u00c6OLOGIC.\n\n INTRODUCTORY                                                      17\u201319\n\n A REVIEW OF THE DATA FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRE-HISTORIC\n   CHRONOLOGY OF AMERICA                                           20\u201347\n\n     Classification of Data. I. _Legendary_: of northern tribes;\n     of Peruvians, Mexicans and Mayas; limited range. II.\n     _Monumental_: pueblos of New Mexico; stone and brick\n     structures of Mexico, Central America and Peru; ruins of\n     Tiahuanaco; artificial shell heaps; the _sambaquis_ of\n     Brazil. III. _Industrial_: pal\u00e6olithic implements; early\n     polished stone implements; dissemination of cultivated food\n     plants. IV. _Linguistic_: multitude and extension of\n     linguistic stocks; tenacity of linguistic form;\n     similarities of internal form; study of internal form. V.\n     _Physical_: racial classifications; traits of the American\n     type; permanence of the type. VI. _Geologic_: date of the\n     glacial epochs in North and South America; the earliest\n     Americans immigrants; lines of migrations. Importance of\n     arch\u00e6ological studies.\n\n ON PAL\u00c6OLITHS, AMERICAN AND OTHER                                 48\u201355\n\n     The cutting instrument as the standard of culture; the\n     three \u201cAges\u201d of Stone, Bronze and Iron; subdivisions of the\n     Age of Stone into Pal\u00e6olithic and Neolithic; a true\n     \u201cPal\u00e6olith\u201d; subdivision of the Pal\u00e6olithic period into the\n     epochs of \u201csimple\u201d and \u201ccompound\u201d implements; pal\u00e6olithic\n     finds along the Delaware river; the glacial period in\n     America; earliest appearance of man in America.\n\n ON THE ALLEGED MONGOLIAN AFFINITIES OF THE AMERICAN RACE          56\u201366\n\n     A practical question; Cuvier\u2019s triple division of the human\n     species; alleged Mongolian affinities in language; supposed\n     affinities in culture; imagined physical resemblances, as\n     color, cranial analogies, the oblique or \u201cMongoloid\u201d eye,\n     etc. Insufficiency of all these.\n\n THE PROBABLE NATIONALITY OF THE \u201cMOUND-BUILDERS.\u201d                 67\u201382\n\n     Who were the \u201cMound-builders\u201d? Known tribes as constructors\n     of mounds, the Iroquois, Algonkins, Cherokees and\n     Chahta-Muskoki family. Descriptions from De Soto\u2019s\n     expedition; from Huguenots in Florida; from French writers\n     on Louisiana; great size of the southern mounds; probable\n     builders of Ohio mounds.\n\n THE TOLTECS AND THEIR FABULOUS EMPIRE                            83\u2013100\n\n     Statement of the question; the current opinion; the adverse\n     opinion; Tula as an historic site; the Serpent-Hill; the\n     Aztec legends about Tula; date of the desertion of Tula;\n     meaning of the name Tula or Tollan; the mythical cyclus of\n     Tula; birth of Huitzilopochtli; myth of Quetzalcoatl at\n     Tula; his subjects, the Toltecs; purely fabulous narratives\n     concerning them.\n\n                                PART II.\n\n                        MYTHOLOGY AND FOLK-LORE.\n\n INTRODUCTORY                                                    101\u2013103\n\n THE SACRED NAMES IN QUICHE MYTHOLOGY                            104\u2013129\n\n     The Quiches of Guatemala, and their relationship; sources\n     of information. Their Sacred Book, the _Popol Vuh_; its\n     opening words; The name Hun-Ahpu-Vuch, the God of Light;\n     Hun-Ahpu-Utiu; Nim-ak, the Great Hog; Nim-tzyiz; Tepeu;\n     Gucumatz; Qux-cho and Qux-palo; Ah-raxa-lak and\n     Ah-raxa-sel; Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, the primal pair;\n     Cakulha; Huracan and Cabrakan; Chirakan, the god of the\n     Storm and the Earthquake; Xbalanque and his journey to\n     Xibalba, or the Descent into Hell.\n\n THE HERO-GOD OF THE ALGONKINS AS A CHEAT AND LIAR               130\u2013134\n\n     Micmac story of Gluskap, the Liar; the Cree god, the\n     Deceiver; Michabo and his tricks; psychological\n     significance of such stories.\n\n THE JOURNEY OF THE SOUL                                         135\u2013147\n\n     General belief in a soul; Egyptian theory of its fate; it\n     sinks and rises with the sun; invocation to Osiris; symbols\n     of the river, the boat, the dog, and the sacred numbers;\n     recurrence of these symbols in Greek, Vedantic and Norse\n     beliefs; the Aztec account of the soul\u2019s journey to\n     Paradise. Origin of these symbolic narratives from the\n     apparent daily course of the Sun.\n\n THE SACRED SYMBOLS IN AMERICA                                   148\u2013162\n\n     The four symbols of the Ta Ki, the Triskeles, the Svastika\n     and the Cross; the prevalence of the Triskeles in the Old\n     World; the meaning of the Ta Ki in Chinese philosophy; the\n     Yin and Yang; the Svastika; origin illustrated from n\n     picture-writing; the Copan stone; the earth-plain; the\n     wheel-cross; winter-counts and year cycles; time-wheels and\n     sun-motions; the Four Ages and Tree of Life.\n\n THE FOLK-LORE OF YUCATAN                                        163\u2013180\n\n     Mental activity of the Mayas; the diviners; the \u201cfield\n     mass\u201d; invocation to the rain-gods; fire-worship;\n     prognostics; transformations of sorcerers; nagualism; a\n     Maya witch story; the Balams; the Man of the Woods; stories\n     of dwarfs and imps; female deceivers; fabulous birds and\n     snakes.\n\n FOLK-LORE OF THE MODERN LENAPE                                  181\u2013192\n\n     Source of information; reminiscences of the tribe;\n     Messianic hopes; relics of the Stone Age; methods of\n     hunting and fishing; utensils, boats and houses; the native\n     games; the sweat-lodge; their canticos, and the derivation\n     of the term; medical knowledge; cure for rattlesnake bites;\n     native trephining; position of the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 as\n     \u201cgrandfathers\u201d; wampum belts; totemic divisions;\n     peculiarities of the dialect; Len\u00e2p\u00e9 grammar.\n\n\n                                PART III.\n\n                     GRAPHIC SYSTEMS AND LITERATURE.\n\n INTRODUCTORY                                                    193\u2013194\n\n THE PHONETIC ELEMENTS IN THE GRAPHIC SYSTEMS OF THE MAYAS AND\n   MEXICANS                                                      195\u2013212\n\n     Material for the study; were the native hieroglyphs\n     phonetic? Character and arrangement of phonetic symbols;\n     the failure of Landa\u2019s alphabet; phonetic signs in Maya\n     MSS.; hieroglyph of the firmament; phonetic terminals;\n     signs of cardinal points; Mexican phonetic elements;\n     principle of the rebus; examples; the ikonomatic system.\n\n THE IKONOMATIC METHOD OF PHONETIC WRITING                       213\u2013229\n\n     Thought-Writing and Sound-Writing; the ikonomatic method\n     explained; illustrations from Egyptian inscriptions; from\n     the canting arms in heraldry; from the Mexican\n     picture-writing; values of position and colors;\n     determinatives and ideograms in Aztec MSS.; further\n     illustrations from Maya hieroglyphs; Chipeway pictography.\n\n THE WRITING AND RECORDS OF THE ANCIENT MAYAS                    230\u2013254\n\n     1. Introductory\u2014Phoneticism in Maya and Aztec writing. 2.\n     Descriptions by Spanish writers; by Peter Martyr; by Las\n     Casas; by Alonso Ponce; by Lizana; by Aguilar; by Buena\n     Ventura; by Cogolludo; by Soto-Mayor; by Landa; facsimile\n     of Landa\u2019s alphabet; critiques on it; conclusions. 3.\n     References from native sources; Maya words for \u201cwriting,\u201d\n     \u201cbook,\u201d \u201ccalendar,\u201d etc.; a prophecy of Ahkul Chel\n     translated. 4. The existing Codices; the Dresden Codex; the\n     Codex Peresianus; the Codex Troano; the Codex Cortesianus;\n     the mural paintings and inscriptions.\n\n THE BOOKS OF CHILAN BALAM                                       255\u2013273\n\n     High civilization of ancient Mayas; destruction of their\n     literature; modern Books of Chilan Balam; signification of\n     this name; contents of the Books; specimen of the\n     prophecies; linguistic value; opinion of Pio Perez; length\n     of the Maya year-cycles; hieroglyphs of the months and\n     days; the 13 _ahau katuns_; medical contents of the books.\n\n ON THE \u201cSTONE OF THE GIANTS.\u201d                                   274\u2013283\n\n     Location of the Stone near Orizaba; its figures; refer to a\n     date in February, 1502; translation of the hieroglyphs, and\n     identification of the date as that of the death of the\n     Emperor Ahuitzotzin; the stone a sepulchral tablet.\n\n NATIVE AMERICAN POETRY                                          284\u2013304\n\n     Nature of poetry; principle of repetition; Eskimo nith\n     songs; other Eskimo songs; a Pawnee song; Kioway love\n     songs; a Chipeway serenade; Aztec love songs; war-songs of\n     the Otomis; of the Aztecs; of the Qquichuas; prophetic\n     chants of the Mayas. Faculty of poetry universal.\n\n\n                                PART IV.\n\n                               LINGUISTIC.\n\n INTRODUCTORY                                                    305\u2013307\n\n AMERICAN LANGUAGES, AND WHY WE SHOULD STUDY THEM.               308\u2013327\n\n     Indian geographic names; language a guide to ethnology;\n     reveals the growth of arts and the psychologic processes of\n     a people; illustration from the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 tongue; structure of\n     language best studied in savage tongues; rank of American\n     tongues; characteristic traits; pronominal forms; idea of\n     personality; polysynthesis; incorporation; holophrasis;\n     origin of these; lucidity of American tongues; their\n     vocabularies; power of expressing abstract ideas;\n     conclusion.\n\n WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT\u2019S RESEARCHES IN AMERICAN LANGUAGES         328\u2013348\n\n     What led Humboldt toward the American tongues; progress of\n     his studies; fundamental doctrine of his philosophy of\n     language; his theory of the evolution of languages; opinion\n     on American languages; his criterion of the relative\n     perfection of languages; not abundance of forms, nor verbal\n     richness; American tongues not degenerations; Humboldt\u2019s\n     classification of languages; psychological origin of\n     Incorporation in language; its shortcomings; in simple\n     sentences; in compound sentences; absence of true formal\n     elements; the nature of the American verb.\n\n SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF AMERICAN LANGUAGES                      349\u2013389\n\n     Study of the human species on the geographic system; have\n     American languages any common trait? Duponceau\u2019s theory of\n     polysynthesis; Humboldt on Polysynthesis and Incorporation;\n     Francis Lieber on Holophrasis; Prof. Steinthal on the\n     incorporative plan; Lucien Adam\u2019s criticism of it; Prof.\n     M\u00fcller\u2019s inadequate statement; Major Powell\u2019s omission to\n     consider it; definitions of polysynthesis, incorporation\n     and holophrasis; illustrations; critical application of the\n     theory to the Othomi language; to the Bri-bri language; to\n     the Tupi-Guarani dialects; to the Mutsun; conclusions;\n     addendum; critique by M. Adam on this essay.\n\n THE EARLIEST FORM OF HUMAN SPEECH AS REVEALED BY AMERICAN\n   TONGUES                                                       390\u2013409\n\n     The _Homo alalus_ or speechless man, a romance; linguistic\n     stocks; the phonetic elements significant; examples; but\n     not of same significance in different stocks; notion of\n     _self_ and _other_; pronouns a late development;\n     alternating consonants and permutable vowels; examples;\n     phoneticism inadequate; difficulties thus created;\n     counter-sense in language; notion of Being and Not-Being;\n     incorporation; sentence-words; no dependent clauses; no\n     tenses; no adjectives; no numerals; notion of Animate and\n     Inanimate; classificatory particles; primitive man a\n     _visuaire_.\n\n THE CONCEPTION OF LOVE IN SOME AMERICAN LANGUAGES               410\u2013432\n\n     Significance of love-words; various origins. I. Algonkin\n     love-words; various senses; highest forms. II. Nahuatl\n     love-words; poverty of the tongue; made up by terminations;\n     words for friendship. III. Maya love-words; singular\n     derivations; the Huasteca dialect; the Cakchiquel dialect;\n     comparisons. IV. Qquichua love-words; abundant; various\n     meanings. V. Tupi-Guarani love-words; meaning of.\n     Conclusions.\n\n THE LINEAL MEASURES OF THE SEMI-CIVILIZED NATIONS OF MEXICO AND\n   CENTRAL AMERICA                                               433\u2013451\n\n     Metrical standards a criterion of progress; those of the\n     Mayas; of the Cakchiquels; of the Mexicans or Aztecs; of\n     the Mound-Builders of Ohio. Conclusions.\n\n THE CURIOUS HOAX OF THE TAENSA LANGUAGE                         452\u2013467\n\n     How it began; the deception exposed; absurdities of the\n     invention; a wonderful calendar; a yet more wonderful\n     marriage-song; a second Psalmanazar; rejoinder of the\n     editor; reply to that; final verdict.\n\n INDEX OF AUTHORS AND AUTHORITIES                                469\u2013474\n\n INDEX OF SUBJECTS                                               475\u2013489\n\n\n\n\n                                PART I.\n\n                      ETHNOLOGIC AND ARCH\u00c6OLOGIC.\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTORY.\n\n\nEver since America was discovered, the question about it which has\nexcited the most general interest has been, Whence came its inhabitants?\nThe inquiry, Who are the American Indians? has been the theme of many a\nponderous folio and labored dissertation, with answers nearly as various\nas the number of debaters.\n\nFew or none of them have reflected on the unphilosophical character of\nthe inquiry as thus crudely put. Take a precisely analogous question,\nand this will be apparent\u2014Whence came the African Negroes? All will\nreply\u2014From Africa, of course. Originally? Yes, originally; they\nconstitute the African or Negro sub-species of Man.\n\nThe answer in the case of the American Indians is entirely\nparallel\u2014their origin is American; the racial type was created and fixed\non the American continent; they constitute as true and distinct a\nsub-species as do the African or the White Race.\n\nEach of the great continental areas moulded the plastic, primitive man\ninto a conformation of body and mind peculiar to itself, in some special\nharmony with its own geographic features, thus producing a race or\nsub-species, subtly correlated in a thousand ways to its environment,\nbut never forfeiting its claim to humanity, never failing in its\nparallel and progressive development with all other varieties of the\nspecies.\n\nAmerica was no exception to this rule, and it is time to dismiss as\ntrivial all attempts to connect the American race genealogically with\nany other, or to trace the typical culture of this continent to the\nhistoric forms of the Old World. My early studies inclined me to these\nopinions, and they have been constantly strengthened by further\nresearch. Yet they are not popularly accepted; the very latest writer of\ncompetence on the pre-history of America says, \u201cIt is now generally held\nthat the earliest population (of the continent) was intruded upon by\nother races, coming either from Asia or from the Pacific Islands, from\nwhom were descended the various tribes which have occupied the soil down\nto the present time.\u201d[1]\n\nIt is true that this opinion is that generally held, and for this reason\nI have selected for reprinting some articles intended to show that it is\nutterly fallacious\u2014devoid of any respectable foundation.\n\nThe first two papers treat of the arch\u00e6ologic material, and its value\nfor ascertaining the pre-historic life of the American race; the third,\non its pretended affinities to Asiatic peoples. These are followed by\ntwo papers respectively on the Toltecs and Mound-Builders, setting\naright, I hope, the position of these semi-mythical shapes in the\nculture-history of North America, maintaining that for neither do we\nhave to call in as explanation migrations from Asia, Europe, Oceanica or\nAfrica, as has so often been attempted.\n\n\n\n\n  A REVIEW OF THE DATA FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRE-HISTORIC CHRONOLOGY OF\n                              AMERICA.[2]\n\n\nEarly in this century the doubt was expressed by Alexander von\nHumboldt[3] whether it is philosophical to inquire into the origin of\nany of the human races or sub-species. Although he expressed this doubt\nwith particular reference to the American race, I believe I am right in\nassuming that the hesitancy he felt in pushing inquiry so far should now\ndiminish in view of new methods of research and a wider range of\nobservations. We may not, in fact we shall not, be able to trace the\nAmerican or any other sub-species directly back to its origin in place\nor time; but by reviewing all the data which have been offered in\nsolution of such a problem, we may perceptibly narrow the question, and\nalso estimate the relative value of the means proposed. It is to such a\nreview, applied to the American race, that I now invite your attention.\n\nThe data upon which theories of the antiquity, the genealogy and the\naffinities of this race have been constructed are varied. For\nconvenience of treatment I shall class them under six heads. They are:\n\nI. _Legendary_, including the traditions of the native tribes and their\nown statements of their history.\n\nII. _Monumental_, where we have to do with those structures whose age or\ncharacter seems to throw light on the question.\n\nIII. _Industrial_, under which heading we may inquire as to the origin\nof both the useful and the decorative arts in the New World.\n\nIV. _Linguistic_, broaching the immense and important questions as to\nthe diversity and affinities of languages.\n\nV. _Physical_, which takes into consideration the anatomic and\nmorphologic peculiarities of the American race; and finally,\n\nVI. _Geologic_, where its position in the geologic horizons is to be\ndetermined, and the influence upon it of the physical geography of the\ncontinent.\n\n_Legendary._ Turning to the first of these, the legendary data, I\nconfess to a feeling of surprise that learned scholars should still hold\nto the opinion that the native tribes, even some of the most savage of\nthem, retain to this day traditions which they had brought from their\nsupposed Asiatic homes. Thus the missionaries, Bishop Henry Faraud and\nthe Abb\u00e9 Emile Petitot, both entirely familiar with the Cree and the\nAthapaskan languages and lore, insist that the myths and legends of\nthese tribes bear such strong resemblances to the Semitic traditions\nthat both must have had a common origin.[4] No one can deny the\nresemblance; but the scientific student of mythology discovers such\nidentities too frequently, and at points too remote, to ask any other\nexplanation for them than the common nature of the human mind.\n\nThe question has been often raised how long a savage tribe, ignorant of\nwriting, is likely to retain the memory of past deeds. From a great many\nexamples in America and elsewhere, it is probable that the lapse of five\ngenerations, or say two centuries, completely obliterates all\nrecollection of historic occurrences. Of course, there are certain\nevents of continuous influence which may be retained in memory\nlonger\u2014for example, the federation of prominent tribes; and perhaps a\ngenealogy may run back farther. My friend, Dr. Franz Boas, informs me\nthat some tribes on Vancouver\u2019s Island pretend to preserve their\ngenealogies for twelve or fifteen generations back; but he adds that the\nremoter names are clearly of mythical purport.\n\nIt appears obvious that all efforts to establish a pre-historic\nchronology by means of the legends of savage tribes, are and must be\nvain.\n\nThe case is not much better with those semi-civilized American nations,\nthe Mayas and Nahuas, who possessed a partially phonetic alphabet, or\nwith the Quichuas, who preserved their records by the ingenious device\nof the quipu. Manco Capac, the alleged founder of the Peruvian state,\nfloats before us as a vague and mythical figure, though he is placed in\ntime not earlier than the date when Leif, the son of Erik, anchored his\nwar-ship on the Nova Scotian coast.[5] Historians are agreed that the\nlong lists of Incas in the pages of Montesinos, extending about two\nthousand years anterior to the Conquest, are spurious, due to the\nimagination or the easy credulity of that writer.\n\nThe annals of Mexico fare no better before the fire of criticism. It is\nextremely doubtful that their earliest reminiscences refer to any event\noutside the narrow valley parcelled out between the petty states of\nTenochtitlan, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan.[6] The only fact that bears out the\nlong and mysterious journey from the land of the Seven Caves,\nChicomoztoc, in the distant northwest, by the great water, is that the\nlearned and indefatigable Buschmann has conclusively shown that the four\nlanguages of Sonora and all the dialects of the Shoshonian family reveal\nmarks of continued and deep impressions of the Nahuatl tongue.[7] But\nthe chronicles of Mexico proper contain no fixed date prior to that of\nthe founding of the city of Tenochtitlan, in the year 1325 of our era.\n\nI am aware that there are still some writers who maintain that both the\nMexican and the Maya astronomic cycles assume a commencement for their\nrecords centuries, even thousands of years, before the beginning of our\nera. These opinions, however, have not obtained the assent of other\nstudents. We are too ignorant both of the astronomy and the methods of\nwriting of these nations to admit such claims; and the facts advanced\nare capable of quite other interpretation.\n\nIt is, on the whole, rare for the American tribes to declare themselves\nautochthonous. The Mayas, on the peninsula of Yucatan, stated that their\nearliest ancestors came there from beyond the seas, some from the far\neast, others from the west. So the Toltecs, under Quetzalcoatl, were\nfabled to have entered Mexico from beyond the Eastern Ocean. The Creeks\nand Choctaws pointed to the west, the Algonkins generally to the east,\nas their primal home.[8] These legends are chiefly mythical, not much\ntruer than those of other tribes who claimed to have climbed up from\nsome under-world. Sifting them all, we shall find in them little to\nenlighten us as to the pre-historic chronology of the tribes, though\nthey may furnish interesting vistas in comparative mythology.\n\nThat in which we may expect the legends of tribes to be of most avail is\ntheir later history, the record of their wars, migrations and social\ndevelopment within a few generations. The spirit of the uncivilized man\nis, however, very careless of the past. We have means of testing the\nexactness of such traditions in some instances, and the result is rarely\nsuch as to inspire confidence in verbal records. Those of you who were\npresent at the last meeting will remember how diversely two able\nstudents of Iroquois tradition estimated its value. Even when remarkable\nevents are not forgotten, the dates of their occurrence are generally\nvague. The inference, therefore, is that very few data, dependent on\nlegendary evidence alone, can be accepted.\n\n_Monumental._ When we turn to the monumental data, to the architecture\nand structural relics of the ancient Americans, we naturally think first\nof the imposing stone-built fortresses of Peru, the massive pyramids and\ntemples of Yucatan and Mexico, and the vast brick-piles of the Pueblo\nIndians.\n\nIt is doubtful if any of these notable monuments supply pre-historic\ndates of excessive antiquity. The pueblos, both those now occupied and\nthe vastly greater number whose ruins lie scattered over the valleys and\nmesas of New Mexico and Arizona, were constructed by the ancestors of\nthe tribes who still inhabit that region, and this at no distant day.\nThough we cannot assign exact dates to the development of this peculiar\ncivilization, there are abundant reasons, drawn from language, physical\ngeography and the character of the architecture, to include all these\nstructures within the period since the commencement of our era.[9]\n\nThere is every reason to suppose that the same is true of all the stone\nand brick edifices of Mexico and Central America. The majority of them\nwere occupied at the period of the Conquest; others were in process of\nbuilding; and of others the record of the date of their construction was\nclearly in memory and was not distant. Thus, the famous temple of\nHuitzilopochtli at Tenochtitlan, and the spacious palace\u2014or, if you\nprefer the word, \u201ccommunal house\u201d\u2014of the ruler of Tezcuco, had been\ncompleted within the lifetime of many who met the Spaniards. To be sure,\neven then there were once famous cities fallen to ruin and sunk to\noblivion in the tropical forests. Such was Palenque, which could not\nhave failed to attract the attention of Cortes had it been inhabited.\nSuch also was T\u2019Ho, on the site of the present city of M\u00e9rida, Yucatan,\nwhere the earliest explorers found lofty stone mounds and temples\ncovered with a forest as heavy as the primitive growth around it.[10]\nBut tradition and the present condition of such of these old cities as\nhave been examined, unite in the probability that they do not antedate\nthe Conquest more than a few centuries.\n\nIn the opinion of some observers, the enigmatical ruins on the plain of\nTiahuanaco, a few leagues from the shore of Lake Titicaca, in Peru,\ncarry us far, very far, beyond any such modern date. \u201cEven the memory of\ntheir builders,\u201d says one of the more recent visitors to these\nmarvellous relics, General Bartolom\u00e9 Mitre, \u201ceven their memory was lost\nthousands of years before the discovery of America.\u201d[11]\n\nSuch a statement is neither more nor less than a confession of\nignorance. We have not discovered the period nor the people concerned in\nthe ruins of Tiahuanaco. It must be remembered that they are not the\nremains of a populous city, but merely the foundations and beginnings of\nsome vast religious edifice which was left incomplete, probably owing to\nthe death of the projector or to unforeseen difficulties. If this is\nborne in mind, much of the obscurity about the origin, the purpose and\nthe position of these structures will be removed. They do not justify a\nclaim to an age of thousands of years before the Conquest; hundreds will\nsuffice. Nor is it necessary to assent to the opinion advanced by\nGeneral Mitre, and supported by some other arch\u00e6ologists, that the most\nancient monuments in America are those of most perfect construction,\nand, therefore, that in this continent there has been, in civilization,\nnot progress but failure, not advance but retrogression.\n\nThe uncertainty which rests over the age of the structures at Tiahuanaco\nis scarcely greater than that which still shrouds the origin of the\nmounds and earthworks of the Ohio and Upper Mississippi valleys. Yet I\nventure to say that the opinion is steadily gaining ground that these\ninteresting memorials of vanished nations are not older than the\nmedi\u00e6val period of European history. The condition of the arts which\nthey reveal indicates a date that we must place among the more recent in\nAmerican chronology. The simple fact that tobacco and maize were\ncultivated plants is evidence enough for this.[12]\n\nThere is, however, a class of monuments of much greater antiquity than\nany I have mentioned. These are the artificial shell-heaps which are\nfound along the shores of both oceans and of many rivers in both North\nand South America. They correspond to the kitchen-middens of European\narch\u00e6ology.\n\nIn several parts of the continent they have been examined by competent\nobservers and the question of their date approximately ascertained. I\nneed not say this differs widely, for these refuse heaps of ancient\nvillages or stations were of course begun at wide intervals.\n\nLong ago I called attention to the singular size and antiquity of those\nI found in Florida and along the Tennessee River;[13] and the later\nresearches of Professor Jeffries Wyman would, in his opinion, measure\nthe age of some of the former by tens of thousands of years.[14]\n\nFurther to the south, in Costa Rica, Dr. Earl Flint has examined the\nextensive artificial shell deposits which are found along the shores of\nthat republic. They are many feet in height, covered by a dense forest\nof primeval appearance, and are undoubtedly of human origin.\n\nIn Brazil such shell-heaps are called _sambaquis_, and they are of\nfrequent occurrence along the bays and inlets of the coast. Some of them\nare of extraordinary dimensions, rising occasionally to more than a\nhundred feet in height. The lower layers have been consolidated into a\nfirm, stony breccia of shells and bones, while the surface stratum, from\nsix to ten feet thick, is composed of sand and vegetable loam supporting\na growth of the largest trees. Yet even the lowest layers of this\nbreccia, or shell-conglomerate, yield tokens of human industry, as stone\naxes, flint arrow-heads, chisels, and fragments of very rude pottery, as\nwell as human bones, sometimes split to extract the marrow. The shells\nare by no means all of modern type. Many are of species now wholly\nextinct, or extinct in the locality. This fact alone carries us back to\nan antiquity which probably should be counted by thousands of years\nbefore our era.\n\nAt that remote period not only did a fishing and hunting race dwell\nalong the Brazilian coast, but this race was fairly advanced on the path\nto culture; it was acquainted with pottery, with compound implements,\nand with the polishing of stone. We further know that this race was not\nthat which occupied the land when the whites discovered it; for the\nhuman skulls disinterred from the sambaquis are, craniologically, almost\ndiametrically opposite those of the Botocudos and the Tupis. Yet if we\ncan trust the researches of Dr. Lund in the caverns of Brazil, the\noldest skulls in these deposits, found in immediate connection with the\nbones of extinct mammalia, belonged to the ancestors of these tribes.\nMarkedly dolichocephalic, they present an entire contrast to the\nbrachycephalic type from the sambaquis.[15]\n\nThis class of monuments, therefore, supply us data which prove man\u2019s\nexistence in America in what some call the \u201cdiluvial,\u201d others the\n\u201cquaternary,\u201d and others again the \u201cpleistocene\u201d epoch\u2014that\ncharacterized by the presence of some extinct species.\n\n_Industrial._ Let us now turn to the industrial activity of the American\nrace, and see whether it will furnish us other data concerning the\npre-historic life of the New World. We may reasonably look in this\ndirection for aid, since it is now universally conceded that at no time\ndid man spring into being fully armed and equipped for the struggle for\nexistence, but everywhere followed the same path of painful effort from\nabsolute ignorance and utter feebleness to knowledge and power. At\nfirst, his only weapons or tools were such as he possessed in common\nwith the anthropoid apes: to wit, an unshapen stone and a broken stick.\nLittle by little, he learned to fit his stone to his hand and to chip it\nto an edge, and with this he could sharpen the end of his stick, thus\nproviding himself with a spear and an axe.\n\nIt was long before he learned to shape and adjust the stone to the end\nof the stick, and to hurl this by means of a cord attached to a second\nand elastic stick\u2014in other words, a bow; still longer before he\ndiscovered the art of fashioning clay into vessels and of polishing and\nboring stones. These simple arts are landmarks in the progress of the\nrace: the latter divides the history of culture into the pal\u00e6olithic or\nrough stone period, and the neolithic or polished stone period; while\nthe shaping of a stone for attachment to a handle or shaft marks the\ndifference between the epoch of compound implements and the earlier\nepoch of simple implements, both included in the older or pal\u00e6olithic\nage.[16] With these principles as guides, we may ask how far back on\nthis scale do the industrial relics in America carry us?\n\nI have spoken of the great antiquity of some of the American\nshell-heaps, how they carry us back to the diluvial epoch, and that of\nnumerous extinct species. Yet it is generally true that in the oldest\nhitherto examined in Brazil, Guiana, Costa Rica and Florida, fragments\nof pottery, of polished stone, and compound implements, occur even in\nthe lowest strata.[17] Venerable though they are, they supply no date\nolder than what in Europe we should call the neolithic period. The\narrow-heads which have been exhumed from the loess of the ancient\nlake-beds of Nebraska, the net-sinkers and celts which have been\nrecovered from the auriferous gravels of California, prove by their form\nand finish that the tribes who fashioned them had already taken long\nstrides beyond the culture of the earlier pal\u00e6olithic age. The same is\ntrue, though in a less degree, of the chipped stones and bones which\nAmeghino exhumed from the lacrustine deposits of the Pampas, although he\nproves that these relics were the products of tribes contemporary with\nthe extinct glyptodon and mylodon, as well as the fossil horse and dog.\nIn the very oldest station which he examined, there appears to have been\nfound a quartz arrow-head; yet he argues that this station dated from\nthe pliocene division of the tertiary, long anterior to the austral\nglacial epoch.[18] This leaves another such open conflict between\ngeology and the history of culture, as Professor Rau has already pointed\nout as existing in Californian arch\u00e6ology.\n\nThere is, however, one station in America which has furnished an ample\nline of specimens, and among them not one, so far as I know, indicating\na knowledge of compound implements. This is that of the \u201cTrenton\ngravels,\u201d New Jersey. There we appear to be in face of a stage of\nculture as primitive as that of the stations of Chelles and St. Acheul\nin France, absolutely without pottery, without polished stone, without\ncompound implements.[19]\n\nAssuming that these post-glacial gravels about Trenton supply one of the\nearliest authentic starting points in the history of culture on this\ncontinent, the later developments of industry will furnish a number of\nother data. This first date was long before the extinction of the native\nAmerican horse, the elephant, the mammoth, and other animals important\nto early man. There is nothing unlikely therefore in the reported\ndiscoveries of his pointed flints or his bones in place along with the\nremains of these quadrupeds.\n\nNot only the form but the material of implements supplies us data. If\nman in his earliest stage was, as some maintain, quite migratory, it is\ncertain that he did not carry his stone implements with him, nor did he\nobtain by barter or capture those of other tribes. All the oldest\nimplements are manufactured from the rocks of the locality. When,\ntherefore, we find a weapon of a material not obtainable in the\nvicinity, we have a sure indication that it belongs to a period of\ndevelopment considerably later than the earliest. When the obsidian of\nthe Yellowstone Park is found in Ohio, when the black slate of\nVancouver\u2019s Island is exhumed in Delaware, it is obvious we must assume\nfor such extensive transits a very noticeable \u00e6sthetic and commercial\ndevelopment.\n\nI can but touch in the lightest manner on the data offered by the vast\nrealm of industrial activity. The return it offers is abundant, but the\nharvesting delicate. In the dissemination of certain kinds of arts,\ncertain inventions, certain decorative designs and \u00e6sthetic conceptions\nfrom one tribe to another, we have a most valuable means of tracing the\npre-historic intercourse of nations: but we must sedulously discriminate\nsuch borrowing from the synchronous and similar development of\nindependent culture under like conditions.\n\nIn one department of industry we shall be largely free from this danger,\nthat is, in the extension of agriculture. One of America\u2019s ablest\nethnologists, Dr. Charles Pickering, as the result of a lifetime devoted\nto his science, finally settled upon the extension of cultivated plants\nas the safest guide in the labyrinth of pre-historic migrations. Its\nvalue is easily seen in America when we reflect that the two tropical\nplants, maize and tobacco, extended their area in most remote times from\ntheir limited local habitat about the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the\nnorth as far as the St. Lawrence river and to the south quite to the\nArchipelago of Chiloe. Their presence is easily traced by the stone or\nearthen-ware implements required for their use. How many ages it must\nhave required for these plants to have thus extended their domain, amid\nhostile and savage tribes, through five thousand miles of space! The\nsquash, the bean, the potato and the mandioca, are native food-plants\noffering in a less degree similar material for tracing ancient commerce\nand migration. Humboldt and others have claimed as much for the banana\n(_Musa paradisiaca_), but the recent researches of Dr. Karl von den\nSteinen have removed that valued fruit from the list of native American\nplants. Both species of banana (_M. paradisiaca_ and _M. sapientium_)\nwere undoubtedly introduced into the New World after the discovery.[20]\nIndeed, summing up the reply to an inquiry which has often been\naddressed to the industrial evolution of the indigenes of our continent,\nI should say that they did not borrow a single art or invention nor a\nsingle cultivated plant from any part of the Old World previous to the\narrival of Columbus. What they had was their own, developed from their\nown soil, the outgrowth of their own lives and needs.\n\n_Linguistic._ This individuality of the race is still more strongly\nexpressed in their languages. You are all aware that it is upon\nlinguistic data almost exclusively that American ethnology has been and\nmust be based. The study of the native tongues becomes therefore of\ntranscendent importance in the pre-historic chronology of the Continent.\nBut to obtain its best results, this study must be conducted in a much\nmore thorough manner than has hitherto been the custom.\n\nIn America we are confronted with an astonishing multiplicity of\nlinguistic stocks. They have been placed at about eighty in North and\none hundred in South America. It is stated that there are that many\nradically diverse in elements and structure. To appreciate the vista in\ntime that this fact opens to our thoughts, we must recognize the\ntenacity of life manifested by these tongues. Some of them have scores\nof dialects, spoken by tribes wandering over the widest areas. Take the\nAthapascan or Tinn\u00e9, for example, found in its greatest purity amid the\ntribes who dwell on the Arctic sea, and along the Mackenzie river, in\nBritish America, but which is also the tongue of the Apaches who carried\nit almost to the valley of Mexico. The Algonkin was spoken from Hudson\nBay to the Savannah river and from Newfoundland to the Rocky Mountains.\nThe Guarani of the Rio de la Plata underlies dialects which were current\nas far north as Florida.\n\nHow, then, in spite of such tenacity of American languages, have so many\nstocks come into existence? This was the question which my predecessor\nin this chair last year undertook to answer. His suggestions appear to\nme extremely valuable, and only in one point do I widely differ from\nhim, and that is, in the length of time required for these numerous\ntongues to originate, to sever into dialects and to be carried to\ndistant regions.[21] According to the able linguist, Dr. Stoll, the\ndifference which is presented between the Cakchiquel and Maya dialects\ncould not have arisen in less than two thousand years;[22] and any one\nwho has carefully compared the earliest grammars of an American tongue\nwith its present condition will acknowledge that the changes are\nsurprisingly few. To me the exceeding diversity of languages in America\nand the many dialects into which these have split, are cogent proofs of\nthe vast antiquity of the race, an antiquity stretching back tens of\nthousands of years. Nothing less can explain these multitudinous forms\nof speech.\n\nUnderlying all these varied forms of expression, however, I think future\ninvestigation will demonstrate some curious identities of internal form,\ntraits almost or entirely peculiar to American languages, and never\nquite absent from any of them.\n\nSuch was the opinion of the two earliest philosophical investigators of\nthese tongues, P. S. Duponceau and Wilhelm von Humboldt. They called\nthese traits _polysynthesis_ and _incorporation_, and it was proposed to\napply the term _incorporative_ as a distinguishing adjective to all\nAmerican languages. Of late years this opinion has been earnestly\ncombatted by M. Lucien Adam and others; but my own studies have led me\nto adopt the views of the older analysts against these modern critics. I\ndo not think that the student can compare any two stocks on the\ncontinent without being impressed with the resemblance of their\nexpression of the relations of Being, through the incorporative plan.\n\nAlong with this identity of plan, there co\u00ebxists the utmost independence\nof expression. An American language is usually perfectly transparent.\nNothing is easier than to reduce it to its ultimate elements, its\nfundamental radicals. These are few in numbers and interjectional in\ncharacter. The Athapascan, the Algonkin, whose wide extension I have\nreferred to, have been reduced to half a dozen particles or sounds\nexpressive of the simplest conceptions.[23] Upon these, by combination,\nrepetition, imitation and other such processes, the astonishing\nstructure of the tongue has been erected, every portion of it displaying\nthe mechanism of its origin. It is this transparency which renders these\ntongues so attractive to the philosophic student of human expression,\nand so valuable to him who would obtain from them the record of the\nprogress of the nation.\n\nA thorough study of such a language would embrace its material, its\nformal and its psychologic contents. Its material elements include the\npeculiarities of its vocabulary: for example, its numerals and the\nsystem they indicate, its words for weights and measures, for color and\ndirection, for relations of consanguinity and affinity, for articles of\nuse and ornament, for social and domestic conditions, and the like.\n\nFew studies of American languages go beyond this material or\nlexicographic limit; but in truth these are merely the externalities of\na tongue, and have nothing to do with linguistic science proper. This\nconcerns itself with the forms of the language, with the relation of\nparts of speech to each other and to the sentence, and with the\nhistorical development of the grammatical categories. Beyond this,\nagain, is the determination of the psychical character of the tribe\nthrough the forms instinctively adopted for the expression of its\nthoughts, and reciprocally the reaction exerted by these forms on the\nlater intellectual growth of those who were taught them as their only\nmeans of articulate expression.\n\nThese are data of the highest value in the study of prehistoric time;\nbut so far as America is concerned, I could name very few scholars who\nhave pursued this promising line of research.\n\n_Physical._ Much more attention has been paid to the physical than the\nlinguistic data of the native Americans, but it may freely be said, with\nnot more satisfactory results. This failure is partly owing to the\npreconceived notions which still govern the study of ethnology. Linn\u00e6us\noffered the cautious division of the human species into races named from\nthe five great geographical areas it inhabited; Blumenbach pointed out\nthat this roughly corresponded with the division into five colors, the\nwhite, black, yellow, brown and red races, occupying respectively\nEurope, Africa, Asia, Polynesia and America. Unfortunately, Cuvier chose\nto simplify this scheme, by merging the brown and red races, the\nPolynesian or Malayan and the American, into the yellow or Mongolian.\nThe latest writers of the French school, and I am sorry to add various\nAmericans, servilely follow this groundless rejection of the older\nscheme, and speak of Malayans and Americans alike as Mongolians or\nMongoloids. Neither in language nor ethnic anatomy is there any more\nresemblance than between whites and Mongolians.\n\nIt is gratifying to see that the more accurate German investigators\ndecidedly reject the blunder of Cuvier, and declare that the American\nrace is as independent as any other of those named. Thus Dr. Paul\nEhrenreich, who has lately published an admirable monograph on the\nBotocudos of Brazil, a tribe often quoted for its so-called \u201cMongoloid\u201d\naspect, declares that any such assertion must be contradicted in\npositive terms. Both in osteology and anatomy, in formation of the hair\nand shape of the skull, the differences are marked, permanent and\nradical.\n\nWhat is true of the Botocudos is not less so of the other American\ntribes which are claimed to present Mongolian traits. Such assertions\nare based on the superficial observations of travellers, most of whom do\nnot know the first principles of ethnic anatomy. This is sufficiently\nshown by the importance they attach to the oblique eye, a slight\nmalformation of the skin of scarcely any weight.[24]\n\nThe anatomy and physiology of the various American tribes present,\nindeed, great diversity, and yet, beneath it all is a really remarkable\nfixedness of type. We observe this diversity in the shape of the skull,\nwhich may be, as among the Botocudos, strictly dolichocephalic, while\nthe Araucanians are brachycephalic; the nasal index varies more than in\nthe extremest members of the white race; the tint of the skin may be a\ndark brown with an under-color of red, or of so light a hue that a blush\nis easily perceptible. The beard is usually absent, but D\u2019Orbigny\nvisited a tribe who wore it full and long.[25] The height varies from an\naverage of six feet four inches for adult males in Patagonia to less\nthan five feet among the Warraus of Guiana; and so it is with all the\nother traits of the race. There is not one which is not subject to\nextensive variation.\n\nOn the other hand, these variations are not greater than can be adduced\nin various members of the white or black race. In spite of them all,\nthere is a wonderful family likeness among tribes of American origin. No\nobserver well acquainted with the type would err in taking it for\nanother. Darwin says that the Fuegians so closely resemble the Botocudos\nthat they seem members of the same tribe. I have seen Arawacks from\nGuiana who in the northwest would have passed for Sioux.\n\nIn spite of the total dissimilarity of climate and other physical\nsurroundings, the tribes of the tropics differ no more from those near\nthe Arctic circle than they do among themselves. This is a striking\nlesson how independent of environment are the essential characteristics\nof a race, and it is a sweeping refutation of those theories which make\nsuch characteristics dependent upon external agencies.\n\nA still more remarkable fact has been demonstrated by Professor J.\nKollmann of B\u00e2le: to wit, that the essential physical identity of the\nAmerican race is as extended in time as it is in space. This accurate\nstudent has analyzed the cranioscopic formulas of the most ancient\nAmerican skulls, those from the alleged tertiary deposits of the Pampas,\nthose from the caverns of Lagoa Santa in Brazil, that obtained from Rock\nBluff, Illinois, the celebrated Calaveras skull from California, and one\nfrom Pontemelo in Buenos Ayres of geologic antiquity. His results are\nmost interesting. These very ancient remains prove that in all important\ncraniologic indicia the earliest Americans, those who were\ncontemporaries of the fossil horse and other long since extinct\nquadrupeds, possessed the same racial character as the natives of the\npresent day, with similar skulls and a like physiognomy.[26] We reach\ntherefore the momentous conclusion that the American race throughout the\nwhole continent, and from its earliest appearance in time, is and has\nbeen _one_, as distinct in type as any other race, and from its\nisolation probably the purest of all in its racial traits. This is a\nfact of the first order in establishing its prehistoric chronology.\n\n_Geologic._ I have left the geologic data to the last, as it is these\nwhich carry us with reasonable safety to the remotest periods. No one\nwho examines the evidence will now deny that man lived in both North and\nSouth America during and after the glacial epochs, and that he was the\ncontemporary of many species of animals now extinct. As you are aware,\nthe attempt has several times been made to fix the date for the final\nretrocession of the glaciers of North America. The estimates have varied\nfrom about 12,000 years ago up to 50,000, with a majority in favor of\nabout 35,000 years.\n\nThere have also been various discoveries which are said to place the\nhuman species in America previous to the appearance of the glaciers.\nSome remains of man\u2019s industry or of his skeleton have been reported\nfrom interglacial, others from tertiary deposits.[27] Unfortunately,\nthese finds have not always been sufficient, or not of a character to\nconvince the arch\u00e6ologist. I have before adverted to the impossibility,\nfor instance, of an arch\u00e6ologist accepting the discovery of a\nfinely-polished stone implement in a tertiary gravel, except as an\nintrusive deposit. It is a violent anachronism, which is without a\nparallel in other countries. Even the discovery of a compound implement,\nas a stemmed arrowhead, in strata of tertiary date, is, with our present\nknowledge, quite out of the question.\n\nAlthough there are well recognized signs of glacial action in South\nAmerica, it is not certain that the glacial epoch coincided in time in\nthe two continents. That there was a reasonable approximation is\nprobable from the appearance of later deposits. We may suppose therefore\nthat the habitable area of the New World was notably less at that\nperiod, and that the existing tribes were confined to a much narrower\nspace. This would force them into closer relations, and tend powerfully\nto the production of that uniformity of type to which I have before\nreferred.\n\nWe might also expect to discover in the tropical regions of America more\nfrequent evidence of the primitive Americans than in either temperate\nzone. This has not been the case, probably because the geologic deposits\nof the tropics have been less investigated. Throughout the West Indies\nthere is an entire absence of pal\u00e6olithic remains. Those islands were\nfirst peopled by tribes in the polished stone stage of culture. In the\nvalley of Mexico human remains have been disinterred from a volcanic\ndeposit of supposed tertiary age, and you have all heard of those human\nfootprints which Dr. Earl Flint has unearthed in Nicaragua. These are\nfound under layers of compact volcanic tufas, separated by strata of\nsand and vegetable loam. There can be no doubt of their human origin or\nof their great antiquity; but no geologist need be informed of the\ndifficulty of assigning an age to volcanic strata, especially in a\ntropical country, subject to earthquakes, subsidence and floods.[28]\n\nIt would not be in accordance with my present purpose to examine the\nnumerous alleged finds of human remains in the strata of the tertiary\nand quaternary. All such furnish data for the pre-historic chronology of\nAmerica, and should be carefully scrutinized by him who would obtain\nfurther light upon that chronology. I must hasten to some other\nconsiderations which touch the remote events to which I am now alluding.\n\nSince a comparison of the fauna of South America and Africa, and a\nsurvey of the sea-bottom between those continents, have dispelled the\ndream of the ancient Atlantis, and relegated that land connection at\nleast to the eocene period of the tertiary, no one can suppose the\nAmerican man to have migrated from Africa or southwestern Europe. For\nother and equally solid reasons, no immigration of Polynesians can be\nassumed. Yet zo\u00f6logists, perfectly willing to derive man from an\nanthropoid, and polygenists to the utmost, hesitate to consider man an\nautochthon in the New World. There is too wide a gap between the highest\nmonkeys and the human species in this continent.[29] Discoveries of\nfossil apes might bridge this, but none such has been reported.\n\nIf we accept the theory that man as a species spread from one primal\ncentre, and in the higher plasticity of his early life separated into\nwell defined races, which became unalterably fixed not much later than\nthe close of the glacial epoch\u2014and this theory appears to be that now\nmost agreeable to anthropologists\u2014then the earliest Americans made their\nadvent on this continent as immigrants. This is our first fact in their\npre-historic chronology; but before we can assign it an accurate\nposition on the scale of geologic time, we must await more complete\ndiscoveries than we now have at our command.\n\nWe must also wait until our friends the geologists have come to some\nbetter understanding among themselves as to what took place in the\npleistocene age. You have heard me talking freely about the glacial\nepoch and its extension in America; but geologists are by no means of\none mind as to this extension, and a respectable minority of them, led\nby Sir J. William Dawson, deny the existence or even possibility of any\ncontinental glacier. What others point out as a terminal moraine they\nexplain to be \u201cnothing but the southern limit of the ice-drift of a\nperiod of submergence.\u201d[30]\n\nIt is clear that when we speak about the migration of the Americans at a\ntime when the polar half of each continent was either covered with a\nglacier thousands of feet thick, or submerged to that depth beneath an\narctic sea, we have to do with geographical conditions totally unlike\nthose of to-day. I call attention to this obvious fact because it has\nnot been obvious to all writers.\n\nIn your arch\u00e6ological reading you will rarely come across a prettier\npiece of theoretical history than Mr. Lewis A. Morgan\u2019s description of\nthe gradual peopling of the two Americas by tracing the lines of easiest\nsubsistence. He begins at the fishy rivers of the northwest coast, and\nfollows the original colony which he assumes landed at that point, all\nthe way to Patagonia and Florida.[31] But how baseless becomes this\nvision when we consider the geography of America as it is shown by\ngeology to have been at a period contemporary with the earliest remains\nof man! We know to a certainty that the human race had already spread\nfar and wide over both its continental areas before Mr. Morgan\u2019s lines\nof easiest nutrition had come into existence.\n\nProperly employed, a study of those geologic features of a country which\ndetermine its geography will prove of vast advantage in ascertaining the\nevents of pre-historic time. These features undoubtedly fixed the lines\nof migration and of early commerce. Man in his wanderings has always\nbeen guided by the course of rivers, the trend of mountain chains, the\ndirection of ocean currents, the position of deserts, passes and swamps.\nThe railroad of to-day follows the trail of the primitive man, and the\nrivers have ever been the natural highways of nations. The theories of\nMorgan therefore remain true as theories; only in their application he\nfell into an error which was natural enough to the science of twenty\nyears ago. Perhaps when twenty years more shall have elapsed, the\npost-tertiary geology of our continent will have been so clearly defined\nthat the geography of its different epochs will be known sufficiently to\ntrace these lines of migration at the various epochs of man\u2019s residence\nin the western world, from his first arrival.\n\nI have now set before you, in a superficial manner it is true, the\nvarious sources from which we may derive aid in establishing the\npre-historic chronology of America. I have also endeavored, to a limited\nextent, to express myself as to the relative value of these sources.\nNone of them can be neglected, and it will be only from an exhaustive\nstudy of them all that we can expect to solve the numerous knotty\nproblems, and lift the veil which hangs so darkly on all that concerns\nthe existence of the American race before the sixteenth century.\n\nWe are merely beginning the enormous labor which is before us; we have\nyet to discover the methods by which we can analyze fruitfully the facts\nwe already know. But I look forward with the utmost confidence to a rich\nreturn from such investigations. The day is coming, and that rapidly,\nwhen the pre-historic life of man in both the New and the Old World will\nbe revealed to us in a thousand unexpected details. We have but to turn\nbackward about thirty years to reach a time when the science of\npre-historic arch\u00e6ology was unknown, and its early gropings were jeered\nat as absurdities. Already it has established for itself a position in\nthe first rank of the sciences which have to do with the highest of\nproblems. It has cast a light upon the pathway of the human race from\nthe time that man first deserved his name down to the commencement of\nrecorded history. Its conquests are but beginning. Year by year masses\nof new facts are brought to knowledge from unexpected quarters, current\nerrors are corrected, and novel methods of exploration devised.\n\nAs Americans by adoption, it should be our first interest and duty to\nstudy the Americans by race, in both their present and past development.\nThe task is long and the opportunity is fleeting. A century more, and\nthe anthropologist will scarcely find a native of pure blood; the tribes\nand languages of to-day will have been extinguished or corrupted. Nor\nwill the arch\u00e6ologist be in better case. Every day the progress of\ncivilization, ruthless of the monuments of barbarism, is destroying the\nfeeble vestiges of the ancient race; mounds are levelled, embankments\ndisappear, the stones of temples are built into factories, the holy\nplaces desecrated. We have assembled here to aid in recovering something\nfrom this wreck of a race and its monuments: let me urge upon you all\nthe need of prompt action and earnest work, inasmuch as the\nopportunities we enjoy will never again present themselves in such\nfulness.\n\n\n\n\n                 ON PAL\u00c6OLITHS, AMERICAN AND OTHER.[32]\n\n\nThere has been much talk in scientific circles lately about Pal\u00e6oliths,\nand much misunderstanding about them. Let me try to explain in a few\nwords what they are, what they tell, and what mistakes people make about\nthem.\n\nSince man first appeared on this planet, his history has been a slow\nprogress from the most rudimentary arts up to those which he now\npossesses. We know this, because in a given locality those remains of\nhis art which are found undisturbed in strata geologically the oldest\nare always the rudest. The exceptions to this rule are in appearance\nonly, as for instance when a given locality was not occupied by men\nuntil they had already acquired considerable knowledge of arts, or when\na cultivated nation was overrun by a barbarous one.\n\nThe general line of advance I have indicated shows, wherever we can\ntrace it, many similarities\u2014similarities not necessarily dependent on an\nancient intercourse, but simply because primitive man felt everywhere\nthe same wants, and satisfied them in pretty much the same manner. He\nfelt the need of defence and attack, and everywhere a stick and a stone\noffered themselves as the handiest and most effective weapons; he used\nboth wherever he was, and adapted them to like shapes.\n\nIn casting about for some standard wherewith to measure the long\nprogress from this simple beginning to the present day, antiquaries have\nhit upon a very excellent one\u2014the choice of a material employed at any\ngiven epoch for obtaining a cutting edge\u2014for manufacturing _l\u2019instrument\ntranchant_. Man conquers nature as he does his enemy\u2014by cutting her\ndown. The world at present uses iron, or its next product steel, for\nthat purpose; before it came into vogue many nations employed bronze;\nbut in the earliest periods of man\u2019s history, and to-day in some savage\ntribes, stone was the substance almost exclusively wrought for this\npurpose. These distinctions divide the progress of man into the three\ngreat periods; the Age of Iron, the Age of Bronze, and the Age of Stone.\n\nDo not make the mistake of supposing that the remains of human art\nreveal this sequence in every locality; I have already hinted that this\nis not the case. And do not make that other mistake of supposing that\nall three are found in chronologic sequence over the whole world. On the\ncontrary, they are synchronous even to-day, as there are now tribes in\nBrazil in the Age of Stone and nations in Asia in the Age of Bronze. The\nword \u201cAge\u201d in this connection does not mean a definite period of time,\nbut a recognized condition of art.\n\nIn Western Europe, however, where these terms originated, the three Ages\nwere chronologic. Previous to about two thousand years before the\nChristian era, all the nations in that region employed stone exclusively\nto manufacture their cutting implements; later, bronze was preferred for\nthe same purpose; and still later, iron. I say \u201cpreferred,\u201d for do not\nimagine that the implement of stone or of bronze was straightway\ndiscarded when the better material was learned. We know that stone\nbattle-axes were used in Ireland and Germany down to the tenth century,\nand bronze was employed by Romans and Egyptians long after they became\nacquainted with iron.\n\nEach of these three Ages has various subdivisions. Those of the Age of\nStone are particularly important. They are two, based upon the manner in\nwhich the stone was brought to an edge. All the specimens in\ngeologically the oldest deposits have been brought to an edge by a\nprocess of chipping off small pieces, so as to produce a sharp line or\ncrest on a part or the whole of the border of the stone. This artificial\nprocess leaves such peculiar traces that a practiced eye cannot confound\nit with any accidental chipping which natural means effect.\n\nThe later deposits of the Age of Stone show that the early workmen had\nacquired another manner of dressing their material; they rubbed one\nstone against another, thus grinding it down to a sharp polished edge.\n\nThese two methods give the names to the two periods of the Age of Stone,\nthe Period of Chipped Stone and the Period of Polished Stone. Do not\nsuppose, however, that the workmen in polished stone forgot the art of\nchipping stone. On the contrary, they continued it side by side with\ntheir new learning, and you will find on the sites of their workshops\nplenty of stone implements in form and technical production like the\nchipped implements of the older period.\n\nWe know that the polished or ground-stone implements came into use later\nthan the earliest chipped implements, for in the oldest beds the latter\nare found exclusively. Hence the time when they were used exclusively is\ncalled the older stone implement period or the Pal\u00e6olithic period;\nwhile, the time when both chipped and polished stones were used, metals\nwere yet unknown, is named the newer stone implement period, or the\nNeolithic period. A true \u201cPal\u00e6olith\u201d is a typical chipped stone\nimplement, the position of which when found leads us to believe that it\nwas manufactured in the older of these periods.\n\nWe are not entirely dependent on its position to decide its antiquity.\nThe kind of stone it is, the amount of weather-wearing or _patine_ it\nshows, certain characteristics of shape and size, the indication that\nthe chipping was done in a peculiar manner, all these aid the skilled\nobserver in pronouncing definitely as to whether it is a true Pal\u00e6olith.\n\nNor is position always a guarantee of antiquity. A genuine Pal\u00e6olith may\nhave been washed into newer strata, or be exposed by natural agencies on\nthe surface of the ground, and in such cases it may not be possible to\ndistinguish it from the products of Neolithic industry. A recent product\nof art may have sunk or been buried in an ancient stratum, and thus\nbecome what is termed an \u201cintrusive deposit.\u201d\n\nThe Pal\u00e6olithic period itself is advantageously subdivided further into\ntwo Epochs, an earlier one in which men made \u201csimple\u201d implements only,\nand a later one in which they manufactured \u201ccompound\u201d implements as\nwell. I was the first to point out this distinction, and as I have found\nit really useful, and as others have also expressed to me the value\nwhich it has been to them in this line of research, I will explain it\nfurther.[33] A \u201ccompound\u201d implement is one composed of several parts\nadapted to each other, as the bow and the arrow, the spear with its\nshaft and blade, or the axe with its head and helve and the means of\nfastening the one to the other. These were not early acquisitions.\nDuring long ages man contented himself with such tools or weapons as he\ncould frame of a single piece of wood or stone, simply holding it in his\nhand. When he found he could increase its effectiveness by fitting it to\na handle, the discovery marked an era in his culture.\n\nHe may indeed in his rudest ages have lashed a stone to the end of his\nclub, or have inserted a spall of flint in the split end of a stick; but\nthese are not compound implements in the proper sense of the term. The\nexpression means an art-product which clearly shows that it was but one\npart of a mechanical apparatus. The arrow-head with its stem, barbs and\nbody, the stone axe with its grooves or drilled perforation for the\nhandle, are incomplete in themselves, they disclose a preconceived plan\nfor the adjustment of parts which man in his earliest and rudest\ncondition does not seem to have possessed. The most ancient strata in\nwhich the remains of human art have been found, either in Europe or\nAmerica, yield \u201csimple\u201d implements only; \u201ccompound\u201d implements are a\nconquest of his inventive faculty at a later date.\n\nSo far as America is concerned it is probable that the oldest remains of\nman yet discovered on the northern continent have been those exhumed in\nthe valley of the Delaware River, in the states of Pennsylvania, New\nJersey and Delaware. According to the most careful geological observers\nthat large deposit of gravel covering about five thousand acres on both\nbanks of the river below Trenton is a post-glacial deposit not less than\ntwelve or fifteen thousand years old. Imbedded in this at various depths\na large number of true pal\u00e6oliths have been discovered by Dr. C. C.\nAbbott, Professor F. A. Putnam, myself and others. Every one of them so\nfar as I am aware belongs to the class of \u201csimple\u201d implements, not an\narrowhead nor grooved axe nor stemmed scraper having been reported.\n\nAnother deposit of gravel further down the Delaware River is much older:\nThe best authorities in such matters believe that it was deposited, not\nafter the recession of the great glacier which once covered Canada and\nthe northern portion of the United States, but while that tremendous\nphenomena was at its height, and when all the streams of the central\nUnited States were periodically choked with vast masses of ice and snow.\nIn this, which is called the Columbian gravel, chipped stone implements\nhave been found by Mr. Cresson, all of the \u201csimple\u201d variety, and at such\ndepths as to preclude the theory of an intrusive deposit. These\ndiscoveries carry the age of the appearance of man in the Delaware\nvalley back to a date which is possibly over a hundred thousand years\nago.\n\nThe great glacier left its mass of boulders, pebbles and broken stone,\nwhich it pushed before it, or carried with it, in a long line of\nso-called \u201cmoraines,\u201d extending, roughly speaking, from New York to St.\nLouis. In this mass, at its edges where the great wash from the melting\nice poured down, pal\u00e6oliths have been found in undisturbed position,\nproving that also there man had struggled with the inclemency of the\nice-age, and, poorly provided as he was, had come out victorious. Here\ntoo all the implements he left are of the \u201csimple\u201d type, indicating at\nonce the vast antiquity of the period and the presence of a race\nsubstantially the same as that to the east at the same date.\n\nNo tribe has been known to history which was confined to the knowledge\nof \u201csimple\u201d implements, or which manufactured stone implements\nexclusively in the Pal\u00e6olithic forms. Wherever, therefore, these are\nfound without the admixture of artificially ground or polished stones we\nmay be sure we face the remains of a time whose antiquity cannot be\nmeasured by any chronology applied to the historic records of humanity.\n\nThis enables us in a measure to define the limits of the region known to\nthe human race at this, its earliest epoch; with our present deficient\nknowledge we can do so only partially and by exclusion. It is safe to\nstate that in Europe Pal\u00e6olithic man did not occupy the central alpine\narea of Switzerland and its surroundings, nor the plains of Russia, nor\nany part of the Scandinavian peninsula, Scotland, Ireland, nor Iceland.\nIn North America he had no habitations north of the forty-first parallel\nof latitude except perhaps close to the shores of the two great\noceans;[34] it is not probable that his foot pressed the soil of any of\nthe West Indian Islands; but when the great Austral Glacier was in its\nrecession depositing the fertile loam of the pampas of Buenos Ayres\nhuman beings with their rude Pal\u00e6oliths were following up the retreating\nline of ice, as in the Northern Hemisphere. Ages uncounted and\nuncountable have passed since then, but man has left indestructible\nevidences that even in that early morn of his existence he had explored\nand conquered that continent which a late generation has chosen to call\n\u201cthe New World.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n     ON THE ALLEGED MONGOLIAN AFFINITIES OF THE AMERICAN RACE.[35]\n\n\nWere the question I am about to discuss one of merely theoretical\nbearings, I should not approach it; but the widespread belief that the\nAmerican tribes are genealogically connected with the Mongolians is\nconstantly directing and coloring the studies of many Americanists, very\nmuch as did at one time the belief that the red men are the present\nrepresentatives of the ten lost tribes of Israel. It is practically\nworth while, therefore, to examine the grounds on which the American\nrace is classed by these anthropologists as a branch of the Mongolian,\nand to inquire whether the ancient culture of America betrayed any\npositive signs of Mongolian influence.\n\nYou will permit me to avoid the discussion as to what constitutes races\nin anthropology. To me they are zo\u00f6logical sub-species, marked by fixed\nand correlated characteristics, impressed so firmly that they have\nsuffered no appreciable alteration within the historic period either\nthrough time or environment. In this sense, Blumenbach, in the last\ncentury, recognized five races, corresponding to the five great\nland-areas of the globe, and to their characteristic faunal and floral\ncentres. This division was an eminently scientific one, and still\nremains the most in accord with anatomical and linguistic research.\nAbout twenty years after the appearance of Blumenbach\u2019s work, however,\nthe eminent naturalist Cuvier published his great work on \u201cThe Animal\nKingdom,\u201d in which he rejected Blumenbach\u2019s classification, and proposed\none dividing the human species into three races,\u2014the white or Caucasian,\nthe black or Ethiopian, and the yellow or Mongolian. In the latter he\nincluded the Malays and the American Indians.\n\nThis triple division has been very popular in France, and to some extent\nin other countries. It is not, and it was not in its inception, a\nscientific deduction from observed facts, but was a sort of _a priori_\nhypothesis based on the physiological theories of Bichat, and at a later\nday derived support from the philosophic dreams of Auguste Comte.\nBichat, for instance, had recognized three fundamental physiological\nsystems in man\u2014the vegetative or visceral, the osso-muscular, and the\ncerebro-spinal. The anthropologists, in turn, considered it a happy\nthought to divide the human species into three races, each of which\nshould show the predominance of one or other of these systems. Thus the\nblack race was to show the predominance of the vegetative system; the\nyellow race, the osso-muscular system; the white race, the nervous\nsystem.[36] As Bichat had not discovered any more physiological systems,\nso there could be no more human races on the earth: and thus the sacred\ntriplets of the Comtian philosophy could be vindicated.\n\nHow little value attaches to any such generalizations you will readily\nperceive, and you will be prepared, with me, to dismiss them all, and to\nturn to the facts of the case, inquiring whether there are any traits of\nthe red race which justify their being called \u201cMongolian\u201d or\n\u201cMongoloid.\u201d\n\nSuch affinities have been asserted to exist in language, in culture, and\nin physical peculiarities, and I shall take these up _seriatim_ for\nexamination.\n\nFirst, as to language.\n\nThe great Mongolian stock is divided into the southern branch, speaking\nmonosyllabic, isolating languages, and the northern branch, whose\ndialects are polysyllabic and agglutinating. The latter are sometimes\ncalled Turanian or Ural-Altaic; and as they are geographically\ncontiguous to the Eskimo, and almost to the Athabascans, we might\nreasonably expect the linguistic kinship, if any exists, to be shown in\nthis branch of Mongol speech. Is such the case? Not in the least. To\nprove it, I think it enough to quote the positive statement of the best\nEuropean authority on the Ural-Altaic languages, Dr. Heinrich Winkler.\nHe emphatically says, that, in the present state of linguistic science,\nnot only is there no connection apparent between any Ural-Altaic and any\nAmerican language, but that such connection is shown to be highly\nimprobable. The evidence is all the other way.[37]\n\nI need not, therefore, delay over this part of my subject, but will\nproceed to inquire whether there are any American affinities to the\nmonosyllabic, isolating languages of Asia.\n\nThere is one prominent example, which has often been put forward, of a\nsupposed monosyllabic American language; and its relationship to the\nChinese has frequently been asserted\u2014a relationship, it has been said,\nextending both to its vocabulary and its grammar. This is the Otomi,\nspoken in and near the valley of Mexico. It requires, however, but a\nbrief analysis of the Otomi to see that it is not a monosyllabic\nlanguage in the linguistic sense, and that in its sentence-building it\nis incorporative and polysynthetic, like the great majority of American\ntongues, and totally unlike the Chinese. I may refer to my own published\nstudy of the Otomi, and to that of the Count de Charencey, as proving\nwhat I say.[38]\n\nSome have thought that the Maya of Yucatan has in its vocabulary a\ncertain number of Chinese elements; but all these can readily be\nexplained on the doctrine of coincidences. The Mexican antiquary Mendoza\nhas marshalled far more coincidences of like character and equal worth\nto show that the Nahuatl is an Aryan dialect descended from the\nSanscrit.[39] In fine, any, even the remotest, linguistic connection\nbetween American and Mongolian languages has yet to be shown; and any\nlinguist who considers the radically diverse genius of the two groups of\ntongues will not expect to find such relationship.\n\nI shall not detain you long with arguments touching supposed Mongolian\nelements of culture in ancient America. Any one at all intimately\nconversant with the progress of American arch\u00e6ology in the last twenty\nyears must see how rapidly has grown the conviction that American\nculture was homebred, to the manor born: that it was wholly indigenous\nand had borrowed nothing\u2014nothing, from either Europe, Asia, or Africa.\nThe peculiarities of native American culture are typical, and extend\nthroughout the continent. Mr. Lewis Morgan was perfectly right in the\ngeneral outline of his theory to this effect, though, like all persons\nenamored of a theory, he carried it too far.\n\nThis typical, racial American culture is as far as possible, in spirit\nand form, from the Mongolian. Compare the rich theology of Mexico or\nPeru with the barren myths of China. The theory of governments, the\nmethod of house-construction, the position of woman, the art of war,[40]\nare all equally diverse, equally un-Mongolian. It is useless to bring up\nsingle art-products or devices, such as the calendar, and lay stress on\ncertain similarities. The doctrine of the parallelism of human\ndevelopment explains far more satisfactorily all these coincidences. The\nsooner that Americanists generally, and especially those in Europe,\nrecognize the absolute autochthony of native American culture, the more\nvaluable will their studies become.\n\nIt is no longer in season to quote the opinions of Alexander von\nHumboldt and his contemporaries on this subject, as I see is done in\nsome recent works. The science of arch\u00e6ology has virtually come into\nbeing since they wrote, and we now know that the development of human\nculture is governed by laws with which they were unacquainted.\nCivilization sprang up in certain centres in both continents, widely\nremote from each other; but, as the conditions of its origin were\neverywhere the same, its early products were much alike.\n\nIt is evident from what I have said, that the asserted Mongolian or\nMongoloid connection of the American race finds no support either from\nlinguistics or the history of culture. If anywhere, it must be in\nphysical resemblances. In fact, it has been mainly from these that the\narguments have been drawn. Let us examine them.\n\nCuvier, who, as I have said, is responsible for the confusion of the\nAmerican with the Mongolian race, based his racial scheme on the color\nof the skin, and included the American within the limits of the yellow\nrace. Cuvier had seen very few pure Mongolians, and perhaps no\npure-blooded Americans; otherwise he would not have maintained that the\nhue of the latter is yellow. Certainly it is not. You may call it\nreddish, or coppery, or cinnamon, or burnt sugar, but you cannot call it\nyellow. Some individuals or small tribes may approach the peculiar dusky\nolive of the Chinaman, but so do some of the European peoples of Aryan\ndescent; and there are not wanting anthropologists who maintain that the\nAryans are also Mongoloid. The one position is just as defensible as the\nother on the ground of color.\n\nSeveral of the most prominent classifications of mankind are based upon\nthe character of the hair; the three great divisions being, as you know,\ninto the straight, the curly, and the woolly haired varieties. These\nexternal features of the hair depend upon the form of the individual\nhairs as seen in cross-section. The nearer this approaches a circle, the\nstraighter is the hair. It is true that both Mongolians and Americans\nbelong to the straight haired varieties; but of the two, the American\nhas the straighter hair, that whose cross-section comes nearer to a\nperfect circle. So that by all the rules of terminology and logic, if we\nare to call either branch a variation from the other, we should say that\nthe Mongol is a variety of the American race, and call it \u201cAmericanoid,\u201d\ninstead of _vice versa_.\n\nThe color of the hair of the two races is, moreover, distinctly\ndifferent. Although superficially both seem black, yet, observed\ncarefully by reflected light, it is seen that the ground-tone of the\nMongolian is bluish, while that of the American is reddish.\n\nOf positive cranial characteristics of the red race, I call attention to\nthe interparietal bone (the _os Inc\u00e6_), which is found in its extreme\ndevelopment in the American, in its greatest rarity among the\nMongolians; also to the form of the glabella, found most prominent in\nAmerican crania, least prominent in Altaic or northern Mongoloid crania;\nand the peculiar American characteristics of the occipital bone,\nflattened externally, and internally presenting in nearly forty per\ncent. of cases the \u201cAymarian depression,\u201d as it has been termed, instead\nof the internal occipital protuberance.[41]\n\nThe shape of the skull has been made another ground of race-distinction;\nand, although we have learned of late years that its value was greatly\nover-estimated by the earlier craniologists, we have also learned that\nin the average, and throughout large numbers of peoples, it is a very\npersistent characteristic, and one potently indicative of descent or\nrelationship. Now, of all the peoples of the world, the Mongols,\nespecially the Turanian branch, are the most brachycephalic; they have\nthe roundest heads; and it is in a high degree noteworthy that precisely\nthe American nation dwelling nearest to these, having undoubted contact\nwith them for unnumbered generations, are long-headed, or\ndolichocephalic, in a marked degree. I mean the Eskimo, and I cannot but\nbe surprised that such an eminent anthropologist as Virchow,[42] in\nspite of this anatomical fact, and in defiance of the linguistic\nevidence, should have repeated the assertion that the Eskimo are of\nMongolian descent.\n\nThroughout the American continent generally, the natives were not\nmarkedly brachycephalic. This was abundantly illustrated more than\ntwenty years ago by the late Prof. James Aitkins Meigs, in his\n\u201cObservations on the Cranial Forms of the American Aborigines.\u201d They\ncertainly, in this respect, show no greater Mongoloid affinities than do\ntheir white successors on the soil of the United States.\n\nIf color, hair, and crania are thus shown to present such feeble\nsimilarities, what is it that has given rise to a notion of the\nMongoloid origin of the American Indian? Is it the so-called Mongolian\neye, the oblique eye, with a seeming droop at its inner canthus? Yes, a\ngood deal has been made of this by certain writers, especially by\ntravellers who are not anatomists. The distinguished ethnologist\nTopinard says the Chinese are very often found without it, and I can\nconfirm this opinion by those I have seen in this country. It is,\nindeed, a slight deformity, affecting the skin of the eyebrow only, and\nis not at all infrequent in the white race. Surgeons know it under the\nname _epicanthus_, and, as with us it is considered a disfigurement, it\nis usually removed in infancy by a slight operation. In a few American\ntribes it is rather prevalent, but in most of the pure Indians I have\nseen, no trace of it was visible. It certainly does not rank as a racial\ncharacteristic.[43]\n\nThe nasal index has been recommended by some anatomists as one of the\nmost persistent and trustworthy of racial indications. The Mongolian\norigin of the red race derives faint support from this quarter. From the\nmeasurements given in the last edition of Topinard\u2019s work[44] the\nMongolian index is 80, while that of the Eskimo and tribes of the United\nStates and Canada, as far as observed, is 70, that of the average\nParisian of to-day being 69 (omitting fractions). According to this\ntest, the American is much closer to the white than to the yellow race.\n\nMost of the writers (for instance, Av\u00e9-Lallemant, St. Hilaire, Peschel,\nand Virchow) who have argued for the Mongoloid character of the\nAmericans, have quoted some one tribe which, it is asserted, shows\nmarked Chinese traits. This has especially been said of the natives of\nthree localities,\u2014the Eskimo, the tribes of the North Pacific coast, and\nthe Botocudos of Brazil. So far as the last-mentioned are concerned, the\nBotocudos, any such similarity has been categorically denied by the\nlatest and most scientific traveller who has visited them, Dr. Paul\nEhrenreich. It is enough if I refer you to his paper in the _Zeitschrift\nf\u00fcr Ethnologie_ for 1887, where he dismisses, I should say once for all,\nthe notion of any such resemblance existing. I have already pointed out\nthat the Eskimo are totally un-Mongolian in cranial shape, in nasal\nindex, and in linguistic character. They do possess in some instances a\ngeneral physiognomical similarity, and this is all; and this is not\nworth much, as against the dissimilarities mentioned. The same is true\nof the differences and similarities of some tribes of the north-west\ncoast. In estimating the value of resemblances observed in this part of\nour continent, we should remember that we have sufficient evidence to\nbelieve that for many generations some slight intercourse has been going\non between the adjacent mainlands and islands of the two continents in\nthe regions of their nearest proximity. The same train of events led to\na blending of the negro and the white races along the shores of the Red\nSea; but any one who recognizes the distinction of races at all\u2014and I am\naware that certain eccentric anthropologists do not\u2014will not, on that\naccount, claim that the white race is negroid. With just as little\nreason, it seems to me, has it been argued that the native Americans as\na race are Mongoloid.[45]\n\nAn acute philosophical writer has stated that the superficial observer\nis apt to be impressed with the similarities of objects; while the\nprofounder student finds his attention more profitably attracted to\ntheir differences. By this maxim we may explain this theory of the\naffinities of the American race as well as many another which has been\nbroached.\n\n\n\n\n           THE PROBABLE NATIONALITY OF THE \u201cMOUND-BUILDERS.\u201d\n\n  [The following Essay is reprinted without alteration. It appeared in\n  the _American Antiquarian_ for October, 1881, and has a certain\n  degree of historic value as illustrating the progress of arch\u00e6ologic\n  study in the United States. It is, I believe, the first reasoned\n  argument that the constructors of the mounds of the Ohio Valley were\n  the ancestors of tribes known and resident not remote from the sites\n  of these ancient works. Though this opinion has not yet been fully\n  accepted, the tendency of later studies is unquestionably in its\n  favor.]\n\n\nThe question, Who were the Mound-builders? is one that still remains\nopen in American arch\u00e6ology. Among the most recent expressions of\nopinion I may quote Prof. John T. Short, who thinks that one or two\nthousand years may have elapsed since they deserted the Ohio valley, and\nprobably eight hundred since they finally retired from the Gulf\ncoast.[46] Mr. J. P. MacLean continues to believe them to have been\nsomehow related to the \u201cToltecs.\u201d[47] Dr. J. W. Foster, making a\ntremendous leap, connects them with a tribe \u201cwho, in times far remote,\nflourished in Brazil,\u201d and adds: \u201ca broad chasm is to be spanned before\nwe can link the Mound-builders to the North American Indians. They were\nessentially different in their form of government, their habits and\ntheir daily pursuits. The latter were never known to erect structures\nwhich should survive the lapse of a generation.\u201d[48]\n\nOn the other hand, we have the recent utterance of so able an\nethnologist as Major J. W. Powell to the effect that, \u201cWith regard to\nthe mounds so widely scattered between the two oceans, it may be said\nthat mound-building tribes were known in the early history of discovery\nof this continent, and that the vestiges of art discovered do not excel\nin any respect the arts of the Indian tribes known to history. There is,\ntherefore, no reason for us to search for an extralimital origin through\nlost tribes for the arts discovered in the mounds of North America.\u201d[49]\n\nBetween opinions so discrepant the student in arch\u00e6ology may well be at\na loss, and it will therefore be worth while to inquire just how far the\ntribes who inhabited the Mississippi valley and the Atlantic slope at\nthe time of the discovery were accustomed to heap up mounds, excavate\ntrenches, or in other ways leave upon the soil permanent marks of their\noccupancy.\n\nBeginning with the warlike northern invaders, the Iroquois, it clearly\nappears that they were accustomed to construct burial mounds. Colden\nstates that the corpse was placed in a large round hole and that \u201cthey\nthen raise the Earth in a round Hill over it.\u201d[50] Further particulars\nare given by Lafitau: the grave was lined with bark, and the body roofed\nin with bark and branches in the shape of an arch, which was then\ncovered with earth and stones so as to form an _agger_ or _tumulus_.[51]\nIn these instances the mound was erected over a single corpse; but it\nwas also the custom among the Hurons and Iroquois, as we are informed by\nCharlevoix, to collect the bones of their dead every ten years, and\ninter them in one mass together.[52] The slain in a battle were also\ncollected into one place and a large mound heaped over them, as is\nstated by Mr. Paul Kane,[53] and that such was an ancient custom of the\nIroquois tribes, is further shown by a tradition handed down from the\nlast century, according to which the Iroquois believed that the Ohio\nmounds were the memorials of a war which in ancient times they waged\nwith the Cherokees.[54] Mr. E. G. Squier, who carefully examined many of\nthe earthworks in the country of the ancient Iroquois, was inclined at\nfirst to suppose the remains he found there were parts of \u201ca system of\ndefence extending from the source of the Allegheny and Susquehanna in\nNew York, diagonally across the country through central and northern\nOhio to the Wabash,\u201d and hence drew the inference that \u201cthe pressure of\nhostilities [upon the mound-builders] was from the north-east.\u201d[55] This\nopinion has been repeated by some recent writers; but Mr. Squier himself\nsubstantially retracted it in a later work, and reached the conviction\nthat whatever ancient remains there are in Western New York and\nPennsylvania are to be attributed to the later Indian tribes and not to\nthe Mound-builders.[56]\n\nThe neighbors of the Iroquois, the various Algonkin tribes, were\noccasionally constructors of mounds. In comparatively recent times we\nhave a description of a \u201cvictory mound\u201d raised by the Chippeways after a\nsuccessful encounter with the Sioux. The women and children threw up the\nadjacent surface soil into a heap about five feet high and eight or ten\nfeet in diameter, upon which a pole was erected, and to it tufts of\ngrass were hung, one for each scalp taken.[57]\n\nRobert Beverly, in his _History of Virginia_, first published in 1705,\ndescribes some curious constructions by the tribes there located. He\ntells us that they erected \u201cpyramids and columns\u201d of stone, which they\npainted and decorated with wampum, and paid them a sort of worship. They\nalso constructed stone altars on which to offer sacrifices.[58] This\nadoration of stones and masses of rocks\u2014or rather of the genius which\nwas supposed to reside in them\u2014prevailed also in Massachusetts and other\nAlgonkin localities, and easily led to erecting such piles.[59]\n\nAnother occasion for mound-building among the Virginian Indians was to\ncelebrate or make a memorial of a solemn treaty. On such an occasion\nthey performed the time honored ceremony of \u201cburying the hatchet,\u201d a\ntomahawk being literally put in the ground, \u201cand they raise a pile of\nstones over it, as the Jews did over the body of Absalom.\u201d[60]\n\nI am not aware of any evidence that the Cherokees were mound-builders:\nbut they appreciated the conveniences of such structures, and in one of\ntheir villages William Bartram found their council house situated on a\nlarge mound. He adds: \u201cBut it may be proper to observe that this mount\non which the rotunda stands is of a much ancienter date than the\nbuilding, and perhaps was raised for another purpose.\u201d[61] Lieutenant\nTimberlake is about our best early authority on the Cherokees, and I\nbelieve he nowhere mentions that they built upon mounds of artificial\nconstruction. Adair, however, states that they were accustomed to heap\nup and add to piles of loose stones in memory of a departed chief, or as\nmonuments of important events.[62]\n\nThe tribes who inhabited what we now call the Gulf States, embracing the\nregion between the eastern border of Texas and the Atlantic Ocean south\nof the Savannah River, belonged, with few and small exceptions, to the\ngreat Chahta-Muskokee family, embracing the tribes known as Choctaws,\nChikasaws, Muskokees or Creeks, Seminoles, Allibamons, Natchez and\nothers. The languages of all these have numerous and unmistakable\naffinities, the Choctaw or Chahta presenting probably the most archaic\nform. It is among them, if anywhere within our limits, that we must look\nfor the descendants of the mysterious \u201cMound-builders.\u201d No other tribes\ncan approach them in claims for this distinction. Their own traditions,\nit is true, do not point to a migration from the north, but from the\nwest; nor do they contain any reference to the construction of the great\nworks in question; but these people seem to have been a building race,\nand to have reared tumuli not contemptible in comparison even with the\nmightiest of the Ohio Valley.\n\nThe first explorer who has left us an account of his journey in this\nregion was Cabeza de Vaca, who accompanied the exposition of Pamfilo de\nNarvaez in 1527. He, however, kept close to the coast for fear of losing\nhis way, and saw for the most part only the inferior fishing tribes.\nThese he describes as generally in a miserable condition. Their huts\nwere of mats erected on piles of oyster shells (the shell heaps now so\nfrequent along the southern coast). Yet he mentions that in one part,\nwhich I judge to be somewhere in Louisiana, the natives were accustomed\nto erect their dwellings on steep hills and around their base _to dig a\nditch_, as a means of defence.[63]\n\nOur next authorities are very important. They are the narrators of\nCaptain Hernando de Soto\u2019s famous and ill starred expedition. Of this we\nhave the brief account of Biedma, the longer story of \u201cthe gentleman of\nElvas,\u201d a Portuguese soldier of fortune, intelligent and clear-headed,\nand the poetical and brilliant composition of Garcilasso de la Vega. In\nall of these we find the southern tribes described as constructing\nartificial mounds, using earthworks for defence, excavating ditches and\ncanals, etc. I quote the following passage in illustration:\n\n\u201cThe town and the house of the Cacique Ossachile are like those of the\nother caciques in Florida. * * * The Indians try to place their villages\non elevated sites; but inasmuch as in Florida there are not many sites\nof this kind where they can conveniently build, they erect elevations\nthemselves in the following manner: They select the spot and carry there\na quantity of earth which they form into a kind of platform two or three\npikes in height, the summit of which is large enough to give room for\ntwelve, fifteen or twenty houses, to lodge the cacique and his\nattendants. At the foot of this elevation they mark out a square place\naccording to the size of the village, around which the leading men have\ntheir houses. * * * To ascend the elevation they have a straight passage\nway from bottom to top, fifteen or twenty feet wide. Here steps are made\nby massive beams, and others are planted firmly in the ground to serve\nas walls. On all other sides of the platform, the sides are cut\nsteep.\u201d[64]\n\nLater on La Vega describes the village of Capaha:\n\n\u201cThis village is situated on a small hill, and it has about five hundred\ngood houses, surrounded with a ditch ten or twelve cubits (brazas) deep,\nand a width of fifty paces in most places, in others forty. The ditch is\nfilled with water from a canal which has been cut from the town to\nChicagua. The canal is three leagues in length, at least a pike in\ndepth, and so wide that two large boats could easily ascend or descend\nit, side by side. The ditch which is filled with water from this canal\nsurrounds the town except in one spot, which is closed by heavy beams\nplanted in the earth.\u201d[65]\n\nBiedma remarks in one passage, speaking of the provinces of Ycasqui and\nPacaha: \u201cThe caciques of this region were accustomed to erect near the\nhouse where they lived very high mounds (_tertres tr\u00e8s-elev\u00e8es_), and\nthere were some who placed their houses on the top of these mounds.\u201d[66]\n\nI cannot state precisely where these provinces and towns were situated;\nthe successful tracing of De Soto\u2019s journey has never yet been\naccomplished, but remains as an interesting problem for future\nantiquaries to solve. One thing I think is certain; that until he\ncrossed the Mississippi he at no time was outside the limits of the wide\nspread Chahta-Muskokee tribes. The proper names preserved, and the\ncourses and distances given, both confirm this opinion. We find them\ntherefore in his time accustomed to erect lofty mounds, terraces and\nplatforms, and to protect their villages by extensive circumvallations.\nI shall proceed to inquire whether such statements are supported by\nlater writers.\n\nOur next authorities in point of time are the French Huguenots, who\nundertook to make a settlement on the St. John River near where St.\nAugustine now stands in Florida. The short and sad history of this\ncolony is familiar to all. The colonists have, however, left us some\ninteresting descriptions of the aborigines. In the neighborhood of St.\nAugustine these belonged to the Timuquana tribe, specimens of whose\nlanguage have been preserved to us, but which, according to the careful\nanalysis recently published by Mr. A. S. Gatschet,[67] has no\nrelationship with the Chahta-Muskokee, nor, for that matter, with any\nother known tongue. Throughout the rest of the peninsula a Muskokee\ndialect probably prevailed.\n\nThe \u201cPortuguese gentleman\u201d tells us that at the very spot where De Soto\nlanded, generally supposed to be somewhere about Tampa Bay, at a town\ncalled Ucita, the house of the chief \u201cstood near the shore upon a very\nhigh mound made by hand for strength.\u201d Such mounds are also spoken of by\nthe Huguenot explorers. They served as the site of the chieftain\u2019s house\nin the villages, and from them led a broad, smooth road through the\nvillage to the water.[68] These descriptions correspond closely to those\nof the remains which the botanists, John and William Bartram, discovered\nand reported about a century ago.\n\nIt would also appear that the natives of the peninsula erected mounds\nover their dead, as memorials. Thus the artist Le Moyne de Morgues,\nwrites: \u201cDefuncto aliquo rege ejus provici\u00e6, magna solemnitate\nsepelitur, et ejus tumulo crater, e quo bibere solebat, imponitur,\ndefixis circum ipsum tumulum multis sagittis.\u201d[69] The picture he gives\nof the \u201ctumulus\u201d does not represent it as more than three or four feet\nin height; so that if this was intended as an accurate representation,\nthe structure scarcely rises to the dignity of a mound.\n\nAfter the destruction of the Huguenot colony in 1565, the Spanish\npriests at once went to work to plant their missions. The Jesuit fathers\nestablished themselves at various points south of the Savannah River,\nbut their narratives, which have been preserved in full in a historic\nwork of great rarity, describe the natives as broken up into small\nclans, waging constant wars, leading vagrant lives, and without fixed\nhabitations.[70] Of these same tribes, however, Richard Blomes, an\nEnglish traveler, who visited them about a century later, says that they\nerected piles or pyramids of stones, on the occasion of a successful\nconflict, or when they founded a new village, for the purpose of keeping\nthe fact in long remembrance.[71] About the same time another English\ntraveler, by name Bristock, claimed to have visited the interior of the\ncountry and to have found in \u201cApalacha\u201d a half-civilized nation, who\nconstructed stone walls and had a developed sun worship; but in a\ndiscussion of the authenticity of his alleged narrative I have elsewhere\nshown that it cannot be relied upon, and is largely a fabrication.[72] A\ncorrect estimate of the constructive powers of the Creeks is given by\nthe botanist, William Bartram, who visited them twice in the latter half\nof the last century. He found they had \u201cchunk yards\u201d surrounded by low\nwalls of earth, at one end of which, sometimes on a moderate artificial\nelevation, was the chief\u2019s dwelling and at the other end the public\ncouncil house.[73] His descriptions resemble so closely those in La Vega\nthat evidently the latter was describing the same objects on a larger\nscale\u2014or from magnified reports.\n\nWithin the present century the Seminoles of Florida are said to have\nretained the custom of collecting the slain after a battle and interring\nthem in one large mound. The writer on whose authority I state this,\nadds that he \u201cobserved on the road from St. Augustine to Tomaka, one\nmound which must have covered two acres of ground,\u201d[74] but this must\nsurely have been a communal burial mound.\n\nPassing to the tribes nearer the Mississippi, most of them of Choctaw\naffiliation, we find considerable testimony in the French writers to\ntheir use of mounds. Thus M. de la Harpe says: \u201cThe cabins of the\nYasous, Courous, Offogoula and Ouspie are dispersed over the country on\nmounds of earth made with their own hands.\u201d[75] The Natchez were mostly\nof Choctaw lineage. In one of their villages Dumont notes that the cabin\nof the chief was elevated on a mound.[76] Father Le Petit, a missionary\nwho labored among them, gives the particulars that the residence of the\ngreat chief or \u201cBrother of the Sun,\u201d as he was called, was erected on a\nmound (_butte_) of earth carried for that purpose. When the chief died,\nthe house was destroyed, and the same mound was not used as the site of\nthe mansion of his successor, but was left vacant and a new one was\nconstructed.[77] This interesting fact goes to explain the great number\nof mounds in some localities; and it also teaches us the important truth\nthat we cannot form any correct estimate of the date when a\nmound-building tribe left a locality by counting the rings in trees,\netc., because long before they departed, certain tumuli or earthworks\nmay have been deserted and tabooed from superstitious notions, just as\nmany were among the Natchez.\n\nWe have the size of the Natchez mounds given approximately by M. Le Page\ndu Pratz. He observes that the one on which was the house of the Great\nSun was \u201cabout eight feet high and twenty feet over on the surface.\u201d[78]\nHe adds that their temple, in which the perpetual fire was kept burning,\nwas on a mound about the same height.\n\nThe custom of communal burial has been adverted to. At the time of the\ndiscovery it appears to have prevailed in most of the tribes from the\nGreat Lakes to the Gulf. The bones of each phratry or gens\u2014the former,\nprobably\u2014were collected every eight or ten years and conveyed to the\nspot where they were to be finally interred. A mound was raised over\nthem which gradually increased in size with each additional interment.\nThe particulars of this method of burial have often been described, and\nit is enough that I refer to a few authorities in the note.[79] Indeed\nit has not been pretended that such mounds necessarily date back to a\nrace anterior to that which occupied the soil at the advent of the white\nman.\n\nI have not included in the above survey the important Dakota stock who\nonce occupied an extended territory on the upper Mississippi and its\naffluents, and scattered clans of whom were resident on the Atlantic\nCoast in Virginia and Carolina. But, in fact, I have nowhere found that\nthey erected earthworks of any pretentions whatever.\n\nFrom what I have collected, therefore, it would appear that the only\nresident Indians at the time of the discovery who showed any evidence of\nmound-building comparable to that found in the Ohio valley were the\nChahta-Muskokees. I believe that the evidence is sufficient to justify\nus in accepting this race as the constructors of all those extensive\nmounds, terraces, platforms, artificial lakes and circumvallations which\nare scattered over the Gulf States, Georgia and Florida. The earliest\nexplorers distinctly state that such were used and constructed by these\nnations in the sixteenth century, and probably had been for many\ngenerations. Such too, is the opinion arrived at by Col. C. C. Jones,\nthan whom no one is more competent to speak with authority on this\npoint. Referring to the earthworks found in Georgia he writes: \u201cWe do\nnot concur in the opinion so often expressed that the mound-builders\nwere a race distinct from and superior in art, government, and religion,\nto the Southern Indians of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.\u201d\n\nIt is a Baconian rule which holds good in every department of science\nthat the simplest explanation of a given fact or series of facts should\nalways be accepted; therefore if we can point out a well known race of\nIndians who, at the time of the discovery, raised mounds and other\nearthworks, not wholly dissimilar in character and not much inferior in\nsize to those in the Ohio valley, and who resided not very far away from\nthat region and directly in the line which the Mound-Builders are\nbelieved by all to have followed in their emigration, then this rule\nconstrains us to accept for the present this race as the most probable\ndescendants of the Mound Tribes, and seek no further for Toltecs,\nAsiatics or Brazilians. All these conditions are filled by the Chahta\ntribes.[80]\n\nIt is true, as I have already said, that the traditions of their own\norigin do not point to the north but rather to the west or northwest;\nbut in one of these traditions it is noticeable that they claim their\norigin to have been from a large artificial mound, the celebrated _Nanih\nWaiya_, the Sloping Hill, an immense pile in the valley of the Big Black\nRiver;[81] and it may be that this is a vague reminiscence of their\nremote migration from their majestic works in the north.\n\nThe size of the southern mounds is often worthy of the descendants of\nthose who raised the vast piles in the northern valleys. Thus one in the\nEtowah Valley, Georgia, has a cubical capacity of 1,000,000, cubic\nfeet.[82] The Messier Mound, near the Chatahoochee River, contains about\n700,000 cubic feet.[83] Wholly artificial mounds 50 to 70 feet in\nheight, with base areas of about 200 by 400 feet, are by no means\nunusual in the river valleys of the Gulf States.\n\nWith these figures we may compare the dimensions of the northern mounds.\nThe massive one near Miamisburg, Ohio, 68 feet high, has been calculated\nto contain 311,350 cubic feet\u2014about half the size of the Messier Mound.\nAt Clark\u2019s Works, Ohio, the embankments and mounds together contain\nabout 3,000,000 cubic feet;[84] but as the embankment is three miles\nlong, most of this is not in the mounds themselves. Greater than any of\nthese is the truncated pyramid at Cahokia, Illinois, which has an\naltitude of 90 feet and a base area of 700 by 500 feet. It is, however,\ndoubtful whether this is wholly an artificial construction. Professor\nSpencer Smith has shown that the once famous \u201cbig mound\u201d of St. Louis\nwas largely a natural formation; and he expresses the opinion that many\nof the mounds in Missouri and Illinois, popularly supposed to be\nartificial constructions, are wholly, or in great part, of geologic\norigin.[85] There is apparently therefore no such great difference\nbetween the earth structures of the Chahta tribes, and those left us by\nthe more northern mound-builders, that we need suppose for the latter\nany material superiority in culture over the former when first they\nbecame known to the whites; nor is there any improbability in assuming\nthat the Mound-builders of the Ohio were in fact the progenitors of the\nChahta tribes, and were driven south probably about three or four\nhundred years before the discovery. Such is the conviction to which the\nabove reasoning leads us.\n\nIn the course of it, I have said nothing about the condition of the arts\nof the Mound-builders compared with that of the early southern Indians;\nnor have I spoken of their supposed peculiar religious beliefs which a\nrecent writer thinks to point to \u201cToltec\u201d connections;[86] nor have I\ndiscussed the comparative craniology of the Mound-builders, upon which\nsome very remarkable hypotheses have been erected; nor do I think it\nworth while to do so, for in the present state of anthropologic science,\nall the facts of these kinds relating to the Mound-builders which we\nhave as yet learned, can have no appreciable weight to the investigator.\n\n[Investigations conducted since the above Essay was printed require some\nmodifications in its statements. The researches of Professor Cyrus\nThomas render it likely that the Cherokees were also Mound-builders, and\nthat they occupied portions of Western Pennsylvania and Western Virginia\nless than two centuries ago. (See also my work _The Len\u00e2p\u00e8 and their\nLegends_, pp. 16\u201318. Philadelphia, 1885.) Probably the Ohio Valley\nMound-builders were the ancestors of some of the Cherokees as well as of\nthe Chahta-Muskoki tribes. Craniologic data from the Ohio mounds are\nstill too vague to permit inferences from them.]\n\n\n\n\n                 THE TOLTECS AND THEIR FABULOUS EMPIRE.\n\n\nIn the first addition of my _Myths of the New World_[87] published in\n1868, I asserted that the story of the city of Tula and its inhabitants,\nthe Toltecs, as currently related in ancient Mexican history, is a myth,\nand not history. This opinion I have since repeated in various\npublications,[88] but writers on pre-Columbian American civilization\nhave been very unwilling to give up their Toltecs, and lately M. Charnay\nhas composed a laborious monograph to defend them.[89]\n\nLet me state the question squarely.\n\nThe orthodox opinion is that the Toltecs, coming from the north (-west\nor -east), founded the city of Tula (about forty miles north of the\npresent city of Mexico) in the sixth century, A. D.; that their State\nflourished for about five hundred years, until it numbered nearly four\nmillions of inhabitants, and extended its sway from ocean to ocean over\nthe whole of central Mexico;[90] that it reached a remarkably high stage\nof culture in the arts; that in the tenth or eleventh century it was\nalmost totally destroyed by war and famine;[91] and that its fragments,\nescaping in separate colonies, carried the civilization of Tula to the\nsouth, to Tabasco (Palenque), Yucatan, Guatemala and Nicaragua.\nQuetzalcoatl, the last ruler of Tula, himself went to the south-east,\nand reappears in Yucatan as the culture-hero Cukulkan, the traditional\nfounder of the Maya civilization.\n\nThis, I say, is the current opinion about the Toltecs. It is found in\nthe works of Ixtlilxochitl, Veitia, Clavigero, Prescott, Brasseur de\nBourbourg, Orozco y Berra, and scores of other reputable writers. The\ndispersion of the Toltecs has been offered as the easy solution of the\norigin of the civilization not only of Central America, but of New\nMexico and the Mississippi valley.[92]\n\nThe opinion that I oppose to this, and which I hope to establish in this\narticle, is as follows:\n\nTula was merely one of the towns built and occupied by that tribe of the\nNahuas known as _Azteca_ or _Mexica_, whose tribal god was\nHuitzilopochtli, and who finally settled at Mexico-Tenochtitlan (the\npresent city of Mexico); its inhabitants were called Toltecs, but there\nwas never any such distinct tribe or nationality; they were merely the\nancestors of this branch of the Azteca, and when Tula was destroyed by\ncivil and foreign wars, these survivors removed to the valley of Mexico\nand became merged with their kindred; they enjoyed no supremacy, either\nin power or in the arts; and the Toltec \u201cempire\u201d is a baseless fable.\nWhat gave them their singular fame in later legend was partly the\ntendency of the human mind to glorify the \u201cgood old times\u201d and to merge\nancestors into divinities, and especially the significance of the name\nTula, \u201cthe Place of the Sun,\u201d leading to the confounding and\nidentification of a half-forgotten legend with the ever-living\nlight-and-darkness myth of the gods Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca.\n\nTo support this view, let us inquire what we know about Tula as an\nhistoric site.\n\nIts location is on one of the great ancient trails leading from the\nnorth into the Valley of Mexico.[93] The ruins of the old town are upon\nan elevation about 100 feet in height, whose summit presents a level\nsurface in the shape of an irregular triangle some 800 yards long, with\na central width of 300 yards, the apex to the south-east, where the face\nof the hill is fortified by a rough stone wall.[94] It is a natural\nhill, overlooking a small muddy creek, called the _Rio de Tula_.[95] Yet\nthis unpretending mound is the celebrated _Coatepetl_, Serpent-Mount, or\nSnake-Hill, famous in Nahuatl legend, and the central figure in all the\nwonderful stories about the Toltecs.[96] The remains of the artificial\ntumuli and walls, which are abundantly scattered over the summit, show\nthat, like the pueblos of New Mexico, they were built of large sun-baked\nbricks mingled with stones, rough or trimmed, and both walls and floors\nwere laid in a firm cement, which was usually painted of different\ncolors. Hence probably the name _Palpan_, \u201camid the colors,\u201d which\ntradition says was applied to these structures on the Coatepetl.[97] The\nstone-work, represented by a few broken fragments, appears equal, but\nnot superior, to that of the Valley of Mexico. Both the free and the\nattached column occur, and figure-carving was known, as a few\nweather-beaten relics testify. The houses contained many rooms, on\ndifferent levels, and the roofs were flat. They were no doubt mostly\ncommunal structures. At the foot of the Serpent-Hill is a level plain,\nbut little above the river, on which is the modern village with its\ncorn-fields.\n\nThese geographical particulars are necessary to understand the ancient\nlegend, and with them in mind its real purport is evident.[98]\n\nThat legend is as follows: When the Azteca or Mexica\u2014for these names\nwere applied to the same tribe[99]\u2014left their early home in Aztlan\u2014which\nRamirez locates in Lake Chalco in the Valley of Mexico, and Orozco y\nBerra in Lake Chapallan in Michoacan[100]\u2014they pursued their course for\nsome generations in harmony; but at a certain time, somewhere between\nthe eighth and the eleventh century of our era, they fell out and\nseparated. The legend refers to this as a dispute between the followers\nof the tribal god Huitzilopochtli and those of his sister\nMalinalxochitl. We may understand it to have been the separation of two\n\u201ctotems.\u201d The latter entered at once the Valley of Mexico, while the\nfollowers of Huitzilopochtli passed on to the plain of Tula and settled\non the Coatepetl. Here, says the narrative, they constructed houses of\nstones and of rushes, built a temple for the worship of Huitzilopochtli,\nset up his image and those of the fifteen divinities (gentes?) who were\nsubject to him, and erected a large altar of sculptured stone and a\ncourt for their ball play.[101] The level ground at the foot of the hill\nthey partly flooded by damming the river, and used the remainder for\nplanting their crops. After an indeterminate time they abandoned Tula\nand the Coatepetl, driven out by civil strife and warlike neighbors, and\njourneyed southward into the Valley of Mexico, there to found the famous\ncity of that name.\n\nThis is the simple narrative of Tulan, stripped of its contradictions,\nmetaphors and confusion, as handed down by those highest authorities the\nCodex Ramirez, Tezozomoc and Father Duran.[102] It is a plain statement\nthat Tula and its Snake-Hill were merely one of the stations of the\nAzteca in their migrations\u2014an important station, indeed, with natural\nstrength, and one that they fortified with care, where for some\ngenerations, probably, they maintained an independent existence, and\nwhich the story-tellers of the tribe recalled with pride and\nexaggeration.\n\nHow long they occupied the site is uncertain.[103] Ixtlilxochitl gives a\nlist of eight successive rulers of the \u201cToltecs,\u201d each of whom was\ncomputed to reign at least fifty-two years, or one cycle; but it is\nnoteworthy that he states these rulers were not of \u201cToltec\u201d blood, but\nimposed upon them by the \u201cChichimecs.\u201d This does not reflect creditably\non the supposed singular cultivation of the Toltecs. Probably the\nwarrior Aztecs subjected a number of neighboring tribes and imposed upon\nthem rulers.[104]\n\nIf we accept the date given by the _Codex Ramirez_ for the departure of\nthe Aztecs from the Coatepetl\u2014A. D. 1168\u2014then it is quite possible that\nthey might have controlled the site for a couple of centuries or longer,\nand that the number of successive chieftains named by Ixtlilxochitl\nshould not be far wrong. The destructive battles of which he speaks as\npreceding their departure\u2014battles resulting in the slaughter of more\nthan five million souls\u2014we may regard as the grossly overstated account\nof some really desperate conflicts.\n\nThat the warriors of the Azteca, on leaving Tula, scattered over Mexico,\nYucatan and Central America, is directly contrary to the assertion of\nthe high authorities I have quoted, and also to most of the mythical\ndescriptions of the event, which declare they were all, or nearly all,\nmassacred.[105]\n\nThe above I claim to be the real history of Tula and its Serpent-Hill,\nof the Toltecs and their dynasty. Now comes the question, if we accept\nthis view, how did this ancient town and its inhabitants come to have so\nwide a celebrity, not merely in the myths of the Nahuas of Mexico, but\nin the sacred stories of Yucatan and Guatemala as well\u2014which was\nunquestionably the case?\n\nTo explain this, I must have recourse to some of those curious\nprinciples of language which have had such influence in building the\nfabric of mythology. In such inquiries we have more to do with words\nthan with things, with names than with persons, with phrases than with\nfacts.\n\nFirst about these names, Tula, Tollan, Toltec\u2014what do they mean? They\nare evidently from the same root. What idea did it convey?\n\nWe are first struck with the fact that the Tula I have been describing\nwas not the only one in the Nahuatl district of Mexico. There are other\nTulas and Tollans, one near Ococingo, another, now San Pedro Tula, in\nthe State of Mexico, one in Guerrero, San Antonio Tula in Potosi,[106]\netc. The name must have been one of common import. Herrera, who spells\nit _Tulo_, by an error, is just as erroneous in his suggestion of a\nmeaning. He says it means \u201cplace of the tuna,\u201d this being a term used\nfor the prickly pear.[107] But _tuna_ was not a Nahuatl word; it belongs\nto the dialect of Haiti, and was introduced into Mexico by the\nSpaniards. Therefore Herrera\u2019s derivation must be ruled out.\nIxtlilxochitl pretends that the name Tollan was that of the first\nchieftain of the Toltecs, and that they were named after him; but\nelsewhere himself contradicts this assertion.[108] Most writers follow\nthe _Codex Ramirez_, and maintain that Tollan\u2014of which Tula is but an\nabbreviation\u2014is from _tolin_, the Nahuatl word for rush, the kind of\nwhich they made mats, and means \u201cthe place of rushes,\u201d or where they\ngrow.\n\nThe respectable authority of Buschmann is in favor of this derivation;\nbut according to the analogy of the Nahuatl language, the \u201cplace of\nrushes\u201d should be _Toltitlan_ or _Tolinan_, and there are localities\nwith these names.[109]\n\nWithout doubt, I think, we must accept the derivation of Tollan given by\nTezozomoc, in his _Cronica Mexicana_. This writer, thoroughly familiar\nwith his native tongue, conveys to us its ancient form and real sense.\nSpeaking of the early Aztecs, he says: \u201cThey arrived at the spot called\nCoatepec, on the borders of _Tonalan, the place of the sun_.\u201d[110]\n\nThis name, Tonallan, is still not unusual in Mexico. Buschmann\nenumerates four villages so called, besides a mining town,\n_Tonatlan_.[111] \u201cPlace of the sun\u201d is a literal rendering, and it would\nbe equally accurate to translate it \u201csunny-spot,\u201d or \u201cwarm place,\u201d or\n\u201csummer-place.\u201d There is nothing very peculiar or distinctive about\nthese meanings. The warm, sunny plain at the foot of the Snake-Hill was\ncalled, naturally enough, Tonallan, syncopated to Tollan, and thus to\nTula.[112]\n\nBut the literal meaning of Tollan\u2014\u201cPlace of the Sun\u201d\u2014brought it in later\ndays into intimate connection with many a myth of light and of solar\ndivinities, until this ancient Aztec pueblo became apotheosized, its\ninhabitants transformed into magicians and demigods, and the corn-fields\nof Tula stand forth as fruitful plains of Paradise.\n\nIn the historic fragments to which I have alluded there is scant\nreference to miraculous events, and the gods play no part in the sober\nchronicle. But in the mythical cyclus we are at once translated into the\nsphere of the supernal. The Snake-Hill Coatepetl becomes the Aztec\nOlympus. On it dwells the great goddess \u201cOur Mother amid the Serpents,\u201d\n_Coatlan Tonan_,[113] otherwise called \u201cThe Serpent-skirted,\u201d\n_Coatlicue_, with her children, The Myriad Sages, the _Centzon\nHuitznahua_.[114] It was her duty to sweep the Snake-Hill every day,\nthat it might be kept clean for her children. One day while thus\nengaged, a little bunch of feathers fell upon her, and she hid it under\nher robe. It was the descent of the spirit, the divine Annunciation.\nWhen the Myriad Sages saw that their mother was pregnant, they were\nenraged, and set about to kill her. But the unborn babe spake from her\nwomb, and provided for her safety, until in due time he came forth armed\nwith a blue javelin, his flesh painted blue, and with a blue shield. His\nleft leg was thin and covered with the plumage of the humming-bird.\nHence the name was given to him \u201cOn the left, a humming-bird,\u201d\nHuitzilopochtli.[115] Four times around the Serpent-Mountain did he\ndrive the Myriad Sages, until nearly all had fallen dead before his\ndart, and the remainder fled far to the south. Then all the Mexica chose\nHuitzilopochtli for their god, and paid honors to the Serpent-Hill by\nTula as his birthplace.[116]\n\nAn equally ancient and authentic myth makes Huitzilopochtli one of four\nbrothers, born at one time of the uncreated, bi-sexual divinity, the God\nof our Life, Tonacatecutli, who looms dimly at the head of the Aztec\nPantheon. His brothers were the black and white Tezcatlipoca and the\nfair-skinned, bearded Quetzalcoatl. Yet a third myth places the\nbirthplace of Quetzalcoatl directly in Tula, and names his mother,\nChimalman, a virgin, divinely impregnated, like Coatlicue, by the\ndescending spirit of the Father of All.[117]\n\nTula was not only the birthplace, but the scene of the highest activity\nof all these greatest divinities of the ancient Nahuas. Around the\nCoatepetl and on the shores of the Tollanatl\u2014\u201cthe Water of Tula\u201d\u2014as the\nstream is called which laves the base of the hill, the mighty struggles\nof the gods took place which form the themes of almost all Aztec\nmythology. Tulan itself is no longer the hamlet of rush houses at the\nfoot of the Coatepec, surmounted by its pueblo of rough stone and baked\nbrick; it is a glorious city, founded and governed by Quetzalcoatl\nhimself, in his first avatar as Hueman, the strong-handed. \u201cAll its\nstructures were stately and gracious, abounding in ornaments. The walls\nwithin were incrusted with precious stones or finished in beautiful\nstucco, presenting the appearance of a rich mosaic. Most wonderful of\nall was the temple of Quetzalcoatl. It had four chambers, one toward the\neast finished in pure gold, another toward the west lined with turquoise\nand emeralds, a third toward the south decorated with all manner of\ndelicate sea-shells, and a fourth toward the north resplendent with red\njasper and shells.\u201d[118] The descriptions of other buildings, equally\nwondrous, have been lovingly preserved by the ancient songs.[119] What a\ngrief that our worthy friend, M. Charnay, digging away in 1880 on the\nCoatepec, at the head of a gang of forty-five men, as he tells us,[120]\nunearthed no sign of these ancient glories, in which, for one, he fully\nbelieved! But, alas! I fear that they are to be sought nowhere out of\nthe golden realm of fancy and mythical dreaming.\n\nNor, in that happy age, was the land unworthy such a glorious city.\nWhere now the neglected corn-patches surround the shabby huts of Tula,\nin the good old time \u201cthe crops of maize never failed, and each ear was\nas long as a man\u2019s arm; the cotton burst its pods, not white only, but\nspontaneously ready dyed to the hand in brilliant scarlet, green, blue\nand yellow; the gourds were so large that they could not be clasped in\nthe arms; and birds of brilliant plumage nested on every tree!\u201d\n\nThe subjects of Quetzalcoatl, the Toltecs, were not less marvelously\nqualified. They knew the virtues of plants and could read the forecast\nof the stars; they could trace the veins of metals in the mountains, and\ndiscern the deposits of precious stones by the fine vapor which they\nemit; they were orators, poets and magicians; so swift were they that\nthey could at once be in the place they wished to reach; as artisans\ntheir skill was unmatched, and they were not subject to the attacks of\ndisease.\n\nThe failure and end of all this goodly time came about by a battle of\nthe gods, by a contest between Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli on the\none hand, and Quetzalcoatl on the other. Quetzalcoatl refused to make\nthe sacrifices of human beings as required by Huitzilopochtli, and the\nlatter, with Tezcatlipoca, set about the destruction of Tula and its\npeople. This was the chosen theme of the later Aztec bards. What the\nsiege of Troy was to the Grecian poets, the fall of Tula was to the\nsingers and story-tellers of Anahuac\u2014an inexhaustible field for\nimagination, for glorification, for lamentation. It was placed in the\nremote past\u2014according to Sahagun, perhaps the best authority, about the\nyear 319 before Christ.[121] All arts and sciences, all knowledge and\nculture, were ascribed to this wonderful mythical people; and wherever\nthe natives were asked concerning the origin of ancient and unknown\nstructures, they would reply; \u201cThe Toltecs built them.\u201d[122]\n\nThey fixedly believed that some day the immortal Quetzalcoatl would\nappear in another avatar, and would bring again to the fields of Mexico\nthe exuberant fertility of Tula, the peace and happiness of his former\nreign, and that the departed glories of the past should surround anew\nthe homes of his votaries.[123]\n\nWhat I wish to point out in all this is the contrast between the dry and\nscanty historic narrative which shows Tula with its Snake-Hill to have\nbeen an early station of the Azteca, occupied in the eleventh and\ntwelfth century by one of their clans, and the monstrous myth of the\nlater priests and poets, which makes of it a birthplace and abode of the\ngods, and its inhabitants the semi-divine conquerors and civilizers of\nMexico and Central America. For this latter fable there is not a vestige\nof solid foundation. The references to Tula and the Toltecs in the\n_Chronicles of the Mayas_ and the _Annals of the Kakchiquels_ are loans\nfrom the later mythology of the Nahuas. It is high time for this talk\nabout the Toltecs as a mighty people, precursors of the Azteca, and\ntheir instructors in the arts of civilization, to disappear from the\npages of history. The residents of ancient Tula, the Tolteca, were\nnothing more than a sept of the Nahuas themselves, the ancestors of\nthose Mexica who built Tenochtitlan in 1325. This is stated as plainly\nas can be in the Aztec records, and should now be conceded by all. The\nmythical Tula, and all its rulers and inhabitants, are the baseless\ndreams of poetic fancy, which we principally owe to the Tezcucan\npoets.[124]\n\n\n\n\n                                PART II.\n\n                        MYTHOLOGY AND FOLK-LORE.\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTORY.\n\n\nFashions in the study of mythology come and go with something like the\nrapidity of change in costume feminine, subject to the autocracy of a\nParisian man-modiste. Myths have been held in turn to be of some deep\nhistorical, or moral, or physical purport, and their content has been\nsought through psychologic or philologic analysis. Just now, all these\nmethods are out of fashion. The newest theory is that myths generally\nmean nothing at all; that they are merely funny or fearsome stories and\nnever were much more; and that at first they were not told of anybody in\nparticular nor about anything in particular.\n\nAs for philologic analysis, it is accused of failures and contradictory\nresults; the names which it makes its material are alleged not to have\nbelonged to the original story; and their etymology casts no more light\non the meaning or the source of the myth than if they were Smith or\nBrown.\n\nAccording to this facile method, the secret of all mythology is an open\none, because there is no secret at all. No painful preliminary study of\nlanguage is necessary to the science, no laborious tracing of names\nthrough their various dialectic forms and phonetic changes to their\nfirst and original sense, for neither their earlier nor later sense is\nto the purpose.\n\nThis new method goes still further. Some former mythologists had\nsupposed that even in the savage state man feels a sense of awe before\nthe mighty forces of nature and the terrible mysteries of life; that joy\nin light and existence, dread of death and darkness, love of family and\ncountry, are emotions so intimate, so native to the soul, as nowhere to\nbe absent\u2014so potent as to find expressions in the highest imaginative\nforms of thought and speech. Not so the latest teachers. They sneer at\nthe possibility of such inspiration even in the divine legends of\ncultivated nations, and are ready to brand them all as but the later\ngrowths of \u201cmyths, cruel, puerile and obscene, like the fancies of the\nsavage myth-makers from which they sprang.\u201d[125]\n\nLike other fashions, this latest will also pass away, because it is a\nfashion only, and not grounded on the permanent, the verifiable facts of\nhuman nature. Etymology is as yet far from an exact science, and\ncomparative mythologists in applying it have made many blunders: they\nhave often erred in asserting historical connections where none existed;\nthey have been slow in recognizing that primitive man works with very\nlimited materials, both physical and mental, and as everywhere he has\nthe same problems to solve, his physical and mental productions are\nnecessarily very similar. These are objections, not against the method,\nbut against the manner of its application.\n\nThose who have studied savage races most intimately and with most\nunbiased minds have never found their religious fancies merely \u201cpuerile\nand obscene,\u201d as some writers suppose, but significant and didactic.\nSavage symbolism is rich and is expressed both in object and word; and\nwhat appears cruelty, puerility or obscenity assumes a very different\naspect when regarded from the correct, the native, point of view, with a\nfull knowledge of the surroundings and the intentions of the myth-makers\nthemselves.\n\nIn the sections which follow I have endeavored to illustrate these\nopinions by some studies from American mythology. I have chosen a series\nof unpromising names from the sacred books of the Quiches of Guatemala,\nand endeavored to ascertain their exact definition and original purport.\nI have taken up the most unfavorable aspect of the Algonkin hero-god,\nand shown how parallel it is to the tendencies of the human mind\neverywhere; in the Journey of the Soul, the striking analogies of\nEgyptian, Aryan and Aztec myth have been brought together and an\nexplanation offered, which I believe will not be gainsaid by any\ncompetent student of Egyptian symbolism. The Sacred Symbols found in all\ncontinents are explained by a similar train of reasoning; while the\nmodern folk-lore of two tribes of semi-Christianized Indians of to-day\nreveals some relics of the ancient usages.\n\n\n\n\n               THE SACRED NAMES IN QUICHE MYTHOLOGY.[126]\n\n  _Contents._\u2014The Quiches of Guatemala, and their relationship\u2014Their\n  Sacred Book, the _Popol Vuh_\u2014Its opening words\u2014The name\n  Hun-Ahpu-Vuch\u2014Hun-Ahpu-Utiu\u2014Nim-ak\u2014Nim-tzyiz\u2014Tepeu\u2014Gucumatz\u2014Qux-cho\n  and Qux-palo\u2014Ah-raxa-lak and Ah-raxa-sel\u2014Xpiyacoc and\n  Xmucane\u2014Cakulha\u2014Huracan\u2014Chirakan\u2014Xbalanque and his Journey to\n  Xibalba.\n\n\nOf the ancient races of America, those which approached the nearest to a\ncivilized condition spoke related dialects of a tongue, which from its\nprincipal members has been called the \u201cMaya-Quiche\u201d linguistic stock.\nEven to-day, it is estimated that about half a million persons use these\ndialects. They are scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala and the adjacent\nterritory, and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf\nof Mexico, north of Vera Cruz.\n\nThe so-called \u201cmetropolitan\u201d dialects are those spoken relatively near\nthe city of Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the\nPokonchi and the Tzutuhil. They are quite closely allied, and are\nmutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much as did in\nancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects. These closely\nrelated members of the Maya-Quiche family will be referred to under the\nsub-title of the Quiche-Cakchiquel dialects.\n\nThe civilization of these people was such that they used various\nmnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record and recall their\nmythology and history. Fragments, more or less complete, of these\ntraditions have been preserved. The most notable of them is the National\nLegend of the Quiches of Guatemala, the so-called _Popol Vuh_. It was\nwritten at an unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was\nfamiliar with the ancient records. A Spanish translation of it was made\nearly in the last century by a Spanish priest, Father Francisco Ximenez,\nand was first published at Vienna, 1857.[127] In 1861 the original text\nwas printed in Paris, with a French translation by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur (de\nBourbourg). This original covers about 175 octavo pages, and is\ntherefore highly important as a linguistic as well as an arch\u00e6ologic\nmonument.\n\nBoth these translations are open to censure. It needs but little study\nto see that they are both strongly colored by the views which the\nrespective translators entertained of the purpose of the original.\nXimenez thought it was principally a satire of the devil on\nChristianity, and a snare spread by him to entrap souls; Brasseur\nbelieved it to be a history of the ancient wars of the Quiches, and\nfrequently carries his euhemerism so far as to distort the sense of the\noriginal.\n\nWhat has added to the difficulty of correcting these erroneous\nimpressions is the extreme paucity of material for studying the Quiche.\nA grammar written by Ximenez has indeed been published, but no\ndictionary is available, if we except a brief \u201cVocabulary of the\nPrincipal Roots\u201d of these dialects by the same author, which is almost\nuseless for critical purposes.\n\nIt is not surprising, therefore, that some writers have regarded this\nlegend with suspicion, and have spoken of it as but little better than a\nlate romance concocted by a shrewd native, who borrowed many of his\nincidents from Christian teachings. Such an opinion will pass away when\nthe original is accurately translated. To one familiar with native\nAmerican myths, this one bears undeniable marks of its aboriginal\norigin. Its frequent obscurities and inanities, its generally low and\nnarrow range of thought and expression, its occasional loftiness of\nboth, its strange metaphors, and the prominence of strictly heathen\nnames and potencies, bring it into unmistakable relationship to the true\nnative myth. This especially holds good of the first two-thirds of it,\nwhich are entirely mythological.\n\nAs a contribution to the study of this interesting monument, I shall\nundertake to analyze some of the proper names of the divinities which\nappear in its pages. The especial facilities that I have for doing so\nare furnished by two MS. Vocabularies of the Cakchiquel dialect,\npresented to the library of the American Philosophical Society by the\nGovernor of Guatemala in 1836. One of these was written in 1651, by\nFather Thomas Coto, and was based on the previous work of Father\nFrancisco Varea. It is Spanish-Cakchiquel only, and the final pages,\ntogether with a grammar and an essay on the native calendar, promised in\na body of the work, are unfortunately missing. What remains, however,\nmakes a folio volume of 972 double columned pages, and contains a mass\nof information about the language. The second MS. is a copy of the\nCakchiquel-Spanish Vocabulary of Varea, made by Fray Francisco Ceron in\n1699. It is a quarto of 493 pages. I have also in my possession copies\nof the _Compendio de Nombres en Lengua Cakchiquel_, by P. F. Pantaleon\nde Guzman (1704), and of the _Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua\nCakchiquel_, by the R. P. F. Benito de Villaca\u00f1as, composed about 1580.\n\nFather Coto observes that the natives loved to tell long stories, and to\nrepeat chants, keeping time to them in their dances. These chants were\ncalled _nugum tzih_, garlands of words, from _tzih_, word, and _nug_, to\nfasten flowers into wreaths, to set in order a dance, to arrange the\nheads of a discourse, etc. As preserved to us in the _Popol Vuh_, the\nrhythmical form is mostly lost, but here and there one finds passages,\nretained intact by memory no doubt, where a distinct balance in diction,\nand an effort at harmony are noted.\n\nThe name _Popol Vuh_ given to this work is that applied by the natives\nthemselves. It is translated by Ximenez \u201clibro del comun,\u201d by Brasseur\n\u201clivre national.\u201d The word _popol_ is applied to something held in\ncommon ownership by a number; thus food belonging to a number is _popol\nnaim_; a task to be worked out by many, _popol zamah_; the native\ncouncil where the elders met to discuss public affairs was _popol tzih_,\nthe common speech or talk. The word _pop_ means the mat or rug of woven\nrushes or bark on which the family or company sat, and from the\ncommunity of interests thus typified, the word came to mean anything in\ncommon.\n\n_Vuh_ or _uuh_ is in Quiche and Cakchiquel the word for _paper_ and\n_book_. It is an original term in these and connected dialects, the Maya\nhaving _nooh_, a letter, writing; _uoch_, to write.\n\nThere is a school of writers who deprecate such researches as I am about\nto make. They are of opinion that the appellations of the native gods\nwere derived from trivial or accidental circumstances, and had no\nrecondite or symbolic meaning. In fact, this assertion has been made\nwith reference to the very names which I am about to discuss.\n\nI do not share this opinion. Many of the sacred names among the American\ntribes I feel sure had occult and metaphorical significance. This is\nproved by the profound researches of Cushing among the Zu\u00f1is; of Dorsey\namong the Dakotas; and others. But to reach this hidden purport, one\nmust study all the ideas which the name connotes, especially those which\nare archaic.\n\nI begin with the mysterious opening words of the _Popol Vuh_. They\nintroduce us at once to the mighty and manifold divinity who is the\nsource and cause of all things, and to the original couple, male and\nfemale, who in their persons and their powers typify the sexual and\nreproductive principles of organic life. These words are as follows:\n\n  \u201cHere begins the record of what happened in old times in the land of\n  the Quiches.\n\n  \u201cHere will we begin and set forth the story of past time, the outset\n  and starting point of all that took place in the city of Quiche, in\n  the dwelling of the Quiche people.\n\n  \u201cHere we shall bring to knowledge the explanation and the disclosure\n  of the Disappearance and the Reappearance through the might of the\n  builders and creators, the bearers of children and the begetters of\n  children, whose names are Hun-ahpu-vuch, Hun-ahpu-utiu,\n  Zaki-nima-tzyiz, Tepeu, Gucumatz, u Qux-cho, u Qux-palo,\n  Ah-raxa-lak, Ah-raxa-tzel.\n\n  \u201cAnd along with these it is sung and related of the\n  grandmother-grandfather, whose name is Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, the\n  Concealer and Protector; two-fold grandmother and two-fold\n  grandfather are they called in the legends of the Quiches.\u201d[128]\n\nIt will be here observed that the declaration of the attributes of the\nhighest divinity sets forth distinctly sexual ideas, and, as was often\nthe case in Grecian, Egyptian and Oriental mythology, this divinity is\nrepresented as embracing the powers and functions of both sexes in his\nown person; and it is curious that both here and in the second\nparagraph, the _female_ attributes are named _first_.\n\nFirst in the specific names of divinity given is _Hun-ahpu-vuch_. To\nderive any appropriate signification for this has baffled students of\nthis mythology. _Hun_ is the numeral _one_, but which also, as in most\ntongues, has the other meanings of first, foremost, self, unique, most\nprominent, \u201cthe one,\u201d etc. _Ah pu_ is derived both by Ximenez and\nBrasseur from the prefix _ah_, which is used to signify knowledge or\npossession of, or control over, mastership or skill in, origin from or\npractice in that to which it is prefixed; and _ub_, or _pub_, the\n_sarbacana_ or blowpipe, which these Indians used to employ as a weapon\nin war and the chase. _Ah pu_, therefore, they take to mean, He who uses\nthe sarbacane, a hunter. _Vuch_, the last member of this compound name,\nis understood by both to mean the opossum.\n\nIn accordance with these derivations the name is translated \u201can opossum\nhunter.\u201d\n\nSuch a name bears little meaning in this relation; little relevancy to\nthe nature and functions of deity; and if a more appropriate and not\nless plausible composition could be suggested, it would have intrinsic\nclaims for adoption. There is such a composition, and it is this: The\nderivation of Ahpu from _ah-pub_ is not only unnecessary but hardly\ndefensible. In Cakchiquel the sarbacane is _pub_, but in Quiche the\ninitial _p_ is dropped, as can be seen in many passages of the _Popol\nVuh_. The true composition of this word I take to be _ah-puz_, for _puz_\nhas a signification associated with the mysteries of religion; it\nexpressed the divine power which the native priests and prophets claimed\nto have received from the gods, and the essentially supernatural\nattributes of divinity itself. It was the word which at first the\nnatives applied to the power of forgiving sins claimed by the Catholic\nmissionaries; but as it was associated with so many heathen notions, the\nclergy decided to drop it altogether from religious language, and to\nleave it the meaning of necromancy and unholy power. Thus Coto gives it\nas the Cakchiquel word for _magic_ or _necromancy_.[129]\n\nThe word _puz_ is used in various passages of the _Popol Vuh_ to express\nthe supernatural power of the gods and priests; but probably by the time\nthat Ximenez wrote, it had, in the current dialect of his parish, lost\nits highest signification, and hence it did not suggest itself to him as\nthe true derivation of the name I am discussing.\n\nThe third term, _Vuch_ or _Vugh_, was chosen according to Ximenez\nbecause this animal is notoriously cunning, \u201c_por su astucia_.\u201d This may\nbe correct, and we may have here a reminiscence of an animal myth. But\nthe word has several other significations which should be considered. It\nwas the name of a sacred dance; it expressed the trembling in the ague\nchill; the warmth of water; and the darkness which comes before the\ndawn.[130]\n\nOf these various meanings one is tempted to take the last, and connect\nHun-ahpu-vuch with the auroral gods, the forerunners of the light, like\nthe \u201cKichigouai, those who make the day,\u201d of Algonkin mythology.\n\nThere is a curious passage in the _Popol Vuh_ which is in support of\nsuch an opinion. It occurs at a certain period of the history of the\nmythical hero Hunahpu. The text reads:\n\n \u201cAre cut ta chi r\u2019ah zakiric,       \u201cAnd now it was about to become\n                                       white,\n\n \u201cChi zaktarin,                      And the dawn came,\n\n \u201cU xecah ca xaquinuchic.            The day opened.\n\n \u201cAma x-u ch\u2019ux ri Vuch?             \u2018Is the _Vuch_ about to be?\u2019\n\n \u201cVe, x-cha ri mama.                 Yes, answered the old man.\n\n \u201cTa chi xaquinic;                   Then he spread apart his legs;\n\n \u201cQuate ta chi gekumar chic;         Again the darkness appeared;\n\n \u201cCahmul xaquin ri mama.             Four times the old man spread his\n                                       legs.\n\n \u201cCa xaquin-Vuch,\u201d ca cha vinak      \u201cNow the opossum (_Vuch_) spreads\n   vacamic.                            his legs,\u201d say the people yet\n                                       (meaning that the day\n                                       approaches).\n\nAs the same word _Vuch_ meant both the opossum and the atmospheric\nchange which in that climate precedes the dawn, the text may be\ntranslated either way, and the homophony would give rise to a double\nmeaning of the name. This homophony contains, indeed, rich material for\nthe development of an animal myth, identifying the _Vuch_ with the God\nof Light, just as the similarity of the Algonkin _waubisch_, the dawn,\nand _waubos_, the rabbit, gave occasion to a whole cycle of curious\nmyths in which the Great Hare or the Mighty Rabbit figures as the\nCreator of the world, the Day Maker, and the chief God of the widely\nspread Algonkin tribes.[131]\n\nIn the second name, _Hun-ahpu-utiu_, the last member _utiu_ means the\ncoyote, the native wolf, an animal which plays an important symbolic\npart in the cosmogonical myths of Californian, Mexican and Central\nAmerican tribes. It appears generally to represent the night, and I\nwould render the esoteric sense of the two names by \u201cMaster of the\nNight,\u201d and \u201cMaster of the Approaching Dawn.\u201d\n\nThe same concealed sense seems to lurk in the next name,\n_Zaki-nima-tzyiz_, literally, \u201cThe Great White Pisote,\u201d the pisote being\nthe proboscidian known as _Nasua narica_, L.\n\nThese names are repeated in a later passage of the _Popol Vuh_ (p. 20).\n\n  \u201cMake known your name, Hun-ahpu-vuch, Hun-ahpu-utiu, twofold bearer\n  of children, twofold begetter of children, Nim-ak, Nim-tzyiz, master\n  of the emerald, etc.\u201d\n\nThe name _Nim-ak_ is elsewhere given _Zaki-nim-ak_. The former means\n\u201cGreat Hog,\u201d the latter \u201cWhite, Great Hog.\u201d Brasseur translates _ak_ as\nwild boar (_sanglier_), but it is the common name for the native hog,\nwithout distinction of sex. In a later passage,[132] we are informed\nthat it was the name of an old man with white hair, and that\nZaki-nima-tzyiz was the name of an old woman, his wife, all bent and\ndoubled up with age, but both beings of marvelous magic power. Thus we\nfind here an almost unique example of the deification of the hog; for\nonce, this useful animal, generally despised in mythology and\nanathematized in religion, is given the highest pedestal in the\nPantheon.\n\nPerhaps we should understand these and nearly all similar brute gods to\nbe relics of a primitive form of totemic worship, such as was found in\nvigor among some of the northern tribes. Various other indications of\nthis can be discovered among the branches of the Maya family. The\nCakchiquels were called \u201cthe people of the bat\u201d (_zoq\u2019_), that animal\nbeing their national sign or token, and also the symbol of their\ngod.[133] The _tucur_ owl, _chan_ or _cumatz_ serpent, _balam_ tiger,\nand _geh_ deer, are other animals whose names are applied to prominent\nfamilies or tribes in these nearly related myths.\n\nThe priests and rulers also assumed frequently the names of animals, and\nsome pretended to be able to transform themselves into them at will.\nThus it is said of Gucumatz Cotuha, fifth king of the Quiches, that he\ntransformed himself into an eagle, into a tiger, into a serpent, and\ninto coagulated blood.[134] In their dances and other sacred ceremonies\nthey used hideous masks, carved, painted and ornamented to represent the\nheads of eagles, tigers, etc. These were called _coh_, as _cohbal ruvi\ncot_, the mask of an eagle; _cohbal ruvi balam_, the mask of a tiger,\netc. In Maya the same word is found, _koh_, and in the Codex Troano, one\nof few original Maya manuscripts we have left, these masks are easily\ndistinguished on the heads of many of the persons represented. Recent\nobservers tell us that in the more remote parishes in Central America\nthese brute-faced masks are still worn by the Indians who dance in\naccompanying the processions of the Church![135] Even yet, every\nnew-born child among the Quiches is solemnly named after some beast by\nthe native \u201cmedicine man\u201d before he is baptized by the padre.[136]\n\nThis brings me to a name which has very curious meanings, to wit,\n_Tepeu_. It is the ordinary word in these dialects for lord, ruler,\nchief or king. Its form in Cakchiquel is _Tepex_, in Maya _Tepal_, and\nit is probably from the adjective root _tep_, filled up, supplied in\nabundance, satisfied. In Quiche and Cakchiquel it is used synonymously\nwith _galel_ or _gagal_ and _ahau_, as a translation of Se\u00f1or or\nCacique. But it has another definite meaning, and that is, the disease\n_syphilis_; and what is not less curious, this meaning extends also in a\nmeasure to _gagal_ and _ahau_.\n\nThis extraordinary collocation of ideas did not escape the notice of\nXimenez, and he undertakes to explain it by suggestion that as syphilis\narises from cohabitation with many different women, and this is a\nprivilege only of the great and powerful, so the name came to be applied\nto the chiefs and nobles, and to their god.[137]\n\nOf course, syphilis has no such origin; but if the Indians thought it\nhad, and considered it a proof of extraordinary genetic power, it would\nbe a plausible supposition that they applied this term to their divinity\nas being the type of the fecundating principle. But the original sense\nof the adjective _tep_ does not seem to bear this out, and it would\nrather appear that the employment of the word as the name of the disease\nwas a later and secondary sense. Such is the opinion of Father Coto, who\nsays that the term was applied jestingly to those suffering from\nsyphilitic sores, because, like a chieftain or a noble, they did no\nwork, but had to sit still with their hands in their laps, as it were,\nwaiting to get well.[138]\n\nThe same strange connection occurs in other American mythologies. Thus\nin the Aztec tongue _nanahuatl_ means a person suffering from syphilis;\nit is also, in a myth preserved by Sahagun, the name of the Sun-God, and\nit is related of him that as a sacrifice, before becoming the sun, he\nthrew into the sacrificial flames, not precious gifts, as the custom\nwas, but the scabs from his sores.[139] So also Caracaracol, a prominent\nfigure in Haytian mythology, is represented as suffering from sores or\nbuboes.\n\nThe name _Gucumatz_ is correctly stated by Ximenez to be capable of two\nderivations. The first takes it from _gugum_, a feather; _tin gugumah_,\nI embroider or cover with feathers. The second derivation is from _gug_,\nfeather, and _cumatz_, the generic name for serpent. The first of these\nis that which the writer of the _Popol Vuh_ preferred, as appears from\nhis expression; \u201cThey are folded in the feathers (_gug_), the green\nones; therefore their name is Gugumatz; very wise indeed are they\u201d (p.\n6). The brilliant plumage of the tropical birds was constantly used by\nthese tribes as an ornament for their clothing and their idols, and the\npossession of many of these exquisite feathers was a matter of pride.\n\nThe names _u Qux cho, Qux palo_, mean \u201cthe Heart of the Lake, the Heart\nof the Sea.\u201d To them may be added _u Qux_ _cah_, \u201cthe Heart of the Sky,\u201d\nand _u Qux uleu_, \u201cthe Heart of the Earth,\u201d found elsewhere in the\n_Popol Vuh_, and applied to divinity. The literal sense of the word\nheart was, however, not that which was intended; in those dialects this\nword had a much richer metaphorical meaning than in our tongue; in them\nit stood for all the psychical powers, the memory, will and reasoning\nfaculties, the life, the spirit, the soul.[140]\n\nIt would be more correct, therefore, to render these names the \u201cspirit\u201d\nor \u201csoul\u201d of the lake, etc., than the \u201cheart.\u201d They represent broadly\nthe doctrine of \u201canimism\u201d as held by these people, and generally by man\nin his early stages of religious development. They indicate also a dimly\nunderstood sense of the unity of spirit or energy in the different\nmanifestations of organic and inorganic existence.\n\nThis was not peculiar to the tribes under consideration. The heart was\nvery generally looked upon, not only as the seat of life, but as the\nsource of the feelings, intellect and passions, the very soul\nitself.[141] Hence, in sacrificing victims it was torn out and offered\nto the god as representing the immaterial part of the individual, that\nwhich survived the death of the body.\n\nThe two names _Ah-raxa-lak_ and _Ah-raxa-sel_ literally mean, \u201cHe of the\ngreen dish,\u201d \u201cHe of the green cup.\u201d Thus Ximenez gives them, and adds\nthat forms of speech with _rax_ signify things of beauty, fit for kings\nand lords, as are brightly colored cups and dishes.\n\n_Rax_ is the name of the colors blue and green, which it is said by many\nwriters cannot be distinguished apart by these Indians; or at least that\nthey have no word to express the difference. _Rax_, by extension, means\nnew, strong, rough, violent, etc.[142] Coming immediately after the\nnames \u201cSoul of the Lake,\u201d \u201cSoul of the Sea,\u201d it is possible that the\n\u201cblue plate\u201d is the azure surface of the tropical sea.\n\nIn the second paragraph I have quoted, the narrator introduces us to\n\u201cthe ancestress (_iyom_), the ancestor (_mamom_), by name Xpiyacoc,\nXmucane.\u201d These were prominent figures in Quiche mythology; they were\nthe embodiments of the paternal and maternal powers of organic life;\nthey were invoked elsewhere in the _Popol Vuh_ to favor the germination\nof seeds, and the creation of mankind; they are addressed as \u201cancestress\nof the sun, ancestress of the light.\u201d The old man, Xpiyacoc, is spoken\nof as the master of divination by the _tzite_, or sacred beans; the old\nwoman, Xmucane, as she who could forecast days and seasons (_ahgih_);\nthey were the parents of those mighty ones \u201cwhose name was Ahpu,\u201d\nmasters of magic.[143] From this ancient couple, Ximenez tells us the\nnative magicians and medicine men of his day claimed to draw their\ninspiration, and they were especially consulted touching the birth of\ninfants, in which they were still called upon to assist in spite of the\nefforts of the padres. It is clear throughout that they represented\nmainly the peculiar functions of the two sexes.\n\nTheir names perhaps belonged to an archaic dialect, and the Quiches\neither could not or would not explain them. All that Ximenez says is\nthat Xmucane means _tomb_ or _grave_, deriving it from the verb _tin\nmuk_, I bury.\n\nIn most or all of the languages of this stock the root _muk_ or _muc_\nmeans to cover or cover up. In Maya the passive form of the verbal noun\nis _mucaan_, of which the _Diccionario de Motul_[144] gives the\ntranslation \u201csomething covered or buried,\u201d the second meaning arising\nnaturally from the custom of covering the dead body with earth, and\nindicated that the mortuary rites among them were by means of interment;\nas, indeed, we are definitely informed by Bishop Landa.[145] The\nfeminine prefix and the terminal euphonic _e_ give precisely\n_X-mucaan-e_, meaning \u201cShe who is covered up,\u201d or buried.\n\nBut while etymologically satisfactory, the appropriateness of this\nderivation is not at once apparent. Can it have reference to the seed\ncovered by the soil, the child buried in the womb, the egg hidden in the\nnest, etc., and thus typify one of the principles or phases of\nreproduction? For there is no doubt, but that it is in the category of\ndivinities presiding over reproduction this deity belongs. Not only is\nshe called \u201cprimal mother of the sun and the light,\u201d[146] but it is she\nwho cooks the pounded maize from which the first of men were formed.\n\nBoth names may be interpreted with appropriateness to the sphere and\nfunctions of their supposed powers, from radicals common to the Maya and\nQuiche dialects. _Xmucane_ may be composed of the feminine prefix _x_\n(the same in sound and meaning as the English pronominal adjective _she_\nin such terms as _she-bear_, _she-cat_): and _mukanil_, vigor, force,\npower.\n\n_Xpiyacoc_ is not so easy of solution, but I believe it to be a\nderivative from the root _xib_, the male, whence _xipbil_,\nmasculinity,[147] and _oc_ or _ococ_, to enter, to accouple in the act\nof generation.[148]\n\nWe can readily see, with these meanings hidden in them, the subtler\nsense of which the natives had probably lost, that these names would be\ndifficult of satisfactory explanation to the missionaries, and that they\nwould be left by them as of undetermined origin.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe second fragment of Quiche mythology which I shall analyze is one\nthat relates to the Gods of the Storm. These are introduced as the three\nmanifestations of _Qux-cha_, the Soul of the Sky, and collectively\n\u201ctheir name is Hurakan:\u201d\n\n  \u201cCakulha Hurakan is the first; Chipi-cakulha is the second; the\n  third is Raxa-cakulha; and these three are the Soul of the Sky.\u201d\n\nElsewhere we read:\n\n  \u201cSpeak therefore our name, honor your mother, your father; call ye\n  upon Hurakan, Chipi-cakulha, Raxa-cakulha, Soul of the Earth, Soul\n  of the Sky, Creator, Maker, Her who brings forth, Him who begets;\n  speak, call upon us, salute us.\u201d[149]\n\n_Cakulha_ (Cakchiquel, _cokolhay_) is the ordinary word for the\nlightning; Raxa-cakulha, is rendered by Coto as \u201cthe flash of the\nlightning\u201d (_el resplandor del rayo_); Chipi-cakulha is stated by\nBrasseur to mean \u201cle sillonnement de l\u2019eclair;\u201d _chip_ is used to\ndesignate the latest, youngest or least of children, or fingers, etc.,\nand the expression therefore is \u201cthe track of the lightning.\u201d\n\nThere remains the name Hurakan, and it is confessedly difficult.\nBrasseur says that no explanation of it can be found in the Quiche or\nCakchiq\u00f9el dictionaries, and that it must have been brought from the\nAntilles, where it was the name applied to the terrible tornado of the\nWest Indian latitudes, and, borrowed from the Haytians by early\nnavigators, has under the forms _ouragan_, _huracan_, _hurricane_,\npassed into European languages. I am convinced, however, that the word\nHurakan belongs in its etymology to the Maya group of dialects, and must\nbe analyzed by them.\n\nOne such etymology is indeed offered by Ximenez, but an absurd one. He\nsupposed the word was compounded of _hun_, one; _ru_ his; and _rakan_,\nfoot, and translates it \u201cof one foot.\u201d This has very properly been\nrejected.\n\nOn collating the proper names in the _Popol Vuh_ there are several of\nthem which are evidently allied to Hurakan. Thus we have _Cabrakan_, who\nis represented as the god of the earthquake, he who shakes the solid\nearth in his might and topples over the lofty mountains. His name is the\ncommon word for earthquake in these dialects. Again, one of the titles\nof Xmucane is _Chirakan Xmucane_.\n\nThe terminal _rakan_ in these names is a word used to express greatness\nin size, height or bigness. Many examples are found in Coto\u2019s\n_Vocabulario_.[150]\n\nFor a person tall in stature he gives the expression _togam rakan_: for\nlarge in body, the Cakchiq\u00f9el is _naht rakan_, and for gigantic, or a\ngiant, _hu rakan_.\n\nThis idea of strength and might is of course very appropriate to the\ndeity who presides over the appalling forces of the tropical\nthunderstorm, who flashes the lightning and hurls the thunderbolt.\n\nIt is also germane to the conception of the earthquake god. The first\nsyllable, _cab_, means twice, or two, or second; and apparently has\nreference to _hun_, one or first, in _hurakan_. As the thunderstorm was\nthe most terrifying display of power, so next in order came the\nearthquake.\n\nThe name _Chirakan_ as applied to Xmucane may have many meanings; _chi_\nin all these dialects means primarily _mouth_; but it has a vast number\nof secondary meanings, as in all languages. Thus, according to Coto, it\nis currently used to designate the mouth of a jar, the crater of a\nvolcano, the eye of a needle, the door of a house, a window, a gate to a\nfield, in fact, almost any opening whatever. I suspect that as here used\nas part of the name of the mythical mother of the race and the\nrepresentation of the female principle, it is to be understood as\nreferring to the _ostium vagin\u00e6_, from which, as from an immeasurable\n_vagina gentium_, all animate life was believed to have drawn its\nexistence.\n\nIf the derivation of Hurakan here presented is correct, we can hardly\nrefuse to explain the word as it occurs elsewhere with the same meaning\nas an evidence of the early influence of the Maya race on other tribes.\nIt would appear to have been through the Caribs that it was carried to\nthe West India islands, where it was first heard by the European\nnavigators. Thus the _Dictionaire Galibi_ (Paris, 1743,) gives for\n\u201cdiable,\u201d _iroucan_, _jeroucan_, _hyorokan_, precisely as Coto gives the\nCakchiquel equivalent of \u201cdiablo\u201d as _hurakan_. This god was said by the\nCaribs to have torn the islands of the West Indian archipelago from the\nmainland, and to have heaped up the sand hills and bluffs along the\nshores.[151] As an associate or \u201ccaptain\u201d of the hurricane, they spoke\nof a huge bird who makes the winds, by name _Savacon_, in the middle\nsyllable of which it is possible we may recognize the bird _vaku_, which\nthe Quiches spoke of as the messenger of Hurakan.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nI now pass to the myth of the descent of the hero-god, Xbalanque, into\nthe underworld, Xibalba, his victory over the inhabitants, and\ntriumphant return to the realm of light. The exploits of this demigod\nare the principal theme of the earlier portion of the _Popol Vuh_.\n\nIt was the vague similarity of this myth to the narrative of the descent\nof Christ into hell, and his ascent into heaven, to which we owe the\nearliest reference to these religious beliefs of the Guatemalan tribes;\nand it is a gratifying proof of their genuine antiquity that we have\nthis reference. Our authority is the Bishop of Chiapas, Bartolome de las\nCasas, with other contemporary writers. The Bishop writes that the\nnatives of Guatemala alleged that Xbalanque was born at Utlatlan, the\nancient Quiche capital, and having governed it a certain time with\nsuccess, went down to hell to fight the devils. Having conquered them,\nhe returned to the upper world, but the Quiches refused to receive him,\nso he passed on into another province.[152]\n\nAs related in the _Popol Vuh_, the myth runs thus:\n\nThe divine pair, Xpiyacoc and Xmucane had as sons Hunhun-Ahpu and\nVukub-Hun-Ahpu (Each-one-a-Magician and Seven-times-a-Magician). They\nwere invited to visit Xibalba, the Underworld, by its lords, Hun-Came\nand Vukub-Came (One-Death and Seven-Deaths), and accepting the\ninvitation, were treacherously murdered. The head of Hunhun-Ahpu was cut\noff and suspended on a tree. A maiden, by name Xquiq, (Blood,) passed\nthat way, and looking at the tree, longed for its fruit; then the head\nof Hunhun-Ahpu cast forth spittle into the outstretched palm of the\nmaiden, and forthwith she became pregnant. Angered at her condition, her\nfather set about to slay her, but she escaped to the upper world and\nthere brought forth the twins Hun-Ahpu and Xbalanque. They grew in\nstrength, and performed various deeds of prowess, which are related at\nlength in the _Popol Vuh_, and were at last invited by the lords of the\nUnderworld to visit them. It was the intention of the rulers of this\ndark land that the youths should meet the same fate as their father and\nuncle. But, prepared by warnings, and skilled in magic power, Xbalanque\nand his brother foiled the murderous designs of the lords of Xibalba;\npretending to be burned, and their ashes cast into the river, they rose\nfrom its waves unharmed, and by a stratagem slew Hun-Came and\nVukub-Came. Then the inhabitants of the Underworld were terrified and\nfled, and Hun-Ahpu and Xbalanque released the prisoners and restored to\nlife those who had been slain. The latter rose to the sky to become its\ncountless stars, while Hunhun-Ahpu and Vukub-Hun-Ahpu ascended to dwell\nthe one in the sun, the other in the moon.\n\nThe portion of the legend which narrates the return of Xbalanque to the\nupper world, and what befell him there, as referred to in the myth\npreserved by Las Casas, is not preserved in the _Popol Vuh_.\n\nThe faint resemblance which the early missionaries noticed in this\nreligious tradition to that of Christ would not lead any one who has at\nall closely studied mythology to assume that this is an echo of\nChristian teachings. Both in America and the Orient the myths of the\nhero god, born of a virgin, and that of the descent into Hades, are\namong the most common. Their explanation rests on the universality and\nprominence of the processes of nature which are typified under these\nnarratives. It is unscientific to attempt to derive one from the other,\nand it is not less so to endeavor to invest them with the character of\nhistory, as has been done in this instance by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur and\nvarious other writers.\n\nThe Abb\u00e9 maintained that Xibalba was the name of an ancient State in the\nvalley of the Usumasinta in Tabasco, the capital of which was\nPalenque.[153] He inclined to the belief that the original form was\n_tzibalba_, which would mean _painted mole_, in the Tzendal dialect and\nmight have reference to a custom of painting the face. This far-fetched\nderivation is unnecessary. The word _Xibalba_, (Cakchiquel _Xibalbay_,\nMaya _Xibalba_, _Xabalba_, or _Xubalba_) was the common term throughout\nthe Maya stock of languages to denote the abode of the spirits of the\ndead, or Hades, which with them was held to be under the surface of the\nearth, and not, as the Mexicans often supposed, in the far north. Hence\nthe Cakchiquels used as synonymous with it the expression \u201cthe centre or\nheart of the earth.\u201d[154]\n\nAfter the conquest the word was and is in common use in Guatemalan\ndialects to mean _hell_, and in Maya for _the devil_. Cogolludo states\nthat it was the original Maya term for the Evil Spirit, and that it\nmeans \u201cHe who disappears, or vanishes.\u201d[155] He evidently derived it\nfrom the Maya verb, _xibil_, and I believe this derivation is correct;\nbut the signification he gives is incomplete. The original sense of the\nword was \u201cto melt,\u201d hence \u201cto disappear.\u201d[156] This became connected\nwith the idea of disappearance in death, and of ghosts and specters.\n\nIt is interesting to note how the mental processes of these secluded and\nsemi-barbarous tribes led them to the same association of ideas which\nour greatest dramatist expresses in Hamlet\u2019s soliloquy:\n\n             \u201cO, that this too, too solid flesh would melt,\n             Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew;\u201d\n\nand which Cicero records in the phrase _dissolutio natur\u00e6_, in the sense\nof death.[157]\n\nThe natural terror and fright with which death and ghosts are everywhere\nregarded, and especially, as Landa remarks, by this people, explain how\nthis secondary meaning became predominant in the word. The termination\n_ba_ means in the Guatemalan dialects, where, whence, whither, _bey_, a\npath or road; _Xibilbay_ thus signifies, in the locative sense, \u201cthe\nplace where they (_i. e._ the dead) disappear,\u201d the Hades, the Invisible\nRealm, which was supposed to be under the ground.\n\nIt was a common belief among many tribes in America, that their earliest\nancestors emerged from a world which underlies this one on which we\nlive, and in ancient Cakchiquel legend, the same or a similar notion\nseems to have prevailed.\n\nThe name of the hero-god _Xbalanque_ is explained by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur\nas a compound of the diminutive prefix _x_, _balam_, a tiger, and the\nplural termination _que_.[158] Like so many of his derivations, this is\nquite incorrect. There is no plural termination _que_, either in the\nQuiche or in any related dialect; and the signification \u201ctiger\u201d (jaguar,\n_Felix unca_ Lin. in Mexican _ocelotl_), which he assigns to the word\n_balam_, is only one of several which belong to it.\n\nThe name is compounded of the prefix, either feminine or diminutive,\n_x_; _balam_, or, as given by Guzman, _balan_;[159] and _queh_, deer.\nThis is the composition given by Ximenez, who translates it literally as\n\u201ca diminutive form of tiger and deer.\u201d[160]\n\nThe name _balam_, was also that of a class of warriors: of a\ncongregation of priests or diviners; and of one of the inferior orders\nof deities. In composition it was applied to a spotted butterfly, as it\nis in our tongue to the \u201ctiger-lily;\u201d to the king-bee; to certain\nrapacious birds of prey, etc.\n\nNone of the significations concerns us here; but we do see our way when\nwe learn that both _balam_ and _queh_ are names of days in the\nQuiche-Cakchiquel calendar. The former stood for the twelfth, the latter\nfor the seventh in their week of twenty days.[161] Each of the days was\nsacred to a particular divinity, but owing to the inadequate material\npreserved for the study of the ancient calendars of Guatemala, we are\nmuch in the dark as to the relationship of these divinities.\n\nSuffice it to say that the hero-god whose name is thus compounded of two\nsigns in the calendar, who is born of a virgin, who performs many\nsurprising feats of prowess on the earth, who descends into the world of\ndarkness and sets free the sun, moon and stars to perform their daily\nand nightly journeys through the heavens, presents in these and other\ntraits such numerous resemblances to the Divinity of Light, reappearing\nin so many American myths, the Day-maker of the northern hunting tribes,\nthat I do not hesitate to identify the narrative of Xbalanque and his\ndeeds as one of the presentations of this widespread, this well-nigh\nuniversal myth\u2014guarding my words by the distinct statement, however,\nthat the identity may be solely a psychological, not a historical one.\n\n\n\n\n        THE HERO-GOD OF THE ALGONKINS AS A CHEAT AND LIAR.[162]\n\n\nIn the pleasant volume which Mr. Charles G. Leland has written on the\nsurviving aboriginal folk-lore of New England,[163] the chief divinity\nof the Micmacs and Penobscots appears under what seems at first the\noutrageously incongruous name of _Gluskap, the Liar!_ This is the\ntranslation of the name as given by the Rev. S. T. Rand, late missionary\namong the Micmacs, and the best authority on that language. From a\ncomparison of the radicals of the name in related dialects of the\nAlgonkin stock, I should say that a more strictly literal rendering\nwould be \u201cword-breaker,\u201d or \u201cdeceiver with words.\u201d In the Penobscot\ndialect the word is divided thus,\u2014_Glus-Gahb\u00e9_, where the component\nparts are more distinctly visible.[164]\n\nThe explanation of this epithet, as quoted from native sources by Mr.\nLeland, is that he was called the liar because \u201cwhen he left earth, like\nKing Arthur, for fairy land, he promised to return, and has never done\nso.\u201d\n\nIt is true that the Algonkian Hero-God, like all the American\nculture-heroes, Ioskeha, Quetzalcoatl, Zamna, Bochica, Viracocha, and\nthe rest, disappeared in some mysterious way, promising again to visit\nhis people, and has long delayed his coming. But it was not for that\nreason that he was called the \u201cdeceiver in words.\u201d Had Mr. Leland made\nhimself acquainted with Algonkin mythology in general, he would have\nfound that this is but one of several, to our thinking, opprobrious\nnames they applied to their highest divinity, their national hero, and\nthe reputed saviour and benefactor of their race.\n\nThe Crees, living northwest of the Micmacs, call this divine personage,\nwhom, as Father Lacombe tells us, they regard as \u201cThe principal deity\nand the founder of these nations,\u201d by the name _Wisakketj\u00e2k_, which\nmeans \u201cthe trickster,\u201d \u201cthe deceiver.\u201d[165] The Chipeways apply to him a\nsimilar term, _Nenaboj_, or as it is usually written, _Nanabojoo_, and\n_Nanaboshoo_, \u201cthe Cheat,\u201d perhaps allied to _Nanabanisi_, he is\ncheated.[166]\n\nThis is the same deity that reappears under the names _Manabozho_,\n_Michabo_, and _Messou_, among the Chipeway tribes; as _Napiw_ among the\nBlackfeet; and as _Wetucks_ among the New England Indians where he is\nmentioned by Roger Williams as \u201cA man that wrought great miracles among\nthem, with some kind of broken resemblance to the Sonne of God.\u201d[167]\n\nThese appellations have various significations. The last mentioned is\napparently from _ock_ or _ogh_, father, with the prefix _wit_, which\nconveys the sense \u201cin common\u201d or \u201cgeneral.\u201d Hence it would be \u201cthe\ncommon father.\u201d\n\n_Michabo_, constantly translated by writers \u201cthe Great Hare,\u201d as if\nderived from _michi_, great, and _wabos_, hare, is really a verbal form\nfrom _michi_ and _wabi_, white, and should be translated, \u201cthe Great\nWhite One.\u201d The reference is to the white light of the dawn, he, like\nmost of the other American hero-gods, being an impersonation of the\nlight.\n\nThe name _Wisakketj\u00e2k_, though entirely Algonkin in aspect, offers\nserious etymological difficulties, so unmanageable indeed that one of\nthe best authorities, M. Cuoq, abandons the attempt.[168] Its most\napparent root is _wisak_, which conveys the sense of annoyance, hurt or\nbitterness, and the name would thus seem to be applied to one who causes\nthese disagreeable sensations.\n\nIn all the pure and ancient Algonkin cosmogonical legends, this divinity\ncreates the world by his magic powers, peoples it with game and animals,\nplaces man upon it, teaches his favorite people the arts of the chase,\nand gives them the corn and beans. His work is disturbed by enemies of\nvarious kinds, sometimes his own brothers, sometimes by a formidable\nserpent and his minions.\n\nThese myths, when analyzed through the proper names they contain, and\ncompared with those of the better known mythologies of the old world,\nshow plainly that their original purport was to recount, under\nmetaphorical language, on the one hand the unceasing struggle of day\nwith night, light with darkness, and on the other, that no less\nimportant conflict which is ever waging between the storm and sunshine,\nthe winter and summer, the rain and the clear sky.\n\nWriters whose knowledge of religions was confined to that of the Semitic\nrace, as represented in our Bible, have maintained that the story of\nMichabo\u2019s battles with the serpent, who is certainly represented as a\nmaster of magic and subtlety, and hence dangerous to the human race,\nmust have come from contact with the missionaries. A careful study of\nthe myth will dispel all doubts on this point. Years ago, Mr. E. G.\nSquier showed that this legend was unquestionably of aboriginal source;\nbut he failed to perceive its significance.[169] The serpent, typical of\nthe sinuous lightning, symbolizes the storm, the rains and the water.\n\nBut to return to the class of names with which we began. The struggles\nof Michabo with these various powerful enemies I have just named,\nconstitute the principal theme of the countless tales which are told of\nhim by the native story-tellers, only a small part of which, and those\nmuch disfigured, came under the notice of Mr. Leland, among the long\ncivilized eastern tribes. Mr. Schoolcraft frequently refers to these\n\u201cinnumerable tales of personal achievement, sagacity, endurance, miracle\nand trick which place him in almost every scene of deep interest which\ncan be imagined.\u201d[170] These words express the spirit of the greater\nnumber of these legends. Michabo does not conquer his enemies by brute\nforce, nor by superior strength, but by craft and ruses, by transforming\nhimself into unsuspected shapes, by cunning and strategy. He thus comes\nto be represented as the arch-deceiver; but in a good sense, as his\nenemies on whom he practices these wiles are also those of the human\nrace, and he exercises his powers with a benevolent intention.\n\nThus it comes to pass that this highest divinity of these nations, their\nchief god and culture-hero, bears in familiar narrative the surprising\ntitles, \u201cthe liar,\u201d \u201cthe cheat,\u201d and \u201cthe deceiver.\u201d\n\nIt would be an interesting literary and psychological study to compare\nthis form of the Michabo myth with some in the old world, which closely\nresemble it in what artists call _motive_. I would name particularly the\nstory of the \u201cwily Ulysses\u201d of the Greeks, the \u201ctransformations of Ebu\nSeid of Serug\u201d and the like in Arabic, and the famous tale of Reynard\nthe Fox in medieval literature. The same spirit breathes in all of them;\nall minister to the delight with which the mind contemplates mere\nphysical strength beaten in the struggle with intelligence. They are all\npeans sung for the victory of mind over matter. In none of them is there\nmuch nicety about the means used to accomplish the ends. Deceit by word\nand action is the general resource of the heroes. They all act on the\nItalian maxim:\n\n                   \u201cO per fortuna, o per ingano,\n                   Il vencer sempre e laudabil cosa.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                     THE JOURNEY OF THE SOUL.[171]\n\n\nI am about to invite your attention to one of the many curious results\nof comparative mythology. This science, which is still in its infancy,\nmay be regarded by some of you, as it is by the world at large, as one\nof little practical importance, and quite remote from the interests of\ndaily life and thought. But some of the results it attains are so\nstartling, and throw such a singular light on various familiar customs\nand popular beliefs, that the time is not far off when it will be\nrecognized as one of the most potent solvents in the crucible of\nintelligence.\n\nThe point to which I shall address myself to-night is the opinion\nentertained by three ancient nations, very wide apart in space, time and\nblood, concerning the journey of the soul when it leaves the body.\n\nThese nations are the ancient Egyptians, the ancient Aryans, and the\nAztecs or Nahua of Central Mexico.\n\nAll these people believed, with equal faith, in the existence of a soul\nor spirit in man, and in its continuing life after the death of the\nbody. How they came by this belief does not concern my present thesis;\nthat they held it in unquestioning faith none can deny who has studied\neven superficially their surviving monuments. They supposed this assumed\nafter-life was continued under varying conditions in some other locality\nthan this present world, and that it required a journey of some length\nfor the disembodied spirit to reach its destined abode. It is the events\nwhich were supposed to take place on this journey, and the goals to\nwhich it led, that I am about to narrate. It will be seen that there are\nseveral curious similarities in the opinions of these widely diverse\npeoples, which can only be explained by the supposition that they based\ntheir theories of the soul\u2019s journey and goal on some analogy familiar\nto them all.\n\nI begin with the Egyptian theory. It appears in its most complete form\nin the sepulchral records of the New Kingdom, after the long period of\nanarchy of the Shepherd Kings had passed, and when under the 18th, 19th\nand 20th dynasties, Egypt may be said to have risen to the very pinnacle\nof her greatness.\n\nThe collection of the sacred funerary texts into the famous ritual known\nas \u201cThe Book of the Dead,\u201d dates from this time. Many of its chapters\nare, indeed, very much older; but Egyptian religion, which was not\nstationary, but constantly progressive toward higher intellectual forms\nand purer ethical standards, can best be judged as it was in this\nperiod, that of the Theban dynasties of the New Kingdom. To assign a\ndate, we may say in round numbers, two thousand years before the\nChristian era.\n\nFrom that invaluable document, therefore, the \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d we\nlearn what this ancient people expected to happen to the soul when it\nleft the body. Of the millions of mummies which were zealously prepared\nin those ages, none was complete unless it had folded with it one or a\nnumber of chapters of this holy book, the formulas in which were\nsafeguards and passwords to the spirit on its perilous journey.\n\nThe general statement is that the soul on leaving the corpse passes\ntoward the West, where it descends into the divine inferior region\ncalled Amenti, over which presides Osiris, \u201cchief of chiefs divine,\u201d who\nrepresents the Sun-god in his absence, in other words the sun at night,\nthe sun which has sunk in the west and stays somewhere all night.\n\nIn this place of darkness the soul undergoes its various tests. The\ndeeds done in the flesh, the words spoken in life, the thoughts of the\nheart, are brought up against it by different accusers, who appear in\nthe form of monsters of the deep. As the sun has to combat the darkness\nof the night and to overcome it before it can again rise, so the soul\nhas to combat the record of its sins, and conquer the frightful images\nwhich represent them. This was to be done in the Egyptian, as in almost\nall religions, by the power of magic formulas, in other words by\nprayers, and the invocation of holy names.\n\nHaving succeeded, the soul saw the nightly constellations and the\nheavenly stars, and reached the great celestial river, whose name was\nNun. This was the self-created, primordial element. From its green\ndepths all created things, even the gods themselves, took their origin.\nIt is called in the texts, \u201cfather of all gods.\u201d From it rose Ra, the\nSun-god, in his brightness. In its dark depths lies bound in chains of\niron the serpent Refref, the symbol of evil, otherwise called Apap. But,\nthough bound, this monster endeavors to seize each soul that crosses the\nriver. The fortunate soul repels the serpent by blows and incantations\nwhich destroy its power, but the unfortunate one is swallowed up and\nannihilated.\n\nThis danger passed, the soul reaches the farther strand, and rises from\nthe waters, as Horus, who represents the sun at dawn, rises from the\neastern waves. This is the purpose of all the rites and prayers\u2014to have\nthe soul, as the expression is, \u201crise at day\u201d or \u201crise in the daytime.\u201d\nIn other words, to rise as the sun and with the sun, or, to use again\nthe constant formula of the \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d to \u201center the boat of\nthe Sun;\u201d for the Sun was supposed to sail through celestial and\ntranslucent waters on its grand journey from horizon to zenith and\nzenith to horizon. Starting at dawn as the child Horus, son of the slain\nand lost Osiris, the orb of light became at midday the mighty Ra, and as\nevening approached, was transformed into Khep-Ra or Harmachis, again to\nbecome Osiris when it had sunk beneath the western verge.\n\nSo strict and absolute was the analogy supposed by the Egyptians to\nexist between the course of the sun and the destiny of the soul, that\nevery soul was said to become Osiris at the moment of death, and in the\ncopies of the \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d enclosed in a mummy, the proper name\nof the defunct is always preceded by the name \u201cOsiris,\u201d as we might say\n\u201cOsiris Rameses\u201d or \u201cOsiris Sesostris.\u201d\n\nTo illustrate further what I have said, I will translate a few passages\nfrom the most recent and correct version of the \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d that\npublished at Paris a few months ago, and made by Prof. Paul Pierret, of\nthe Egyptian Museum of the Louvre.\n\nThe following is an extract from the first chapter of this Ritual:\n\n\u201cO ye who open the roads! O ye who make smooth the paths to the souls in\nthe abode of Osiris! Make smooth the paths, open the roads to Osiris\nSuch-a-one that he may enter, by the aid of this chapter, into the abode\nof Osiris; that he may enter with zeal and emerge with joy; that this\nOsiris Such-a-one be not repulsed, nor miss his way, that he may enter\nas he wishes and leave when he wills. Let his words be made true and his\norders executed in the abode of Osiris.\n\n\u201cThis Osiris Such-a-one is journeying toward the west with good fortune.\nWhen weighed in the balance he is found to be without sin; of numerous\nmouths, none has condemned him; his soul stands erect before Osiris; out\nof his mouth when on earth no impurity proceeded.\u201d\n\n(Here the soul speaks:)\n\n\u201cI place myself before the master of the gods; I reach the divine abode;\nI raise myself as a living god; I shine among the gods of heaven; I am\nbecome as one of you, O ye gods. I witness the progress of the holy\nstars. I cross the river Nun. I am not far removed from the fellowship\nof the gods. I eat of the food of the gods. I sit among them. I am\ninvoked as a divine being; I hear the prayers offered to me; I enter the\nboat of the sun; my soul is not far from its lord. Hail to thee, Osiris!\nGrant that I sail joyously to the west, that I be received by the lords\nof the west; that they say to me, \u2018Adoration, adoration and peace be\nthine;\u2019 and that they prepare a place for me near to the chief of chiefs\ndivine.\u201d\n\nThrough the rhetoric of this mystic rhapsody we see that the soul goes\nto the abode of Osiris, is judged and tested as to its merits, and if\napproved crosses in safety the river Nun and becomes as one of the gods\nthemselves; a companion of Osiris and Ra.\n\nSuch, in broad outline, was the orthodox Egyptian doctrine. There was a\nvast amount of accessory matter and mysticism added to this simple\nstatement, but the foundation is always the same.\n\nTo one or two points I will call attention for later reference in this\npaper.\n\nIn the 13th Chapter of the \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d the defunct is supposed\nto repeat the following formula:\n\n\u201cI arrive as a hawk, I depart as a phenix. I am the God of the morning.\nI have finished the journey and worshipped the sun in the lower world.\nHeavily braided is the hair of Osiris. I am one of the dogs of Horus. I\nhave finished the journey and worshipped Osiris.\u201d\n\nThe reference to the hair of Osiris and the transformation of the soul\ninto a dog, are incidents to which I shall refer in another connection.\n\nAnother interesting fact is the frequent recurrence of the numbers four\nand eight in the Egyptian theories of the spiritual world. In the 16th\nChapter of the \u201cBook of the Dead,\u201d it is prescribed that four pictures\nas set forth should be painted on the sarcophagus, in order that the\nsoul may pass through the four apertures of the sky. The chapter\nidentifies these with the cardinal points from which blow the four\nwinds. In chapter 17, which is one of the oldest texts in the book,\nreference is made to the eight gods of Hermapolis; elsewhere the number\nis mentioned. This illustrates the easy transfer of the plan of\nterrestrial geography to that of the spiritual world.\n\nPassing now to the mythology of the Aryan nations, we find that the\nthree great cycles of its poetry, the Indian, the Greek, and the Norse,\nagree closely in their opinions of the destination of the soul.\n\nAfter death, according to their belief, the soul descended into a world\nbelow the surface of the earth. The Greeks called it the realm of Hades,\nfrom the name of its ruler, otherwise known as Pluto. The latter name\nsignifies the wealthy, because sooner or later all the children of men\nand all their possessions come under his power. The meaning of Hades is\nunknown, as its derivation from _\u00e6idos_, unseen, is now generally\ndoubted by the best Greek scholars.\n\nThe entrance to this realm was supposed to be guarded by two dogs, the\nmore famous of which, Cerberus in Greek, is in the Vedas spoken of by\nthe same name, Carvara. The soul must pacify these dogs and pass them\nwithout injury if it would enjoy the delights that lay beyond. Within\nthe gates stretched a broad desert through which flowed the river\nAcheron, which in later myths came to have various branches, the Styx,\nLethe, Polyphegmon, etc. This was to be crossed in the boat of Charon,\nthe silent ferryman, who spake no word but exacted of each ghost a toll.\n\nThe dark river crossed, the spirit appeared before the judges, and by\nthem its future fate was decided. An adverse decision condemned it to\nwander lonely in the darkness, but a favorable verdict authorized its\nentrance into the happy fields of Elysium. This joyous abode was in the\nfar west, in that land beyond the shining waters and the purple sunset\nsea, where the orb of light goes to rest himself at night. Its light is\neternal, its joys perennial, its happiness perfect.\n\nWith little difference, this faith was shared by ancient Indians and\nancient Norsemen. The latter often buried with the dead a canoe or boat,\ndestined to convey the soul across the waves to the happy land beyond.\n\nEven the ancient Kelt of Cornwall or Brittany had this same myth of the\nIslands of the Blessed, lying somewhere far out in the Western Sea. What\nto the Greek was the Garden of the Hesperides with its fruit of golden\nquinces, was to the Kelt the Isle of Avalon, with its orchards of\napples.\n\nThither was conveyed the noble Arthur when slain on the field of\nLyoness. He was borne away in a royal boat by the fairy women of the\nstrand. There Ogier the Dane, worn by the wars of a hundred years, was\ncarried by his divine godmother to be restored to youth and strength,\nand to return again to wield his battle-axe under the Oriflamme of\nFrance.\n\nWherever we turn, whether in the most ancient chants of the Vedas, in\nthe graceful forms of the Greek religious fancy, in the gaunt and weird\nimaginings of the Norse poets, or in the complex but brilliant pictures\nof medi\u00e6val romance, we find the same distinct plan of this journey of\nthe soul.\n\nI pass now to the New World, almost to the antipodes of India, and take\nup the doctrines of the Aztecs. We have sufficiently ample accounts of\ntheir notions, preserved by various early writers, especially by Father\nSahagun, who took down the words of the priests in their own tongue, and\nat a date when their knowledge was not dimmed or distorted by Christian\nteaching. Something may also be learned from Tezozomoc, a native\nchronicler, and others.\n\nFrom these it appear that the Aztecs held that after death the souls of\nall people pass downward into the under-world, to the place called\n_Mictlan_. This is translated by the missionaries as \u201chell\u201d or\n\u201cinferno,\u201d but by derivation it means simply \u201cthe place of the slain,\u201d\nfrom an active verb meaning \u201cto kill.\u201d\n\nTo explain this further, I add that in all primitive American tribes,\nthere is no notion of natural death. No man \u201cdies,\u201d he is always\n\u201ckilled.\u201d Death as a necessary incident in the course of nature is\nentirely unknown to them. When a person dies by disease, they suppose he\nhas been killed by some sorcery, or some unknown venomous creature.\n\nThe journey to Mictlan was long and perilous. The soul first passed\nthrough a narrow defile between two mountains which touched each other,\nwhere it was liable to be crushed; it then reached a path by which lay\nin wait a serpent; next was a spot where a huge green lizard whose name\nwas \u201cThe Flower of Heat,\u201d was concealed. After this, eight deserts\nstretched their wild wastes, and beyond these, eight steep hills reared\ntheir toilsome sides into the region of snow. Over their summits blew a\nwind so keen that it was called \u201cThe Wind of Knives.\u201d Much did the poor\nsoul suffer, exposed to this bitter cold, unless many coats of cotton\nand other clothing were burnt upon his tomb for use at this lofty pass.\n\nThese hills descended, the shivering ghost reached the river called \u201cBy\nthe Nine Waters.\u201d It was broad, and deep, and swift. Little chance had\nthe soul of crossing its dark current, was the aid for this purpose\nforgotten during life, or by the mourners. This aid was a dog, of the\nspecies trained by the Aztecs and held in high esteem by them.\n\nBut the dog must be of a particular color; white would not answer, else\nhe would say, when brought to the brink, \u201cAs for me, I am already\nwashed.\u201d Black would fail as much, for the animal would say, \u201cI am too\nblack myself to help another wash.\u201d The only color was red, and for this\nreason great numbers of reddish curs were fostered by the Aztecs, and\none was sacrificed at each funeral. Clinging to it, the soul crossed the\nriver and reached the further brink in safety, being purged and cleansed\nin the transit of all that would make it unfit for the worlds beyond.\n\nThese worlds were threefold. One was called \u201cThe nine Abodes of the\nDead,\u201d where the ordinary mass of mankind were said to go and forever\nabide. The second was paradise, Tlalocan, the dwelling-place of the\nTlalocs, the gods of fertility and rain. It was full of roses and\nfruits. No pain was there, and no sorrow. Scorching heat and cold were\nalike unknown. Green fields, rippling brooks, balmy airs and perpetual\njoy, filled the immortal days of the happy souls in Tlalocan. Those who\nwere destined for its Elysian years were divinely designated by the\ndiseases or accidents of which they died. These were of singular\nvariety. All struck by lightning or wounded, the leprous, the gouty, the\ndropsical, and what at first sight seems curious, all those who died of\nthe forms of venereal diseases, were believed to pass directly to this\nParadise.\n\nThe third and highest reward was reserved for the brave who died upon\nthe field of battle, or, as captives, perished by the malice of public\nenemies, and for women who died in childbirth. These went to the sun in\nthe sky, and dwelt up in the bright heavens. After four years they\nreturned to earth, and under the form of bright-plumaged singing birds\nrejoiced the hearts of men, and were again spectators of human life.\n\nIn this Aztec doctrine the ruler of the underworld is spoken of as\n_Mictlantecutli_, which the obtuse missionaries persistently render as\nthe devil.\n\nThe name means simply \u201cLord of the Abode of the Slain,\u201d or of the dead.\nIn several of myths he is brought into close relation with the Aztec\nnational hero-god, Quetzalcoatl.\n\nLike Osiris, Quetzalcoatl was said to be absent, to have gone away to\nthe home of the sun, that home where the sun rests at night. More\nspecifically, this was said to be under the earth, and it was spoken of\nas a place of delights, like Tlalocan. Its name was _Cincalco_, which\nmeans the House of Abundance; for no want, no dearth, no hunger and no\nsuffering, were known there. With him dwelt the souls of his disciples\nand the Toltecs, his people, and at some day or other he and they would\nreturn to claim the land and to restore it to its pristine state of\nperfection.\n\nThe thoughts in these faiths which I have described are the same. In\neach of them the supposed history of the destiny of the soul follows\nthat of the sun and the stars. In all of them the spirits are believed\nto descend into or under the surface of the earth, and then, after a\ncertain lapse of time, some fortunate ones are released to rise like the\norbs of light into the heavens above.\n\nStriking analogies exist among them all. The river which in each flows\nthrough the underworld, is nothing else than the great world-stream\nwhich in the primitive geography of every nation is believed to surround\nthe habitable land, and beyond which the sun sinks at night. To reach\nthe abode of the sun in the west this river must be crossed.\n\nThe numbers 4 and 8 which occur in the Egyptian and Aztec geography of\nthe underworld, are relics of the sacredness attached to the cardinal\npoints.\n\nThe ruler of the realm of shadows is not a malevolent being. Osiris,\nHades or Pluto, Mictlantecutli, Quetzalcoatl, all originally represented\nthe sun in its absence, and none of them in any way corresponds to the\nmedi\u00e6val or modern notion of the devil. As Osiris, who is unquestionably\nthe departed Sun-god, was represented with heavy and braided hair, so\nhis Aztec correlative was also named _Tzontemoc_, which means, he of the\nabundant falling hair. In each case the analogy was to the long slanting\nrays of the setting sun.\n\nThe role of the dog in these myths is a curious one. He appears as a\nguardian and preserver. Even Cerberus is good to the good soul. It has\nbeen argued by the eminent Sanscrit antiquary Rajendalala, in his late\nvolume on the Indo-Aryans, that this is a reminiscence of an ancient\ncustom of throwing the dead bodies to the dogs to be consumed, rather\nthan have them decay. This to me is not a very satisfactory explanation,\nbut I have none other to offer in its place, and I therefore merely call\nattention to this singular similarity of notions.\n\nThough I have confined my comparison to these three ancient nations, you\nwould err widely if you imagine that it is for lack of material to\nextend it. I could easily summon numberless other analogies from\nclassic, from Persian, from Turanian, from Semitic sources, to show that\nthese notions were almost universal to the race of man.\n\nThey carried themselves into early Christian teachings, and to-day the\nwording of this ancient Sun-myth is repeated in most of the churches of\nChristendom. We have but to mention the \u201criver of death\u201d which is\nsupposed to limit human life; we have but to look at the phraseology of\nthe Nicene Symbol, where it is said that Christ \u201cdescended into hell\n(Hades),\u201d and after three days rose from the dead and ascended into\nheaven, to see how persistently the old ideas have retained their sway\nover the religious sentiments and expressions of man.\n\n\n\n\n                  THE SACRED SYMBOLS IN AMERICA.[172]\n\n\nWhat I am about to say is, to a certain degree, polemical. My intention\nis to combat the opinions of those writers who, like Dr. Hamy, M.\nBeauvois and many others,[173] assert that because certain well-known\nOriental symbols, as the Ta Ki, the Triskeles, the Svastika and the\nCross, are found among the American aborigines, they are evidence of\nMongolian, Buddhistic, Christian or Aryan immigrations, previous to the\ndiscovery by Columbus; and I shall also try to show that the position is\nerroneous of those who, like William H. Holmes, of the Bureau of\nEthnology, maintain that \u201cit is impossible to give a satisfactory\nexplanation of the religious significance of the cross as a religious\nsymbol in America.\u201d[174]\n\nIn opposition to both these views I propose to show that the primary\nsignificance of all these widely extended symbols is quite clear; and\nthat they can be shown to have arisen from certain fixed relations of\nman to his environment, the same everywhere, and hence suggesting the\nsame graphic representations among tribes most divergent in location and\nrace; and, therefore, that such symbols are of little value in tracing\nethnic affinities or the currents of civilization; but of much import in\ninvestigating the expressions of the religious feelings.\n\nTheir wide prevalence in the Old World is familiar to all students. The\nthree legs diverging from one centre, which is now the well-known arms\nof the Isle of Man, is the ancient _Triquetrum_, or, as Olshausen more\nproperly terms it, the _Triskeles_,[175] seen on the oldest Sicilian\ncoins and on those of Lycia, in Asia Minor, struck more than five\nhundred years before the beginning of our era. Yet, such is the\npersistence of symbolic forms, the traveler in the latter region still\nfinds it recurring on the modern felt wraps used by the native\ninhabitants.[176] As a decorative motive, or perhaps with a deeper\nsignificance, it is repeatedly found on ancient Slavic and Teutonic\nvases, disinterred from mounds of the bronze age, or earlier, in Central\nand Northern Europe. Frequently the figure is simply that of three\nstraight or curved lines springing from a central point and surrounded\nby a circle, as:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 1.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 2.\n]\n\nIn the latter we have the precise form of the Chinese Ta Ki, a symbolic\nfigure which plays a prominent part in the mystical writing, the\ndivination and the decorative art of China.[177]\n\nAs it is this symbol which, according to Dr. Hamy, the distinguished\nethnologist and Director of the Museum of the Trocadero, Paris,\nindicates the preaching of Buddhistic doctrines in America, it merits\nclose attention.\n\nThe Ta Ki, expressed by the signs:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 3.\n]\n\nis properly translated, \u201cThe Great Uniter\u201d (_ta_, great; _ki_, to join\ntogether, to make one, to unite); as in modern Chinese philosophy,\nexpressed in Platonic language, the One is distinguished from the Many,\nand is regarded as the basis of the numerical system. But as the Chinese\nbelieve in the mystic powers of numbers, and as that which reduces all\nmultiplicity to unity naturally controls or is the summit of all things,\ntherefore the Ta Ki expresses the completest and highest creative force.\n\nIn Chinese philosophy, the Universe is made up of opposites, heaven and\nearth, light and darkness, day and night, land and water, concave and\nconvex, male and female, etc., the highest terms for which are _Yin_ and\n_Yang_. These are held to be brought into fructifying union by Ta Ki.\nAbstractly, the latter would be regarded as the synthesis of the two\nuniversal antitheses which make up all phenomena.[178]\n\nThe symbolic representation of Yin and Yang is a circle divided by two\narcs with opposite centres, while the symbol of Ta Ki adds a third arc\nfrom above uniting these two.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 4.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 5.\n]\n\nIt is possible that these symbols are of late origin, devised to express\nthe ideas above named. One Chinese scholar (Mr. S. Culin) tells me that\nit is doubtful if they occur earlier than the twelfth century, A. D.,\nand that they were probably introduced for purposes of divination. In\nthis case, I believe that they were introduced from the South, and that\nthey originally had another and concrete significance, as I shall\nexplain later.\n\nOthers consider these symbols as essentially Mongolian. The Ta Ki or\nTriskeles is to them the Mongolian, while the Svastika is the ethnic\nAryan symbol. Such writers suspect Indo-European immigration where they\ndiscover the latter, Chinese immigration were they find the former\nemblem.\n\nThe Svastika, I need hardly say, is the hooked cross or gammated cross,\nusually represented as follows:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 6.\n]\n\nthe four arms of equal length, the hook usually pointing from left to\nright. In this form it occurs in India and on very early (neolithic)\nGreco-Italic and Iberian remains. So much has been written upon the\nSvastika, however, that I need not enter upon its arch\u00e6ological\ndistribution.\n\nIts primary significance has been variously explained. Some have\nregarded it as a graphic representation of the lightning, others as of\nthe two fire-sticks used in obtaining fire by friction, and so on.\n\nWhatever its significance, we are safe in considering it a form of the\nCross, and in its special form obtaining its symbolic or sacred\nassociation from this origin.\n\nThe widely-spread mystic purport of the Cross symbol has long been\nmatter of comment. Undoubtedly in many parts of America the natives\nregarded it with reverence anterior to the arrival of Europeans; as in\nthe Old World it was long a sacred symbol before it became the\ndistinctive emblem of Christianity.\n\nAs in previous writings I have brought together the evidence of the\nveneration in which it was held in America, I shall not repeat the\nreferences here.\n\nI believe we may go a step further and regard all three of these\nsymbols, the Ta Ki or Triskeles, the Svastika, and the Cross as\noriginally the same in signification, or, at least, closely allied in\nmeaning. I believe, further, that this can be shown from the relics of\nancient American art so clearly that no one, free from prejudice, and\nwhose mind is open to conviction, will deny its correctness.\n\nMy theory is that all of the symbols are graphic representations of the\nmovements of the sun with reference to the figure of the earth, as\nunderstood by primitive man everywhere, and hence that these symbols are\nfound in various parts of the globe without necessarily implying any\nhistoric connections of the peoples using them.\n\nThis explanation of them is not entirely new. It has previously been\npartly suggested by Professors Worsaae and Virchow; but the\ndemonstration I shall offer has not heretofore been submitted to the\nscientific world, and its material is novel.\n\nBeginning with the Ta Ki, we find its primary elements in the symbolic\npicture-writing of the North American Indians. In that of the Ojibways,\nfor example, we have the following three characters:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 7.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 8.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 9.\n]\n\nOf these, the Fig. 7 represents the sunrise; Fig. 9, sunset; Fig. 8,\nnoonday. The last-mentioned is the full day at its height.[179] Where,\nin rock-writing or scratching on wood, the curve could not conveniently\nbe used, straight lines would be adopted:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 10.\n]\n\nthus giving the ordinary form of the Triskeles. But the identical form\nof the Ta Ki is found in the calendar scroll attached to the\nCodex-Poinsett, an unpublished original Mexican MS., on agave paper, in\nthe library of the American Philosophical Society. A line from this\nscroll is as follows:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 11.\n]\n\nHere each circle means a day, and those with the Triskeles, culminating\ndays.[180]\n\nAnother form of representing days is seen in the Vatican Mexican Codex,\npublished in Kingsborough\u2019s _Mexico_, Vol. iii:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 12.\n]\n\nThis is not far from the figure on the stone at Copan, described in Dr.\nHamy\u2019s paper, where the design is as follows:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 13.\n]\n\nThis does not resemble the Ta Ki, as Dr. Hamy supposes, but rather the\nYin-Yang; yet differs from this in having a central circle (apparently a\ncup-shaped depression). This central circular figure, whether a boss or\nnave, or a cup-shaped pit, has been explained by Worsaae as a\nconventionalized form of the sun, and in this he is borne out by\nprimitive American art, as we shall see. The twenty elevations which\nsurround the stone, corresponding in number to the twenty days of the\nMaya month, indicate at once that we have here to do with a monument\nrelating to the calendar.\n\nTurning now to the development of this class of figures in primitive\nAmerican art, I give first the simplest representations of the sun, such\nas those painted on buffalo skins by the Indians of the Plains, and\nscratched on the surface of rocks. The examples are selected from many\nof the kind published by Col. Garrick Mallery.[181]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 14.\n]\n\nThe design is merely a rude device of the human face, with four rays\nproceeding from it at right angles. These four rays represent, according\nto the unanimous interpretation of the Indians, the four directions\ndefined by the apparent motions of the sun, the East and West, the North\nand South. By these directions all travel and all alignments of\nbuildings, corpses, etc., were defined; and hence the earth was regarded\nas four-sided or four-cornered; or, when it was expressed as a circle,\nin accordance with the appearance of the visible horizon, the four radia\nwere drawn as impinging on its four sides:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 15.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 16.\n]\n\nFig. 15 is a design on a vase from Maraja, Brazil, and is of common\noccurrence on the pottery of that region.[182] Fig. 16 represents the\ncircle of the visible horizon, or the earth-plain, with the four winds\nrushing into it when summoned by a magician. It is a figure from the\nMeday Magic of the Ojibways.[183] Dr. Ferraz de Macedo has claimed that\nsuch devices as Fig. 16 \u201cshow Chinese or Egyptian inspiration.\u201d[184] It\nis certainly unnecessary to accept this alternative when both the origin\nand significance of the symbol are so plain in native American art.\n\nWhen the symbol of the sun and the four directions was inscribed within\nthe circle of the visible horizon, we obtain the figure representing the\nmotions pf the sun with reference to the earth, as in:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 17.\n]\n\nThis is what German arch\u00e6ologists call the wheel-cross, _Radkreuz_,\ndistinguished, as Worsaae pointed out, by the presence of the central\nboss, cup or nave, from the ring-cross, _Ringkreuz_, Fig. 18:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 18.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 19.\n]\n\nin which, also, the arms of the cross do not reach to the circumference\nof the wheel. Worsaae very justly laid much stress on the presence of\nthe central boss or cup, and correctly explained it as indicative of the\nsun; but both he and Virchow, who followed him in this explanation, are,\nI think, in error in supposing that the circle or wheel represents the\nrolling sun, _die rollende Sonne_. My proof of this is that this same\nfigure was a familiar symbol, with the signification stated, in tribes\nwho did not know the mechanical device of the wheel, and could have had,\ntherefore, no notion of such an analogy as the rolling wheel of the\nsun.[185]\n\nWhen applied to time, the symbol of the circle in primitive art referred\nto the return of the seasons, not to an idea of motion in space. This is\nvery plainly seen both in art and language. In the year-counts or\nwinter-counts of the American tribes, the years were very generally\nsignified by circles arranged in rows or spirals. Fig. 20 shows the\nDakota winter-count, as depicted on their buffalo robes.[186]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 20.\n]\n\nThis count is to be read from right to left, because it is written from\nleft to right, and hence the year last recorded is at the end of the\nline.\n\nPrecisely similar series of circles occur on the Aztec and Maya codices,\nwith the same signification. Moreover, the year-cycles of both these\nnations were represented by a circle on the border of which the years\nwere inscribed. In Maya this was called _uazlazon katun_, the turning\nabout again, or revolution of the katuns.[187]\n\nThe Aztec figure of the year-cycle is so instructive that I give a\nsketch of its principal elements (Fig. 21), as portrayed in the atlas to\nDuran\u2019s History of Mexico.[188]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 21.\n]\n\nIn this remarkable figure we observe the development and primary\nsignification of those world-wide symbols, the square, the cross, the\nwheel, the circle, and the svastika. The last-mentioned is seen in the\nelements of the broken circle, which are:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 22.\n]\n\nThese, conventionalized into rectilinear figures for scratching on stone\nor wood, became:\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 23.\n]\n\nIn the Mexican time-wheel, the years are to be read from right to left,\nas in the Dakota winter-counts; each of the quarter circles represents\nthirteen years; and these, also, are to be read from right to left,\nbeginning with the top of the figure, which is the East, and proceeding\nto the North, South and West, as indicated.\n\nThe full analysis of this suggestive and authentic astronomical figure\nwill reveal the secret of most of the rich symbolism and mythology of\nthe American nations. It is easy to see how from it was derived the\nNahuatl doctrine of the _nahua ollin_, or Four Motions of the Sun, with\nits accessories of the Four Ages of the world. The Tree of Life, so\nconstantly recurring as a design in Maya and Mexican art, is but another\noutgrowth of the same symbolic expression for the same ideas.\n\nThat we find the same figurative symbolism in China, India, Lycia,\nAssyria and the valley of the Nile, and on ancient urns from Etruria,\nIberia, Gallia, Sicilia and Scythia, needs not surprise us, and ought\nnot to prompt us to assert any historic connection on this account\nbetween the early development of man in the New and Old World. The path\nof culture is narrow, especially in its early stages, and men everywhere\nhave trodden unconsciously in each other\u2019s footsteps in advancing from\nthe darkness of barbarism to the light of civilization.\n\n\n\n\n                     THE FOLK-LORE OF YUCATAN.[189]\n\n\nYucatan presents a strange spectacle to the ethnologist. The native\nrace, which in nearly every other part of the American continent has\ndisappeared before the white invaders or else become their acknowledged\ninferior, has there gained the upper hand. The native language has\nousted the Spanish to that extent that whole villages of whites speak\nMaya only, and the fortunes of war in the last generation have sided so\nmuch with the native braves that they have regained undisputed\npossession of by far the larger part of the peninsula.\n\nIs there to be recognized in this a revival of that inherent energy\nwhich prompted their ancestors to the construction of the most\nremarkable specimens of native architecture on the continent, and to the\ndevelopment of a ripe social and political fabric?\n\nIt can scarcely be doubted; but, however that may be, such\nconsiderations cannot fail to excite our interest in all that relates to\na race of such plucky persistence.\n\nAs throwing a side-light on their mental constitution, their\nsuperstitions and folk-lore merit attention. I happen to have some\nmaterial on this which has never been published, and some more which has\nonly appeared in mediums quite inaccessible even to diligent students.\nOf the former are a manuscript by the Licentiate Zetina of Tabasco, a\nnative of Tihosuco, and some notes on the subject by Don Jose Maria\nLopez, of Merida, and the late Dr. Carl Hermann Berendt; while of the\nlatter a report by Don Bartholom\u00e9 Granado de Baeza, _cura_ of Yaxcab\u00e1,\nwritten in 1813, and an article of later date by the learned cura,\nEstanislao Carrillo, are particularly noteworthy.[190] From these\nsources I have gathered what I here present, arranging and studying the\nfacts they give with the aid of several dictionaries of the tongue in my\npossession.\n\nThese Mayas, as the natives called themselves, were converted at the\nepoch of the conquest (about 1550) to Christianity in that summary way\nwhich the Spaniards delighted in. If they would not be baptized they\nwere hanged or drowned; and, once baptized, they were flogged if they\ndid not attend mass, and burned if they slid back to idol-worship. They\nwere kept in the densest ignorance, for fear they should learn enough to\ndoubt. Their alleged Christianity was therefore their ancient heathenism\nunder a new name, and brought neither spiritual enlightenment nor\nintellectual progress. As a recent and able historian of Yucatan has\nsaid, \u201cthe only difference was that the natives were changed from pagan\nidolaters to Christian idolaters.\u201d[191]\n\nTo this day the belief in sorcerers, witchcraft and magic is as strong\nas it ever was, and in various instances the very same rites are\nobserved as those which we know from early authors obtained before the\nconquest.\n\nThe diviner is called _h\u2019men_, a male personal form of the verb _men_,\nto understand, to do. He is one who knows, and who accomplishes. His\nmain instrument is the _zaztun_, \u201cthe clear stone\u201d (_zaz_, clear,\ntransparent; _tun_, stone). This is a quartz crystal or other\ntranslucent stone, which has been duly sanctified by burning before it\ngum copal as an incense, and by the solemn recital of certain magic\nformulas in an archaic dialect passed down from the wise ancients. It is\nthus endowed with the power of reflecting the past and future, and the\nsoothsayer gazes into its clear depths and sees where lost articles may\nbe recovered, learns what is happening to the absent, and by whose\nwitchery sickness and disaster have come upon those who call in his\nskill. There is scarcely a village in Yucatan without one of these\nwondrous stones.\n\nThe wise men have also great influence over the growing crops, and in\nthis direction their chiefest power is exercised. By a strange mixture\nof Christian and pagan superstition, they are called in to celebrate the\n_misa milpera_, the \u201cfield mass\u201d (_misa_, Spanish, \u201cmass\u201d; _milpera_, a\nword of Aztec derivation, from _milpa_, \u201ccornfield\u201d). In the native\ntongue this is called the _tich_, which means the offering or sacrifice.\nIt is a distinct survival of a rite mentioned by Diego de Landa, one of\nthe earliest bishops of the diocese of Yucatan.[192]\n\nThe ceremony is as follows: On a sort of altar constructed of sticks of\nequal length the native priest places a fowl, and, having thrown on its\nbeak some of the fermented liquor of the country, the _pitarrilla_, he\nkills it, and his assistants cook and serve it with certain maize cakes\nof large size and special preparation. When the feast is ready, the\npriest approaches the table, dips a branch of green leaves into a jar of\n_pitarrilla_, and asperges the four cardinal points, at the same time\ncalling on the three persons of the Christian Trinity, and the sacred\nfour of his own ancient religion, the _Pah ah tun_. These mysterious\nbeings were before the conquest and to this day remain in the native\nbelief the gods of rain, and hence of fertility. They are identical with\nthe winds, and the four cardinal points from which they blow. To each is\nsacred a particular color, and in modern times each has been identified\nwith a saint in the Catholic calendar. Thus Father Baeza tells us that\nthe red Pahahtun is placed at the East, and is known as Saint Dominic;\nto the North the white one, who is Saint Gabriel; the black, toward the\nWest, is Saint James; the yellow is toward the South, and is a female,\ncalled in the Maya tongue _X\u2019Kanleox_, \u201cthe yellow goddess,\u201d and bears\nthe Christian name of Mary Magdalen.\n\nThe name _Pahahtun_ is of difficult derivation, but it probably means\n\u201cstone, or pillar, set up or erected,\u201d and this tallies quite exactly\nwith a long description of the ancient rites connected with the worship\nof these important divinities in the old times. There are some\ndiscrepancies in the colors assigned the different points of the\ncompass, but this appears to have varied considerably among the Central\nAmerican nations, though many of them united in having some such\nsymbolism. A curious study of it has been made by the well-known\narch\u00e6ologist, the Count de Charencey.[193]\n\nThe invocation to these four points of the compass in its modern form\nwas fortunately obtained and preserved in the original tongue by that\nindefatigable student, the late Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de Bourbourg, while on a\nvisit to the plantation of Xcanchakan, in the interior of Yucatan.[194]\nThe translation of it runs as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201cAt the rising of the Sun, Lord of the East, my word goes forth to the\nfour corners of the heaven, to the four corners of the earth, in the\nname of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.\n\n\u201cWhen the clouds rise in the east, when he comes who sets in order the\nthirteen forms of the clouds, the yellow lord of the hurricane, the hope\nof the lords to come, he who rules the preparation of the divine liquor,\nhe who loves the guardian spirits of the fields, then I pray to him for\nhis precious favor; for I trust all in the hands of God the Father, God\nthe Son, and God the Holy Ghost.\u201d\n\nSuch is an example of the strange mixture of heathen and Christian\nsuperstition which has been the outcome of three centuries of so-called\nChristian instruction!\n\nThere still continue to be relics of an ancient form of fire-worship\nwhich once prevailed commonly throughout the peninsula. The missionaries\nrefer to it as \u201cthe festival of fire,\u201d[195] but the exact rites\nperformed were so carefully concealed that we have no description of\nthem. That they are not yet out of date is apparent from a copy of a\nnative calendar for 1841\u20132, obtained by Mr. Stephens when in Yucatan. In\nit the days are marked as lucky or unlucky, and against certain ones\nsuch entries are made as \u201cnow the burner lights his fire,\u201d \u201cthe burner\ngives his fire scope,\u201d \u201cthe burner takes his fire,\u201d \u201cthe burner puts out\nhis fire.\u201d This burner, _ah toc_, is the modern representative of the\nancient priest of the fire, and we find a few obscure references to an\nimportant rite, the _tupp kak_, extinction of the fire, which was kept\nup long after the conquest, and probably is still celebrated in the\nremoter villages. The sacred fire in ancient Maya land is said to have\nbeen guarded by chosen virgins, and it appears in some way to have been\nidentified with the force which gives life to the animal and vegetable\nworld.\n\nAnother of the modern ceremonies which is imbued with the old notion,\ncommon to them as to all primitive people, of a soul with material\nwants, is that called \u201cthe feast of the food of the soul.\u201d Small cakes\nare made of the flesh of hens and pounded maize, and are baked in an\nunderground oven. Of these as many are placed on the altar of the church\nas the person making the offering has deceased relatives for whose\nwell-being he is solicitous. These cakes are called _hanal pixan_, \u201cthe\nfood of the soul.\u201d Evidently they are intended to represent the\nnourishment destined for the soul on its journey through the shadowy\nlands of death.\n\nAlong with these there are many minor superstitions connected especially\nwith the growth of crops and fruits. Thus it is widely believed that the\nfruit known as the white zapote (_Sapota achras_, in Maya, _choch_) will\nnot ripen of itself. One must tap it lightly several times as it\napproaches maturity, repeating the formula:\n\n                  _Hoken, chech\u00e8; ocen, takan_:\n                  Depart, greenness: enter, ripeness.\n\nThe owl is looked upon as an uncanny bird, presaging death or disease,\nif it alights on or even flies over a house. Another bird, the _cox_, a\nspecies of pheasant, is said to predict the approach of high northerly\nwinds, when it calls loudly and frequently in the woods; though this,\naccording to one writer, is not so much a superstition as an observation\nof nature, and is usually correct.\n\nA singular ceremony is at times performed to prevent the death of those\nwho are sick. The dread being who in medi\u00e6val symbolism was represented\nby a skeleton, is known to the Mayas as _Yum Cimil_, Lord of Death. He\nis supposed to lurk around a house where a person is ill, ready to enter\nand carry off his life when opportunity offers. He is, however, willing\nto accept something in lieu thereof, and to bring about this result the\nnatives perform the rite called _kex_, or \u201cbarter.\u201d They hang jars and\nnets containing food and drink on the trees around the house, repeating\ncertain invocations, and they believe that often the Lord of Death will\nbe satisfied with these, and thus allow the invalid to recover.\n\nThose diviners to whom I have alluded are familiarly known as _Tat Ich_,\nDaddy Face, and _Tata Polin_, Daddy Head, a reference, I suspect, to a\nonce familiar name of a chief divinity, _Kin ich_, the face (or eye) of\nthe day, _i. e._ the Sun.\n\nA power universally ascribed to these magicians is that of transforming\nthemselves into beasts. Were it not for so many examples of delusions in\nenlightened lands, it would be difficult to explain the unquestioning\nbelief which prevails on this subject throughout Central America. Father\nBaeza relates that one of these old sorcerers declared in a dying\nconfession that he had repeatedly changed himself into various wild\nbeasts. The English priest, Thomas Gage, who had a cure in Guatemala\nabout 1630, tells with all seriousness a number of such instances. Even\nin our own days the learned Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de Bourbourg is not entirely\nsatisfied that animal magnetism, ventriloquism, and such trickery, can\nexplain the mysteries of _nagualism_, as the Central American system of\nthe black arts is termed. He is not certain that we ought to exclude the\nassistance of the invisible diabolic agencies![196]\n\nThe sacred books of the Quiches, a tribe living in Guatemala related to\nthe Mayas, ascribe this power to one of their most celebrated kings. As\nan illustration the passage is worth quoting:\n\n\u201cTruly this Gucumatz became a wonderful king. Every seven days he\nascended to the sky, and every seven days he followed the path to the\nabode of the dead; every seven days he put on the nature of a serpent\nand he became truly a serpent; every seven days he put on the nature of\nan eagle and again of a tiger, and he became truly an eagle and a tiger;\nevery seven days also he put on the nature of coagulated blood, and then\nhe was nothing else but coagulated blood.\u201d[197]\n\nMen and women alike might possess this magic power. This is shown in a\ncurious little native story heard by Dr. Berendt in the wilds of Yucatan\nfrom a Maya woman, who told it to prove the value of _salt_ as a\ncounter-charm to the machinations of these mysterious beings. The doctor\nwrote it down with scrupulous fidelity, and added a verbal translation.\nAs it has never been published, and as it is at once an interesting bit\nof authentic folk-lore and a valuable example of the Maya language, I\ngive it here in the original tongue with a literal, interlinear\ntranslation:\u2014\n\n                           A MAYA WITCH STORY.\n\n   Huntu hxib tsoocubel yetel huntul xchup; ma tu yoheltah uaix\n     A man married with a woman; not did he know (her) as\n\n uay. Hunpe kin tu yalahti: \u201cHuche capel mut tabb.\u201d Tu\n a witch. One day he said to her: \u201cMix two measures (of) salt.\u201d She\n\n huchah paibe, ca tu katah: \u201cBaax tial tech?\u201d Hunpel akab\n mix\u2019d (them) first, then she asked: \u201cWhy this (wishest) thou?\u201d One night\n\n pixaan hxibe ca tu yilah u hokol u yatan. Ca tu chaah u mazcabe\n woke the man and he saw go out his wife. Then he took his axe\n\n ca tu mucul thulbelah tu pach ti kax. Ca kuchioob ti chichan\n and secretly followed behind (her) to the wood. When they arrived at a\n    little\n\n\n chakan, yau u zazil uh, ca tu mucuba hxib tu booy nohoch\n meadow, there being a bright moon, then hid himself the man in the shade\n    of a great\n\n yaxche. Ca tu pucah u nok xchup tu pach, uaan xmabuc tu\n seiba tree. Then threw her garments the woman behind (her), standing\n    naked in the\n\n tan uh: ca tu sipah u yothel, ca culhi chembac. Ca\n face of the moon: then she stripped off her skin, and remained mere\n    bones. Then\n\n naci ti caan. Ca emi tucaten, ca tu yalahi: \u201cZazaba\n she rose to the sky. When she came down again, then she said to him:\n    \u201cWouldst thou\n\n xtac caan?\u201d Hemac ma uchuc u nacal tucaten, tumen tu thootal\n reach to the sky?\u201d But not could she ascend again, because of the\n    throwing\n\n taab.\n (of) salt.\n\nTo the Maya, the woods, the air, and the darkness are filled with\nmysterious beings who are ever ready to do him injury or service, but\ngenerally injury, as the greater number of these creations of his fancy\nare malevolent sprites.\n\nOf those which are well disposed, the most familiar are the _Balams_\n(Maya, _Hbalamob_, masculine plural form of _balam_). This word is the\ncommon name of the American tiger, and as a title of distinction was\napplied to a class of priests and to kings. The modern notions of the\nBalams are revealed to us by the Licentiate Zetina of Tihosuco, in his\nmanuscripts to which I have previously referred.\n\nHe tells us that these beings are supposed to be certain very ancient\nmen who take charge of and guard the towns. One stands north of the\ntown, a second south, a third east, and the fourth to the west. They are\nusually not visible during the day, and if one does see them it is a\nsign of approaching illness, which suggests that it is the disordered\nvision of some impending tropical fever which may occasionally lead to\nthe belief in their apparition.\n\nAt night the Balams are awake and vigilant, and prevent many an accident\nfrom befalling the village, such as violent rains, tornadoes, and\npestilential diseases. They summon each other by a loud, shrill whistle;\nand, though without wings, they fly through the air with the swiftness\nof a bird. Occasionally they have desperate conflicts with the evil\npowers who would assail the town. The signs of these nocturnal struggles\nare seen the next day in trees broken down and uprooted, the ground torn\nup, and large stones split and thrown around.\n\nAnother of their duties is to protect the corn-fields or _milpas_. It\nseems probable, from comparing the authorities before me, that the\nBalams in this capacity are identical with the _Pa ahtuns_, whom I have\nreferred to above, and that both are lineal descendants of those\nagricultural deities of the ancient Mayas, the _Chac_ or _Bacab_, which\nare described by Bishop Landa and others. No Indian on the peninsula\nneglects to propitiate the Balam with a suitable offering at the time of\ncorn-planting. Were he so negligent as to forget it, the crop would\nwither for lack of rain or otherwise be ruined.\n\nAn instance of this is told by Se\u00f1or Zetina. An Indian near Tihosuco had\npaid no attention to the usual offering, perhaps being infected with\nevil modern skeptical views. His crop grew fairly; and as the ears were\nabout ripening he visited his field to examine them. As he approached he\nsaw with some dismay a tall man among the stalks with a large basket\nover his shoulders, in which he threw the ripening ears as fast as he\ncould pluck them. The Indian saluted him hesitatingly. The stranger\nreplied, \u201cI am here gathering in that which I sent.\u201d Resting from his\nwork, he drew from his pocket an immense cigar, and, taking out a flint\nand steel, began to strike a light. But the sparks he struck were\nflashes of lightning, and the sound of his blows was terrible\nthunderclaps which shook the very earth. The poor Indian fell to the\nground unconscious with fright; and when he came to himself a hail-storm\nhad destroyed his corn, and as soon as he reached home he himself was\nseized with a fever which nigh cost him his life.\n\nThe Balams are great smokers, and it is a general belief among the\nIndians that the shooting stars are nothing else than the stumps of the\nhuge cigars thrown down the sky by these giant beings.\n\nSometimes they carry off children for purposes of their own. When Dr.\nBerendt was exploring the east coast of Yucatan he was told of such an\noccurrence on the Island of San Pedro, north of Belize. A little boy of\nfour years wandered to some cacao bushes not more than fifty yards from\nthe house, and there all trace of him was lost. There was no sign of\nwolf or tiger, no footprint of kidnapper. They sought him the whole day\nin vain, and then gave up the search, for they knew what had\nhappened\u2014the Balam had taken him!\n\nThe Balams have also the reputation of inculcating a respect for the\nproprieties of life. Zetina tells this story which he heard among his\nnative friends: One day an Indian and his wife went to their corn-patch\nto gather ears. The man left the field to get some water, and his wife\nthrew off the gown she wore lest it should be torn, and was naked.\nSuddenly she heard some one call to her in a loud voice, _Pixe avito,\nxnoh cizin_, which Zetina translates literally into Spanish, _Tapa ta\nculo, gran diablo!_ At the same time she received two smart blows with a\ncane. She turned and beheld a tall man with a long beard, and a gown\nwhich reached to his feet. This was the Balam. He gave her two more\nsmart blows on the part of the person to which he had referred, and then\ndisappeared; but the marks of the four blows remained as long as she\nlived.\n\nIt is vain to attempt to persuade the Indian that such notions are false\nand cannot be facts. He will not try to reason with you. He contents\nhimself with a patient gesture and the despairing exclamation, _Bix ma\nhahal?_ \u201cHow can it be otherwise than true?\u201d (_Bix_, how, _ma_, not,\n_hahal_, true.)\n\nThese Balams are in fact the gods of the cardinal points and of the\nwinds and rains which proceed from them, and are thus a survival of some\nof the central figures of the ancient mythology. The wind still holds\nits pre-eminence as a supernatural occurrence in the native mind. One\nday Dr. Berendt was traveling with some natives through the forests when\nthe sound of a tropical tornado was heard approaching with its\nformidable roar through the trees. In awe-struck accents one of his\nguides said, \u201c_He catal nohoch yikal nohoch tat_: Here comes the mighty\nwind of the Great Father.\u201d But it is only in an unguarded moment that in\nthe presence of a white man the Indian betrays his beliefs, and no\nquestioning could elicit further information. A hint is supplied by\nSe\u00f1or Zetina. He mentions that the whistling of the wind is called, or\nattributed to, _tat acmo_, words which mean Father Strong-bird. This\nsuggests many analogies from the mythologies of other races; for the\nnotion of the primeval bird, at once lord of the winds and father of the\nrace, is found in numerous American tribes, and is distinctly contained\nin the metaphors of the first chapter of Genesis.\n\nThe _balam_, as I have said, is esteemed a kindly and protective being;\nhe is affectionately referred to as _yum balam_, Father Balam. He is\nsaid to have a human form, that of an old man with a long beard and\nample flowing robes. But there are other gigantic spectres of terrible\naspect and truculent humor. One of these is so tall that a man cannot\nreach his knees. He stalks into the towns at midnight, and planting his\nfeet like a huge Colossus, one on each side of the roadway, he seizes\nsome incautious passer-by and breaks his legs with his teeth, or\nconquers him with a sudden faintness. The name of this terror of late\nwalkers is Giant Grab, _Ua ua pach_.\n\nAnother is the _Che Vinic_, the Man of the Woods, called by the Spanish\npopulation the Salonge. He is a huge fellow without bones or joints. For\nthat reason if he lies down he cannot rise without extreme difficulty;\nhence he sleeps leaning against a tree. His feet are reversed, the heels\nin front, the toes behind. He is larger and stronger than a bull, and\nhis color is red. In his long arms he carries a stick the size of a\ntree-trunk. He is on the watch for those who stray through the woods,\nand, if he can, will seize and devour them. But a ready-witted man has\nalways a means of escape. All he has to do is to pluck a green branch\nfrom a tree, and waving it before him, begin a lively dance. This\ninvariably throws the Wood Man into convulsions of mirth. He laughs and\nlaughs until he falls to the ground, and once down, having no joints, he\ncannot rise, and the hunter can proceed leisurely on his journey. It is\nsingular, says Dr. Berendt, how widely distributed is the belief in this\nstrange fancy. It recurs in precisely the same form in Yucatan, in\nPeten, in Tabasco, around Palenque, etc.\n\nAnother ugly customer is the _Culcalkin_. This word means \u201cthe priest\nwithout a neck,\u201d and the hobgoblin so named is described as a being with\nhead cut off even with the shoulders, who wanders around the villages at\nnight, frightening men and children.\n\nIn contrast to the giants are the dwarfs and imps which are ready in\ntheir malicious ways to sour the pleasures of life. The most common of\nthese are the _h\u2019lox_, or more fully, _h\u2019loxkatob_, which means \u201cthe\nstrong clay images.\u201d[198] They are, indeed, believed to be the actual\nidols and figures in clay which are found about the old temples and\ntombs, and hence an Indian breaks these in pieces whenever he finds\nthem, to the great detriment of arch\u00e6ological research. They only appear\nafter sunset, and then in the shape of a child of three or four years,\nor sometimes not over a span in height, naked except wearing a large\nhat. They are swift of foot, and can run backwards as fast as forwards.\nAmong other pranks, they throw stones at the dogs and cause them to\nhowl. Their touch produces sickness, especially chills and fever. It is\nbest, therefore, not to attempt to catch them.\n\nOf similar malevolent disposition is the _Chan Pal_, Little Boy, who\nlurks in the woods and is alleged to bring the small-pox into the\nvillages.\n\nOthers are merely teasing in character, and not positively harmful. Thus\nthere is the _X bolon thoroch_ who lives in the house with the family,\nand repeats at night the various sounds of domestic labor which have\nbeen made during the day. The word _thoroch_ is applied to the sound\ncaused by the native spindle revolving in its shaft; _bolon_ is \u201cnine,\u201d\na number used to express the superlative degree in certain phrases;\nwhile the initial _X_ shows that the imp is of the feminine gender. The\nname therefore signifies \u201cthe female imp who magnifies the sound of the\nspindle.\u201d Other such household imps are the _Bokol h\u2019otoch_,\nStir-the-House, who creeps under the floors and makes a noise like\nbeating a cake to scare the inmates; the _Yancopek_, Pitcher-Imp, who\ncrawls into jars and jugs; and the _Way cot_, Witch-bird, who lurks on\nor behind walls and drops stones on passers by.\n\nThe female sex is further represented in the Maya folk-lore by a\npersonage who has a curious similarity to legendary ladies of the old\nworld, sirens, mermaids, the Lorelei, and others. She is called _X\ntabai_, the (female) Deceiver. Her home is under shady bowers in the\nforests, and there the ardent hunter suddenly espies her, clothed, and\ncombing with a large comb (_x ache_) her long and beautiful hair. As he\napproaches she turns and flees, but not with discouraging haste, rather\nin such a manner and with such backward glances as to invite pursuit. He\nsoon overtakes her, but just as he clasps her beauteous form in his\nstrong embrace, her body changes into a thorny bush, and her feet become\nclaws like those of a wild fowl. Tom and bleeding he turns sadly\nhomeward, and soon succumbs to an attack of fever with delirium.\n\nAnother very similar creature is _X Thoh Chaltun_, Miss\nPound-the-Stones. She slily waits around the villages, and when she sees\nsome attractive youth she awakes his attention by tapping on the stones,\nor in default of these on an empty jar which she carries for the\npurpose. Does the foolish youth respond to the seductive invitation, she\ncoyly moves to the woods, where the amorous pursuer meets like\ndisappointment and a similar sad fate as the victim of the _X tabai_.\n\nAs may be supposed, many superstitions cling around the animal world.\nEach species of brute has its king, who rules and protects it. Even the\ntimid native hare may thus assert its rights. An Indian told Dr. Berendt\nthat once upon a time a hunter with two dogs followed a hare into a\ncave. There he found a large hole, leading under the earth. He\ndescended, and came to the town of the hares. They seized him and his\ndogs, and brought him before the king, and it was no easy matter for him\nto get off by dint of protests and promises.\n\nThere are also tales of the Straw Bird or Phantom Bird. The hunter\nunexpectedly sees a handsome bird on a branch before him. He fires and\nmisses. He repeats his shot in vain. After a while it falls of itself,\nand proves to be nothing but a colored feather. Then he knows that he\nhas been fooled by the _Zohol chich_.\n\nAn object of much dread is the Black Tail, _Ekoneil_, an imaginary snake\nwith a black, broad, and forked tail. He glides into houses at night\nwhere a nursing mother is asleep; and, covering her nostrils with his\ntail, sucks the milk from her breasts.\n\nThese are probably but a small portion of the superstitions of the\nmodern Mayas. They are too reticent to speak of these subjects other\nthan by accident to the white man. He is quite certain either to\nridicule or to reprove such confidences. But what is above collected is\na moderately complete, and certainly, as far as it goes, an accurate\nnotion of their folk-lore.\n\n\n\n\n                  FOLK-LORE OF THE MODERN LENAPE.[199]\n\n\nIn August 1886, and September 1887, I had many conversations with the\nRev. Albert Seqaqknind Anthony, an educated Delaware Indian, then\nassistant missionary to the Six Nations, in Ontario, Canada. Our\nimmediate business was the revision of the \u201cLen\u00e2p\u00e9-English Dictionary,\u201d\nwhich has since been published by the Historical Society of\nPennsylvania; but in the intervals of that rather arduous and dry labor,\nwe sought recreation in broader subjects of thought, and our discourse\noften fell on the ancient traditions, folk-lore, and customs of the\nLen\u00e2p\u00e9, now fast disappearing.\n\nMr. Anthony was on his father\u2019s side a Delaware, or Len\u00e2p\u00e9, of the Minsi\ntribe, while his grandmother was a Shawnee. He himself was born on the\nOntario Reservation, and up to his thirteenth year spoke nothing but\npure Len\u00e2p\u00e9. His memory carries him back to the fourth decade of this\ncentury.\n\nOne of his earliest reminiscences was of the last surviving emigrant\nfrom the native home of his ancestors in Eastern Pennsylvania\u2014a\nvenerable squaw (_ochqu\u00e8u_, woman, hen), supposed to be a hundred years\nold. At the time her parents left the mountains between the Lehigh and\nSusquehanna rivers, she was \u201cold enough to carry a pack\u201d\u2014twelve years,\nprobably. This must have been about 1760, as after the French War (1755)\nthe natives rapidly deserted that region.\n\nI was surprised to find how correctly the old men of the tribe had\npreserved and handed down reminiscences of their former homes along the\nDelaware River. The flat marshy \u201cNeck,\u201d south of Philadelphia, between\nthe Delaware and Schuylkill rivers, was pointed out to me by Mr. Anthony\n(who had never seen it before) as the spot where the tribe preferred to\ngather the rushes with which they manufactured rugs and mats. He\nrecognized various trees, not seen in Canada, by the descriptions he had\nheard of them.\n\nSuch narratives formed the themes of many a long tale by the winter fire\nin the olden time. Like most Indians, the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 are, or rather\nwere\u2014for, alas! the good old customs are nearly all gone\u2014inexhaustible\n_raconteurs_. They had not only semi-historic traditions, but numberless\nfanciful tales of spirits and sprites, giants and dwarfs, with their\nkith and kin. Such tales were called _tomoacan_, which means \u201ctales for\nleisure hours.\u201d They relate the deeds of potent necromancers, and their\npower over the _machtanha_, \u201cthose who are bewitched.\u201d\n\nIt greatly interested me to learn that several of these tales referred\ndistinctly to the culture-hero of the tribe, that ancient man who taught\nthem the arts of life, and on his disappearance\u2014these heroes do not\ndie\u2014promised to return at some future day, and restore his favorite\npeople to power and happiness. This Messianic hope was often the central\nidea in American native religions, as witness the worship of\nQuetzalcoatl in Mexico, of Kukulcan in Yucatan, of Viracocha in Peru.\nMr. Anthony assured me that it was perfectly familiar to the old\nDelawares, and added that in his opinion their very name, _Len\u00e2p\u00e9_,\nconveys an esoteric meaning, to wit, \u201cthe man comes,\u201d with reference to\nthe second advent of their culture-hero.[200] This is singular\nconfirmation of the fragmentary myths collected by the Swedish engineer\nLindstrom in 1650, and by the Moravian Bishop Ettwein about a century\nlater. These I have collected in \u201cThe Len\u00e2p\u00e9 and their Legends\u201d\n(Philadelphia, 1885), and have discussed the general subject at such\nlength in my \u201cAmerican Hero-Myths\u201d (Philadelphia, 1882) that the reader\nwill probably be satisfied to escape further expansion of it here.\n\nOnly in traditions does the \u201cStone Age\u201d survive among the Delawares. In\nMr. Anthony\u2019s youth, the bow-and-arrow was still occasionally in use for\nhunting; but he had never seen employed arrow-points of stone. They were\neither of deer\u2019s horns or of sharpened bones. The name for the compound\ninstrument \u201cbow-and-arrow\u201d is _manhtaht_, the first _a_ being nasal; and\nfrom this word, Mr. Anthony states, is derived the name _Manhattan_,\nproperly _manahah tank_, \u201cthe place where they gather the wood to make\nbows.\u201d The bow-string is _tschipan_: the arrow, _allunth_. The generic\nname for stone weapon is still familiar, _achsinhican_, and the word\nfrom which we derive \u201ctomahawk,\u201d _t\u2019mahican_, is strictly applied to a\nstone hatchet. War-clubs were of several varieties, called _apech'lit_\nand _mehit\u00edqueth_, which were different from an ordinary stick or cane,\n_alauwan_. Though the war-whoop is heard no more, its name remains,\n_kowa'mo_, and tradition still recalls their ancient contests with the\nIroquois, their cruel and hated enemies, to whom they applied the\nopprobrious epithet _mengwe_ (that is, _glans penis_).\n\nHunting is scarcely worth the name any longer on the Canadian\nreservations. The debated question as to whether the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 knew the\nbuffalo attracted me. Mr. Anthony assured me that they did. It was\ncalled _sisiliti_, which he explained as \u201cthe animal that drops its\nexcrement when in motion,\u201d walking or running; though he added that\nanother possible derivation is from _siselamen_, to butt against, from\nwhich comes _sisejahen_, to break in pieces by butting.\n\nIn former times a favorite method of hunting in the autumn was for a\nlarge number of hunters to form a line and drive the game before them.\nThis was called _p\u2019mochlapen_. This answered well for deer, but now\nlittle is left save the muskrat, _chuaskquis_, the ground-hog,\n_monachgen_, the white rabbit, _wapachtques_, the weasel,\n_mani'tohumisch_, and the little chipmunk, _pochqwapiith_ (literally,\n\u201che sits upright on something\u201d). For such small game, it is scarcely\nworth while running the risk of the bite of the blow-adder,\n_pethbotalwe_, and the much-feared \u201cbloody-mouthed lizard,\u201d _mokdomus_;\nthough I suspect both are more terrible in tale than in fact.\n\nIn fishing, they appear to have known not only the brush-net and the\nspear, but the hook-and-line as well. The line, _wendamakan_, was\ntwisted from the strands of the wild hemp, _achhallap_, or of the\nmilk-weed, _pichtokenna_; and the hook was armed with a bait,\n_awauchkon_, which might be _wecheeso_, the ground-worm, literally, \u201che\nwho extends and retracts himself,\u201d or the _waukchelachees_, grasshopper,\nliterally, \u201cone that hops.\u201d This corresponds with what the old Swedish\ntraveler, Peter Kalm, relates in the first half of the last century. He\ndescribes the native hooks as made of bone or of the spur of a fowl.\n\nThey still gather for food the _ptukquim_, walnut, literally, \u201cround\nnut;\u201d the _quinokquim_, butternut, literally, \u201coblong nut;\u201d and various\nberries, as the _lechlochhilleth_, the red raspberry, literally, \u201cthe\nberry that falls to pieces.\u201d\n\nAmong utensils of ancient date and aboriginal invention seem to have\nbeen wooden dishes or bowls, _wollakanes_, made from the elm-tree,\n_wollakanahungi_; wooden mortars, in which corn was pounded,\n_taquachhakan_; and _peyind_, cups with handles. The art of pottery,\nwhich they once possessed, has been entirely lost.\n\nAlthough now resident inland, they remember the manufacture and use of\ncanoes, _amochol_. Some were of birch bark, _wiqua_, and were called\n_wiqua-amochol_; others were dugouts, for which they preferred the\nAmerican sycamore, distinctively named canoe-wood, _amochol-he_.\n\nThe ordinary word for house is still _wikwam_, wigwam, while a brush-hut\nis called _pimoakan_. I was particular to inquire if, as far as now\nknown, the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 ever occupied communal houses, as did the Iroquois.\nMr. Anthony assured me that this was never the custom of his nation, so\nfar as any recollection or tradition goes. Every family had its own\nlodge. I called his attention to the discovery in ancient village sites\nin New Jersey of two or three fire-places in a row, and too close to\nbelong to different lodges. This has been adduced by Dr. C. C. Abbott as\nevidence of communal dwellings. He replied that these were the sites of\nthe village council-houses; he himself could remember some with two or\nthree fires; but their only permanent occupants were the head chief with\nhis wives and children.\n\nThough most of the national games are no longer known to the rising\ngeneration, in my informant\u2019s boyhood they still figured conspicuously\nby the native firesides, where now \u201cprogressive euchre\u201d and the like\nhold sway. One such was _qua'quallis_. In this a hollow bone is attached\nby a string to a pointed stick. The stick is held the hand, and the bone\nis thrown up by a rapid movement, and the game is to catch the bone,\nwhile in motion, on the pointed end of the stick. It was a gambling\ngame, often played by adults.\n\nA very popular sport was with a hoop, _tautmusq_, and spear or arrow,\n_allunth_. The players arranged themselves in two parallel lines, some\nforty feet apart, each one armed with a reed spear. A hoop was then\nrolled rapidly at an equal distance between the lines. Each player\nhurled his spear at it, the object being to stop the hoop by casting the\nspear within its rim. When stopped, the shaft must lie within the hoop,\nor the shot did not count.\n\nA third game, occasionally seen, is _maumun'di_. This is played with\ntwelve flat bones, usually those of a deer, and a bowl of wood,\nconstructed for the purpose. One side of each bone is white; the other,\ncolored. They are placed in the bowl, thrown into the air, and caught as\nthey descend. Those with the white side uppermost are the winning\npieces. Bets usually accompany this game, and it had, in the old days, a\nplace in the native religious rites; probably as a means of telling\nfortunes.\n\nThe Delawares on the Ontario Reservation have long since been converted\nto Christianity, and there is little trace left of their former pagan\npractices. If they remain anywhere, it is in their medical rites. I\ninquired particularly if there are any remnants of the curious adoration\nof the sacred twelve stones, described by Zeisberger a century and a\nquarter ago. I found that the custom of the \u201csweat-lodge,\u201d a small hut\nbuilt for taking sweat-baths, still prevails. The steam is generated by\npouring water on hot stones. This is done by the \u201cmedicine-man,\u201d who is\nknown as _quechksa'pict_. He brings in one stone after another, and\npours water upon it until it ceases \u201cto sing;\u201d and invariably he uses\nprecisely _twelve_ stones.\n\nProbably some of the more benighted still seek to insure the success of\ntheir crops by offering food to the _m\u2019sink_. This is a false face, or\nmask, rudely cut from wood to represent the human visage, with a large\nmouth. The victuals are pushed into the mouth, and the genius is\nsupposed to be thus fed.\n\nOur word _cantico_, applied to a jollification, and by some\netymologists, naturally enough, traced to the Latin _cantare_, in\nreality is derived from the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 _gentkehn_, to sing and dance at the\nsame time. This was their most usual religious ceremony, and to this day\n_gendtoma_ means \u201cto begin religious services,\u201d either Christian or\nheathen; and _gendtowen_ signifies \u201cto be a worshipper.\u201d These dances\nwere often connected with sacred feasts, toward which each participant\ncontributed a portion of food. To express such a communal religious\nbanquet they used the term _w\u2019chindin_, and for inviting to one,\n_wingindin_; and they were clearly distinguished from an ordinary meal\nin common, an eating together, _tachquipuin_ or _tachquipoagan_.\n\nMy informant fully believes that there is yet much medical knowledge\nheld secretly by the old men and women. He has known persons bitten by\nthe rattlesnake who were promptly and painlessly cured by a specific\nknown to these native practitioners. It is from the vegetable _materia\nmedica_, and is taken internally. They also have some surgical skill. It\nwas interesting to learn that an operation similar to _trephining_ has\nbeen practiced among the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 time out of mind for severe headaches.\nThe scalp on or near the vertex is laid open by a crucial incision, and\nthe bone is scraped. This perhaps explains those trepanned skulls which\nhave been disinterred in Peru and other parts of America.\n\nThe national legends have mostly faded out, but the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 perfectly\nremember that they are the \u201cgrandfather\u201d of all the Algonkin tribes, and\nthe fact is still recognized by the Chipeways and some others, whose\norators employ the term _numoh'homus_, \u201cmy grandfather,\u201d in their formal\naddresses to the Len\u00e2p\u00e9. The old men still relate with pride that, in\nthe good old times, before any white man had landed on their shores,\n\u201cthe Len\u00e2p\u00e9 had a string of white wampum beads, _wapakeekq\u2019_, which\nstretched from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and on this white road their\nenvoys travelled from one great ocean to the other, safe from attack.\u201d\n\nThere are still a few among them who pretend to some knowledge of the\nart of reading the wampum belts. The beads themselves are called\n_keekq\u2019_; a belt handed forth at a treaty is _nochkunduwoagan_,\nliterally, \u201can answering;\u201d and after the treaty has been ratified the\nbelt is called _aptunwoagan_, the covenant.\n\nThe tribal and totemic divisions are barely remembered, and the ancient\nprohibitions about endogamous marriage have fallen completely into\ndesuetude. Mr. Anthony\u2019s term for totem, or sub-tribe, is _w\u2019aloch'ke_;\nas, _tulpenaloch'ke_, the Turtle totem. The name _Minsi_, he believes,\nis an abbreviation of _minachsinink_, the place of broken stones,\nreferring to the mountains north of the Lehigh river, where his\nancestors had their homes. The _Wonalacht'go_ of the early historians he\nidentifies with the Nanticokes, and translates it \u201cpeople following the\nwaves;\u201d that is, living near the ocean.\n\nThe chieftaincy of the tribe is still, in theory, hereditary in one\nfamily, and in the female line. The ordinary term _sakima_, sachem, is\nnot in use among the Minsi, who call their chief _kikay_, or\n_kitschikikay_ (_kitschi_, great; _kikay_, old, or old man: the\n_elderman_, or alderman, of the Saxons).\n\nSome peculiarities of the language deserve to be noted.\n\nThe German alphabet, employed by the Moravians to reduce it to writing,\nanswered so well that the Moravian missionary, Rev. Mr. Hartmann, at\npresent in charge of the New Fairfield Reservation, Ontario, who does\nnot understand a word of Delaware, told me he had read the books printed\nin the native tongue to his congregation, and they understood him\nperfectly. But I soon detected two or three sounds which had escaped\nZeisberger and his followers. There is a soft _th_ which the German ear\ncould not catch, and a _kth_ which was equally difficult, both of\nfrequent occurrence. There is also a slight breathing between the\npossessives _n\u2019_, my, _k\u2019_, thy, _w\u2019_, his, and the names of the things\npossessed, which the missionaries sometimes disregarded, and sometimes\nwrote as a full vowel. But after a little practice I had rarely any\ndifficulty in pronouncing the words in an intelligible manner. This I\nwas obliged to do with the whole dictionary, for although Mr. Anthony\nspeaks his language with perfect ease, he does not read or write it, and\nhas no acquaintance with German or its alphabet.\n\nOn one point I cross-examined him carefully. It is well-known to\nlinguists that in Algonkin grammar the verb undergoes a vowel change of\na peculiar character, which usually throws the sentence into an\nindefinite or dubitative form. This is a very marked trait, recognized\nearly by the missionary Eliot and others, and the omission of all\nreference to it by Zeisberger in his Grammar of the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 has been\ncommented on as a serious oversight. Well, after all my questions, and\nafter explaining the point fully to Mr. Anthony, he insisted that no\nsuch change takes place in Delaware verbs. I read to him the forms in\nZeisberger\u2019s Grammar which are supposed to indicate it, but he explained\nthem all by other reasons, mere irregularities or erroneous expressions.\n\nThe intricacies of the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 verb have never yet been solved, and it is\nnow doubtful if they ever will be, for the language is fast changing and\ndisappearing, at least in both reservations in Canada, and also among\nthe representatives of the tribe at their settlement in Kansas. It is\nnot now, and Mr. Anthony assured me that, so far as he knew, it never\nwas, a custom for parents to correct their children in speaking the\nlanguage. Probably this is true of most uncivilized tribes. The children\nof such learn their exceedingly complicated languages with a facility\nand accuracy which is surprising to the cultivated mind. I can say from\nexperience, that no child learns to speak pure English without incessant\ncorrection from parents and teachers.\n\nThe general result of my conversations with Mr. Anthony on the grammar\nof his language led me to estimate at a lower value the knowledge of it\ndisplayed in the works of Zeisberger, Ettwein, and Heckewelder. The\nfirst and last named no doubt spoke it fluently in some fashion; but\nthey had not the power to analyze it, nor to detect its finer shades of\nmeaning, nor to appreciate many refinements in its word-building, nor to\ncatch many of its semi-notes.\n\nTo give an example:\u2014\n\nHeckewelder gave Duponceau a compound which has often been quoted as a\nstriking instance of verbal synthesis. It is _kuligatschis_, and is\nanalyzed by Duponceau thus: _k_, possessive pronoun, second person\nsingular; _uli_, abbreviation of _wulit_, pretty; _gat_, last syllable\nof _wichgat_, foot or paw; _chis_, diminutive termination; in all, \u201cthy\npretty little paw.\u201d Now, there is no such word in Len\u00e2p\u00e9 as _wichgat_.\n\u201cHis foot\u201d is _w\u2019uchs\u00fct_, where the initial _w_ is the possessive, and\ndoes not belong in the word for foot. But in all likelihood this was not\nin the compound heard by Heckewelder. What he heard was\n_k\u2019wulinachkgis_, from, _k_, possessive; _wulit_, pretty; _nachk_, hand,\nor paw of an animal; _gis_, diminutive termination. He lost the peculiar\nwhistled _w_ and the nasalized _n_, sounds unknown to Germans.\nDuponceau\u2019s statement that _gat_ is the last syllable of the word for\nfoot is totally erroneous. I am convinced that much of the excessive\nsynthesis, so called, in the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 arises from a lack of appreciation\non the part of the whites of delicate phonetic elements. If I had heard\nmany more of Mr. Anthony\u2019s analyses of compounds, I believe I should\nhave reached the conclusion that synthesis in Len\u00e2p\u00e9 means little beyond\njuxtaposition with euphonic elision.\n\n\n\n\n                               PART III.\n\n                    GRAPHIC SYSTEMS AND LITERATURE.\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTORY.\n\n\nThe intellectual development of a nation attains its fullest expression\nin language, oral or written. This \u201cdivine art\u201d as Plato calls it,\nclaims therefore from the student of man in the aggregate a prolonged\nattention and the most painstaking analysis. Too frequently one hears\namong anthropologists the claims of linguistics decried, and the many\nblunders and over-hasty generalizations of philologists quoted as good\nreasons for the neglect or distrust of their branch.\n\nThe real reason of this attitude I believe to be not so much the\nmistakes of the linguists, as a strong aversion which I have noticed in\nmany distinguished teachers of physical science to the study of language\nand the philosophy of expression. The subject is difficult and\ndistasteful to them. Having no aptitude for it, nor real acquaintance\nwith it, they condemn it as of small value and of doubtful results. I\nhave never known a scientific man who was really a well-read philologist\nwho thus under-estimated the position of linguistics in the scheme of\nanthropology; but I have known many who, not having such thorough\nknowledge, depreciated its value in others.\n\nThe third and fourth parts of this volume are devoted to language, the\nthird as it appears especially in its written forms, the fourth\nparticularly to the profounder questions of linguistic philosophy. Here\nagain I shall be found in opposition to the majority who have written on\nthese subjects. The claim I make for the largely phonetic character of\nthe Mexican and Maya hieroglyphs is not generally accepted; and the\npoetical spirit which I argue exists in many productions of the\naboriginal muse will not be favored by those who deny the higher\nsentiments of humanity to uncivilized man.\n\nI have endeavored by frequent illustration, and reference to the best\nsources of information, to put the reader in the position to judge for\nhimself; and I shall feel highly gratified if he is prompted to such\ninvestigations by what I may say, whether his final conclusions agree\nwith mine or not.\n\n\n\n\n     THE PHONETIC ELEMENTS IN THE GRAPHIC SYSTEMS OF THE MAYAS AND\n                             MEXICANS.[201]\n\n\nAll who have read the wonderful story of the Spanish conquest of Mexico\nand Central America will remember that the European invaders came upon\nvarious nations who were well acquainted with some method of writing,\nwho were skilled in the manufacture of parchment and paper, and who\nfilled thousands of volumes formed of these materials with the records\nof their history, the theories of their sciences, and the traditions of\ntheir theologies. Aiming at greater permanence than these perishable\nmaterials would offer, they also inscribed on plinths of stone, on slabs\nof hard wood, and on terra cotta tablets, the designs and figures which\nin the system they adopted served to convey the ideas they wished to\ntransmit to posterity.\n\nIn spite of the deliberate and wholesale destruction of these records at\nthe conquest, and their complete neglect for centuries afterwards, there\nstill remain enough, were they collected, to form a respectably large\n_Corpus Inscriptionum Americanarum_. Within the present century many\nMexican and Maya MSS. have for the first time been published, and the\ninscriptions on the temples of southern Mexico and Yucatan have been\nbrought to the tables of students by photography and casts, methods\nwhich permit no doubt as to their faithfulness.\n\nNor have there been lacking diligent students who have availed\nthemselves of these facilities to search for the lost key to these\nmysterious records. It is a pleasure to mention the names of Thomas and\nHolden in the United States, of De Rosny, Aubin and de Charencey in\nFrance, of F\u00f6rstemann, Seler and Schellhas in Germany, of Ramirez and\nOrozco in Mexico. But it must frankly be confessed that the results\nobtained have been inadequate and unsatisfactory. We have not yet passed\nthe threshold of investigation.\n\nThe question which forces itself upon our attention as demanding a reply\nat the very outset, is whether the Aztec and Maya systems of writing\nwere or were not, in whole or in part, _phonetic_ systems? Did they\nappeal, in the first instance, to the _meaning_ of the word, or to the\n_sound_ of the word? If to the latter\u2014if, in other words, they were\nphonetic, or even partially phonetic\u2014then it is vain to attempt any\ninterpretation of these records without a preliminary study of the\nlanguages of the nations who were the writers. These languages must\nmoreover be studied in the form in which they were spoken at the period\nof the conquest, and the course of native thought as expressed in the\nprimitive grammatical structure must be understood and taken into\naccount. I hasten to add that we have abundant materials for such\nstudies.\n\nThis essential preliminary question, as to the extent of the phonetic\nelement in the Mexican and Maya systems of writing, is that which I\npropose to put at present, and to answer it, so far as may be. Hitherto,\nthe greatest diversity of opinion about it has prevailed. Some able\nwriters, such as Valentini and Holden, have questioned the existence of\nany phonetic elements; but most have been willing to concede that there\nare such present, though their quantity and quality are by no means\nclearly defined.\n\nWe may assume that both systems under consideration are partly\nideographic. Every system of phonetic writing introduces ideograms to\nsome extent, our own among the number. The question is, to what extent?\n\nBut before we are prepared to answer this question about the extent of\nthe phonetic element, we must seek to ascertain its character. We are\nall aware that a phonetic symbol may express the sound either of a whole\nword of several syllables, or of a single syllable, or of a simple\nacoustic element. Again, a single phonetic symbol may express several\nquite diverse sounds, as is familiarly exemplified in the first letter\nof the English alphabet, which represents three very different sounds;\nand, on the other hand, we may find three, four or more symbols, no wise\nalike in form or origin, bearing one and the same phonetic value, a fact\nespecially familiar to Egyptologists.\n\nWe must further bear in mind that the arrangement to the eye of phonetic\nsymbols is altogether arbitrary. Because a prefix is pronounced first in\nthe order of time and a suffix last, it by no means follows that the\norder in space of their corresponding symbols shall bear any analogous\nrelation. The idea awakened by the sound of the word is a whole, and\none; and so that this sound is represented, the disposition of its\ncomponent parts is, philosophically speaking, indifferent. When it is\nremembered that in most American languages, and notably in the Mexican\nor Nahuatl, there is a tendency to consolidate each phrase into a single\nword, the importance of this consideration is greatly increased.\n\nAs the position of the phonetic parts of the phrase-word may thus be\ndisregarded, yet more indifferent is the order of sequence of the\nsymbols. There is no _a priori_ reason why this should be from left to\nright as in English, or from right to left as in Hebrew; alternately, as\nin the Boustrophedon of the Greek; or from top to bottom, as in Chinese.\n\nIn such an examination as the present one, we must rid our minds of the\nexpectation of finding the phonetic elements in some familiar form, and\nsimply ask whether they are to be found in any form.\n\nWe are not without a trustworthy guide in this quest. It is agreed among\nthose who have most carefully studied the subject that there is but one\npath by which the human mind could have originally proceeded from\npicture-writing or thought-writing to phonetic or sound-writing. This\nwas through the existence of homophones and homoiophones in a language,\nof words with the same or similar sounds, but with diverse\nsignifications. The deliberate analysis of a language back to its\nphonetic elements, and the construction upon those of a series of\nsymbols, as was accomplished for the Cherokee by the half-breed\nSequoyah, has ever been the product of culture, not a process of\nprimitive evolution.\n\nIn this primitive process the sounds which were most frequently\nrepeated, or were otherwise most prominent to the ear, would be those\nfirst represented by a figure; and the same figure would come to be\nemployed as an equivalent for this sound and others closely akin to it,\neven when they had other connections and bore other significations.\nHence affixes, suffixes, and monosyllabic words, are those to which we\nmust look as offering the earliest evidences of a connection of figure\nwith sound.\n\nAccording to the theory here very briefly indicated, I shall examine the\nMaya and Nahuatl systems of writing, to ascertain if they present any\nphonetic elements, and of what nature these are.\n\nTurning first to the Maya, I may in passing refer to the disappointment\nwhich resulted from the publication of Landa\u2019s alphabet by the Abb\u00e9\nBrasseur in 1864. Here was what seemed a complete phonetic alphabet,\nwhich should at once unlock the mysteries of the inscriptions on the\ntemples of Yucatan and Chiapas, and enable us to interpret the script of\nthe Dresden and other Codices. Experience proved the utter fallacy of\nany such hope. His work is no key to the Maya script; but it does\nindicate that the Maya scribes were able to assign a character to a\nsound, even a sound so meaningless as that of a single letter.\n\nThe failure of the Landa alphabet left many scholars total skeptics as\nto the phonetic values of any of the Maya characters. To name a\nconspicuous and recent example, Prof. Leon de Rosny, in his edition of\nthe Codex Cortesianus, published in 1883, appends a Vocabulary of the\nhieratic signs as far as known; but does not include among them any\nphonetic signs other than Landa\u2019s.\n\nBut if we turn to the most recent and closest students of these records,\nwe find among them a consensus of opinion that a certain degree, though\na small degree, of phoneticism must be accepted. Thus our own able\nrepresentative in this branch, Prof. Cyrus Thomas, announced in 1882, in\nhis _Study of the MS. Troano_,[202] that several of the day and month\ncharacters are, beyond doubt, occasionally phonetic.\n\nProf. F\u00f6rstemann, of Dresden, whose work on the Dresden Codex has\nappeared quite recently, announces his conclusion that the Maya script\nis essentially ideographic;[203] but immediately adds that the numerous\nsmall figures attached to the main sign are to be considered phonetic,\nand no matter in what local relation they may stand to this sign, they\nare to be regarded either as prefixes or suffixes of the word. He does\nnot attempt to work out their possible meaning, but, as he says, leaves\nthat to the future.\n\nAlmost identical is the conclusion of Dr. Schellhas, whose essay on the\nDresden Codex[204] is a most meritorious study. His final decision is in\nthese words: \u201cThe Maya writing is ideographic in principle, and probably\navails itself, in order to complete its ideographic hieroglyphs, of a\nnumber of fixed phonetic signs.\u201d\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 1.\u2014The Maya Hieroglyph of the Firmament.\n]\n\nSome of these signs have been so carefully scrutinized that their\nphonetic value may be considered to have been determined with reasonable\ncertainty. An interesting example is shown in Fig. 1, for the analysis\nof which we are indebted to Dr. Schellhas. The quadrilateral figure at\nthe top represents the firmament. One of the squares into which it is\ndivided portrays the sky in the day time, the other, the starry sky at\nnight. Beneath each are white and black objects, signifying the clouds,\nfrom which falling rain is indicated by long zigzag lines. Between the\nclouds on the left of the figure is the well-known ideogram of the sun,\non the right that of the moon. In the Maya language the sun is called\n_kin_, the moon _u_, and these figures are found elsewhere, not\nindicating these celestial bodies, but merely the phonetic values, the\none of the syllable _kin_, the other of the letter _u_. The two signs\ngiven in Landa\u2019s alphabet for the letter _u_ are really one, separated\nin transcription, and a variant of the figure for the moon with the wavy\nline beneath it. The word _u_ in Maya is the possessive adjective of the\nthird person, and as such is employed in conjugating verbs, the Maya\nverbal being really a possessive.\n\nA very common terminal syllable in Maya is _il_. It is called by\ngrammarians \u201cthe determinative ending,\u201d and is employed to indicate the\ngenitive and ablative relations. Dr. Schellhas considers that this is\nrepresented by the signs affixed to the main hieroglyphs shown on Fig.\n2.[205]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 2.\u2014Maya Phonetic Terminals.\n]\n\nThe upper figure he reads _kinil_, the lower _cim-il_. The two signs are\nthe title to a picture in the Codex Troano representing a storm with\ndestruction of human life. The two words _kin-il cim-il_ maybe\ntranslated \u201cAt the time of the killing.\u201d The syllable _cim_ is expressed\nin several variants in the Codices, examples of two of which, from the\nDresden Codex, are presented in Fig. 3.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 3.\u2014Maya Phonetic Terminals.\n]\n\nThe signs for the four cardinal points appear to be expressed\nphonetically. They are represented in Figs. 4 and 5. The words are for\nNorth, _xaman_, East, _lakin_, South, _nohil_, West, _chikin_. Of these\nthe syllable _kin_ appears in _lakin_ and _chikin_, and is represented\nas above described. The word for North has not been analyzed; that for\nSouth has been translated by Prof. Londe Rosny as _ma ya_, the word _ma_\nmeaning hands or arms, the lower as either a fruit or the masculine\nsign, in either case the phonetic value being alone intended. Both the\nname and the etymology are, however, doubtful, resting upon late and\nimperfect authorities.\n\nBy pursuing the plan here indicated, that is, by assuming that a figure\nwhose representative value is known, has also a merely phonetic value in\nother combinations, a certain number of phonetic elements of the Maya\ntongue have been identified. Prof. Cyrus Thomas, in an article published\nin one of our prominent journals, states that he has \u201cinterpreted\nsatisfactorily to himself twelve or fifteen compound characters which\nappear to be phonetic.\u201d[206]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIGS. 4 and 5.\u2014Signs of the Cardinal Points in Maya.\n]\n\nIt is obvious, however, that small progress has been made in this\ndirection compared to the labor expended. By far the greater number of\nthe fixed symbols of the Maya are yet undeciphered. It is acknowledged\nby all recent students that they cannot be representative, as they recur\ntoo frequently. To explain them, there is but one sure course, and that\nis, by a close analysis of the Maya language to get at the relations of\nideas in the native mind as expressed in their own phonetic system.\n\nWhen we turn to the Mexican system of writing, much more definite and\nextensive information as to its phonetic elements awaits us. It is\npossible that at bottom it has really no higher phonetic character, but\nseveral facts have combined to give us a better understanding of its\nstructure. In the first place, more examples of it have been preserved,\nsome of these with more or less accurate translations. Again, the\nearlier writers, those whom we look upon as our historical authorities,\nhave been more explicit and ample in their description of Mexican native\nliterature than of that of Yucatan. Finally, and most important, the\nMexican language, the Nahuatl, was studied at an early date, and with\nsurprising thoroughness, by the Catholic priests. Within a generation\nafter the conquest they had completed a quite accurate analysis of its\ngrammatical structure, and had printed a Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary\ncontaining more words than are to be found in any English dictionary for\na century later.\n\nThese intelligent missionaries acquainted themselves with the principles\nof the Mexican script, and to a limited extent made use of it in their\nreligious instructions, as did also the Spanish scriveners in their\nlegal documents in transactions with the natives. They found the native\nphonetic writing partly syllabic and partly alphabetic; and it was easy\nfor the priests to devise a wholly alphabetic script on the same plan.\nAn interesting example of this is preserved in the work of Valades,\nentitled _Rhetorica Christiana_, written about 1570. Familiar objects\nare represented, chiefly of European introduction. Each has the phonetic\nvalue only of the first letter of its Nahuatl name. The plan is\nextremely simple, and indeed the forms and names of the Hebrew letters\nseem to indicate that they arose in the same way. Applying it to\nEnglish, we should spell the word _cat_ by a picture of a chair, of an\naxe, and of a table, each of these being the recognized symbol of its\nfirst phonetic element or initial letter. Often any one of several\nobjects whose names begin with the same letter could be used, at choice.\nThis is also illustrated in Valades\u2019 alphabet, where, for instance, the\nletter _E_ is represented by four different objects.\n\nAs I have observed, the native genius had not arrived at a complete\nanalysis of the phonetic elements of the language; but it was distinctly\nprogressing in that direction. Of the five vowels and fourteen\nconsonants which make up the Nahuatl alphabet, three vowels certainly,\nand probably three consonants, had reached the stage where they were\noften expressed as simple letters by the method above described. The\nvowels were _a_, for which the sign was _atl_, water; _e_ represented by\na bean, _etl_; and _o_ by a footprint, or path, _otli_; the consonants\nwere _p_, represented either by a flag, _pan_, or a mat, _petl_; _t_, by\na stone, _tetl_, or lips, _tentli_; and _z_, by a lancet, _zo_. These\nare, however, exceptions. Most of the Nahuatl phonetics were syllabic,\nsometimes one, sometimes two syllables of the name of the object being\nemployed. When the whole name of an object or most of it was used as a\nphonetic value, the script remains truly phonetic, but becomes of the\nnature of a rebus, and this is the character of most of the phonetic\nMexican writing.\n\nEvery one is familiar with the principle of the rebus. It is where a\nphrase is represented by pictures of objects whose names bear some\nresemblance in sound to the words employed. A stock example is that of\nthe gallant who to testify his devotion to the lady of his heart, whose\nname was Rose Hill, had embroidered on his gown the pictures of a rose,\na hill, an eye, a loaf of bread, and a well, which was to be\ninterpreted, \u201cRose Hill I love well.\u201d\n\nIn medieval heraldry this system was in extensive use. Armorial bearings\nwere selected, the names of the elements of which expressed that of the\nfamily who bore them. Thus Pope Adrian IV, whose name was Nicolas\nBreakespeare, carried the device of a spear with a broken shaft; the\nBoltons of England wear arms representing a cask or _tun_ pierced by a\ncross-bow shaft or _bolt_; etc. Such arms were called _canting_ arms,\nthe term being derived from the Latin _cantare_, to sing or chant, the\narms themselves chanting or announcing the family surname.\n\nWe have, so far as I am aware, no scientific term to express this manner\nof phonetic writing, and I propose for it therefore the adjective\n_ikonomatic_, from the Greek _eikon_, a figure or image, and _onoma_\n(genitive, _onomatos_) name,\u2014a writing by means of the names of the\nfigures or images represented. The corresponding noun would be\n_ikonomatography_. It differs radically from picture-writing\n(_Bilderschrift_,) for although it is composed of pictures, these were\nused solely with reference to the sound of their names, not their\nobjective significance.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 6.\u2014Mexican Phonetic Hieroglyphics of the name of Montezuma.\n]\n\nThe Mexicans, in their phonetic writing, were never far removed from\nthis ikonomatic stage of development. They combined, however, with it\ncertain clearly defined monosyllabic signs, and the separate alphabetic\nelements which I have already noted. An examination of the MSS. proves\nthat there was no special disposition of the parts of a word. In other\nwords, they might be arranged from right to left or from left to right,\nfrom below upwards or from above downwards; or the one may be placed\nwithin the other. It will easily be seen that this greatly increases the\ndifficulty of deciphering these figures.\n\nAs illustrations of the phoneticism of Mexican writing I show two\ncompounds, quoted by M. Aubin in his well-known essay on the subject.\nThe first is a proper noun, that of the emperor Montezuma (Fig. 6). It\nshould be read from right to left. The picture at the right represents a\nmouse trap, in Nahuatl, _montli_, with the phonetic value _mo_, or\n_mon_; the head of the eagle has the value _quauh_, from _quauhtli_; it\nis transfixed with a lancet, _zo_; and surmounted with a hand, _maitl_,\nwhose phonetic value is _ma_; and these values combined give\n_mo-quauh-zo-ma_.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 7.\u2014Mexican Phonetic Hieroglyphics of the name of a Serpent.\n]\n\nThe second example is a common noun, the name of a serpent\n_tecuhtlacozauhqui_ (Fig. 7). It is also read from right to left; the\nhead with the peculiar band and frontal ornament is that of one of the\nnoble class, _tecuhtli_; at the base of the left figure is a familiar\nsign for _tla_, and represents two teeth, _tlantli_; they are surmounted\nby a jar, _comitl_ with the value _co_; and this in turn is pierced by a\nlancet, which here has only its alphabetic value _z_. The remainder of\nthe word was not expressed in the writing, the above signs being deemed\nsufficient to convey the idea to the reader.\n\nIn presenting these examples I do not bring forward anything new. They\nare from an essay which has been in print nearly forty years.[207] Many\nother examples are to be seen in the great work of Lord Kingsborough,\nand later in publications in the city of Mexico. The learned Ramirez\nundertook a dictionary of Nahuatl hieroglyphics which has in part been\npublished; Orozco y Berra in his \u201cHistory of Ancient Mexico\u201d gathered a\ngreat many facts illustrative of the phonetic character of the Mexican\nscript; and within a year Dr. Pe\u00f1afiel has issued a quarto of\nconsiderable size giving ancient local Mexican names with their phonetic\nrepresentations.[208]\n\nWith these aids at command, why has not our progress in the\ninterpretation of the ancient records on stone and paper been more\nrapid? Why do we stand now almost at the same point as in 1850?\n\nThere can be but one answer, and that will immediately suggest itself\nfrom the nature of the phoneticism in the Mexican writing. What I have\ncalled the _ikonomatic_ system of writing can be elucidated only by one\nwho has a wide command of the vocabulary of the language. Consider, for\na moment, the difficulty which we experience, with all our knowledge of\nour native tongue, in solving one of the rebuses which appear in the\npuzzle columns of periodicals for children; or in interpreting the\ncanting arms in armorial bearings. Not only must we recall the various\nnames of the objects represented, and select from them such as the sense\nof the context requires, but we must make allowance for extensive\nomissions, as in one of the examples above quoted (Fig. 7), and for mere\nsimilarities of sound, often quite remote, as well as for the\nabbreviations and conventionalisms of practiced scribes, familiar with\ntheir subject and with this method of writing the sounds of their\nlanguage.\n\nSuch difficulties as these can only be overcome by long-continued\napplication to the tongues themselves, and by acquainting one\u2019s self\nintimately with the forms, the methods, and the variations of this truly\npuzzling graphic system. Every identification is solving an enigma; but\nonce solved, each illustrates the method, confirms its accuracy, and\nfacilitates the learner\u2019s progress, and at the same time stimulates him\nwith the joyous sense of difficulties conquered, and with the vision of\ndiscovered truth illuminating his onward path.\n\nAlthough, as I have stated, the general principles of this method were\npointed out forty years ago, the prevailing ignorance of the Nahuatl\nlanguage has prevented any one from successfully deciphering the Mexican\nscript. This ignorance has had even a worse effect. Men who did not know\na dozen words of Nahuatl, who were unable to construe a single sentence\nin the language, have taken upon themselves to condemn Aubin\u2019s\nexplanations as visionary and untrue, and to deny wholly the phonetic\nelements of the Mexican writing. Lacking the essential condition of\ntesting the accuracy of the statement, they have presumed blankly to\ncondemn it!\n\n\n\n\n            THE IKONOMATIC METHOD OF PHONETIC WRITING.[209]\n\n\nAll methods of recording ideas have been divided into two classes,\nThought Writing and Sound Writing.\n\nThe first, simplest and oldest is Thought Writing. This in turn is\nsubdivided into two forms, Ikonographic and Symbolic Writing. The former\nis also known as Imitative, Representative or Picture Writing. The\nobject to be held in memory is represented by its picture, drawn with\nsuch skill, or lack of skill, as the writer may possess. In Symbolic\nWriting, a single characteristic part or trait serves to represent the\nwhole object; thus, the track of an animal will stand for the animal\nitself; a representation of the peculiar round impression of the wolf\u2019s\nfoot, or the three-lined track of the wild turkey, being amply\nsufficient to designate these creatures. Even the rudest savages\npractice both these forms of writing, and make use of them to scratch on\nrocks, and paint on bark and hides, the record of their deeds.\n\nIt will be observed that Thought Writing has no reference to spoken\nlanguage; neither the picture of a wolf, nor the representation of his\nfootprint, conveys the slightest notion of the sound of the word _wolf_.\nHow was the enormous leap made from the thought to the sound\u2014in other\nwords, from an ideographic to a phonetic method of writing?\n\nThis question has received considerable attention from scholars with\nreference to the development of the two most important alphabets of the\nworld, the Egyptian and the Chinese. Both these began as simple picture\nwriting, and both progressed to almost complete phoneticism. In both\ncases, however, the earliest steps are lost, and can be retraced only by\nindications remaining after a high degree of phonetic power had been\nreached. On the other hand, in the Mexican and probably in the Maya\nhieroglyphics, we find a method of writing which is intermediate between\nthe two great classes I have mentioned, and which illustrates in a\nstriking manner the phases through which both the Egyptian and Semitic\nalphabets passed somewhat before the dawn of history.\n\nTo this method, which stands midway between the ikonographic and the\nalphabetic methods of writing, I have given the name _ikonomatic_,\nderived from the Greek \u03b5\u03b9\u03ba\u03c9\u03bd-\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, an image, a figure; \u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b1-\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, a\nname. That which the figure or picture refers to is not the object\nrepresented, but the _name_ of that object\u2014a _sound_, not a _thing_. But\nit does not refer to that sound as the name of the object, but precisely\nthe contrary\u2014it is the sound of the name of some other object or idea.\nMany ideas have no objective representation, and others are much more\nsimply expressed by the use of figures whose names are familiar and of\nsimilar sound. Thus, to give a simple example, the infinitive \u201cto hide\u201d\ncould be written by a figure 2, and the picture of a skin or hide. It is\nthis plan on which those familiar puzzles are constructed which are\ncalled _rebuses_, and none other than this which served to bridge over\nthe wide gap between Thought and Sound writing. It is, however, not\ncorrect to say that it is a writing by _things_, \u201c_rebus_;\u201d but it is by\nthe _names_ of things, and hence I have coined the word _ikonomatic_, to\nexpress this clearly.\n\nI shall select several illustrations from two widely diverse sources,\nthe one the hieroglyphs of Egypt, the other the heraldry of the Middle\nAges, and from these more familiar fields obtain some hints of service\nin unraveling the intricacies of the Mexican and Maya scrolls.\n\nThe general principle which underlies \u201cikonomatic writing\u201d is the\npresence in a language of words of different meaning but with the same\nor similar sounds; that is, of _homophonous_ words. The figure which\nrepresents one of these is used phonetically to signify the other. There\nare homophones in all languages; but they abound in some more than in\nothers. For obvious reasons, they are more abundant in languages which\ntend toward monosyllabism, such as the Chinese and the Maya, and in a\nless degree the ancient Coptic. In these it is no uncommon occurrence to\nfind four or five quite different meanings to the same word; that is,\nthe same sound has served as the radical for that many different names\nof diverse objects. The picture of any of these objects would, to the\nspeaker of the language, recall a sound which would have all these\nsignifications, and could be employed indifferently for any of them.\nThis circle of meanings would be still more widely extended when mere\nsimilarity, not strict identity, was aimed at.\n\nSuch was plainly the origin of phoneticism in the Egyptian hieroglyphic\ninscriptions. Take the word _nefer_. Its most common concrete\nsignification was \u201ca lute,\u201d and in the picture writing proper the lute\nis represented by its figure. But _nefer_ had several other\nsignifications in Coptic. It meant, a _colt_, a _conscript soldier_, a\n_door_, and the adjective _good_. The picture of the lute therefore was\nused to signify every one of these.\n\nIt will be observed that this is an example of a pure ikonograph\u2014the\npicture is that of the object in full, a lute; but precisely in the same\nway the second class of figures in picture writing, those which are\nwholly symbolic, may be employed. This, too, finds ample illustration in\nthe Egyptian hieroglyphics. Instead of the picture of a house, the\nfigure of a square was employed, with one side incomplete. Phonetically,\nthis conveyed the sound _per_, which means _house_, and several other\nthings.\n\nIt will readily be seen that where a figure represents a number of\nhomophonous words, considerable confusion may result from the difficulty\nof ascertaining which of these is intended. To meet this, we find both\nin Egyptian and Chinese writing series of signs which are written but\nnot pronounced, called \u201cdeterminatives.\u201d These indicate the class to\nwhich a word has reference. They are ideographic, and of fixed meaning.\nThus, after the word _nefer_, when used for conscript, the determinative\nis the picture of a man, etc.[210]\n\nThere is little doubt but that all the Egyptian syllabic and alphabetic\nwriting was derived from this early phase, where the governing principle\nwas that of the rebus. At the date of the earliest inscriptions, most of\nthe phonetics were monosyllabic; but in several instances, as _nefer_,\nabove given, _neter_, which represents a banner, and by homophony, a\ngod, and others, the full disyllabic name was preserved to the latest\ntimes. The monosyllabic signs were derived from the initial and the\naccented syllables of the homophones; and the alphabet, so-called, but\nnever recognized as such, by the Egyptians, either from monoliteral\nwords, or from initial sounds. At no period of ancient Egyptian history\nwas one sound constantly represented by one sign. In the so-called\nEgyptian alphabet, there are four quite different signs for the _M_,\nfour for the _T_, three for the _N_, and so on. This is obviously owing\nto the independent derivation of these phonetic elements from different\nfigures employed ikonomatically.\n\nThere are other peculiarities in the Egyptian script, which are to be\nexplained by the same historic reason. For instance, certain phonetic\nsigns can be used only in definite combinations; others must be assigned\nfixed positions, as at the beginning or at the end of a group; and, in\nother cases, two or more different signs, with the same phonetic value,\nfollow one another, the scribe thinking that if the reader was not\nacquainted with one, he would be with the other. I note these\npeculiarities, because they may be expected to recur in other systems of\nikonomatic writing, and may serve as hints in interpreting them.\n\nEvidently, one of the earliest stimuli to the development of phonetics\nwas the wish to record proper names, which in themselves had no definite\nsignification, such as those drawn from a foreign language, or those\nwhich had lost through time their original sense. In savage conditions\nevery proper name is significant; but in conditions of social life, as\ndeveloped as that of the Egyptians of the earlier dynasties, and as that\nof the Mayas and Mexicans in the New World, there are found many names\nwithout meaning in the current tongue. These could not be represented by\nany mode of picture writing. To be recorded at all, they must be written\nphonetically; and to accomplish this the most obvious plan was to select\nobjects whose names had a similar sound, and by portraying the latter,\nrepresent to the ear the former. The Greek names, _Alexander_ and\n_Alexandria_, occurring on the Rosetta Stone, were wholly meaningless to\nthe Egyptian ear; but their scribes succeeded in expressing them very\nnearly by a series of signs which in origin are rebuses.\n\nThis inception of the ikonomatic method, in the effort to express\nphonetically proper names, is admirably illustrated in medi\u00e6val\nheraldry. Very early in the history of armorial bearings, we find a\nclass of scutal devices called in Latin _arma cantantia_, in English\n_canting arms_, in French _armes parlantes_. The English term _canting_\nis from the Latin _cantare_, in its later sense of _chanting_ or\n_announcing_. Armorial bearings of this character present charges, the\nnames of which resemble more or less closely in sound the proper names\nof the family who carry them.\n\nSome writers on heraldry have asserted that bearings of this character\nshould be considered as what are known as _assumptive arms_, those which\nhave been _assumed_ by families, without just title. Excellent\nauthorities, however, such as Woodham and Lower, have shown that these\ndevices were frequent in the remotest ages of heraldry.[211] For\ninstance, in the earliest English Roll of Arms extant, recorded in the\nreign of the third Henry, about the year 1240, nine such charges occur,\nand still more in the Rolls of the time of Edward the Second. They are\nalso abundant in the heraldry of Spain, of Italy and of Sweden; and\nanalogous examples have been adduced from ancient Rome. In fact, the\nplan is so obvious that instances could be quoted from every quarter of\nthe globe. In later centuries, such punning allusions to proper names\nbecame unpopular in heraldry, and are now considered in bad taste.\n\nTo illustrate their character, I will mention a few which are of ancient\ndate. The well-known English family of _Dobells_ carry a _hart passant_,\nand three bells _argent_, thus expressing very accurately their name,\n_doe-bells_. The equally ancient family of Boltons carry a device\nrepresenting a cask or _tun_, transfixed by a cross-bow or _bolt_. Few\ncanting arms, however, are so perfect as these. The Swinburnes, who are\namong those mentioned on the Roll of 1240, already referred to, bear\nthree boar-heads, symbolical of _swine_; the Boleynes carry three bulls\u2019\nheads, which reminds us of Cardinal Wolsey\u2019s pronunciation of the name\nin Shakespeare\u2019s Henry VIII, _Bullen_:\n\n           \u201cAnne Bullen? No; I\u2019ll no Anne Bullens for him;\n           There\u2019s more in\u2019t than fair visage.\u2014Bullen!\n           No, we\u2019ll no Bullens.\u201d\u2014_King Henry VIII, Act III._\n\nNot rarely the antiquity of such bearings is evidenced by the loss of\nthe allusion in the current language, and recourse must be had to\nancient and obsolete words to appreciate it. The English Harrisons\ndisplay in their shield a hedge-hog, which is to be explained by the\nFrench _h\u00e9risson_, and testifies to their Norman origin. The Sykes of\nthe north of England show a fountain in their shield, whose significance\nis first ascertained on learning that in the Northumbrian dialect _syke_\nmeans a flowing spring or stream. The celebrated _fleurs-de-lys_ of the\nroyal house of France are traced back to the first Louis, whose name was\npronounced _Loys_, and from the similarity of this to the common name of\nthe flower, the latter was adopted as the charge on his shield.\n\nHundreds of such examples could be adduced, and the task of examining\nand analyzing them would not be an altogether vain one, as the\nprinciples upon which they were applied are the same which control the\ndevelopment of ikonomatic writing wherever we find it. But I pass from\nthe consideration of these facts of general knowledge to the less known\nand much misunderstood forms of this writing which are presented in\nAmerican arch\u00e6ology.\n\nThese are best exemplified in the so-called Mexican picture writing. For\nmany years scholars have been divided in opinion whether this was purely\nikonographic or partly phonetic. About forty years ago M. Aubin wrote an\nessay maintaining that it is chiefly phonetic, and laid down rules for\nits interpretation on this theory. But neither he nor any who undertook\nto apply his teachings succeeded in offering any acceptable renderings\nof the Aztec Codices. I am persuaded, however, that the cause of this\nfailure lay, not in the theory of Aubin, but in the two facts, first,\nthat not one of the students who approached this subject was well\ngrounded in the Nahuatl language; and, secondly, that the principles of\nthe interpretation of ikonomatic writing have never been carefully\ndefined, and are extremely difficult, ambiguous and obscure, enough so\nto discourage any one not specially gifted in the solution of enigmas.\nAt first, every identification is as puzzling as the effort to decipher\nan artificial rebus.\n\nThere are, indeed, some able scholars who still deny that any such\nphoneticism is to be found in Mexican pictography. To convince such of\ntheir error, and to illustrate the methods employed by these native\nAmerican scribes, I will present and analyze several typical examples\nfrom Aztec manuscripts.\n\nBeginning with proper names drawn from other languages, we find that the\nNahuas had a number of such, which, of course, had no meaning in their\nown tongue. One of their documents speaks of the town of the Huastecas,\ncalled by that tribe _Tamuch_, which means in their tongue \u201cnear the\nscorpions,\u201d and by the Aztecs, in imitation, _Tamuoc_.[212] As the\nHuasteca is a Maya dialect, totally distinct from the Nahuatl, this word\nhad no sense to the ears of the Aztecs. To convey its sound, they\nportrayed a man holding in his hands a measuring stick, and in the act\nof measuring. Now, in Nahuatl, the verb \u201cto measure\u201d is _tamachina_; the\nmeasuring stick is _octocatl_; and to make the latter plainer, several\nfoot-prints, _xoctli_, are painted upon the measuring stick, giving an\nexample of the repetition of the sound, such as we have already seen was\ncommon among the Egyptian scribes.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 1.\u2014Tamuoc.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 2.\u2014Mapachtepec.\n]\n\nIn another class of proper names, in their own tongue, although they had\na meaning in the Nahuatl, the scribe preferred to express them by\nikonomatic instead of ikonographic devices. Thus, _Mapachtepec_, means\nliterally, \u201cbadger hill,\u201d or \u201cbadger town,\u201d but in place of depicting a\nbadger, the native writer made a drawing of a hand grasping a bunch of\nSpanish moss, the _Tillandsia usneoides_. The hand or arm in Nahuatl is\n_maitl_, the moss _pachtli_; and taking the first syllables of these two\nwords we obtain _ma pach_: the word _tepec_, locative form of _tepetl_,\nhill or village, is expressed by the usual conventional ideographic or\ndeterminative sign.\n\nIn other names, the relative _positions_ of the objects are significant,\nreminding us of the rebus of a well-known town in Massachusetts,\ncelebrated for its educational institutions:\n\n                                   &\n                                 Mass.\n\nwhich is to be read, \u201cAndover, Massachusetts;\u201d so in the Aztec scrolls,\nwe have _itzmiquilpan_ represented by an obsidian knife, _itztli_, and\nan edible plant, _quilitl_, which are placed above or over (_pan_), the\nsign for cultivated land, _milli_, thus giving all the elements of the\nname, the last syllable by position only.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 3.\u2014Itzmiquilpan.\n]\n\nIn one respect I believe the ikonomatic writing of the Mexicans is\npeculiar; that is, in the phonetic value which it assigns to _colors_.\nLike the Egyptian, it is polychromatic, but, so far as I know, the\nEgyptian polychromes never had a phonetic value; they were, in a general\nway, used by that people as determinatives, from some supposed\nsimilarity of hue; thus green indicates a vegetable substance or bronze,\nyellow, certain woods and some animals, and so on. In heraldry the\ncolors are very important and have well-defined significations, but very\nseldom, if ever, phonetic ones. Quite the contrary is the case with the\nMexican script. It presents abundant instances where the color of the\nobject as portrayed is an integral phonetic element of the sound\ndesigned to be conveyed.\n\nTo quote examples, the Nahuatl word for yellow is _cuztic_ or _coztic_,\nand when the hieroglyphics express phonetically such proper names as\n_Acozpa_, _Cozamaloapan_, _Cozhuipilcan_, etc., the monosyllable _coz_\nis expressed solely by the yellow color which the scribe lays upon his\npicture. Again, the name _Xiuhuacan_, \u201cthe place of grass,\u201d is\nrepresented by a circle colored pale blue, _xiuhtic_. The name of this\ntint supplies the phonetic desired. The name of the village _Tlapan_ is\nconveyed by a circle, whose interior is painted red, _tlapalli_,\ncontaining the mark of a human foot-print. Such examples are sufficient\nto prove that in undertaking to decipher the Mexican writing we must\nregard the color as well as the figure, and be prepared to allow to each\na definite phonetic value.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 4.\u2014Acozpa. (A yellow center surrounded by water drops, _atl_,\n    _a_.)\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 5.\u2014Tlamapa.\n]\n\nIt must not be understood that all the Aztec writing is made up of\nphonetic symbols. This is far from being the case. We discover among the\nhundreds of curious figures which it presents, determinatives, as in the\nEgyptian inscriptions, and numerous ideograms. Sometimes the ideogram is\nassociated with the phonetic symbol, acting as a sort of determinative\nto the latter. An interesting example of this is given at the beginning\nof the \u201cManuscrito Hieratico,\u201d recently published by the Spanish\ngovernment.[213] It is the more valuable as an example, as the picture\nwriting is translated into Nahuatl and written in Spanish characters.\nThe date of the document, 1526, leaves no doubt that it is in the same\nstyle as the ancient Codices. The page is headed with the picture of a\nchurch edifice; underneath is the outline of a human arm, and the legend\nin Nahuatl is:\n\n                  _In Altepetl y Santa Cruz Tlamapa._\n\nThese words mean, \u201cthe town of Santa Cruz Tlamapa.\u201d The name \u201c_tlamapa_\u201d\nmeans \u201con the hill-side,\u201d and doubtless originally referred to the\nposition in which the village was situated. But the prefix \u201c_tlama_\u201d\nusually signifies, \u201cto do something with the arms or hands,\u201d derived\nfrom _maitl_, hand or arm. Hence, the figure of the extended arm gives\nthis disyllable, _tlama_, which was sufficient to recall the name of the\ntown.\n\nThe Aztecs by no means confined the ikonomatic system to proper names.\nThey composed in it words, sentences, and treatises on various subjects.\nIn proportion as it is applied to these connected and lengthy\ncompositions, its processes become more recondite, curious and difficult\nof interpretation. Without a knowledge of the spoken language\nconsiderably more than rudimentary, it would be hopeless for the student\nto attempt to solve the enigmas which he meets at every step. Yet every\nwell-directed effort will convince him that he is on the right track,\nand he will constantly be cheered and stimulated to further endeavor by\nthe victories he will win day by day.\n\nThe analogy which is presented in so many particulars between Mexican\nand Maya civilization would lead us to infer that the Maya writing, of\nwhich we have a number of examples well preserved, should be unlocked by\nthe same key which has been successfully applied to the Aztec Codices.\nThe latest writers on the Maya manuscripts, while agreeing that they are\nin part, at least, in phonetic characters, consider them mostly\nideographic. But it is to be noted that not one of these writers had any\npractical acquaintance with the sounds of the Maya language, and\nscarcely any with its vocabulary. From this it is evident that even were\nthese codices in ikonomatic writing, such investigators could make very\nlittle progress in deciphering them, and might readily come to the\nconclusion that the figures are not phonetic in any sense. Precisely the\nsame position was taken by a number of students of Egyptian antiquity\nlong after the announcement of the discovery of Champollion; and even\nwithin a few years works have been printed denying all phoneticism to\nthe Nilotic inscriptions.\n\nWhat induces me to believe that much of the Maya script is of the nature\nof the Mexican is the endeavor, undertaken for a very different purpose,\nof Professor Valentini to explain the origin of the so-called Maya\nalphabet, preserved by Bishop Landa, and printed in the editions of his\ncelebrated \u201cDescription of Yucatan.\u201d[214] Professor Valentini shows by\narguments and illustrations, which I think are in the main correct, that\nwhen the natives were asked to represent the sounds of the Spanish\nletters in their method of writing, they selected objects to depict,\nwhose names, or initial sounds, or first syllables, were the same, or\nakin, to the sounds of the Spanish vowel or consonant heard by them.\nSometimes they would give several words, with their corresponding\npictures, for the same sound; just as I have shown was the custom of the\nancient Egyptians. Thus, for the sound _b_ they drew a foot-print, which\nin their tongue was called _be_; for the sound _a_ an obsidian knife, in\nMaya, _ach_, etc. Valentini thinks also that the letter _e_ was\ndelineated by black spots, in Maya _eek_, meaning black, which, if\nproved by further research, would show that the Mayas, like the\nMexicans, attributed phonetic values to the colors they employed in\ntheir painted scrolls.\n\nOutside of the two nations mentioned, the natives of the American\ncontinent made little advance toward a phonetic system. We have no\npositive evidence that even the cultivated Tarascas and Zapotecs had\nanything better than ikonographs; and of the Quiches and Cakchiquels,\nboth near relatives of the Mayas, we only know that they had a written\nliterature of considerable extent, but of the plan by which it was\npreserved we have only obscure hints. Next to these we should probably\nplace the Chipeway pictography, as preserved on their _meda_ sticks,\nbark records, and _adjidjiatig_ or grave-posts. I have examined a number\nof specimens of these, but have failed to find any evidence that the\ncharacters refer to sounds in the language; however, I might not\nconsider it improbable that further researches might disclose some germs\nof the ikonomatic method of writing even in these primitive examples of\nthe desire of the human intellect to perpetuate its acquisitions, and\nhand them down to generations yet unborn.\n\n\n\n\n           THE WRITING AND RECORDS OF THE ANCIENT MAYAS.[215]\n\n\n                           _1.\u2014Introductory._\n\nOne of the ablest living ethnologists has classified the means of\nrecording knowledge under two general headings\u2014Thought-writing and\nSound-writing.[216] The former is again divided into two forms, the\nfirst and earliest of which is by pictures, the second by\npicture-writing.\n\nThe superiority of picture-writing over the mere depicting of an\noccurrence is that it analyzes the thought and expresses separately its\ncomponent parts, whereas the picture presents it as a whole. The\nrepresentations familiar among the North American Indians are usually\nonly pictures, while most of the records of the Aztec communities are in\npicture-writing.\n\nThe genealogical development of Sound-writing begins by the substitution\nof the sign of one idea for that of another whose sound is nearly or\nquite the same. Such was the early graphic system of Egypt, and such\nsubstantially to-day is that of the Chinese. Above stands syllabic\nwriting, this as that of the Japanese, and the semi-syllabic signs of\nthe old Semitic alphabet; while, as the perfected result of these\nvarious attempts, we reach at last the invention of a true alphabet, in\nwhich a definite figure corresponds to a definite elementary sound.\n\nIt is a primary question in American arch\u00e6ology, How far did the most\ncultivated nations of the western continent ascend this scale of graphic\ndevelopment? This question is as yet unanswered. All agree, however,\nthat the highest evolution took place among the Nahuatl-speaking tribes\nof Mexico and the Maya race of Yucatan.\n\nI do not go too far in saying that it is proved that the Aztecs used to\na certain extent a phonetic system of writing, one in which the figures\nrefer not to the thought, but to the sound of the thought as expressed\nin spoken language. This has been demonstrated by the researches of M.\nAubin, and, of late, by the studies of Se\u00f1or Orozco y Berra.[217]\n\nTwo evolutionary steps can be distinguished in the Aztec writing. In the\nearlier the plan is that of the rebus in combination with ideograms,\nwhich latter are nothing more than the elements of picture-writing.\nExamples of this plan are the familiar \u201ctribute rolls\u201d and the names of\ntowns and kings, as shown in several of the codices published by Lord\nKingsborough. The second step is where a conventional image is employed\nto represent the sound of its first syllable. This advances actually to\nthe level of the syllabic alphabet; but it is doubtful if there are any\nAztec records entirely, or even largely, in this form of writing. They\nhad only reached the commencement of its development.\n\nThe graphic system of the Mayas of Yucatan was very different from that\nof the Aztecs. No one at all familiar with the two could fail at once to\ndistinguish between the manuscripts of the two nations. They are plainly\nindependent developments.\n\nWe know much more about the ancient civilization of Mexico than of\nYucatan; we have many more Aztec than Maya manuscripts, and hence we are\nmore at a loss to speak with positiveness about the Maya system of\nwriting than about the Mexican. We must depend on the brief and\nunsatisfactory statements of the early Spanish writers, and on what\nlittle modern research has accomplished, for means to form a correct\nopinion; and there is at present a justifiable discrepancy of opinion\nabout it among those who have given the subject most attention.\n\n\n                 _2.\u2014Descriptions by Spanish Writers._\n\nThe earliest exploration of the coast of Yucatan was that of Francisco\nHernandez de Cordova, in 1517. The year following a second expedition,\nunder Juan de Grijalva, visited a number of points between the island of\nCozumel and the Bahia de Terminos.\n\nSeveral accounts of Grijalva\u2019s voyage have been preserved, but they make\nno distinct reference to the method of writing they found in use. Some\nnative books were obtained, however, probably from the Mayas, and were\nsent to Spain, where they were seen by the historian Peter Martyr. He\ndescribes them in general terms, and compares the characters in which\nthey were written to the Egyptian hieroglyphics, some of which he had\nseen in Rome. He supposes that they contain the laws and ceremonies of\nthe people, astronomical calculations, the deeds of their kings, and\nother events of their history. He also speaks in commendation of the\nneatness of their general appearance, the skill with which the drawing\nand painting were carried out. He further mentions that the natives used\nthis method of writing or drawing in the affairs of common life.[218]\n\nAlthough Yucatan became thus early known to the Spaniards, it was not\nuntil 1541 that a permanent settlement was effected, in which year\nFrancisco de Montejo, the younger, advanced into the central province of\nCeh Pech, and established a city on the site of the ancient town called\n_Ichcanziho_, which means \u201cthe five (temples) of many oracles (or\nserpents),\u201d to which he gave the name _M\u00e9rida_, on account of the\nmagnificent ancient edifices he found there.\n\nPrevious to this date, however, in 1534, Father Jacobo de Testera, with\nfour other missionaries, proceeded from Tabasco up the west coast to the\nneighborhood of the Bay of Campeachy. They were received amicably by the\nnatives, and instructed them in the articles of the Christian faith.\nThey also obtained from the chiefs a submission to the King of Spain;\nand I mention this early missionary expedition for the fact stated that\neach chief signed this act of submission \u201cwith a certain mark, like an\nautograph.\u201d This document was subsequently taken to Spain by the\ncelebrated Bishop Las Casas.[219] It is clear from the account that some\ndefinite form of signature was at that time in use among the chiefs.\n\nIt might be objected that these signatures were nothing more than rude\ntotem marks, such as were found even among the hunting tribes of the\nNorthern Mississippi Valley. But Las Casas himself, in whose possession\nthe documents were, here comes to our aid to refute this opinion. He was\nfamiliar with the picture-writing of Mexico, and recognized in the\nhieroglyphics of the Mayas something different and superior. He says\nexpressly that these had inscriptions, writings, in certain characters,\nthe like of which were found nowhere else.[220]\n\nOne of the early visitors to Yucatan after the conquest was the Pope\u2019s\ncommissary-general, Father Alonzo Ponce, who was there in 1588. Many\nnatives who had grown to adult years in heathenism must have been living\nthen. He makes the following interesting observation:\n\n\u201cThe natives of Yucatan are, among all the inhabitants of New Spain,\nespecially deserving of praise for three things: First, that before the\nSpaniards came they made use of characters and letters, with which they\nwrote out their histories, their ceremonies, the order of sacrifices to\ntheir idols, and their calendars, in books made of bark of a certain\ntree. These were on very long strips, a quarter or a third (of a yard)\nin width, doubled and folded, so that they resembled a bound book in\nquarto, a little larger or smaller. These letters and characters were\nunderstood only by the priests of the idols (who in that language are\ncalled Ahkins) and a few principal natives. Afterwards some of our\nfriars learned to understand and read them, and even wrote them.\u201d[221]\n\nThe interesting fact here stated, that some of the early missionaries\nnot only learned to read these characters, but employed them to instruct\nthe Indians, has been authenticated by a recent discovery of a\ndevotional work written in this way.\n\nThe earliest historian of Yucatan is Fr. Bernardo de Lizana.[222] But I\ndo not know of a single complete copy of his work, and only one\nimperfect copy, which is, or was, in the city of Mexico, from which the\nAbb\u00e9 Brasseur (de Bourbourg) copied and republished a few chapters.\nLizana was himself not much of an antiquary, but he had in his hands the\nmanuscripts left by Father Alonso de Solana, who came to Yucatan in\n1565, and remained there til his death, in 1599. Solana was an able man,\nacquiring thoroughly the Maya tongue, and left in his writings many\nnotes on the antiquities of the country.[223] Therefore we may put\nconsiderable confidence in what Lizana writes on these matters.\n\nThe reference which I find in his work to the Maya writings is as\nfollows:\n\n\u201cThe most celebrated and revered sanctuary in this land, and that to\nwhich they resorted from all parts, was this town and temples of\nYtzamal, as they are now called; and that it was founded in most ancient\ntimes, and that it is still known who did found it, will be set forth in\nthe next chapter.\n\n\u201cIII. The history and the authorities which we can cite are certain\nancient characters, scarcely understood by many, and explained by some\nold Indians, sons of the priests of their gods, who alone knew how to\nread and expound them, and who were believed in and revered as much as\nthe gods themselves, etc.[224]\u201d\n\nWe have here the positive statement that these hieroglyphic inscriptions\nwere used by the priests for recording their national history, and that\nby means of them they preserved the recollection of events which took\nplace in a very remote past.\n\nAnother valuable early witness, who testifies to the same effect, is the\nDr. Don Pedro Sanchez de Aguilar, who was _cura_ of Valladolid, in\nYucatan, in 1596, and, later, dean of the chapter of the cathedral at\nMerida. His book, too, is extremely scarce, and I have never seen a\ncopy; but I have copious extracts from it, made by the late Dr. C.\nHermann Berendt from a copy in Yucatan. Aguilar writes of the Mayas:\n\n\u201cThey had books made from the bark of trees, coated with a white and\ndurable varnish. They were ten or twelve yards long, and were gathered\ntogether in folds, like a palm leaf. On these they painted in colors the\nreckoning of their years, wars, pestilences, hurricanes, inundations,\nfamines, and other events. From one of these books, which I myself took\nfrom some of these idolaters, I saw and learned that to one pestilence\nthey gave the name _Mayacimil_, and to another _Ocnakuchil_, which mean\n\u2018sudden deaths\u2019 and \u2018times when the crows enter the houses to eat the\ncorpses.\u2019 And the inundation they called _Hunyecil_, the submersion of\ntrees.\u201d[225]\n\nThe writer leaves it uncertain whether he learned these words directly\nfrom the characters of the book or through the explanations of some\nnative.\n\nIt has sometimes been said that the early Spanish writers drew a broad\nline between the picture-writing that they found in America and an\nalphabetic script. This may be true of other parts, but is not so of\nYucatan. These signs, or some of them, are repeatedly referred to as\n\u201cletters,\u201d _letras_.\n\nThis is pointedly the case with Father Gabriel de San Buenaventura, a\nFrench Franciscan who served in Yucatan about 1670\u2013'80. He published one\nof the earliest grammars of the language, and also composed a dictionary\nin three large volumes, which was not printed. Father Beltran de Santa\nRosa quotes from it an interesting tradition preserved by Buenaventura,\nthat among the inventions of the mythical hero-god of the natives,\n_Itzamna_ or _Kinich ahau_, was that of \u201cthe letters of the Maya\nlanguage,\u201d with which letters they wrote their books.[226] Itzamna, of\ncourse, dates back to a misty antiquity, but the legend is of value, as\nshowing that the characters used by the natives did, in the opinion of\nthe early missionaries, deserve the name of _letters_.\n\nFather Diego Lopez Cogolludo is the best-known historian of Yucatan. He\nlived about the middle of the seventeenth century, and says himself that\nat that time there was little more to be learned about the antiquities\nof the race. He adds, therefore, substantially nothing to our knowledge\nof the subject, although he repeats, with positiveness, the statement\nthat the natives \u201chad characters by which they could understand each\nother in writing, such as those yet seen in great numbers on the ruins\nof their buildings.\u201d[227]\n\nThis is not very full. Yet we know to a certainty that there were\nquantities of these manuscripts in use in Yucatan for a generation after\nCogolludo wrote. To be sure, those in the Christianized districts had\nbeen destroyed, wherever the priests could lay their hands on them; but\nin the southern part of the peninsula, on the islands of Lake Peten and\nadjoining territory, the powerful chief, Canek, ruled a large\nindependent tribe of Itzas. They had removed from the northern provinces\nof the peninsula somewhere about 1450, probably in consequence of the\nwars which followed the dissolution of the confederacy whose capital was\nthe ancient city of Mayapan.\n\nTheir language was pure Maya, and they had brought with them in their\nmigration, as one of their greatest treasures, the sacred books which\ncontained their ancient history, their calendar and ritual, and the\nprophecies of their future fate. In the year 1697 they were attacked by\nthe Spaniards, under General Don Martin de Ursua; their capital, on the\nisland of Flores, in Lake Peten, taken by storm; great numbers of them\nslaughtered or driven into the lake to drown, and the twenty-one temples\nwhich were on the island razed to the ground.\n\nA minute and trustworthy account of these events has been given by Don\nJuan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, in the course of which occur several\nreferences to the sacred books, which he calls _Analt\u00e9s_.\n\nThe king Canek, he tells us, in reading in his _Analt\u00e9s_, had found\nnotices of the northern provinces of Yucatan and of the fact that his\npredecessors had come thence, and had communicated these narratives to\nhis chiefs.[228]\n\nThese books are described as showing \u201ccertain characters and figures,\npainted on certain barks of trees, each leaf or tablet about a quarter\n(of a yard) wide, and of the thickness of a piece of eight, folded at\none edge and the other in the manner of a screen, called by them\n_Analtehes_.\u201d[229]\n\nWhen the island of Flores was captured these books were found stored in\nthe house of the king Canek, containing the account of all that had\nhappened to the tribe.[230] What disposition was made of them we are not\ninformed.\n\nI have reserved until now a discussion of the description of the Maya\nwriting presented in the well-known work of Diego de Landa, the second\nbishop of Yucatan. Landa arrived in the province in August, 1549, and\ndied in April, 1579, having passed most of the intervening thirty years\nthere in the discharge of his religious duties. He became well\nacquainted with the language, which, for that matter, is a comparatively\neasy one, and though harsh, illiberal, and bitterly fanatic, he paid a\ncertain amount of attention to the arts, religion, and history of the\nancient inhabitants.\n\nThe notes that he made were copied after his death and reached Spain,\nwhere they are now preserved in the library of the Royal Academy of\nHistory, Madrid. In 1864 they were published at Paris, with a French\ntranslation, by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur (de Bourbourg).\n\nOf all writers Landa comes the nearest telling us how the Mayas used\ntheir system of writing; but, unfortunately, he also is so superficial\nand obscure that his words have given rise to very erroneous theories.\nHis description runs as follows:\n\n\u201cThis people also used certain characters or letters, with which they\nwrote in their books their ancient matters and their sciences, and with\nthem (_i. e._, with their characters or letters), and figures (_i. e._,\ndrawings or pictures), and some signs in the figures, they understood\ntheir matters, and could explain them and teach them. We found great\nnumbers in these letters, but as they contained nothing that did not\nsavor of superstition and lies of the devil, we burnt them all, at which\nthe natives grieved most keenly and were greatly pained.\n\n\u201cI will give here an _a_, _b_, _c_, as their clumsiness does not allow\nmore, because they use one character for all the aspirations of the\nletters, and for marking the parts another, and thus it could go on _in\ninfinitum_, as may be seen in the following example. _Le_ means a noose\nand to hunt with one; to write in their characters, after we had made\nthem understand that there are two letters, they wrote it with three,\ngiving to the aspiration of the _l_ the vowel _\u00e9_, which it carries\nbefore it; and in this they are not wrong so to use it, if they wish to,\nin their curious manner. After this they add to the end the compound\npart.\u201d[231]\n\nI need not pursue the quotation. The above words show clearly that the\nnatives did not in their method of writing analyze a word to its\nprimitive phonetic elements. \u201cThis,\u201d said the bishop, \u201cwe had to do for\nthem.\u201d Therefore they did not have an alphabet in the sense of the word\nas we use it.\n\nOn the other hand, it is equally clear, from his words and examples,\nthat they had figures which represented sounds, and that they combined\nthese and added a determinative or an ideogram to represent words or\nphrases.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 1.\u2014Fac Simile of Landa\u2019s Manuscript.\n]\n\nThe alphabet which he inserts has been engraved and printed several\ntimes, but nowhere with the fidelity desirable for so important a\nmonument in American arch\u00e6ology. For that reason I insert a photographic\nreproduction of it from the original MS. in the library of the Academia\nde la Historia of Madrid.\n\nA comparison of this with the alphabet as given in Brasseur\u2019s edition of\nLanda discloses several variations of importance. Thus the Abb\u00e9 places\nthe first form of the letter _C_ horizontally instead of upright. Again\nin the MS., the two figures for the letter _U_ stand, the first at the\nend of one line, the second at the beginning of the next. From their\nstrong analogy with the sign of the sky at night, I am of opinion that\nthey belong together as members of one composite sign, not separately as\nBrasseur gives them.\n\nBoth in it and in the inscriptions, manuscripts, and paintings the forms\nof the letters are rounded, and a row of them presents the outlines of a\nnumber of pebbles cut in two. Hence the system of writing has been\ncalled \u201ccalculiform,\u201d from _calculus_, a pebble. The expression has been\ncriticised, but I agree with Dr. F\u00f6rstemann in thinking it a very\nappropriate one. It was suggested, I believe, by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur (de\nBourbourg).\n\nThis alphabet of course, can not be used as the Latin _a_, _b_, _c_. It\nis surprising that any scholar should have ever thought so. It would be\nan exception, even a contradiction, to the history of the evolution of\nhuman intelligence, to find such an alphabet among nations of the stage\nof cultivation of the Mayas or Aztecs.\n\nThe severest criticism which Landa\u2019s figures have met has been from Dr.\nPhillip J. J. Valentini. He discovered that many of the sounds of the\nSpanish alphabet were represented by signs or pictures of objects whose\nnames in the Maya begin with that sound. Thus he supposes that Landa\nasked an Indian to write in the native character the Spanish letter _a_,\nand the Indian drew an obsidian knife, which, says Dr. Valentini, is in\nthe Maya _ach_; in other words, it begins with the vowel _a_. So for the\nsound _ki_, the Indian gave the sign of the day named _kinich_.\n\nSuch is Dr. Valentini\u2019s theory of the formation of Landa\u2019s alphabet; and\nnot satisfied with lashing with considerable sharpness those who have\nendeavored by its aid to decipher the manuscripts and mural\ninscriptions, he goes so far as to term it \u201ca Spanish fabrication.\u201d\n\nI shall not enter into a close examination of Dr. Valentini\u2019s supposed\nidentification of these figures. It is evident that it has been done by\nrunning over the Maya dictionary to find some word beginning with the\nletter under criticism, the figurative representation of which word\nmight bear some resemblance to Landa\u2019s letter. When the Maya fails, such\na word is sought for in the Kiche or other dialect of the stock; and the\nresemblances of the pictures to the supposed originals are sometimes\ngreatly strained.\n\nBut I pass by these dubious methods of criticism, as well as several\nlexicographic objections which might be raised. I believe, indeed, that\nDr. Valentini is not wrong in a number of his identifications. But the\nconclusion I draw is a different one. Instead of proving that this is\npicture-writing, it indicates that the Mayas used the second or higher\ngrade of phonetic syllabic writing, which, as I have before observed,\nhas been shown by M. Aubin to have been developed to some extent by the\nAztecs in some of their histories and connected compositions (see above,\npage 231). Therefore the importance and authenticity of Landa\u2019s alphabet\nare, I think, vindicated by this attempt to treat it as a\n\u201cfabrication.\u201d[232]\n\nLanda also gives some interesting details about their books. He writes:\n\n\u201cThe sciences that they taught were the reckoning of the years, months,\nand days, the feasts and ceremonies, the administration of their\nsacraments, the fatal days and seasons, their methods of divination and\nprophecies, events about to happen, remedies for diseases, their ancient\nhistory, together with the art of reading and writing their books with\ncharacters which were written, and pictures which represented the things\nwritten.\n\n\u201cThey wrote their books on a large sheet doubled into folds, which was\nafterwards inclosed between two boards, which they decorated handsomely.\nThey were written from side to side in columns, as they were folded.\nThey manufactured this paper from the root of a tree and gave it a white\nsurface on which one could write. Some of the principal nobles\ncultivated these sciences out of a taste for them, and although they did\nnot make public use of them, as did the priests, yet they were the more\nhighly esteemed for this knowledge.\u201d[233]\n\nFrom the above extracts from Spanish writers we may infer that\u2014\n\n1. The Maya graphic system was recognized from the first to be distinct\nfrom the Mexican.\n\n2. It was a hieroglyphic system, known only to the priests and a few\nnobles.\n\n3. It was employed for a variety of purposes, prominent among which was\nthe preservation of their history and calendar.\n\n4. It was a composite system, containing pictures (_figuras_), ideograms\n(_caracteres_), and phonetic signs (_letras_).\n\n\n                  _3.\u2014References from Native Sources._\n\nWe might reasonably expect that the Maya language should contain terms\nrelating to their books and writings which would throw light on their\nmethods. So, no doubt, it did. But it was a part of the narrow and\ncrushing policy of the missionaries not only to destroy everything that\nrelated to the times of heathendom, but even to drop all words which\nreferred to ancient usages. Hence the dictionaries are more sterile in\nthis respect than we might have supposed.\n\nThe verb \u201cto write\u201d is _dzib_, which like the Greek \u03b3\u03c1\u03ac\u03c6\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, meant also\nto draw and to paint. From this are derived the terms _dziban_,\nsomething written; _dzibal_, a signature, etc.\n\nAnother word, meaning to write, or to paint in black, is _zabac_. As a\nnoun, this was in ancient times applied to a black fluid extracted from\nthe _zabacche_, a species of tree, and used for dyeing and painting. In\nthe sense of \u201cto write,\u201d _zabac_ is no longer found in the language, and\ninstead of its old meaning, it now refers to ordinary ink.\n\nThe word for letter or character is _uooh_. This is a primitive root\nfound with the same or a closely allied meaning in other branches of\nthis linguistic stock, as, for instance, in the Kich\u00e9 and Cakchiquel. As\na verb, pret. _uooth_, fut. _uoot\u00e9_, it also means to form letters, to\nwrite; and from the passive form, _uoohal_, we have the participial\nnoun, _uoohan_, something written, a manuscript.\n\nThe ordinary word for book, paper, or letter, is _huun_, in which the\naspirate is almost mute, and is dropped in the forms denoting\npossession, as _u uun_, my book, _yuunil Dios_, the book of God, _il_\nbeing the so-called \u201cdeterminative\u201d ending. It occurs to me as not\nunlikely that _uun_, book, is a syncopated form of _uoohan_, something\nwritten, given above. To read a book is _xochun_, literally to _count_ a\nbook.\n\nAccording to Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, the name of the sacred books of\nthe Itzas was _analt\u00e9_. In the printed _Diccionario de la Lengua Maya_,\nby Don Juan Pio Perez, this is spelled _anaht\u00e9_, which seems to be a\nlater form.\n\nThe term is not found in several early Maya dictionaries in my\npossession, of dates previous to 1700. The Abb\u00e9 Brasseur indeed, in a\nnote to Landa, explains it to mean \u201ca book of wood,\u201d but it can have no\nsuch signification. Perhaps it should read _hunilt\u00e9_, this being\ncomposed of _hunil_, the \u201cdeterminative\u201d form of _huun_, a book, and the\ntermination _t\u00e9_, which added to nouns, gives them a specific sense, _e.\ng._ _amayt\u00e9_, a square figure, from _amay_, an angle; _tzucubl\u00e9_, a\nprovince, from _tzuc_, a portion separated from the rest. It would mean\nespecially the sacred or national books.\n\nThe particular class of books which were occupied with the calendar and\nthe ritual were called _tzolant\u00e9_, which is a participial noun from the\nverb _tzol_, passive _tzolal_, to set in order, to arrange, with the\nsuffix _t\u00e9_. By these books were set in order and arranged the various\nfestivals and fasts.\n\nWhen the conquest was an accomplished fact and the priests had got the\nupper hand, the natives did not dare use their ancient characters. They\nexposed themselves to the suspicion of heresy and the risk of being\nburnt alive, as more than once happened. But their strong passion for\nliterature remained, and they gratified it as far as they dared by\nwriting in their own tongue with the Spanish alphabet volumes whose\ncontents are very similar to those described by Landa.\n\nA number of these are still in existence, and offer an interesting field\nfor antiquarian and linguistic study. Although, as I say, they are no\nlonger in the Maya letters, they contain quite a number of ideograms, as\nthe signs of the days and the months, and occasional cartouches and\npaintings, which show that they were made to resemble the ancient\nmanuscripts as closely as possible.\n\nThey also contain not infrequent references to the \u201cwriting\u201d of the\nancients, and what are alleged to be extracts from the old records,\nchiefly of a mystic character. The same terms are employed in speaking\nof the ancient graphic system as of the present one. Thus in one of\nthem, known as \u201cThe Book of Chilan Balam of Chumayel,\u201d occurs this\nphrase: _Bay dzibanil tumenel Evangelistas yetel profeta Balam_\u2014\u201cas it\nwas written by the Evangelists, and also by the prophet Balam,\u201d this\nBalam being one of their own celebrated ancient seers.\n\nAmong the predictions preserved from a time anterior to the Conquest,\nthere are occasional references to their books and their contents. I\nquote, as an example, a short prophecy attributed to Ahkul Chel, \u201cpriest\nof the idols.\u201d It is found in several of the oldest Maya manuscripts,\nand is in all probability authentic, as it contains nothing which would\nlead us to suppose that it was one of the \u201cpious frauds\u201d of the\nmissionaries.\n\n \u201c_Enhi cibte katune yume, maixtan \u00e0 naat\u00e9;\n Uatac u talel, mac bin ca \u0254abac tu co\u0254 pop;\n Katune yume bin uluc, holom uil tucal ya;\n Tali ti xaman, tali ti chikine; ahkinob uil yane yume;\n Mac to ahkin, mac to ahbobat, bin alic u than uoohe;\n Yhcil Bolon Ahau, maixtan \u00e0 naat\u00e9?_\u201d\n\n \u201cThe lord of the cycle has been written down, but ye will not\n    understand;\n \u201cHe has come, who will give the enrolling of the years;\n \u201cThe lord of the cycle will arrive, he will come on account of his love;\n \u201cHe came from the north, from the west. There are priests, there are\n    fathers,\n \u201cBut what priest, what prophet, shall explain the words of the books,\n \u201cIn the Ninth Ahau, which ye will not understand?\u201d[234]\n\nFrom this designedly obscure chant we perceive that the ancient priests\ninscribed their predictions in books, which were afterward explained to\nthe people. The expression _bin alic u than uoohe_\u2014literally, \u201che will\nspeak the words of the letters\u201d\u2014seems to point to a phonetic writing,\nbut as it may be used in a figurative sense, I shall not lay stress on\nit.[235]\n\n\n                       _4.\u2014The Existing Codices._\n\nThe word _Codex_ ought to be confined, in American arch\u00e6ology, to\nmanuscripts in the original writing of the natives. Some writers have\nspoken of the \u201cCodex Chimalpopoca,\u201d the \u201cCodex Zumarraga,\u201d and the\n\u201cCodex Perez,\u201d which are nothing more than manuscripts either in the\nnative or Spanish tongues written with the Latin alphabet.\n\nOf the Maya Codices known, only four have been published, which I will\nmention in the order of their appearance.\n\n_The Dresden Codex._\u2014This is an important Maya manuscript preserved in\nthe Royal Library at Dresden. How or when it came to Europe is not\nknown. It was obtained from some unknown person in Vienna in 1739.\n\nThis Codex corresponds in size, appearance, and manner of folding to the\ndescriptions of the Maya books which I have presented above from Spanish\nsources. It has thirty-nine leaves, thirty-five of which are colored and\ninscribed on both sides, and four on one side only, so that there are\nonly seventy-four pages of matter. The total length of the sheet is 3.5\nmeters, and the height of each page is 0.295 meter, the width 0.085\nmeter.\n\nThe first publication of any portion of this Codex was by Alexander von\nHumboldt, who had five pages of it copied for his work, _Vues des\nCordill\u00e8res et Monumens des Peuples Indigenes de l\u2019Am\u00e9rique_, issued at\nParis in 1813 (not 1810, as the title-page has it). It was next very\ncarefully copied in full by the Italian artist, Agostino Aglio, for the\nthird volume of Lord Kingsborough\u2019s great work on _Mexican Antiquities_,\nthe first volume of which appeared in 1831.\n\nFrom Kingsborough\u2019s work a few pages of the Codex have been from time to\ntime republished in other books, which call for no special mention; and\ntwo pages were copied from the original in Wuttke\u2019s _Geschichte der\nSchrift_, Leipzig, 1872.\n\nFinally, in 1880, the whole was very admirably chromo-photographed by A.\nNaumaun\u2019s establishment at Leipzig, to the number of fifty copies, forty\nof which were placed on sale. It is the first work which was ever\npublished in chromo-photography, and has, therefore, a high scientific\nas well as antiquarian interest.\n\nThe editor was Dr. E. F\u00f6rstemann, aulic counselor and librarian-in-chief\nof the Royal Library. He wrote an introduction (17 pp. 4to.) giving a\nhistory of the manuscript, and bibliographical and other notes upon it\nof much value. One opinion he defends must not be passed by in silence.\nIt is that the Dresden Codex is not one, but parts of two original\nmanuscripts written by different hands.\n\nIt appears that it has always been in two unequal fragments, which all\nprevious writers have attributed to an accidental injury to the\noriginal. Dr. F\u00f6rstemann gives a number of reasons for believing that\nthis is not the correct explanation, but that we have here portions of\ntwo different books, having general similarity but also many points of\ndiversity.\n\nThis separation led to an erroneous (or perhaps erroneous) sequence of\nthe pages in Kingsborough\u2019s edition. The artist Aglio took first one\nfragment and copied both sides, and then proceeded to the next one; and\nit is not certain that in either case he begins with the first page in\nthe original order of the book.\n\n_The Codex Peresianus_, or _Codex Mexicanus, No. II_, of the\n_Biblioth\u00e8que Nationale_ of Paris.\u2014This fragment\u2014for it is unfortunately\nnothing more\u2014was discovered in 1859 by Prof. Leon de Rosny among a mass\nof old papers in the National Library. It consists of eleven leaves,\ntwenty-two pages, each 9 inches long and 5\u00bc inches wide. The writing is\nvery much defaced, but was evidently of a highly artistic character,\nprobably the most so of any manuscript known. It unquestionably belongs\nto the Maya manuscripts.\n\nIts origin is unknown. The papers in which it was wrapped bore the name\n\u201cPerez,\u201d in a Spanish hand of the seventeenth century, and hence the\nname \u201cPeresianus\u201d was given it. By order of the Minister of Public\nInstruction, ten photographic copies of this Codex, without reduction,\nwere prepared for the use of scholars. None of them were placed on sale,\nand so far as I know the only one which has found its way to the United\nStates is that in my own library. An ordinary lithographic reproduction\nwas given in the _Archives pal\u00e9ographiques de l\u2019Orient et de\nl\u2019Am\u00e9rique_, tome I. (Paris, 1869\u2013'71).\n\n_The Codex Tro_, or _Troano_.\u2014The publication of this valuable Codex we\nowe to the enthusiasm of the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur (de Bourbourg). On his return\nfrom Yucatan in 1864 he visited Madrid, and found this Manuscript in the\npossession of Don Juan de Tro y Ortolano, professor of paleography, and\nhimself a descendent of Hernan Cortes. The abb\u00e9 named it _Troano_, as a\ncompound of the two names of its owner; but later writers often content\nthemselves by referring to it simply as the _Codex Tro_.\n\nIt consists of thirty-five leaves and seventy pages, each of which is\nlarger than a page of the Dresden Codex, but less than one of the _Codex\nPeresianus_. It was published by chromo-lithography at Paris, in 1869,\nprefaced by a study on the graphic system of the Mayas by the abb\u00e9, and\nan attempt at a translation. The reproduction, which was carried out\nunder the efficient care of M. Leonce Angrand, is extremely accurate.\n\n_The Codex Cortesianus._\u2014This Codex, published at Paris, 1883, under the\neditorship of Professor Leon de Rosny, presents the closest analogy to\nthe Codex Troano, of which, indeed, it probably formed a part. It has\nforty-two leaves, closely written in the calculiform character. There is\nno evidence that it was brought to Spain by Cortes, but from a tradition\nto that effect, it has received its name.\n\nAll four of these codices were written on paper manufactured from the\nleaves of the maguey plant, such as that in common use in Mexico. In\nMaya the maguey is called _ci_, the varieties being distinguished by\nvarious prefixes. It grows luxuriantly in most parts of Yucatan, and\nalthough the favorite tipple of the ancient inhabitants was mead, they\nwere not unacquainted with the intoxicating _pulque_, the liquor from\nthe maguey, if we can judge from their word for a drunkard, _ci-vinic_\n(_vinic_==man). The old writers were probably in error when they spoke\nof the books being made of the barks of trees; or, at least, they were\nnot all of that material.\n\nThe above-mentioned Manuscripts are the only ones which have been\npublished. I shall not enumerate those which are said to exist in\nprivate hands. So long as they are withheld from the examination of\nscientific men they can add nothing to the general stock of knowledge,\nand as statements about them are not verifiable, it is useless to make\nany.\n\nIn addition to the Manuscripts, we have the mural paintings and\ninscriptions found at Palenque, Copan, Chichen Itza, and various ruined\ncities within the boundaries of the Maya-speaking races. There is no\nmistaking these inscriptions. They are unquestionably of the same\ncharacter as the Manuscripts, although it is also easy to perceive\nvariations, which are partly owing to the necessary differences in\ntechnique between painting and sculpture: partly, no doubt, to the\nseparation of age and time.\n\nPhotographs and \u201csqueezes\u201d have reproduced many of these inscriptions\nwith entire fidelity. We can also depend upon the accurate pencil of\nCatherwood, whose delineations have never been equalled. But the\npictures of Waldeck and some other travelers do not deserve any\nconfidence, and should not be quoted in a discussion of the subject.\n\n\n\n\n                    THE BOOKS OF CHILAN BALAM.[236]\n\n\nCivilization in ancient America rose to its highest level among the\nMayas of Yucatan. Not to speak of the architectural monuments which\nstill remain to attest this, we have the evidence of the earliest\nmissionaries to the fact that they alone, of all the natives of the New\nWorld, possess a literature written in \u201cletters and characters,\u201d\npreserved in volumes neatly bound, the paper manufactured from the\nmaterial derived from fibrous plants, and sized with a durable white\nvarnish.[237]\n\nA few of these books still remain, preserved to us by accident in the\ngreat European libraries; but most of them were destroyed by the monks.\nTheir contents were found to relate chiefly to the pagan ritual, to\ntraditions of the heathen times, to astrological superstitions, and the\nlike. Hence, they were considered deleterious, and were burned wherever\ndiscovered.\n\nThis annihilation of their sacred books affected the natives most\nkeenly, as we are pointedly informed by Bishop Landa, himself one of the\nmost ruthless of Vandals in this respect.[238] But already some of the\nmore intelligent had learned the Spanish alphabet, and the missionaries\nhad added a sufficient number of signs to it to express with tolerable\naccuracy the phonetics of the Maya tongue. Relying on their memories,\nand no doubt aided by some manuscripts secretly preserved, many natives\nset to work to write out in this new alphabet the contents of their\nancient records. Much was added which had been brought in by the\nEuropeans, and much omitted which had become unintelligible or obsolete\nsince the Conquest; while, of course, the different writers, varying in\nskill and knowledge, produced works of very various merit.\n\nNevertheless, each of these books bore the same name. In whatever\nvillage it was written, or by whatever hand, it always was, and to-day\nstill is, called \u201cThe Book of Chilan Balam.\u201d To distinguish them apart,\nthe name of the village where a copy was found or written, is added.\nProbably, in the last century, almost every village had one, which was\ntreasured with superstitious veneration. But the opposition of the\n_padres_ to this kind of literature, the decay of ancient sympathies,\nand especially the long war of races, which since 1847 has desolated so\nmuch of the peninsula, have destroyed most of them. There remain,\nhowever, either portions or descriptions of not less than sixteen of\nthese curious records. They are known from the names of the villages\nrespectively as the Book of Chilan Balam of Nabula, of Chumayel, of\nK\u00e1ua, of Mani, of Oxkutzcab, of Ixil, of Tihosuco, of Tixcocob, etc.,\nthese being the names of various native towns in the peninsula.\n\nWhen I add that not a single one of these has ever been printed, or even\nentirely translated into any European tongue, it will be evident to\nevery arch\u00e6ologist and linguist what a rich and unexplored mine of\ninformation about this interesting people they may present. It is my\nintention in this article merely to touch upon a few salient points to\nillustrate this, leaving a thorough discussion of their origin and\ncontents to the future editor who will bring them to the knowledge of\nthe learned world.\n\nTurning first to the meaning of the name \u201c_Chilan Balam_,\u201d it is not\ndifficult to find its derivation. \u201c_Chilan_,\u201d says Bishop Landa, the\nsecond bishop of Yucatan, whose description of the native customs is an\ninvaluable source to us, \u201cwas the name of their priests, whose duty it\nwas to teach the sciences, to appoint holy days, to treat the sick, to\noffer sacrifices, and especially to utter the oracles of the gods. They\nwere so highly honored by the people that usually they were carried on\nlitters on the shoulders of the devotees.\u201d[239] Strictly speaking, in\nMaya \u201c_chilan_\u201d means \u201cinterpreter,\u201d \u201cmouth-piece,\u201d from \u201c_chij_,\u201d \u201cthe\nmouth,\u201d and in this ordinary sense frequently occurs in other writings.\nThe word, \u201c_balam_\u201d\u2014literally, \u201ctiger,\u201d\u2014was also applied to a class of\npriests, and is still in use among the natives of Yucatan as the\ndesignation of the protective spirits of fields and towns, as I have\nshown at length in a previous study of the word as it occurs in the\nnative myths of Guatemala.[240] \u201c_Chilan Balam_,\u201d therefore, is not a\nproper name, but a title, and in ancient times designated the priest who\nannounced the will of the gods and explained the sacred oracles. This\naccounts for the universality of the name and the sacredness of its\nassociations.\n\nThe dates of the books which have come down to us are various. One of\nthem, \u201cThe Book of Chilan Balam of Mani,\u201d was undoubtedly composed not\nlater than 1595, as is proved by internal evidence. Various passages in\nthe works of Landa, Lizana, Sanchez Aguilar and Cogolludo\u2014all early\nhistorians of Yucatan\u2014prove that many of these native manuscripts\nexisted in the sixteenth century. Several rescripts date from the\nseventeenth century,\u2014most from the latter half of the eighteenth.\n\nThe names of the writers are generally not given, probably because the\nbooks, as we have them, are all copies of older manuscripts, with merely\nthe occasional addition of current items of note by the copyist; as, for\ninstance, a malignant epidemic which prevailed in the peninsula in 1673\nis mentioned as a present occurrence by the copyist of \u201cThe Book of\nChilan Balam of Nabula.\u201d\n\nI come now to the contents of these curious works. What they contain may\nconveniently be classified under four headings:\n\n Astrological and prophetic matters;\n Ancient chronology and history;\n Medical recipes and directions;\n Later history and Christian teachings.\n\nThe last-mentioned consist of translations of the \u201c_Doctrina_,\u201d Bible\nstories, narratives of events after the Conquest, etc., which I shall\ndismiss as of least interest.\n\nThe astrology appears partly to be reminiscences of that of their\nancient heathendom, partly that borrowed from the European almanacs of\nthe century 1550\u20131650. These, as is well known, were crammed with\npredictions and divinations. A careful analysis, based on a comparison\nwith the Spanish almanacs of that time, would doubtless reveal how much\nwas taken from them, and it would be fair to presume that the remainder\nwas a survival of ancient native theories.\n\nBut there are not wanting actual prophecies of a much more striking\ncharacter. These were attributed to the ancient priests and to a date\nlong preceding the advent of Christianity. Some of them have been\nprinted in translations in the \u201c_Historias_\u201d of Lizana and Cogolludo,\nand of some the originals were published by the late Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de\nBourbourg, in the second volume of the reports of the \u201c_Mission\nScientificque au Mexique et dans l\u2019 Am\u00e9rique Centrale_.\u201d Their\nauthenticity has been met with considerable skepticism by Waitz and\nothers, particularly as they seem to predict the arrival of the\nChristians from the East and the introduction of the worship of the\ncross.\n\nIt appears to me that this incredulity is uncalled for. It is known that\nat the close of each of their larger divisions of time (the so-called\n\u201c_katuns_,\u201d) a \u201c_chilan_,\u201d or inspired diviner, uttered a prediction of\nthe character of the year or epoch which was about to begin. Like other\nwould-be prophets, he had doubtless learned that it is wiser to predict\nevil than good, inasmuch as the probabilities of evil in this worried\nworld of ours outweigh those of good; and when the evil comes his words\nare remembered to his credit, while if, perchance, his gloomy forecasts\nare not realized, no one will bear him a grudge that he has been at\nfault. The temper of this people was, moreover, gloomy, and it suited\nthem to hear of threatened danger and destruction by foreign foes. But,\nalas! for them. The worst that the boding words of the oracle foretold\nwas as nothing to the dire event which overtook them\u2014the destruction of\ntheir nation, their temples and their freedom, \u2019neath the iron heel of\nthe Spanish conqueror. As the wise G\u0153the says:\n\n                   \u201c_Seltsam ist Prophetenlied,\n                   Doch mehr seltsam was geschieht._\u201d\n\nAs to the supposed reference to the cross and its worship, it may be\nremarked that the native word translated \u201ccross\u201d by the missionaries,\nsimply means \u201ca piece of wood set upright,\u201d and may well have had a\ndifferent and special signification in the old days.\n\nBy way of a specimen of these prophecies, I quote one from \u201cThe Book of\nChilan Balam of Chumayel,\u201d saying at once that for the translation I\nhave depended upon a comparison of the Spanish version of Lizana, who\nwas blindly prejudiced, and that in French of the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de\nBourbourg, who knew next to nothing about Maya, with the original. It\nwill be easily understood, therefore, that it is rather a paraphrase\nthan a literal rendering. The original is in short, aphoristic\nsentences, and was, no doubt, chanted with a rude rhythm:\n\n             \u201cWhat time the sun shall brightest shine,\n             Tearful will be the eyes of the king.\n             Four ages yet shall be inscribed,\n             Then shall come the holy priest, the holy god.\n             With grief I speak what now I see.\n             Watch well the road, ye dwellers of Itza.\n             The master of the earth shall come to us.\n             Thus prophesies Nahau Pech, the seer,\n             In the days of the fourth age,\n             At the time of its beginning.\u201d\n\nSuch are the obscure and ominous words of the ancient oracle. If the\ndate is authentic, it would be about 1480\u2014the \u201cfourth age\u201d in the Maya\nsystem of computing time being a period of either twenty or twenty-four\nyears at the close of the fifteenth century.\n\nIt is, however, of little importance whether these are accurate copies\nof the ancient prophecies; they remain, at least, faithful imitations of\nthem, composed in the same spirit and form which the native priests were\nwont to employ. A number are given much longer than the above, and\ncontaining various curious references to ancient usages.\n\nAnother value they have in common with all the rest of the text of these\nbooks, and it is one which will be properly appreciated by any student\nof languages. They are, by common consent of all competent authorities,\nthe genuine productions of native minds, cast in the idiomatic forms of\nthe native tongue by those born to its use. No matter how fluent a\nforeigner becomes in a language not his own, he can never use it as does\none who has been familiar with it from childhood. This general maxim is\nten-fold true when we apply it to a European learning an American\nlanguage. The flow of thought, as exhibited in these two linguistic\nfamilies, is in such different directions that no amount of practice can\nrender one equally accurate in both. Hence the importance of studying a\ntongue as it is employed by natives; and hence the very high estimate I\nplace on these \u201cBooks of Chilan Balam\u201d as linguistic material\u2014an\nestimate much increased by the great rarity of independent compositions\nin their own tongues by members of the native races of this continent.\n\nI now approach what I consider the peculiar value of these records,\napart from the linguistic mould in which they are cast; and that is the\nlight they throw upon the chronological system and ancient history of\nthe Mayas. To a limited extent, this has already been brought before the\npublic. The late Don Pio Perez gave to Mr. Stephens, when in Yucatan, an\nessay on the method of computing time among the ancient Mayas, and also\na brief synopsis of Maya history, apparently going back to the third or\nfourth century of the Christian era. Both were published by Mr. Stephens\nin the appendix to his \u201cTravels in Yucatan,\u201d and have appeared\nrepeatedly since in English, Spanish and French.[241] They have, up to\nthe present, constituted almost our sole sources of information on these\ninteresting points. Don Pio Perez was rather vague as to whence he\nderived his knowledge. He refers to \u201cancient manuscripts,\u201d \u201cold\nauthorities,\u201d and the like; but, as the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur de Bourbourg\njustly complains, he rarely quotes their words, and gives no\ndescriptions as to what they were or how he gained access to them.[242]\nIn fact, the whole of Se\u00f1or Perez\u2019s information was derived from these\n\u201cBooks of Chilan Balam;\u201d and without wishing at all to detract from his\nreputation as an antiquary and a Maya scholar, I am obliged to say that\nhe has dealt with them as scholars so often do with their authorities;\nthat is, having framed his theories, he quoted what he found in their\nfavor and neglected to refer to what he observed was against them.\n\nThus, it is a cardinal question in Yucatecan arch\u00e6ology as to whether\nthe epoch or age by which the great cycle (the _ahau katun_,) was\nreckoned, embraced twenty or twenty-four years. Contrary to all the\nSpanish authorities, Perez declared for twenty-four years, supporting\nhimself by \u201cthe manuscripts.\u201d It is true there are three of the \u201cBooks\nof Chilan Balam\u201d\u2014those of Mani, K\u00e1ua and Oxkutzcab,\u2014which are distinctly\nin favor of twenty-four years; but, on the other hand, there are four or\nfive others which are clearly for the period of twenty years, and of\nthese Don Perez said nothing, although copies of more than one of them\nwere in his library. So of the epochs, or _katuns_, of Maya history;\nthere are three or more copies in these books which he does not seem to\nhave compared with the one he furnished Stephens. His labor will have to\nbe repeated according to the methods of modern criticism, and with the\nadditional material obtained since he wrote.\n\nAnother valuable feature in these records is the hints they furnish of\nthe hieroglyphic system of the Mayas. Almost our only authority\nheretofore has been the essay of Landa. It has suffered somewhat in\ncredit because we had no means of verifying his statements and comparing\nthe characters he gives. Dr. Valentini has even gone so far as to attack\nsome of his assertions as \u201cfabrications.\u201d This is an amount of\nskepticism which exceeds both justice and probability.\n\nThe chronological portions of the \u201cBooks of Chilan Balam\u201d are partly\nwritten with the ancient signs of the days, months and epochs, and they\nfurnish us, also, delineations of the \u201cwheels\u201d which the natives used\nfor computing time. The former are so important to the student of Maya\nhieroglyphics, that I have added photographic reproductions of them to\nthis paper, giving also representations of those of Landa for\ncomparison. It will be observed that the signs of the days are\ndistinctly similar in the majority of cases, but that those of the\nmonths are hardly alike.\n\nThe hieroglyphs of the days taken from the \u201c_Codex Troano_,\u201d an ancient\nMaya book written before the Conquest, probably about 1400, are also\nadded to illustrate the variations which occurred in the hands of\ndifferent scribes. Those from the \u201cBooks of Chilan Balam\u201d are copied\nfrom a manuscript known to Maya scholars as the \u201c_Codice Perez_,\u201d of\nundoubted authenticity and antiquity.[243]\n\nThe result of the comparison I thus institute is a triumphant refutation\nof the doubts and slurs which have been cast on Bishop Landa\u2019s work, and\nvindicate for it a very high degree of accuracy.\n\nThe hieroglyphics for the months are quite complicated, and in the\n\u201cBooks of Chilan Balam\u201d are rudely drawn; but, for all that, two or\nthree of them are evidently identical with those in the calendar\npreserved by Landa. Some years ago, Professor de Rosny expressed himself\nin great doubt as to the fidelity in the tracing of these hieroglyphs of\nthe months, principally because he could not find them in the two\ncodices at his command.[244] As he observes, they are _composite_ signs,\nand this goes to explain the discrepancy; for it may be regarded as\nestablished that the Maya script permitted the use of several signs for\nthe same sound, and the sculptor or scribe was not obliged to represent\nthe same word always by the same figure.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 1.\u2014Signs of the Months, from the Book of Chilan Balam of\n    Chumayel.\n]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 2.\u2014Signs of the Months, as given by Bishop Landa.\n]\n\nIn close relation to chronology is the system of numeration and\narithmetical signs. These are discussed with considerable fulness,\nespecially in the \u201cBook of Chilan Balam of K\u00e1ua.\u201d The numerals are\nrepresented by exactly the same figures as we find in the Maya\nmanuscripts of the libraries of Dresden, Pesth, Paris and Madrid; that\nis, by points or dots up to five, and the fives by single straight\nlines, which may be indiscriminately drawn vertically or horizontally.\nThe same book contains a table of multiplication in Spanish and Maya,\nwhich settles some disputed points in the use of the vigesimal system by\nthe Mayas.\n\nA curious chapter in several of the books, especially those of K\u00e1ua and\nMani, is that on the thirteen _ahau katuns_, or epochs, of the greater\ncycle of the Mayas. This cycle embraced thirteen periods, which, as I\nhave before remarked, are computed by some at twenty years each, by\nothers at twenty-four years each. Each of these _katuns_ was presided\nover by a chief or king, that being the meaning of the word _ahau_. The\nbooks above mentioned give both the name and the portrait, drawn and\ncolored by the rude hand of the native artist, of each of these kings,\nand they suggest several interesting analogies.\n\nThey are, in the first place, identical, with one exception, with those\non an ancient native painting, an engraving of which is given by Father\nCogolludo in his \u201cHistory of Yucatan,\u201d and explained by him as the\nrepresentation of an occurrence which took place after the Spaniards\narrived in the peninsula. Evidently, the native in whose hands the\nworthy father found it, fearing that he partook of the fanaticism which\nhad led the missionaries to the destruction of so many records of their\nnation, deceived him as to its purport, and gave him an explanation\nwhich imparted to the scroll the character of a harmless history.\n\nThe one exception is the last or thirteenth chief. Cogolludo appends to\nthis the name of an Indian who probably did fall a victim to his\nfriendship to the Spaniards. This name, as a sort of guarantee for the\nrest of his story, the native scribe inserted in place of the genuine\none. The peculiarity of the figure is that it has an arrow or dagger\ndriven into its eye. Not only is this mentioned by Cogolludo\u2019s\ninformant, but it is represented in the paintings in both the \u201cBooks of\nChilan Balam\u201d above noted, and also, by a fortunate coincidence, in one\nof the calendar pages of the \u201c_Codex Troano_,\u201d plate xxiii., in a\nremarkable cartouche, which, from a wholly independent course of\nreasoning, was some time since identified by the well-known antiquary,\nProfessor Cyrus Thomas, of Illinois, as a cartouche of one of the _ahau\nkatuns_, and probably of the last of them. It gives me much pleasure to\nadd such conclusive proof of the sagacity of his supposition.[245]\n\n[Illustration]\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 3.\u2014SIGNS OF THE DAYS.\n\n  The first column on the right is from Landa. The second is from the\n    \u201c_Codex Troano_.\u201d The remaining four are from the Book of Chilan\n    Balam of K\u00e1ua.\n]\n\nThere is other evidence to show that the engraving in Cogolludo is a\nrelic of the purest ancient Maya symbolism\u2014one of the most interesting\nwhich have been preserved to us; but to enter upon its explanation in\nthis connection would be too far from my present topic.\n\nA favorite theme with the writers of the \u201cBooks of Chilan Balam\u201d was the\ncure of diseases. Bishop Landa explains the \u201c_chilanes_\u201d as \u201csorcerers\nand doctors,\u201d and adds that one of their prominent duties was to\ndiagnose diseases and point out their appropriate remedies.[246] As we\nmight expect, therefore, considerable prominence is given to the\ndescription of symptoms and suggestions for their alleviation. Bleeding\nand the administration of preparations of native plants are the usual\nprescriptions; but there are others which have probably been borrowed\nfrom some domestic medicine-book of European origin.\n\nThe late Don Pio Perez gave a great deal of attention to collecting\nthese native recipes, and his manuscripts were carefully examined by Dr.\nBerendt, who combined all the necessary knowledge, botanical, linguistic\nand medical, and who has left a large manuscript, entitled \u201c_Recetarios\nde Indios_,\u201d which presents the subject fully. He considers the\nscientific value of these remedies to be next to nothing, and the\nlanguage in which they are recorded to be distinctly inferior to that of\nthe remainder of the \u201cBooks of Chilan Balam.\u201d Hence, he believes that\nthis portion of the ancient records was supplanted some time in the last\ncentury by medical notions introduced from European sources. Such, in\nfact, is the statement of the copyists of the books themselves, as these\nrecipes, etc., are sometimes found in a separate volume, entitled \u201cThe\nBook of the Jew,\u201d\u2014_El Libro del Judio_. Who this alleged Jewish\nphysician was, who left so widespread and durable a renown among the\nYucatecan natives, none of the arch\u00e6ologists has been able to find\nout.[247]\n\nThe language and style of most of these books are aphoristic, elliptical\nand obscure. The Maya language has naturally undergone considerable\nalteration since they were written; therefore, even to competent readers\nof ordinary Maya, they are not readily intelligible. Fortunately,\nhowever, there are in existence excellent dictionaries, which, were they\npublished, would be sufficient for this purpose.\n\n\n\n\n                   ON THE \u201cSTONE OF THE GIANTS.\u201d[248]\n\n\nAt the last meeting of this Society, a photograph was received of the\n_Piedra de los Gigantes_, or \u201cStone of the Giants,\u201d now situated at\nEscamela, near the city of Orizaba, Mexico. It was obligingly forwarded\nby the Mexican antiquary, Father Damaso Sotomayor, and was referred by\nthe Society to me for a possible interpretation of the figures\nrepresented.\n\nThe sender accompanied the envoy with a copy of a newspaper published in\nOrizaba, entitled _El Siglo que Acaba_, which contained a lengthy\ninterpretation of the figure by Father Sotomayor in accordance with the\nprinciples laid down in his recently published work on the decipherment\nof Aztec hieroglyphics.[249] The Father sees in the inscribed figures a\nmystical allusion to the coming of Christ to the Gentiles, and to the\noccurrences supposed in Hebrew myth to have taken place in the Garden of\nEden. As I cannot agree in the remotest with his hypothesis, I shall say\nnothing further about it, but proceed to give what I consider the true\nsignificance of the inscribed figures.\n\nI should preface my remarks by mentioning that this stone is not a\nrecent discovery in Mexican arch\u00e6ology. It was examined by Captain\nDupaix in the year 1808, and is figured in the illustrations to his\nvoluminous narrative.[250] The figure he gives is however so erroneous\nthat it yields but a faint idea of the real character and meaning of the\ndrawing. It omits the ornament on the breast, and also the lines along\nthe right of the giant\u2019s face, which as I shall show are distinctive\ntraits. It gives him a girdle where none is delineated, and the relative\nsize and proportions of all the three figures are quite distorted.\nDupaix informs us, however, of several particulars which the Rev.\nSotomayor omitted to state. From the former\u2019s description we learn that\nthe stone, or rather rock, on which the inscription is found is roughly\ntriangular in shape, presenting a nearly straight border of thirty feet\non each side. It is hard and uniform in texture, and of a dark color.\nThe length or height of the principal figure is twenty-seven feet, and\nthe incised lines which designate the various objects are deeply and\nclearly cut. In the present position of the stone, which is the same as\nthat stated by Captain Dupaix, the head of the principal figure, called\n\u201cthe giant,\u201d lies toward the east, while the right hand is extended\ntoward the north and the left toward the west. It is open to doubt\nwhether this disposition was accidental or intentional, as there is\nreason to believe that the stone is not now in its original position, or\nnot in that for which it was intended.\n\nAlong the base of the stone, which is in thickness some five feet, at\nthe feet of the giant, there are a series of figures inscribed which are\nnow almost obliterated; at least the photographs sent the Society give\nno clear idea of them, and the cuts of Dupaix are plainly for the most\npart fanciful. Their presence there, however, proves that the block was\nnot intended to have been set up on edge, or inserted vertically into a\nwall, as either of these arrangements would have obscured these\nhieroglyphs.[251]\n\nI now approach the decipherment of the inscriptions. Any one versed in\nthe signs of the Mexican calendar will at once perceive that it contains\nthe date of a certain year and day. On the left of the giant is seen a\nrabbit surrounded with ten circular depressions. These depressions are\nthe well-known Aztec marks for numerals, and the rabbit represents one\nof the four astronomic signs by which they adjusted their chronologic\ncycle of fifty-two years. The three others were a house, a reed, and a\nflint. Each one of these recurred thirteen times in their cycle, making,\nas I have said, a term of fifty-two years in all. A year was designated\nby one of the four names with its appropriate number; as \u201c3 house,\u201d \u201c12\nflint,\u201d \u201c4 reed,\u201d etc., the sequence being regularly preserved.\n\nThe days were arranged in zones or weeks of twenty, the different series\nbeing numbered, and also named from a sequence of eighteen astronomical\nsigns called \u201cwind,\u201d \u201clizard,\u201d \u201csnake,\u201d \u201cdeer,\u201d etc. The five days\nlacking to complete the 365 were intercalated. A second or ritual system\nhad thirteen weeks of twenty days each; but as thirteen times twenty\nmakes only two hundred and sixty, in this computation there remained 105\ndays to be named and numbered. Their device to accomplish this was\nsimple: they merely recommenced the numbering and naming of the weeks\nfor this remainder, adding a third series of appellations drawn from a\nlist of nine signs, called \u201crulers of the night.\u201d At the close of the\nsolar year they recommenced as at the beginning of the previous\nyear.[252]\n\nWith these facts in our mind, we can approach our task with confidence.\nThe stone bears a carefully dated record, with the year and day clearly\nset forth. The year is represented to the left of the figure, and is\nthat numbered \u201cten\u201d under the sign of the rabbit, in Nahuatl, _xihuitl\nmatlacth tochtli_; the day of the year is numbered \u201cone\u201d under the sign\nof the fish, _ce cipactli_.\n\nThese precise dates recurred once, and only once, every fifty-two years;\nand had recurred only once between the year of our era 1450 and the\nSpanish conquest of Mexico in 1519\u201320. We may begin our investigations\nwith that one epoch, as from other circumstances, such as local\ntradition[253] and the character of the work, it is not likely that the\ninscription was previous to the middle of the fifteenth century. Within\nthe period named, the year \u201c10 rabbit\u201d of the Aztec calendar\ncorresponded with the year 1502 of the Gregorian calendar. It is more\ndifficult to fix the day, as the mathematical problems relating to the\nAztec diurnal reckonings are extremely complicated, and have not yet\nbeen satisfactorily worked out; but it is, I think, safe to say, that\naccording to both the most probable computations the day \u201cone fish\u201d\u2014_ce\ncipactli_\u2014occurred in the first month of the year 1502, which month\ncoincided in whole or in part with our February.\n\nSuch is the date on the inscription. Now, what is intimated to have\noccurred on that date? The clue to this is furnished by the figure of\nthe giant.\n\nOn looking at it closely we perceive that it represents an ogre of\nhorrid mien with a death-head grin and formidable teeth, his hair wild\nand long, the locks falling down upon the neck; and suspended on the\nbreast as an ornament is the bone of a human lower jaw with its incisor\nteeth. The left leg is thrown forward as in the act of walking, and the\narms are uplifted, the hands open, and the fingers extended, as at the\nmoment of seizing the prey or the victim. The lines about the umbilicus\nrepresent the knot of the girdle which supported the _maxtli_ or\nbreech-cloth.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 1. The Stone of the Giants.\n]\n\nThere is no doubt as to which personage of the Aztec pantheon this\nfear-inspiring figure represents; it is _Tzontemoc Mictlantecutli_, \u201cthe\nLord of the Realm of the Dead, He of the Falling Hair,\u201d the dread god of\ndeath and the dead.[254] His distinctive marks are there, the\ndeath-head, the falling hair, the jaw bone, the terrible aspect, the\ngiant size.\n\nThere can be no question but that the _Piedra de los Gigantes_\nestablishes a date of death; that it is a necrological tablet, a\nmortuary monument, and from its size and workmanship, that it was\nintended as a memorial of the decease of some very important personage\nin ancient Mexico.\n\nProvided with these deductions from the stone itself, let us turn to the\nrecords of old Mexico and see if they corroborate the opinion stated.\nFortunately we possess several of these venerable documents, chronicles\nof the empire before Cortes destroyed it, written in the hieroglyphs\nwhich the inventive genius of the natives had devised. Taking two of\nthese chronicles, the one known as the _Codex Telleriano-Remensis_, the\nother as the _Codex Vaticanus_,[255] and turning to the year numbered\n\u201cten\u201d under the sign of the rabbit, I find that both present the same\nrecord, which I copy in the following figure.\n\n[Illustration:\n\n  FIG. 2. Extract from the Vatican Codex.\n]\n\nYou will observe the sign of the year, the rabbit, shown merely by his\nhead for brevity. The ten dots which give its number are beside it.\nImmediately beneath is a curious quadruped with what are intended as\nwater-drops dripping from him. The animal is the hedge-hog and the\nfigure is to be construed _iconomatically_, that is, it must be read as\na rebus through the medium of the Nahuatl language. In that language\nwater is _atl_, in composition _a_, and hedge-hog is _uitzotl_. Combine\nthese and you get _ahuitzotl_, or, with the reverential termination,\n_ahuitzotzin_. This was the name of the ruler or emperor, if you allow\nthe word, of ancient Mexico before the accession to the throne of that\nMontezuma whom the Spanish _conquistador_ Cortes put to death. His\nhieroglyph, as I have described it, is well known in Mexican\ncodices.[256]\n\nReturning to the page from the chronicle, we observe that the hieroglyph\nof Ahuitzotzin is placed immediately over a corpse swathed in its mummy\ncloths, as was the custom of interment with the highest classes in\nMexico. This signifies that the death of Ahuitzotzin took place in that\nyear. Adjacent to it is the figure of his successor, his name\niconomatically represented by the head-dress of the nobles; the\n_tecuhtli_, giving the middle syllables of \u201cMo-_tecuh_-zoma.\u201d[257]\nBeneath is also the figure of the new ruler, with the outlines of a\nflower and a house, which would be translated by the iconomatic system\n_xochicalli_ or _xochicalco_; but the significance of these does not\nconcern us here.\n\nThis page of the Codices gives us therefore a record of a death in the\nyear \u201c10 _tochtli_\u201d\u20141502\u2014of the utmost importance. No previous ruler had\nbrought ancient Mexico to such a height of glory and power. \u201cIn his\nreign,\u201d says Orozco y Berra, \u201cMexico reached its utmost extension.\nTributes were levied in all directions, and fabulous riches poured into\nthe capital city.\u201d[258] The death of the ruler was therefore an event of\nthe profoundest national significance. We may well believe that it would\nbe commemorated by some artistic work commensurate with its importance;\nand this I claim was the purpose of the _Piedra de los Gigantes_ of\nEscamela.\n\nBut we may add further and convincing testimony to this interpretation.\nThe day of the month _ce cipactli_, 1 Fish, is engraved to the right of\nthe figure as connected with the event commemorated. Now, although I\nhave not found in the records the exact day of Ahuitzotzin\u2019s death, I do\nfind that the native historian Ixtlilxochitl assigns this very day, _ce\ncipactli_, 1 Fish, as that of the accession of Montezuma;[259] and\nanother native historian, Chimalpahin, states distinctly that this took\nplace \u201cimmediately\u201d after the death of his predecessor on the\nthrone.[260] It may possibly have been on the very day of Ahuitzotzin\u2019s\ndecease, as still another native writer, Tezozomoc, informs us that this\nwas not sudden, but the slow result of a wound on the head.[261]\n\nIt is indeed remarkable that we should find the precise dates, the year\nand the day of the year, depicted on this stone, and also recorded by\nvarious native writers, as connected with the demise of the emperor\nAhuitzotzin. These coincidences are of such a nature that they leave no\ndoubt that _La Piedra de los Gigantes_ of Escamela is a necrologic\ntablet commemorating the death of the emperor Ahuitzotzin some time in\nFebruary, 1502.\n\n\n\n\n                      NATIVE AMERICAN POETRY.[262]\n\n\nIn our modern civilization we are apt to consider that a taste for\npoetry is a mark of high culture, something which belongs exclusively to\ntrained mental fibre and educated perceptions. It causes us, therefore,\nsome surprise when we study the psychology of savage tribes, to find\nthem almost everywhere passionate lovers of verse and measure, of music\nand song. This fact, well established by the researches of ethnology,\nwas recognized by more than one keen thinker before ethnology was born.\nIn the last century that erratic genius, Hamann, known in German\nliterature as \u201cthe magician of the north,\u201d penned the memorable words,\n\u201cPoetry is the common mother-tongue of the human race,\u201d and insisted\nthat to attain its noblest flights, \u201cwe must return to the infancy of\nthe race, and to the simplicity of a childlike faith,\u201d a dictum warmly\nespoused by the philosophic Herder and by the enthusiasm of the young\nG\u0153the. Later on, that profoundest of psychologists, Wilhelm von\nHumboldt, reflecting on the problems presented by the origin of\nlanguages, expressed his conviction that man as a zoological species is\na singing animal, like many birds; that his vocal organs turn to song as\ntheir appropriate function with a like spontaneity as his mind turns to\nthought or his eyes to the light.\n\nIf we inquire into the psychological principle which makes rhythm\nagreeable to the ear, we shall find that this principle is that of\n_repetition_. I could carry the analysis still further, and demonstrate\nto you that the physiological principle of all pleasure is expressed in\nthe formula\u2014\u201cmaximum action with minimum effort;\u201d and that the nerves of\naudition are most successfully acted upon in accordance with this law by\nlimited repetitions with harmonious intervals. All metres, all rhythm,\nall forms of alliteration and assonance, are but varied applications of\nthe principle of harmonious repetition; and the poet, as a poet, as an\nartist, must be rated, and practically always is rated, by the skill\nwith which he employs the resources of repetition. Lofty thoughts,\nbeautiful metaphors, delicate allusions, these are his extraneous aids,\nand by no means his exclusive property; but the form is his own, be it\nquantity, rhyme, alliteration or accent.\n\nI have felt it necessary to state very briefly these general principles,\nin order to place in its proper light that form of poetry which is most\nprevalent among the native tribes of America. You will not find among\nthem any developed examples of either rhyme or alliteration; their\ndialects do not admit of fixed vocalic quantity, like the Latin; even\naccent and assonance, which are the more imperfect resources of the\npoetic art, are generally absent. What, then, in a literary analysis,\nconstitutes their poetic form?\n\nI answer, _repetition_ in its simplest expressions. These are two. The\nsame verse may be repeated over and over again; or the wording of the\nverses may be changed, but each may be accompanied by a burden or\nrefrain, which is repeated by the singer or the chorus. These are the\ntwo fundamental characteristics of aboriginal poetry, and are found\neverywhere on the American continent. The refrain is usually\ninterjectional and meaningless; and the verses are often repeated\nwithout alteration, four or five times over.\n\nWe may, if we choose, begin our survey of the continent with its extreme\nnorthernmost inhabitants, the Eskimo, whose abode is along the\ninhospitable shores of the Arctic sea. One might think that the eternal\nsnows which surround them, the vast glaciers which chill the air for\nmiles beyond their limits, would also freeze out and kill all fire of\npoesy. Quite the contrary. I doubt if throughout the American continent\nI could quote you a more thoroughly poetic people, one taking a greater\ndelight in song, than these same boreal, blubber-eating, ice-bound\nEskimo. Their great delight is in long tales of magic and adventure, and\nin improvisation. An Eskimo hunter, with a ready power to string\ntogether verse after verse of their peculiar poetry, soon extends his\nfame beyond the confines of his native village, and becomes known for\nmany a league up and down the shore. Often in the long winter nights,\ngenuine tourneys of song are organized between the champions of\nvillages, not unlike those which took place in fair Provence in the\npalmy days of _la gaye science_. More than this, I have been assured by\nDr. Franz Boas, who recently passed two years among the Eskimo of\nBaffin\u2019s Land, living with them as one of them, that it is nothing\nuncommon for downright hostile feelings, personal grudges, to be settled\nby the opponents meeting on a fixed occasion and singing satirical and\nabusive songs at each other. He who comes out best, raising the most\nlaughter at his antagonist\u2019s expense, is considered to have conquered,\nand his enemy accepts the defeat. These controversial songs have been\ncalled by the Danish writers \u201cnith songs,\u201d from the word _nith_, which\nis also old English, and means cursing and contention.\n\nThe distinguished traveler, Dr. Heinrich Rink, who has passed nineteen\nwinters in Greenland, has furnished me the originals, with translations,\nof several of these nith songs.\n\nAs an example, I will read you one which took place between two rivals,\n_Savdlat_ and _Pulangit-Sissok_. Savdlat lived to the north,\nPulangit-Sissok to the south. To appreciate the satire, you must know\nthat an Eskimo gentleman prides himself chiefly on two points: first,\nthat he speaks his own tongue with precisely the right accent, which, I\nneed not say, he considers to be the accent of his own village, wherever\nthat may be; and secondly, that he is a skillful boatman.\n\nSavdlat begins the poetic duel in these words:\n\n                   SAVDLAT AND PULANGIT-SISSOK.\n\n                           SAVDLAT\u2014\n\n       The South shore, O yes, the South shore, I know it;\n       Once I lived there and met Pulangit-Sissok,\n       A fat fellow who lived on halibut; O yes, I know him.\n       Those South-shore folk can\u2019t talk;\n       They don\u2019t know how to pronounce our language;\n       Truly they are dull fellows;\n       They don\u2019t even talk alike;\n       Some have one accent, some another;\n       Nobody can understand them;\n       They can scarcely understand each other.\n\n                       PULANGIT-SISSOK\u2014\n\n       O yes, Savdlat and I are old acquaintances;\n       He wished me extremely well at times;\n       Once I know he wished I was the best boatman on the shore;\n       It was a rough day, and I in mercy took his boat in tow;\n       Ha! ha! Savdlat, thou didst cry most pitiful;\n       Thou wast awfully afeared;\n       In truth, thou wast nearly upset;\n       And hadst to keep hold of my boat strings,\n       And give me part of thy load.\n       O yes, Savdlat and I are old acquaintances.\n\nA similar humorous strain is very marked in most of the Eskimo songs.\nIndeed, I know no other tribe in America where the genuine fun-loving\nspirit bubbles forth so freely. In Mexico and Central America, in the\nmidst of beautiful scenery and where the flowery earth basks in the lap\nof an eternal spring, the tone of most of the songs is sad and\nlugubrious; or, if humorous, with a satirical, bitter, unhealthy humor,\na _Schadenfreude_, which is far from wholesome merriment. Dr. Berendt,\nwho spent seventeen years in studying the languages of Central America,\nhas pointedly called attention to the great predominance of words in\nthem expressing painful, over those expressing pleasurable emotions. It\nteaches us how little the happiness of man depends upon his environment,\nthat the merriest of the American nations is found precisely where\naccording to our usual notions almost every cheering and enlivening\nelement is withdrawn from life, where darkness, cold, and destitution\nhave undisputed rule.\n\nBut I will not continue with such generalizations, attractive though\nthey are. Let me relieve their dryness by a little Eskimo song, the full\nEskimo text of which you will find printed in Dr. Rink\u2019s work entitled\n\u201cTales of the Eskimo.\u201d As usual, each line is followed by an\ninterjectional burden, which I shall repeat only in part. The song is\ncalled\n\n                THE SONG OF KUK-OOK, THE BAD BOY.\n\n            This is the song of Kuk-ook, the bad boy.\n                Imakayah\u2014hayah,\n                Imakayah\u2014hah\u2014hayah.\n            I am going to run away from home, hayah,\n            In a great big boat, hayah,\n            To hunt for a sweet little girl, hayah;\n            I shall get her some beads, hayah;\n            The kind that look like boiled ones, hayah;\n            Then after a while, hayah,\n            I shall come back home, hayah,\n            I shall call all my relations together, hayah,\n            And shall give them all a good thrashing, hayah;\n            Then I shall go and get married, hayah,\n            I shall marry two girls at once, hayah;\n            One of the sweet little darlings, hayah,\n            I shall dress in spotted seal-skins, hayah,\n            And the other dear little pet, hayah,\n            Shall wear skins of the hooded seal only, hayah.\n\nBut you must not derive the idea from these specimens that the Eskimos\nare triflers and jesters only. Some of their poetical productions reveal\na true and deep appreciation of the marvellous, the impressive, and the\nbeautiful scenes which their land and climate present. Prominent\nfeatures in their tales and chants are the flashing, variegated aurora,\nwhose shooting streamers they fable to be the souls of departed heroes;\nthe milky way, gleaming in the still Arctic night, which they regard as\nthe bridge by which the souls of the good and brave mount to the place\nof joy; the vast, glittering, soundless snowfields; and the mighty,\ncrashing glacier, splintering from his shoreward cliffs the ice\nmountains which float down to the great ocean.\n\nAs an instance of this appreciation of natural scenery I shall read you\na song obtained by Dr. Rink, at the small trading station of Arsut on\nthe southern coast of Greenland, near Frederickshaab. Close to Arsut\nstands Mt. Koonak, whose precipitous sides rise fully four thousand feet\nabove the billows of the Atlantic which dash against its foot. It is the\nplay of the clouds about the mountain which inspires the poet:\n\n                    MOUNT KOONAK: A SONG OF ARSUT.\n\n            I look toward the south, to great Mount Koonak,\n            To great Mount Koonak, there to the south;\n            I watch the clouds that gather round him;\n            I contemplate their shining brightness;\n            They spread abroad upon great Koonak;\n            They climb up his seaward flanks;\n            See how they shift and change;\n            Watch them there to the south;\n            How the one makes beautiful the other;\n            How they mount his southern slopes,\n            Hiding him from the stormy sea,\n            Each lending beauty to the other.\n\nNo doubt there were and are many historical or traditional songs among\nthe natives; but I should have little hope of deriving from them much\ninformation of a really historical character. Their references to\noccurrences are very vague, and rather in the form of suggestion than\nnarration. The auditors are supposed to be familiar with the story, and\na single name or prominent word is enough to recall it to their minds.\n\nI may illustrate this by a short Pawnee song sent me by Mr. Dunbar,\nwhose intimate acquaintance with the language and customs of that tribe\nlends entire authority to all he writes about them.\n\nAbout 1820 the Pawnees captured a young girl from their enemies the\nPaducas, and according to custom, prepared to burn her alive. On the\nappointed day she was fastened to the stake, and the village gathered\naround in order to commence the tortures which were to precede her\ndeath. At that moment a young Pawnee brave, by name _Pitale-Sharu_,\nwhose heart had been touched with pity and perhaps with love, dashed\nmadly into the ring with two fleet horses. In a moment with his ready\nknife he had slit the thongs which fastened the girl to the stake, had\nthrown her on one horse, himself on the other, and was speeding away on\nthe prairie toward her father\u2019s village. The Pawnees were literally\nstricken dumb. They retired silently to their cabins, and when, three\ndays later, Pitale-Sharu returned to the village, no man challenged his\naction. All regarded it as an act of divine inspiration, even to inquire\nabout which would be sacrilege. This act is remembered to this day in\nthe tribe, and commemorated in the following song:\n\n                      A PAWNEE COMMEMORATIVE SONG.\n\n                          Well, he foretold this,\n                          Well, he foretold this,\n                          Yes, he foretold this;\n                            I, Pitale-Sharu,\n                          Am arrived here.\n                          Well, he foretold this,\n                          Yes, he foretold this,\n                            I, Pitale Sharu,\n                          Am arrived here.\n\nOne of the Pawnee war-songs has a curious metaphysical turn. It is one\nwhich is sung when a warrior undertakes to perform some particularly\ndaring individual exploit, which may well cost him his life. The words\nseem to call upon the gods to decide whether this mortal life is only an\nillusion, or a divine truth under the guidance of divine intelligence.\n\n                         PAWNEE WAR-SONG.\n\n                     Let us see, is this real,\n                     Let us see, is this real,\n                     Let us see, is this real,\n                     Let us see, is this real,\n                     This life I am living?\n                     Ye gods, who dwell everywhere,\n                     Let us see, is this real,\n                     This life I am living?\n\nThe so-called Indian medicine-songs cannot be understood without a\nthorough insight into the habits and superstitions of these peoples, and\nit would only fatigue you were I to repeat them to you.\n\nI prefer to turn to some of the less esoteric productions of the native\nmuse, to some of its expressions of those emotions which are common to\nmankind everywhere, and which everywhere seek their expression in meter\nand rhythm.\n\nA recent German traveler, Mr. Theodore Baker, furnishes me with a couple\nof simple, unpretending but genuinely aboriginal songs which he heard\namong the Kioway Indians. One is a\n\n           SONG OF A KIOWAY MOTHER WHOSE SON HAS GONE TO WAR.\n\n                   Young men there are in plenty,\n                     But I love only one;\n                   Him I\u2019ve not seen for long,\n                     Though he is my only son.\n\n                   When he comes, I\u2019ll haste to meet him,\n                     I think of him all night;\n                   He too will be glad to see me,\n                     His eyes will gleam with delight.\n\nThe second example from the Kioways is a song of true love in the\nordinary sense. Such are rare among the North American Indians anywhere.\nMost of their chants in relation to the other sex are erotic, not\nemotional; and this holds equally true of those which in some tribes on\ncertain occasions are addressed by the women to the men. The one I give\nyou from the Kioway is not open to this censure\n\n                         A KIOWAY LOVE-SONG.\n\n                 I sat and wept on the hill-side,\n                   I wept till the darkness fell\n                 I wept for a maiden afar off\n                   A maiden who loves me well\n\n                 The moons are passing, and some moon\n                   I shall see my home long-lost,\n                 And of all the greetings that meet me,\n                   My maiden\u2019s will gladden me most.\n\nA specimen of a characteristic Chipeway love-song is given in one of the\nworks of the late Henry R. Schoolcraft. It was chanted by the lover, at\nnight, in front of the dwelling of the girl he would captivate. The song\nis in four verses, and it will be noticed that each verse approaches\nnearer and nearer the final request. It should be understood that each\nverse was to be repeated several times, so as to give the fair one an\nopportunity to express her approval or disapproval by some of those\nsigns which belong to the freemasonry of love the world over. If the\nsign was negative and repelling, the singer abruptly ceased his chant\nand retired, concealed by the darkness of the night; but if he was\nencouraged, or heard without rebuke, he continued, in hope that at the\nclose of the song timid fingers would partially draw aside the curtain\nwhich closes the lodge door, and that his prayer would be granted.\n\nThe serenade runs as follows:\n\n           SERENADE SONG OF A CHIPEWAY LOVER TO HIS MISTRESS.\n\n               I would walk into somebody\u2019s dwelling,\n               Into somebody\u2019s dwelling would I walk.\n\n               Into _thy_ darkened dwelling, my beloved,\n               Some night would I walk, would I walk.\n\n               Some night at this season, my beloved,\n               Into thy darkened dwelling would I walk.\n\n               On this very night, my beloved,\n               Into thy darkened dwelling would I walk.\n\nWhile dealing with these amatory effusions, I will add one or two from\nanother part of the map, from the tribes who make their home in our\nsister republic, Mexico. You are aware that there are many tribes there\nbarely tinged with European culture or religion. They retain the\nancestral tongues and modes of thought. The sword and whip of the\nSpaniard compelled an external obedience to church and state, but the\ndeference to either was reluctant, and in the minimum degree.\nConsequently, there also the field for research is rich and practically\nuncultivated. To employ a native metaphor, frequent in the Aztec poets,\nI will cause you to smell the fragrance of a few of the flowers I have\ngathered from those meads.\n\nMy late friend, Dr. Berendt, personally known, I doubt not, to some\npresent, obtained a curious Aztec love-song from the lips of an Indian\ngirl in the Sierra of Tamaulipas. It is particularly noticeable from the\nstrange, mystical conceit it contains that to the person who truly\nloves, the mere bodily presence or absence of the beloved object is\nunimportant, nay, not even noticed. The literal translation of this song\nis as follows:\n\n              I know not whether thou hast been absent:\n              I lie down with thee, I rise up with thee,\n              In my dreams thou art with me.\n                If my ear drops tremble in my ears,\n                I know it is thou moving within my heart.\n\nThis rough rendering has been put into metrical form as follows:\n\n                   A MODERN AZTEC LOVE-SONG.\n\n           I knew it not that thou hadst absent been,\n             So full thy presence all my soul had left;\n           By night, by day, in quiet or changing scene,\n             \u2019Tis thee alone I see, sense of all else bereft.\n           And when the tinkling pendants sway and ring,\n           \u2019Tis thou who in my heart dost move and sing.\n\nIn another love-song in the same language I have met a conceit which I\ndistinctly remember to have read in some old English poet, that of a\nlover who complains that his heart has been gathered in along with her\nflowers by a maiden picking roses.\n\nThe literal translation of this song reads thus:\n\n                     On a certain mountain side,\n                     Where they pluck flowers,\n                       I saw a pretty maiden,\n                     Who plucked from me my heart.\n                       Whither thou goest,\n                       There go I.\n\nAs a metrical expansion of this couplet the following has been\nsuggested:\n\n                            AZTEC LOVE-SONG.\n\n                    Do you know that mountain side\n                      Where they gather roses?\n                    There I strolled one eventide\n                      In the garden closes.\n                    Soon I met a lovely maid\n                      Fairer than all fancies,\n                    Quick she gathered in my heart\n                      With her buds and pansies,\n                    But take heed, my pretty may,\n                      In reaping and in sowing,\n                    Once with thee, I\u2019ll ever stay,\n                      And go where thou art going.\n\nPerhaps the refinement of some of these sentiments may excite\nskepticism. It is a favorite doctrine among a certain class of writers\nthat delicacy of sexual feeling is quite unknown among savage tribes,\nthat, indeed, the universal law is that mere bestiality prevails, more\nor less kept in bounds by superstition and tribal law. I am well\nacquainted with this theory of several popular philosophers, and do not\nin the least accept it. Any such dogmatic assertion is unscientific.\nDelicacy of sentiment bears no sort of constant relation to culture.\nEvery man present knows this. He can name among his acquaintances men of\nunusual culture who are coarse voluptuaries, and others of the humblest\neducation who have the delicacy of a refined woman. So it is with\nfamilies, and so it is with tribes. I have illustrated this lately by an\nanalysis of the words meaning \u201cto love\u201d in all its senses in five\nleading American linguistic stocks, and have shown by the irrefragable\nproof of language how much they differ in this respect, and how much\nalso the same tribe may differ from itself at various periods of its\ngrowth. As the result of this and similar studies I may assure you that\nthere is no occasion for questioning the existence of highly delicate\nsentiments among some of the American tribes.\n\nAs I found the Mexican love poems the most delicate, so I have found\ntheir war songs the most stirring. We have a number of specimens written\ndown in the native tongue shortly after the conquest. They have never\nbeen translated or published, but I will give you a rendering of one in\nmy possession which, from intrinsic evidence, was written about 1510. I\nsay _written_ advisedly, for the nation who sang these songs possessed a\nphonetic alphabet, and wrote many volumes of poems by its aid. Their\nhistorian, Bernardino de Sahagun, especially mentions that the works\nused for the instruction of youth in their schools contained \u201cpoems\nwritten in antique characters.\u201d\n\nThe first of my selections is supposed to be addressed by the poet to\ncertain friends of his who were unwilling to go to war.\n\n                       A WAR-SONG OF THE OTOMIS.\n\n  1. It grieves me, dear friends, that you walk not with me in spirit,\n  that I have not your company in the scenes of joy and pleasure, that\n  never more in union do we seek the same paths.\n\n  2. Do you really see me, dear friends? Will no God take the\n  blindness from your eyes? What is life on earth? Can the dead\n  return? No, they live far within the heavens, in a place of joy.\n\n  3. The joy of the Lord, the Giver of Life, is where the warriors\n  sing, and the smoke of the war-fire rises up; where the flowers of\n  the shields spread abroad their leaves; where deeds of valor shake\n  the earth; where the fatal flowers of death cover the fields.\n\n  4. The battle is there, the beginning of the battle is there, in the\n  open fields, where the smoke of the war-fire winds around and curls\n  upward from the fatal war flowers which adorn you, ye friends and\n  warriors of the Chichimecs.\n\n  5. Let not my soul dread that open field; I earnestly desire the\n  beginning of the slaughter, my soul longs for the murderous fray.\n\n  6. O you who stand there in the battle, I earnestly desire the\n  beginning of the slaughter, my soul longs for the murderous fray.\n\n  7. The war-cloud rises upward, it rises into the blue sky where\n  dwells the Giver of Life; in it blossom forth the flowers of prowess\n  and valor, beneath it, in the battle field, the children ripen to\n  maturity.\n\n  8. Rejoice with me, dear friends, and do ye rejoice, ye children,\n  going forth to the open field of battle; let us rejoice and revel\n  amid these shields, flowers of the murderous fray.\n\nThe song which I have just read, like most which I bring before you, has\nno name of author. The poet has passed to an eternal oblivion, though\nhis work remains. More fortunate is the composer of the next one I shall\nread you. It is a poem by an Aztec prince and bard who bore the sonorous\nappellation, _Tetlapan Quetzanitzin_. I can tell you little about him.\nAt the time Cortes entered the City of Mexico, Tetlapan Quetzanitzin was\nruler of one of its suburbs, Tlacopan or Tacuba. At the interview when\nthe daring Spaniard seized upon the person of Montezuma and made him a\ncaptive, this Tetlapan was one of the attendants of the Aztec monarch,\nand it is recorded of him that he made his escape and disappeared. I\nhave found no mention of his subsequent adventures.\n\nThis war-song is one of two of his poems which have survived the wreck\nof the ancient literature. It is highly metaphorical. You might at first\nthink it a drinking song; but the drunkenness it refers to is the\nintoxication of battle, the _Berserkerwuth_ of the Norse Vikings; the\nflowers which he sings are the war-shields with their gay ornaments; and\nthe fertile plains which he lauds are those which are watered with the\nblood of heroes. Finally, I should tell you that the white wine he\nspeaks of was a sacred beverage among the Mexicans, set forth at certain\nsolemn festivals. Like the rest of their wine, it was manufactured from\nthe maguey.\n\n              A WAR-SONG OF TETLAPAN QUETZANITZIN (1519).\n\n  1. Why did it grieve you, O friends, why did it pain you, that you\n  were drunk with the wine? Arise from your stupor, O friends, come\n  hither and sing; let us seek for homes in some flowery land; forget\n  your drunkenness.\n\n  2. The precept is old that one should quaff the strong white wine in\n  the moment of difficulty, as when one enters the battle-plain, when\n  he goes forth to the place of shattered stones, where the precious\n  stones are splintered, the emeralds, the turquoises, the youths, the\n  children. Therefore, friends and brothers, quaff now the flowing\n  white wine.\n\n  3. Let us drink together amid the flowers, let us build our houses\n  among the flowers, where the fragrant blossoms cast abroad their\n  odors as a fountain its waters, where the breath of the dew-laden\n  flowers makes sweet the air; there it is that nobility and strength\n  will make glorious our houses, there the flowers of war bloom over a\n  fertile land.\n\n  4. O friends, do you not hear me? Let us go, let us go, let us pour\n  forth the white wine, the strong wine of battle; let us drink the\n  wine which is as sweet as the dew of roses, let it intoxicate our\n  souls, let our souls be steeped in its delights, let them be\n  enriched as in some opulent place, some fertile land. Why does it\n  trouble you? Come with me, and listen to my song.\n\nAlongside of these specimens from Mexico, I put a war-song of the\nPeruvians. It is from the drama of _Ollanta_, a production dating from\nshortly before the conquest, and one of the most interesting monuments\nof American native literature. The hero, Ollanta, a warrior of renown\nbut of humble parentage, had, on the strength of his successes against\nthe enemy, applied for the hand of the Inca\u2019s daughter, and had been\nrejected with scorn. All his loyalty and allegiance turns to hatred, and\nhe sings his war-song against his native country and its ruler in these\nwords:\n\n                 A WAR-SONG OF OLLANTA.\n\n             O Cuzco, beautiful city,\n             Henceforward I shall be thy enemy.\n             I shall break the walls of thy bosom,\n             I shall tear out thy heart\n             And fling it to the vultures.\n             Thy cruel king shall witness\n             My thousands of warriors,\n             Armed and led by me,\n             Gather, like a cloud of curses,\n             Against thy citadel.\n             The sky shall be red with thy burning,\n             Bloody shall thy couch be,\n             And thy king shall perish with thee.\n             Gasping in death, with my hand on his throat,\n             We shall see if again he will say:\n             \u201cThou art unworthy of my daughter,\n             Never shall she be thine.\u201d\n\nA variety of poetic production of frequent occurrence among the\naborigines is the prophetic. You are aware that it is by no means\npeculiar to them; the oracle at Delphi, the sibylline leaves in the\nCapitol, the words of the Hebrew seers, even the forecasts of\nNostradamus, were usually cast in poetic form. The effort to lift the\nveil of futurity is one ineradicable from the human breast, and faith in\nits possibility is universal. Those prophets who are wise, those augurs\nwho pass the wink to each other, favor great obscurity and ambiguity in\ntheir communications, or else express themselves in such commonplaces as\nthat man is mortal; that all beauty fadeth; that power is transitory,\nand the like. We find both kinds flourished in ancient America. You may\nremember that Montezuma in his first interview with Cortes told the\nSpanish invader that the arrival of a white and bearded conqueror from\nthe East had long been predicted by Mexican soothsayers. Similar\nprophecies were current in Yucatan, in Peru, and in other portions of\nthe continent. They are all easily explained, and there is no occasion\neither to question the fact, or to seek for them any supernatural\ninspiration. It would lead me away from my theme to enter into a\ndiscussion of their meaning, but I should like to read you two brief\nexamples of them. Both are from the Maya language of Yucatan, and I have\nno doubt both antedate the conquest. The first, according to an\nexpression in the poem itself, was composed in the year 1469. It was the\nprediction of a Maya priest at the close of the indiction or cycle which\nterminated in that year of our chronology.\n\n          THE PROPHECY OF PECH, PRIEST OF CHICHEN-ITZA (1469).\n\n          Ye men of Itz\u00e1, hearken to the tidings,\n          Listen to the forecaste of this cycle\u2019s end;\n          Four have been the ages of the world\u2019s progressing.\n          Now the fourth is ending, and its end is near.\n          A mighty lord is coming, see you give him honor;\n          A potent lord approaches, to whom all must bow;\n          I, the prophet, warn you, keep in mind my boding,\n          Men of Itz\u00e1, mark it, and await your lord.\n\nThe second example of these mystic chants which I shall give you is from\na curious native production called, \u201cThe Book of Chilan Balam,\u201d a\nrepertory of wild imaginings and scraps of ancient and modern magical\nlore, which is the very Bible of the Maya Indians. Although I have a\ncopy of it, I have been unable to translate any large portion of it, and\nmy correspondents in Yucatan, though some of them speak Maya as readily\nas Spanish, find the expressions too archaic and obscure to be\nintelligible. This particular song is that of the priest and soothsayer\nChilan, from whom the sacred book takes its name. There is every reason\nto believe that it dates from the fifteenth century.\n\n                    RECITAL OF THE PRIEST CHILAN.\n\n        Eat, eat, while there is bread,\n        Drink, drink, while there is water;\n        A day comes when dust shall darken the air,\n        When a blight shall wither the land,\n        When a cloud shall arise,\n        When a mountain shall be lifted up,\n        When a strong man shall seize the city,\n        When ruin shall fall upon all things,\n        When the tender leaf shall be destroyed,\n        When eyes shall be closed in death;\n        When there shall be three signs on a tree,\n        Father, son and grandson hanging dead on the same tree;\n        When the battle flag shall be raised,\n        And the people scattered abroad in the forests.\n\nSuch poems properly belong to the mythologic class. This class was fully\nrepresented in the productions of the primitive bards, but chiefly owing\nto the prejudices of the early missionaries, the examples remaining are\nfew.\n\nI could continue to bring before you specimens of this quaint and\nancient lore. My garner is by no means emptied. But probably I have said\nenough for my purpose. You see that the study of the aboriginal poetry\nof our continent opens up an unexpectedly rich field for investigation.\nIt throws a new light not only on the folk songs of other nations, but\non the general history of the growth of the poetic faculty. More than\nthis, it elevates our opinion of the nations whom we are accustomed to\ncall by the terms savage and barbarous. We are taught that in much which\nwe are inclined to claim as our special prerogatives, they too have an\ninterest. In the most precious possessions of the race, in its\naspirations for the infinite and the forever true, they also have a\nshare. They likewise partake, and in no mean degree, of that sweetest\nheritage of man, the glorious gift of song, \u201cthe vision and the faculty\ndivine.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                                PART IV.\n\n                              LINGUISTIC.\n\n\n\n\n                             INTRODUCTORY.\n\n\nThe processes, psychical and logical, which lie at the basis and modify\nthe forms of articulate speech, have yet to be defined and classified in\na manner to secure the general acceptance of scholars. While these\nprocesses are operative and recognizable in all languages, it has ever\nseemed to me that they are more apparent and transparent in the\nunwritten tongues of savage tribes. As the stream is more diaphanous\nnear its source, as the problem of organic life is more readily studied\nin the lowest groups of animals and vegetables, by such analogies we are\nprompted to select the uncultured speech of the rudest of our race to\ndiscover the laws of growth in human expression.\n\nThough such laws are not precisely the same throughout space and time,\nthey unquestionably partake of the same uniformity as we note in other\nnatural phenomena, and no language has yet been reported which stands\nalone in its formation.\n\nPerhaps the general laws under which languages should be grouped have\nalready been defined as closely as the subject permits. The labors of\nWilhelm von Humboldt, as expanded by Professor Steinthal, would appear\nto present the most comprehensive and satisfactory classification yet\nattempted. Such is the conclusion to which my own studies of the subject\nhave led me, and in the first three essays of this Part, I have set\nforth in considerable detail the application of this opinion to the\nlanguages of America. Especially in the second essay, I have attempted\nto popularize a profounder philosophic analysis of these tongues than\nhas heretofore appeared in works on the subject.\n\nThe essay on \u201cThe Earliest Form of Human Speech\u201d offers a series of\ninferences drawn from the study of American tongues as to the general\ncharacteristics of the articulate utterances of the species when it\nfirst became possessed\u2014by some slow evolutionary process\u2014of the power of\nconveying ideas by intelligible sounds. It is an application of facts\ndrawn from a limited number of languages to the linguistic status of the\nwhole species at an indeterminately remote period, but is, I think, a\nfair use of the materials offered.\n\nThe analysis of words for the affections is the theme of the essay on\n\u201cThe Conception of Love in some American Languages.\u201d It is an example of\nthe use to which linguistics may be put in the science of racial\npsychology; while the essay on the words for linear measures in certain\ntongues illustrates what knowledge as to the condition of a nation\u2019s\narts may be obtained by a scrutiny of its lexicon.\n\nThe next essay, on the curious hoax perpetrated on some European and\nAmerican linguists by the manufacture of a novel American tongue by some\nFrench students, is an instance, not wholly unprecedented, of misplaced\ningenuity on the one side, and easy credulity on the other. It belongs\namong the \u201ccuriosities of literature.\u201d\n\nProfessional linguists will probably consider the most important\ngeneralization debated in this Part that of the identity or diversity of\nthe agglutinative and incorporative processes of tongues. These two\nprocesses are considered as forms of but one by most of the present\nFrench school; but I have maintained their radical distinction,\nfollowing the German writers above mentioned; and I have further\ninsisted that the incorporative plan is that especially prominent in\nAmerican languages.\n\n\n\n\n         AMERICAN LANGUAGES, AND WHY WE SHOULD STUDY THEM.[263]\n\n  _Contents._\u2014Indian geographic names\u2014Language a guide to\n  ethnology\u2014Reveals the growth of arts and the psychologic processes\n  of a people\u2014Illustration from the Len\u00e2pe tongue\u2014Structure of\n  language best studied in savage tongues\u2014Rank of American\n  tongues\u2014Characteristic traits; pronominal forms; idea of\n  personality; polysynthesis; incorporation; holophrasis; origin of\n  these\u2014Lucidity of American tongues; their vocabularies; power of\n  expressing abstract ideas\u2014Conclusion.\n\n\nI appear before you this evening to enter a plea for one of the most\nneglected branches of learning, for a study usually considered\nhopelessly dry and unproductive\u2014that of American aboriginal languages.\n\nIt might be thought that such a topic, in America and among Americans,\nwould attract a reasonably large number of students. The interest which\nattaches to our native soil and to the homes of our ancestors might be\nsupposed to extend to the languages of those nations who for uncounted\ngenerations possessed the land which we have occupied relatively so\nshort a time.\n\nThis supposition would seem the more reasonable in view of the fact that\nin one sense these languages have not died out among us. True, they are\nno longer media of intercourse, but they survive in thousands of\ngeographical names all over our land. In the state of Connecticut alone\nthere are over six hundred, and even more in Pennsylvania.\n\nCertainly it would be a most legitimate anxiety which should direct\nitself to the preservation of the correct forms and precise meanings of\nthese numerous and peculiarly national designations. One would think\nthat this alone would not fail to excite something more than a languid\ncuriosity in American linguistics, at least in our institutions of\nlearning and societies for historical research.\n\nThat this subject has received so slight attention I attribute to the\ncomparatively recent understanding of the value of the study of\nlanguages in general, and more particularly to the fact that no one, so\nfar as I know, has set forth the purposes for which we should\ninvestigate these tongues, and the results which we expect to reach by\nmeans of them. This it is my present purpose to attempt, so far as it\ncan be accomplished in the scope of an evening address.\n\nThe time has not long passed when the only good reasons for studying a\nlanguage were held to be either that we might thereby acquaint ourselves\nwith its literature; or that certain business, trading, or political\ninterests might be subserved; or that the nation speaking it might be\nmade acquainted with the blessings of civilization and Christianity.\nThese were all good and sufficient reasons, but I cannot adduce any one\nof them in support of my plea to-night: for the languages I shall speak\nof have no literature; all transactions with their people can be carried\non as well or better in European tongues; and, in fact, many of these\npeoples are no longer in existence\u2014they have died out or amalgamated\nwith others. What I have to argue for is the study of the dead languages\nof extinct and barbarous tribes.\n\nYou will readily see that my arguments must be drawn from other\nconsiderations than those of immediate utility. I must seek them in the\nbroader fields of ethnology and philosophy; I must appeal to your\ninterest in man as a race, as a member of a common species, as\npossessing in all his families and tribes the same mind, the same soul.\nLanguage is almost our only clue to discover the kinship of those\ncountless scattered hordes who roamed the forests of this broad\ncontinent. Their traditions are vague or lost, written records they had\nnone, their customs and arts are misleading, their religions\nmisunderstood; their languages alone remain to testify to a oneness of\nblood often seemingly repudiated by an internecine hostility.\n\nI am well aware of the limits which a wise caution assigns to the\nemployment of linguistics in ethnology, and I am only too familiar with\nthe many foolish, unscientific attempts to employ it with reference to\nthe American race. But in spite of all this, I repeat that it is the\nsurest and almost our only means to trace the ancient connection and\nmigrations of nations in America.\n\nThrough its aid alone we have reached a positive knowledge that most of\nthe area of South America, including the whole of the West Indies, was\noccupied by three great families of nations, not one of which had formed\nany important settlement on the northern continent. By similar evidence\nwe know that the tribe which greeted Penn, when he landed on the site of\nthis city where I now speak, was a member of the one vast family\u2014the\ngreat Algonkin stock\u2014whose various clans extended from the palmetto\nswamps of Carolina to the snow-clad hills of Labrador, and from the\neasternmost cape of Newfoundland to the peaks of the Rocky Mountains,\nover 20\u00b0 of latitude and 50\u00b0 of longitude. We also know that the general\ntrend of migration in the northern continent has been from north to\nsouth, and that this is true not only of the more savage tribes, as the\nAlgonkins, Iroquois, and Athapascas, but also of those who, in the\nfavored southern lands, approached a form of civilization, the Aztecs,\nthe Mayas, and the Quiches. These and many minor ethnologic facts have\nalready been obtained by the study of American languages.\n\nBut such external information is only a small part of what they are\ncapable of disclosing. We can turn them, like the reflector of a\nmicroscope, on the secret and hidden mysteries of the aboriginal man,\nand discover his inmost motives, his impulses, his concealed hopes and\nfears, those that gave rise to his customs and laws, his schemes of\nsocial life, his superstitions and his religions.\n\nPersonal names, family names, titles, forms of salutation, methods of\naddress, terms of endearment, respect, and reproach, words expressing\nthe emotions, these are what infallibly reveal the daily social family\nlife of a community, and the way in which its members regard one\nanother. They are precisely as correct when applied to the investigation\nof the American race as elsewhere, and they are the more valuable just\nthere, because his deep-seated distrust of the white invaders\u2014for which,\nlet us acknowledge, he had abundant cause\u2014led the Indian to practice\nconcealment and equivocation on these personal topics.\n\nIn no other way can the history of the development of his arts be\nreached. You are doubtless aware that diligent students of the Aryan\nlanguages have succeeded in faithfully depicting the arts and habits of\nthat ancient community in which the common ancestors of Greek and Roman,\nPersian and Dane, Brahmin and Irishman, dwelt together as of one blood\nand one speech. This has been done by ascertaining what household words\nare common to all these tongues, and therefore must have been in use\namong the primeval horde from which they are all descended. The method\nis conclusive, and yields positive results. There is no reason why it\nshould not be addressed to American languages, and we may be sure that\nit would be most fruitful. How valuable it would be to take even a few\nwords, as maize, tobacco, pipe, bow, arrow, and the like, each\nrepresenting a widespread art or custom, and trace their derivations and\naffinities through the languages of the whole continent! We may be sure\nthat striking and unexpected results would be obtained.\n\nThese languages also offer an entertaining field to the psychologist.\n\nOn account of their transparency, as I may call it, the clearness with\nwhich they retain the primitive forms of their radicals, they allow us\nto trace out the growth of words, and thus reveal the operations of the\nnative mind by a series of witnesses whose testimony cannot be\nquestioned. Often curious associations of ideas are thus disclosed, very\ninstructive to the student of mankind. Many illustrations of this could\nbe given, but I do not wish to assail your ears by a host of unknown\nsounds, so I shall content myself with one, and that taken from the\nlanguage of the Len\u0101p\u00e9, or Delaware Indians.\n\nI shall endeavor to trace out one single radical in that language, and\nshow you how many, and how strangely diverse ideas were built up upon\nit.\n\nThe radical which I select is the personal pronoun of the first person,\n_I_, Latin _Ego_. In Delaware this is a single syllable, a slight nasal,\n_N\u0113_, or _Ni_.\n\nLet me premise by informing you that this is both a personal and a\npossessive pronoun; it means both _I_ and _mine_. It is both singular\nand plural, both _I_ and _we_, _mine_ and _our_.\n\nThe changes of the application of this root are made by adding suffixes\nto it.\n\nI begin with _ni'hillan_, literally, \u201cmine, it is so,\u201d or \u201cshe, it, is\ntruly mine,\u201d the accent being on the first syllable, _ni'_, mine. But\nthe common meaning of this verb in Delaware is more significant of\nownership than this tame expression. It is an active, animate verb, and\nmeans, \u201cI beat, or strike, somebody.\u201d To the rude minds of the framers\nof that tongue, ownership meant the right to beat what one owned.\n\nWe might hope this sense was confined to the lower animals; but not so.\nChange the accent from the first to the second syllable, _ni'hillan_, to\n_nihil'lan_, and you have the animate active verb with an intensive\nforce, which signifies \u201cto beat to death,\u201d \u201cto kill some person;\u201d and\nfrom this, by another suffix, you have _nihil'lowen_, to murder, and\n_nihil'lowet_, murderer. The bad sense of the root is here pushed to its\nuttermost.\n\nBut the root also developed in a nobler direction. Add to _ni'hillan_\nthe termination _ape_, which means a male, and you have _nihillape_,\nliterally, \u201cI, it is true, a man,\u201d which, as an adjective, means free,\nindependent, one\u2019s own master, \u201cI am my own man.\u201d From this are derived\nthe noun, _nihillapewit_, a freeman; the verb _nihillapewin_, to be\nfree; and the abstract, _nihillasowagan_, freedom, liberty,\nindependence. These are glorious words; but I can go even farther. From\nthis same theme is derived the verb _nihillape-wheu_, to set free, to\nliberate, to redeem; and from this the missionaries framed the word\n_nihillape-whoalid_, the Redeemer, the Saviour.\n\nHere is an unexpected antithesis, the words for a murderer and the\nSaviour both from one root! It illustrates how strange is the\nconcatenation of human thoughts.\n\nThese are by no means all the derivatives from the root _ni_, I.\n\nWhen reduplicated as _n\u0115n\u0115_, it has a plural and strengthened form, like\n\u201cour own.\u201d With a pardonable and well-nigh universal weakness, which we\nshare with them, the nation who spoke the language believed themselves\nthe first created of mortals and the most favored by the Creator. Hence\nwhatever they designated as \u201cours\u201d was both older and better than others\nof its kind. Hence _nenni_ came to mean ancient, primordial, indigenous,\nand as such it is a frequent prefix in the Delaware language. Again, as\nthey considered themselves the first and only true men, others being\nbarbarians, enemies, or strangers, _nenno_ was understood to be one of\nus, a man like ourselves, of our nation.\n\nIn their different dialects the sounds of _n_, _l_, and _r_ were\nalternated, so that while Thomas Campanius, who translated the Catechism\ninto Delaware about 1645, wrote that word _rhennus_, later writers have\ngiven it _lenno_, and translate it \u201cman.\u201d This is the word which we find\nin the name Lenni Lenape, which, by its derivation, means \u201cwe, we men.\u201d\nThe antecedent _lenni_ is superfluous. The proper name of the Delaware\nnation was and still is _Len \u00e2p\u00e9_, \u201cwe men,\u201d or \u201cour men,\u201d and those\ncritics who have maintained that this was a misnomer, introduced by Mr.\nHeckewelder, have been mistaken in their facts.[264]\n\nI have not done with the root _n\u0113_. I might go on and show you how it is\nat the base of the demonstrative pronouns, this, that, those, in\nDelaware; how it is the radical of the words for thinking, reflecting,\nand meditating; how it also gives rise to words expressing similarity\nand identity; how it means to be foremost, to stand ahead of others; and\nfinally, how it signifies to come to me, to unify or congregate\ntogether. But doubtless I have trespassed on your ears long enough with\nunfamiliar words.\n\nSuch suggestions as these will give you some idea of the value of\nAmerican languages to American ethnology. But I should be doing\ninjustice to my subject were I to confine my arguments in favor of their\nstudy to this horizon. If they are essential to a comprehension of the\nred race, not less so are they to the science of linguistics in general.\nThis science deals not with languages, but with _language_. It looks at\nthe idiom of a nation, not as a dry catalogue of words and grammatical\nrules, but as the living expression of the thinking power of man, as the\nhighest manifestation of that spiritual energy which has lifted him from\nthe level of the brute, the complete definition of which, in its origin\nand evolution, is the loftiest aim of universal history. As the\nintention of all speech is the expression of thought, and as the final\npurpose of all thinking is the discovery of truth, so the ideal of\nlanguage, the point toward which it strives, is the absolute form for\nthe realization of intellectual function.\n\nIn this high quest no tongue can be overlooked, none can be left out of\naccount. One is just as important as another. G\u0153the once said that he\nwho knows but one language knows none; we may extend the apothegm, and\nsay that so long as there is a single language on the globe not\nunderstood and analyzed, the science of language will be incomplete and\nillusory. It has often proved the case that the investigation of a\nsingle, narrow, obscure dialect has changed the most important theories\nof history. What has done more than anything else to overthrow, or, at\nleast, seriously to shake, the time-honored notion that the White Race\nfirst came from Central Asia? It was the study of the Lithuanian dialect\non the Baltic Sea, a language of peasants, without literature or\nculture, but which displays forms more archaic than the Sanscrit. What\nhas led to a complete change of views as to the prehistoric population\nof Southern Europe? The study of the Basque, a language unknown out of a\nfew secluded valleys in the Pyrenees.\n\nThere are many reasons why unwritten languages, like those of America,\nare more interesting, more promising in results, to the student of\nlinguistics, than those which for generations have been cast in the\nconventional moulds of written speech.\n\nTheir structure is more direct, simple, transparent; they reveal more\nclearly the laws of the linguistic powers in their daily exercise; they\nare less tied down to hereditary formul\u00e6 and meaningless repetitions.\n\nWould we explain the complicated structure of highly-organized tongues\nlike our own, would we learn the laws which have assigned to it its\nmaterial and formal elements, we must turn to the na\u00efve speech of\nsavages, there to see in their nakedness those processes which are too\nobscure in our own.\n\nIf the much-debated question of the origin of language engages us, we\nmust seek its solution in the simple radicals of savage idioms; and if\nwe wish to institute a comparison between the relative powers of\nlanguages, we can by no means omit them from our list. They offer to us\nthe raw material, the essential and indispensable requisites of\narticulate communication.\n\nAs the structure of a language reflects in a measure, and as, on the\nother hand, it in a measure controls and directs the mental workings of\nthose who speak it, the student of psychology must occupy himself with\nthe speech of the most illiterate races in order to understand their\ntheory of things, their notions of what is about them. They teach him\nthe undisturbed evolution of the untrained mind.\n\nAs the biologist in pursuit of that marvellous something which we call\n\u201cthe vital principle\u201d turns from the complex organisms of the higher\nanimals and plants to life in its simplest expression in microbes and\nsingle cells, so in the future will the linguist find that he is nearest\nthe solution of the most weighty problems of his science when he directs\nhis attention to the least cultivated languages.\n\nConvinced as I am of the correctness of this analogy, I venture to\npredict that in the future the analysis of the American languages will\nbe regarded as one of the most important fields in linguistic study, and\nwill modify most materially the findings of that science. And I make\nthis prediction the more confidently, as I am supported in it by the\ngreat authority of Wilhelm von Humboldt, who for twenty years devoted\nhimself to their investigation.\n\nAs I am advocating so warmly that more attention should be devoted to\nthese languages, it is but fair that you should require me to say\nsomething descriptive about them, to explain some of their peculiarities\nof structure. To do this properly I should require not the fag end of\none lecture, but a whole course of lectures. Yet perhaps I can say\nenough now to show you how much there is in them worth studying.\n\nBefore I turn to this, however, I should like to combat a prejudice\nwhich I fear you may entertain. It is that same ancient prejudice which\nled the old Greeks to call all those who did not speak their sonorous\nidioms _barbarians_; for that word meant nothing more nor less than\nbabblers (\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03b2\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9), people who spoke an unintelligible tongue. Modern\ncivilized nations hold that prejudice yet, in the sense that each\ninsists that his own language is the best one extant, the highest in the\nscale, and that wherein others differ from it in structure they are\ninferior.\n\nSo unfortunately placed is this prejudice with reference to my subject,\nthat in the very volume issued by our government at Washington to\nencourage the study of the Indian languages, there is a long essay to\nprove that English is the noblest, most perfect language in the world,\nwhile all the native languages are, in comparison, of a very low grade\nindeed![265]\n\nThe essayist draws his arguments chiefly from the absence of inflections\nin English. Yet many of the profoundest linguists of this century have\nmaintained that a fully inflected language, like the Greek or Latin, is\nfor that very reason ahead of all others. We may suspect that when a\nwriter lauds his native tongue at the expense of others, he is\ninfluenced by a prejudice in its favor and an absence of facility in the\nothers.\n\nThose best acquainted with American tongues praise them most highly for\nflexibility, accuracy, and resources of expression. They place some of\nthem above any Aryan language. But what is this to those who do not know\nthem? To him who cannot bend the bow of Ulysses it naturally seems a\nuseless and awkward weapon.\n\nI do not ask you to accept this opinion either; but I do ask that you\nrid your minds of bias, and that you do not condemn a tongue because it\ndiffers widely from that which you speak.\n\nAmerican tongues do, indeed, differ very widely from those familiar to\nAryan ears. Not that they are all alike in structure. That was a hasty\ngeneralization, dating from a time when they were less known. Yet the\ngreat majority of them have certain characteristics in common,\nsufficient to place them in a linguistic class by themselves. I shall\nname and explain some of these.\n\nAs of the first importance I would mention the prominence they assign to\npronouns and pronominal forms. Indeed, an eminent linguist has been so\nimpressed with this feature that he has proposed to classify them\ndistinctively as \u201cpronominal languages.\u201d They have many classes of\npronouns, sometimes as many as eighteen, which is more than twice as\nmany as the Greek. There is often no distinction between a noun and a\nverb other than the pronoun which governs it. That is, if a word is\nemployed with one form of the pronoun it becomes a noun, if with another\npronoun, it becomes a verb.\n\nWe have something of the same kind in English. In the phrase, \u201cI love,\u201d\nlove is a verb; but in \u201cmy love,\u201d it is a noun. It is noteworthy that\nthis treatment of words as either nouns or verbs, as we please to employ\nthem, was carried further by Shakespeare than by any other English\nwriter. He seemed to divine in such a trait of language vast resources\nfor varied and pointed expression. If I may venture a suggestion as to\nhow it does confer peculiar strength to expressions, it is that it\nbrings into especial prominence the idea of Personality; it directs all\nsubjects of discourse by the notion of an individual, a living, personal\nunit. This imparts vividness to narratives, and directness and life to\npropositions.\n\nOf these pronouns, that of the first person is usually the most\ndeveloped. From it, in many dialects, are derived the demonstratives and\nrelatives, which in Aryan languages were taken from the third person.\nThis prominence of the _Ego_, this confidence in self, is a trait of the\nrace as well as of their speech. It forms part of that savage\nindependence of character which prevented them coalescing into great\nnations, and led them to prefer death to servitude.\n\nAnother characteristic, which at one time was supposed to be universal\non this continent, is what Mr. Peter Du Ponceau named _polysynthesis_.\nHe meant by this a power of running several words into one, dropping\nparts of them and retaining only the significant syllables. Long\ndescriptive names of all objects of civilized life new to the Indians\nwere thus coined with the greatest ease. Some of these are curious\nenough. The Pavant Indians call a school house by one word, which means\n\u201ca stopping-place where sorcery is practiced;\u201d their notion of\nbook-learning being that it belongs to the uncanny arts. The Delaware\nword for horse means \u201cthe four-footed animal which carries on his back.\u201d\n\nThis method of coining words is, however, by no means universal in\nAmerican languages. It prevails in most of those in British America and\nthe United States, in Aztec and various South American idioms; but in\nothers, as the dialects found in Yucatan and Guatemala, and in the Tupi\nof Brazil, the Otomi of Mexico, and the Klamath of the Pacific coast, it\nis scarcely or not at all present.\n\nAnother trait, however, which was confounded with this by Mr. Du\nPonceau, but really belongs in a different category of grammatical\nstructure, is truly distinctive of the languages of the continent, and I\nam not sure that any one of them has been shown to be wholly devoid of\nit. This is what is called _incorporation_. It includes in the verb, or\nin the verbal expression, the object and manner of the action.\n\nThis is effected by making the subject of the verb an inseparable\nprefix, and by inserting between it and the verb itself, or sometimes\ndirectly in the latter, between its syllables, the object, direct or\nremote, and the particles indicating mode. The time or tense particles,\non the other hand, will be placed at one end of this compound, either as\nprefixes or suffixes, thus placing the whole expression strictly within\nthe limits of a verbal form of speech.\n\nBoth the above characteristics, I mean Polysynthesis and Incorporation,\nare unconscious efforts to carry out a certain theory of speech which\nhas aptly enough been termed _holophrasis_, or the putting the whole of\na phrase into a single word. This is the aim of each of them, though\neach endeavors to accomplish it by different means. Incorporation\nconfines itself exclusively to verbal forms, while polysynthesis\nembraces both nouns and verbs.\n\nSuppose we carry the analysis further, and see if we can obtain an\nanswer to the query,\u2014Why did this effort at blending forms of speech\nobtain so widely? Such an inquiry will indicate how valuable to\nlinguistic search would prove the study of this group of languages.\n\nI think there is no doubt but that it points unmistakably to that very\nancient, to that primordial period of human utterance when men had not\nyet learned to connect words into sentences, when their utmost efforts\nat articulate speech did not go beyond single words, which, aided by\ngestures and signs, served to convey their limited intellectual\nconverse. Such single vocables did not belong to any particular part of\nspeech. There was no grammar to that antique tongue. Its disconnected\nexclamations mean whole sentences in themselves.\n\nA large part of the human race, notably, but not exclusively, the\naborigines of this continent, continued the tradition of this mode of\nexpression in the structure of their tongues, long after the union of\nthought and sound in audible speech had been brought to a high degree of\nperfection.\n\nAlthough I thus regard one of the most prominent peculiarities of\nAmerican languages as a survival from an exceedingly low stage of human\ndevelopment, it by no means follows that this is an evidence of their\ninferiority.\n\nThe Chinese, who made no effort to combine the primitive vocables into\none, but range them nakedly side by side, succeeded no better than the\nAmerican Indians; and there is not much beyond assertion to prove that\nthe Aryans, who, through their inflections, marked the relation of each\nword in the sentence by numerous tags of case, gender, number, etc., got\nany nearer the ideal perfection of language.\n\nIf we apply what is certainly a very fair test, to wit: the uses to\nwhich a language is and can be put, I cannot see that a well-developed\nAmerican tongue, such as the Aztec or the Algonkin, in any way falls\nshort of, say French or English.\n\nIt is true that in many of these tongues there is no distinction made\nbetween expressions, which with us are carefully separated, and are so\nin thought. Thus, in the Tupi of Brazil and elsewhere, there is but one\nword for the three expressions, \u201chis father,\u201d \u201che is a father,\u201d and \u201che\nhas a father;\u201d in many, the simple form of the verb may convey three\ndifferent ideas, as in Ute, where the word for \u201che seizes\u201d means also\n\u201cthe seizer,\u201d and as a descriptive noun, \u201ca bear,\u201d the animal which\nseizes.\n\nThis has been charged against these languages as a lack of\n\u201cdifferentiation.\u201d Grammatically, this is so; but the same charge\napplies with almost equal force to the English language, where the same\nword may belong to any of four, five, even six parts of speech,\ndependent entirely on the connection in which it is used.\n\nAs a set-off, the American languages avoid confusions of expression\nwhich prevail in European tongues.\n\nThus in none of these latter, when I say \u201cthe love of God,\u201d \u201cl\u2019amour de\nDieu,\u201d \u201camor Dei,\u201d can you understand what I mean. You do not know\nwhether I intend the love which we have or should have toward God, or\nGod\u2019s love toward us. Yet in the Mexican language (and many other\nAmerican tongues) these two quite opposite ideas are so clearly\ndistinguished that, as Father Carochi warns the readers of his _Mexican\nGrammar_, to confound them would not merely be a grievous solecism in\nspeech, but a formidable heresy as well.\n\nAnother example. What can you make out of this sentence, which is\nstrictly correct by English grammar: \u201cJohn told Robert\u2019s son that he\nmust help him?\u201d You can make nothing out of it. It may have any one of\nsix different meanings, depending on the persons referred to by the\npronouns \u201che\u201d and \u201chim.\u201d No such lamentable confusion could occur in any\nAmerican tongue known to me. The Chippeway, for instance, has three\npronouns of the third person, which designate the near and the remote\nantecedents with the most lucid accuracy.\n\nThere is another point that I must mention in this connection, because I\nfind that it has almost always been overlooked or misunderstood by\ncritics of these languages. These have been free in condemning the\nsynthetic forms of construction. But they seem to be ignorant that their\nuse is largely optional. Thus, in Mexican, one can arrange the same\nsentence in an analytic or a synthetic form, and this is also the case,\nin a less degree, in the Algonkin. By this means a remarkable richness\nis added to the language. The higher the grade of synthesis employed,\nthe more striking, elevated, and pointed becomes the expression. In\ncommon life long compounds are rare, while in the native Mexican poetry\neach line is often but one word.\n\nTurning now from the structure of these languages to their vocabularies,\nI must correct a widespread notion that they are scanty in extent and\ndeficient in the means to express lofty or abstract ideas.\n\nOf course, there are many tracts of thought and learning familiar to us\nnow which were utterly unknown to the American aborigines, and not less\nso to our own forefathers a few centuries ago. It would be very unfair\nto compare the dictionary of an Indian language with the last edition of\nWebster\u2019s Unabridged. But take the English dictionaries of the latter\nhalf of the sixteenth century, before Spenser and Shakespeare wrote, and\ncompare them with the Mexican vocabulary of Molina, which contains about\n13,000 words, or with the Maya vocabulary of the convent of Motul, which\npresents over 20,000, both prepared at that date, and your procedure\nwill be just, and you will find it not disadvantageous to the American\nside of the question.\n\nThe deficiency in abstract terms is generally true of these languages.\nThey did not have them, because they had no use for them\u2014and the more\nblessed was their condition. European languages have been loaded with\nseveral thousand such by metaphysics and mysticism, and it has required\nmany generations to discover that they are empty windbags, full of sound\nand signifying nothing.\n\nYet it is well known to students that the power of forming abstracts is\npossessed in a remarkable degree by many native languages. The most\nrecondite formul\u00e6 of dogmatic religion, such as the definition of the\nTrinity and the difference between consubstantiation and\ntransubstantiation, have been translated into many of them without\nintroducing foreign words, and in entire conformity with their\ngrammatical structure. Indeed, Dr. Augustin de la Rosa, of the\nUniversity of Guadalajara, says the Mexican is peculiarly adapted to\nrender these metaphysical subtleties.\n\nI have been astonished that some writers should bring up the primary\nmeaning of a word in an American language in order to infer the\ncoarseness of its secondary meaning. This is a strangely unfair\nproceeding, and could be directed with equal effect against our own\ntongues. Thus, I read lately a traveler who spoke hardly of an Indian\ntribe because their word for \u201cto love\u201d was a derivative from that\nmeaning \u201cto buy,\u201d and thence \u201cto prize.\u201d But what did the Latin _amare_,\nand the English _to love_, first mean? Carnally living together is what\nthey first meant, and this is not a nobler derivation than that of the\nIndian. Even yet, when the most polished of European nations, that one\nwhich most exalts _la grande passion_, does not distinguish in language\nbetween loving their wives and liking their dinners, but uses the same\nword for both emotions, it is scarcely wise for us to indulge in much\nlatitude of inference from such etymologies.\n\nSuch is the general character of American languages, and such are the\nreasons why they should be preserved and studied. The field is vast and\ndemands many laborers to reap all the fruit that it promises. It is\nbelieved at present that there are about two hundred wholly independent\nstocks of languages among the aborigines of this continent. They vary\nmost widely in vocabulary, and seemingly scarcely less so in grammar.\n\nBesides this, each of these stocks is subdivided into dialects, each\ndistinguished by its own series of phonetic changes, and its own new\nwords. What an opportunity is thus offered for the study of the natural\nevolution of language, unfettered by the petrifying art of writing!\n\nThis is the case which I present to you, and for which I earnestly\nsolicit your consideration. And that I may add weight to my appeal, I\nclose by quoting the words of one of America\u2019s most distinguished\nscientists, Professor William Dwight Whitney, of Yale College, who\nwrites to this effect:\n\n\u201cThe study of American languages is the most fruitful and the most\nimportant branch of American Arch\u00e6ology.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n     WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT\u2019S RESEARCHES IN AMERICAN LANGUAGES.[266]\n\n  _Contents._\u2014What led Humboldt toward the American tongues\u2014Progress\n  of his studies\u2014Fundamental doctrine of his philosophy of\n  language\u2014His theory of the evolution of languages\u2014Opinion on\n  American languages\u2014His criterion of the relative perfection of\n  languages\u2014Not abundance of forms\u2014Nor verbal richness\u2014American\n  tongues not degenerations\u2014Humboldt\u2019s classification of\n  languages\u2014Psychological origin of Incorporation in language\u2014Its\n  shortcomings\u2014In simple sentences\u2014In compound sentences\u2014Absence of\n  true formal elements\u2014The nature of the American verb.\n\n\nThe foundations of the Philosophy of Language were laid by Wilhelm von\nHumboldt (born June 22, 1767, died April 8, 1835). The principles he\nadvocated have frequently been misunderstood, and some of them have been\nmodified, or even controverted, by more extended research; but a careful\nsurvey of the tendencies of modern thought in this field will show that\nthe philosophic scheme of the nature and growth of languages which he\nset forth, is gradually reasserting its sway after having been neglected\nand denied through the preponderance of the so-called \u201cnaturalistic\u201d\nschool during the last quarter of a century.\n\nThe time seems ripe, therefore, to bring the general principles of his\nphilosophy to the knowledge of American scholars, as applied by himself\nto the analysis of American languages.\n\nThese languages occupied Humboldt\u2019s attention earnestly and for many\nyears. He was first led to their study by his brother Alexander, who\npresented him with the large linguistic collection amassed during his\ntravels in South and North America.\n\nWhile Prussian Minister in Rome (1802\u20138) Wilhelm ransacked the library\nof the _Collegio Romano_ for rare or unpublished works on American\ntongues; he obtained from the ex-Jesuit Forneri all the information the\nlatter could give about the Yurari, a tongue spoken on the Meta river,\nNew Granada;[267] and he secured accurate copies of all the manuscript\nmaterial on these idioms left by the diligent collector and linguist,\nthe Abb\u00e9 Hervas.\n\nA few years later, in 1812, we find him writing to his friend Baron\nAlexander von Rennenkampff, then in St. Petersburg: \u201cI have selected the\nAmerican languages as the special subject of my investigations. They\nhave the closest relationship of any with the tongues of north-eastern\nAsia; and I beg you therefore to obtain for me all the dictionaries and\ngrammars of the latter which you can.\u201d[268]\n\nIt is probable from this extract that Humboldt was then studying these\nlanguages from that limited, ethnographic point of view, from which he\nwrote his essay on the Basque tongue, the announcement of which\nappeared, indeed, in that year, 1812, although the work itself was not\nissued until 1821.\n\nTen years more of study and reflection taught him a far loftier flight.\nHe came to look upon each language as an organism, all its parts bearing\nharmonious relations to each other, standing in a definite connection\nwith the intellectual and emotional development of the nation speaking\nit. Each language again bears the relation to language in general that\nthe species does to the genus, or the genus to the order, and by a\ncomprehensive process of analysis he hoped to arrive at those\nfundamental laws of articulate speech which form the Philosophy of\nLanguage, and which, as they are also the laws of human thought, at a\ncertain point coincide, he believed, with those of the Philosophy of\nHistory.\n\nIn the completion of this vast scheme, he continued to attach the utmost\nimportance to the American languages.\n\nHis illustrations were constantly drawn from them, and they were ever\nthe subject of his earnest studies. He prized them as in certain\nrespects the most valuable of all to the philosophic student of human\nspeech.\n\nThus, in 1826, he announced before the Berlin Academy that he was\npreparing an exhaustive work on the \u201cOrganism of Language,\u201d for which he\nhad selected the American languages exclusively, as best suited for this\npurpose. \u201cThe languages of a great continent,\u201d he writes, \u201cpeopled by\nnumerous nationalities, probably never subject to foreign influence,\noffer for this branch of linguistic study specially favorable material.\nThere are in America as many as thirty little known languages for which\nwe have means of study, each of which is like a new natural species,\nbesides many others whose data are less ample.\u201d[269]\n\nIn his memoir, read two years later, \u201cOn the Origin of Grammatic Forms,\nand their Influence on the Development of Ideas,\u201d he chose most of his\nexamples from the idioms of the New World;[270] and the year following,\nhe read the monograph on the Verb in American languages, which I refer\nto on a later page.\n\nIn a subsequent communication, he announced his special study of this\ngroup as still in preparation. It was, however, never completed. His\nearnest desire to reach the fundamental laws of language led him into a\nlong series of investigations into the systems of recorded speech,\nphonetic hieroglyphics and alphabetic writing, on which he read memoirs\nof great acuteness.\n\nIn one of these he again mentions his studies of the American tongues,\nand takes occasion to vindicate them from the current charge of being of\na low grade in the linguistic scale. \u201cIt is certainly unjust,\u201d he\nwrites, \u201cto call the American languages rude or savage, although their\nstructure is widely different from those perfectly formed.\u201d[271]\n\nIn 1828, there is a published letter from him making an appointment with\nthe Abb\u00e9 Thavenet, missionary to the Canadian Algonkins, then in Paris,\n\u201cto enjoy the pleasure of conversing with him on his interesting studies\nof the Algonkin language.\u201d[272] And a private letter tells us that in\n1831 he applied himself with new zeal to mastering the intricacies of\nMexican grammar.[273]\n\nAll these years he was working to complete the researches which led him\nto the far-reaching generalization which is at the basis of his\nlinguistic philosophy.\n\nLet me state in a few words what this philosophy teaches.\n\nIt aims to establish as a fundamental truth that _the_ _diversity of\nstructure in languages is both the necessary antecedent and the\nnecessary consequent of the evolution of the human mind_.[274]\n\nIn the establishment of this thesis he begins with a subtle analysis of\nthe nature of speech in general, and then proceeds to define the\nreciprocal influences which thought exerts upon it, and it upon thought.\n\nIt will readily be seen that a corollary of this theorem is that the\nScience of Language is and must be the most instructive, the\nindispensable guide in the study of the mental evolution of the human\nrace. Humboldt recognized this fully. He taught that in its highest\nsense the philosophy of language is one with the philosophy of history.\nThe science of language misses its purpose unless it seeks its chief end\nin explaining the intellectual growth of the race.[275]\n\nEach separate tongue is \u201ca thought-world in tones\u201d established between\nthe minds of those who speak it and the objective world without.[276]\nEach mirrors in itself the spirit of the nation to which it belongs. But\nit has also an earlier and independent origin; it is the product of the\nconceptions of antecedent generations, and thus exerts a formative and\ndirective influence on the national mind, an influence not slight, but\nmore potent than that which the national mind exerts upon it.[277]\n\nHe fully recognized a progress, an organic growth, in human speech. This\ngrowth may be from two sources, one the cultivation of a tongue within\nthe nation by enriching its vocabulary, separating and classifying its\nelements, fixing its expressions, and thus adapting it to wider uses;\nthe second, by forcible amalgamation with another tongue.\n\nThe latter exerts always a more profound and often a more beneficial\ninfluence. The organism of both tongues may be destroyed, but the\ndissolvent force is also an organic and vital one, and from the ruins of\nboth constructs a speech of grander plans and with wider views. \u201cThe\nseemingly aimless and confused interminglings of primitive tribes sowed\nthe seed for the flowers of speech and song which flourished in\ncenturies long posterior.\u201d\n\nThe immediate causes of the improvement of a language through forcible\nadmixture with another, are: that it is obliged to drop all unnecessary\naccessory elements in a proposition; that the relations of ideas must be\nexpressed by conventional and not significant syllables; and that the\nlimitations of thought imposed by the genius of the language are\nviolently broken down, and the mind is thus given wider play for its\nfaculties.\n\nSuch influences, however, do not act in accordance with fixed laws of\ngrowth. There are no such laws which are of universal application. The\ndevelopment of the Mongolian or Aryan tongues is not at all that of the\nAmerican. The goal is one and the same, but the paths to it are\ninfinite. For this reason each group or class of languages must be\nstudied by itself, and its own peculiar developmental laws be\nascertained by searching its history.[278]\n\nWith reference to the growth of American languages, it was Humboldt\u2019s\nview that they manifest the utmost refractoriness both to external\ninfluences and to internal modifications. They reveal a marvellous\ntenacity of traditional words and forms, not only in dialects, but even\nin particular classes of the community, men having different expressions\nfrom women, the old from the young, the higher from the lower classes.\nThese are maintained with scrupulous exactitude through generations, and\nthree centuries of daily commingling with the white race have scarcely\naltered their grammar or phonetics.\n\nNor is this referable to the contrast between an Aryan and an American\nlanguage. The same immiscibility is shown between themselves. \u201cEven\nwhere many radically different languages are located closely together,\nas in Mexico, I have not found a single example where one exercised a\nconstructive or formative influence on the other. But it is by the\nencounter of great and contrasted differences that languages gain\nstrength, riches, and completeness. Only thus are the perceptive powers,\nthe imagination and the feelings impelled to enrich and extend the means\nof expression, which, if left to the labors of the understanding alone,\nare liable to be but meagre and arid.\u201d[279]\n\nHumboldt\u2019s one criterion of a language was its tendency to _quicken and\nstimulate mental action_. He maintained that this is secured just in\nproportion as the grammatical structure favors clear definition of the\nindividual idea apart from its relations; in other words, as it\nseparates the material from the inflectional elements of speech. Clear\nthinking, he argued, means progressive thinking. Therefore he assigned a\nlower position both to those tongues which inseparably connect the idea\nwith its relations, as most American languages, and to those which, like\nthe Chinese and in a less degree the modern English, have scarcely any\nformal elements at all, but depend upon the position of words\n(placement) to signify their relations. But he warns us that it is of\nimportance to recognize fully \u201cthat grammatical principles dwell rather\nin the mind of the speaker than in the material and mechanism of his\nlanguage,\u201d and that the power of expressing ideas in any tongue depends\nmuch more on the intellectual capacity of the speaker than the structure\nof the tongue itself.\n\nHe censures the common error (common now as it was in his day) that the\nabundance and regularity of forms in a language is a mark of excellence.\nThis very multiplicity, this excessive superfluity, is a burden and a\ndrawback, and obscures the integration of the thought by attaching to it\na quantity of needless qualifications. Thus, in the language of the\nAbipones, the pronoun is different as the person spoken of is conceived\nas present, absent, sitting, walking, lying or running\u2014all quite\nunnecessary specifications.[280]\n\nIn some languages much appears as form which, on close scrutiny, is\nnothing of the kind.\n\nThis misunderstanding has reigned almost universally in the treatment of\nAmerican tongues. The grammars which have been written upon them proceed\ngenerally on the principles of Latin, and apply a series of grammatical\nnames to the forms explained, entirely inappropriate to them, and\nmisleading. Our first duty in taking up such a grammar as, for instance,\nthat of an American language, is to dismiss the whole of the arrangement\nof the \u201cparts of speech,\u201d and by an analysis of words and phrases, to\nascertain by what collocation of elements they express logical,\nsignificant relations.[281]\n\nFor example, in the Carib tongue, the grammars give _aveiridaco_ as the\nsecond person singular, subjunctive imperfect, \u201cif thou wert.\u201d Analyze\nthis, and we discover that _a_ is the possessive pronoun \u201cthy;\u201d _veiri_\nis \u201cto be\u201d or \u201cbeing\u201d (in a place); and _daco_ is a particle of definite\ntime. Hence, the literal rendering is \u201con the day of thy being.\u201d The\nso-called imperfect subjunctive turns out to be a verbal noun with a\npreposition. In many American languages the hypothetical supposition\nexpressed in the Latin subjunctive is indicated by the same\ncircumlocution.\n\nAgain, the infinitive, in its classical sense, is unknown in most,\nprobably in all, American languages. In the Tupi of Brazil and\nfrequently elsewhere it is simply a noun; _caru_ is both \u201cto eat\u201d and\n\u201cfood;\u201d _che caru ai-pota_, \u201cI wish to eat,\u201d literally \u201cmy food I wish.\u201d\n\nMany writers continue to maintain that a criterion of a language is its\nlexicographic richness\u2014the number of words it possesses. Even recently,\nProf. Max M\u00fcller has applied such a test to American languages, and,\nfinding that one of the Fuegian dialects is reported to have nearly\nthirty thousand words, he maintains that this is a proof that these\nsavages are a degenerate remnant of some much more highly developed\nancestry. Founding his opinion largely on similar facts, Alexander von\nHumboldt applied the expression to the American nations that they are\n\u201cdes d\u00e9bris \u00e9chapp\u00e9s \u00e0 un naufrage commun.\u201d\n\nSuch, however, was not the opinion of his brother Wilhelm. He sounded\nthe depths of linguistic philosophy far more deeply than to accept mere\nabundance of words as proof of richness in a language. Many savage\nlanguages have twenty words signifying to eat particular things, but no\nword meaning \u201cto eat\u201d in general; the Eskimo language has different\nwords for fishing for each kind of fish, but no word \u201cto fish,\u201d in a\ngeneral sense. Such apparent richness is, in fact, actual poverty.\n\nHumboldt taught that the quality, not merely the quantity, of words was\nthe decisive measure of verbal wealth. Such quality depends on the\nrelations of concrete words, on the one hand, to primitive objective\nperceptions at their root, and, on the other, to the abstract general\nideas of which they are particular representatives; and besides this, on\nthe relations which the spoken word, the articulate sound, bears to the\nphilosophic laws of the formation of language in general.[282]\n\nIn his letter to Abel-Remusat he discusses the theory that the American\nlanguages point to a once higher condition of civilization, and are the\ncorrupted idioms of deteriorated races. He denies that there is\nlinguistic evidence of any such theory. These languages, he says,\npossess a remarkable regularity of structure, and very few anomalies.\nTheir grammar does not present any visible traces of corrupting\nintermixtures.[283]\n\nHumboldt\u2019s classification of languages was based on the relation of the\nword to the sentence, which, expressed in logic, would mean the relation\nof the simple idea to the proposition. He taught that the plans on which\nlanguages combine words into sentences are a basic character of their\nstructure, and divide them into classes as distinct and as decisive of\ntheir future, as those of vertebrate and invertebrate animals in natural\nhistory.\n\nThese plans are four in number:\n\n1. By Isolation.\n\nThe words are placed in juxtaposition, without change. Their relations\nare expressed by their location only (placement). The typical example of\nthis is the Chinese.\n\n2. By Agglutination.\n\nThe sentence is formed by suffixing to the word expressive of the main\nidea a number of others, more or less altered, expressing the relations.\nExamples of this are the Eskimo of North America, and the Northern\nAsiatic dialects.\n\n3. By Incorporation.\n\nThe leading word of the sentence is divided, and the accessory words\neither included in it or attached to it with abbreviated forms, so that\nthe whole sentence assumes the form and sound of one word.\n\n4. By Inflection.\n\nEach word of the sentence indicates by its own form the character and\nrelation to the main proposition of the idea it represents. Sanscrit,\nGreek and Latin are familiar examples of inflected tongues.\n\nIt is possible to suppose that all four of these forms were developed\nfrom some primitive condition of utterance unknown to us, just as\nnaturalists believe that all organic species were developed out of a\nhomogeneous protoplasmic mass; but it is as hard to see how any one of\nthem _in its present form_ could pass over into another, as to\nunderstand how a radiate could change into a mollusk.\n\nOf the four plans mentioned, Incorporation is that characteristic of,\n_though not confined to_, American tongues.\n\nThe psychological origin of this plan is explained rather curiously by\nHumboldt, as the result of an _exaltation of the imaginative over the\nintellectual elements of mind_. By this method, the linguistic faculty\nstrives to present to the understanding the whole thought in the most\ncompact form possible, thus to facilitate its comprehension; and this it\ndoes, because a thought presented in one word is more vivid and\nstimulating to the imagination, more individual and picturesque, than\nwhen narrated in a number of words.[284]\n\nIncorporation may appear in a higher or a lower grade, but its intention\nis everywhere the effort to convey in one word the whole proposition.\nThe verb, as that part of speech which especially conveys the synthetic\naction of the mental operation, is that which is selected as the stem of\nthis word-sentence; all the other parts are subordinate accessories,\ndevoid of syntactic value.\n\nThe higher grade of incorporation includes both subject, object and verb\nin one word, and if for any reason the object is not included, the\nscheme of the sentence is still maintained in the verb, and the object\nis placed outside, as in apposition, without case ending, and under a\nform different from its original and simple one.\n\nThis will readily be understood from the following examples from the\nMexican language.\n\nThe sentence _ni-naca-qua_ is one word, and means \u201cI, flesh, eat.\u201d If it\nis desired to express the object independently, the expression becomes\n_ni-c-qua-in-nacatl_, \u201cI it eat, the flesh.\u201d The termination _tl_ does\nnot belong to the root of the noun, but is added to show that it is in\nan external and, as it were, unnatural position. Both the direct and\nremote object can thus be incorporated, and if they are not, but\nseparately appended, the scheme of the sentence is still preserved; as\n_ni-te-tla-maca_, literally, \u201cI, to somebody, something, give.\u201d How\nclosely these accessories are incorporated is illustrated by the fact\nthat the tense-augments are not added to the stem, but to the whole\nword; _o-ni-c-temaca-e_, where the _o_ is the prefix of the perfect.\n\nIn these languages, every element in the sentence which is not\nincorporated in the verb has, in fact, no syntax at all. The verbal\nexhausts all the formal portion of the language. The relations of the\nother words are intimated by their position. Thus _ni-tla\u00e7otlaz-nequia_,\nI wished to love, is literally, \u201cI, I shall love, I wished.\u201d _Tla\u00e7otlaz_\nis the first person singular of the future; _ni-nequia_, I wished; which\nis divided, and the future form inserted. The same expression may stand\nthus: _ni-c-nequia-tla\u00e7o-tlaz_, where the _c_ is an intercalated\nrelative pronoun, and the literal rendering is, \u201cI it wished, I shall\nlove.\u201d\n\nIn the Lule language the construction with an infinitive is simply that\nthe two verbs follow each other in the same person, as _caic tucuec_, \u201cI\nam accustomed to eat,\u201d literally, \u201cI am accustomed, I eat.\u201d\n\nNone of these devices fulfils all the uses of the infinitive, and hence\nthey are all inferior to it.\n\nIn languages which lack formal elements, the deficiency must be supplied\nby the mind. Words are merely placed in juxtaposition, and their\nrelationship guessed at. Thus, when a language constructs its cases\nmerely by prefixing prepositions to the unaltered noun, there is no\ngrammatical form; in the Mbaya language _e-tiboa_ is translated \u201cthrough\nme,\u201d but it is really \u201cI, through;\u201d _l\u2019emani_, is rendered \u201che wishes,\u201d\nbut it is strictly, \u201che, wish.\u201d\n\nIn such languages the same collocation of words often corresponds to\nquite different meanings, as the precise relation of the thoughts is not\ndefined by any formal elements. This is well illustrated in the Tupi\ntongue. The word _uba_ is \u201cfather;\u201d with the pronoun of the third person\nprefixed it is _tuba_, literally \u201che, father.\u201d This may mean either \u201chis\nfather,\u201d or \u201che is a father,\u201d or \u201che has a father,\u201d just as the sense of\nthe rest of the sentence requires.\n\nCertainly a language which thus leaves confounded together ideas so\ndistinct as these, is inferior to one which discriminates them; and this\nis why the formal elements of a tongue are so important to intellectual\ngrowth. The Tupis may be an energetic and skillful people, but with\ntheir language they can never take a position as masters in the realm of\nideas.\n\nThe absence of the passive in most American tongues is supplied by\nsimilar inadequate collocations of words. In Huasteca, for example,\n_nana tanin tahjal_, is translated \u201cI am treated by him;\u201d actually it\nis, \u201cI, me, treats he.\u201d This is not a passive, but simply the idea of\nthe Ego connected with the idea of another acting upon it.\n\nThis is vastly below the level of inflected speech; for it cannot be too\nstrenuously maintained that the grammatical relations of spoken language\nare the more perfect and favorable to intellectual growth, the more\nclosely they correspond to the logical relations of thought.\n\nSometimes what appears as inflection turns out on examination to be\nmerely adjunction. Thus in the Mbaya tongue there are such verbal forms\nas _daladi_, thou wilt throw, _nilabuite_, he has spun, where the _d_ is\nthe sign of the future, and the _n_ of the perfect. These look like\ninflections; but in fact, _d_ is simply a relic of _quide_, hereafter,\nlater, and _n_ stands in the same relation to _quine_, which means \u201cand\nalso.\u201d\n\nTo become true formal elements, all such adjuncts must have completely\nlost their independent signification; because if they retain it, their\nmaterial content requires qualification and relation just as any other\nstem-word.\n\nA few American languages may have reached this stage. In the Mexican\nthere are the terminals _ya_ or _a_ in the imperfect, the augment _o_ in\nthe preterit and others in the future. In the Tamanaca the present ends\nin _a_, the preterit in _e_, the future in _c_. \u201cThere is nothing in\neither of these tongues to show that these tense-signs have independent\nmeaning, and therefore there is no reason why they should not be classed\nwith those of the Greek and Sanscrit as true inflectional\nelements.\u201d[285]\n\nThe theory of Incorporation, it will be noted, is to express the whole\nproposition, as nearly as possible, in one word; and what part of it\ncannot be thus expressed, is left without any syntax whatever. Not only\ndoes this apply to individual words in a sentence, but it extends to the\nvarious clauses of a compound sentence, such as in Aryan languages show\ntheir relation to the leading clauses by means of prepositions,\nconjunctions and relative pronouns.\n\nWhen the methods are analyzed by which the major and minor clauses are\nassigned their respective values in these tongues, it is very plain what\ndifficulties of expression the system of Incorporation involves. Few of\nthem have any true connecting word of either of the three classes above\nmentioned. They depend on scarcely veiled material words, simply placed\nin juxtaposition.\n\nIt is probable that the prepositions and conjunctions of all languages\nwere at first significant words, and the degree to which they have lost\ntheir primary significations and have become purely formal elements\nexpressing relation, is one of the measures of the grammatical evolution\nof a tongue. In most American idioms their origin from substantives is\nreadily recognizable. Frequently these substantives refer to parts of\nthe body, and this, in passing, suggests the antiquity of this class of\nwords and their value in comparison.\n\nIn Maya _tan_ means in, toward, among; but it is also the breast or\nfront of the body. The Mexican has three classes of prepositions\u2014the\nfirst, whose origin from a substantive cannot be detected; the second,\nwhere an unknown and a known element are combined; the third, where the\nsubstantive is perfectly clear. An example of the last mentioned is\n_itic_, in, compounded of _ite_, belly, and the locative particle _c_;\nthe phrase _ilhuicatl itic_, in heaven, is literally \u201cin the belly of\nheaven.\u201d Precisely the same is the Cakchiquel _pamcah_, literally,\n\u201cbelly, heaven\u201d==in heaven. In Mexican, _notepotzco_ is \u201cbehind me,\u201d\nliterally, \u201cmy back, at;\u201d this corresponds again to the Cakchiquel\n_chuih_, behind me, from _chi_, at, _u_, my, _vih_, shoulder-blades. The\nMixteca prepositions present the crude nature of their origin without\ndisguise, _chisi huahi_, belly, house\u2014that is, in front of the house;\n_sata huahi_, back, house\u2014behind the house.\n\nThe conjunctions are equally transparent. \u201cAnd\u201d in Maya is _yetel_, in\nMexican _ihuan_. One would suppose that such an indispensable connective\nwould long since have been worn down to an insoluble entity. On the\ncontrary, both these words retain their perfect material meaning.\n_Yetel_ is a compound of _y_, his, _et_, companion, and _el_, the\ndefinite termination of nouns. _Ihuan_ is the possessive, _i_, and\n_huan_, associate companion, used also as a termination to form a\ncertain class of plurals.\n\nThe deficiency in true conjunctions and relative pronouns is met in many\nAmerican languages by a reversal of the plan of expression with us. The\nrelative clause becomes the principal one. There is a certain logical\njustice in this; for if we reflect, it will appear evident that the\nmajor proposition is in our construction presented as one of the\nconditions of the minor. \u201cI shall drown, if I fall in the water,\u201d means\nthat, of the various results of my falling in the water, one of them\nwill be that I shall drown. \u201cI follow the road which you described,\u201d\nmeans that you described a road, and one of the results of this act of\nyours was that I follow it.\n\nThis explains the plan of constructing compound sentences in Qquichua.\nInstead of saying \u201cI shall follow the road which you describe,\u201d the\nconstruction is, \u201cYou describe, this road I shall follow;\u201d and instead\nof \u201cI shall drown if I fall in the water,\u201d it would be, \u201cI fall in the\nwater, I shall drown.\u201d\n\nThe Mexican language introduces the relative clause by the word _in_,\nwhich is an article and demonstrative pronoun, or, if the proposition is\na conditional one, by _intla_, which really signifies \u201cwithin this,\u201d and\nconveys the sense that the major is included within the conditions of\nthe minor clause. The Cakchiquel conditional particle is _vue_, if,\nwhich appears to be simply the particle of affirmation \u201cyes,\u201d employed\nto give extension to the minor clause, which, as a rule, is placed\nfirst.\n\nOr a conventional arrangement of words may be adopted which will convey\nthe idea of certain dependent clauses, as those expressing similitude,\nas is often the case in Mexican.\n\nAbout 1822 Humboldt read a memoir before the Berlin Academy on \u201cThe\nAmerican Verb,\u201d which remained unpublished either in German or English\nuntil I translated and printed it in the Proceedings of the American\nPhilosophical Society in 1885. At its close he sums up his results, and\nthis summary will form an appropriate conclusion to the present review\nof his labors in the field of American linguistics:\n\n  \u201cIf we reflect on the structure of the various verbal forms here\n  analyzed, certain general conclusions are reached, which are\n  calculated to throw light upon the whole organism of these\n  languages.\n\n  \u201cThe leading and governing part of speech in them is the Pronoun;\n  every subject of discourse is connected with the idea of\n  Personality.\n\n  \u201cNoun and Verb are not separated; they first become so through the\n  pronoun attached to them.\n\n  \u201cThe employment of the Pronoun is two-fold, one applying to the\n  Noun, the other to the Verb. Both, however, convey the idea of\n  belonging to a person\u2014in the noun appearing as Possession, in the\n  verb as Energy. But it is on this point, on whether these ideas are\n  confused and obscure, or whether they are defined and clear, that\n  the grammatical perfection of a language depends. The just\n  discrimination of the kinds of pronouns is therefore conclusive, and\n  in this respect we must yield the decided pre-eminence to the\n  Mexican.\n\n  \u201cIt follows that the speaker must constantly make up his verbs,\n  instead of using those already on hand; and also that the structure\n  of the verb must be identical throughout the language, that there\n  must be only one conjugation, and that the verbs, except a few\n  irregular ones, can possess no peculiarities.\n\n  \u201cThis is different in the Greek, Latin and ancient Indian. In these\n  tongues many verbs must be studied separately, as they have numerous\n  exceptions, phonetic changes, deficiencies, etc., and in other\n  respects carry with them a marked individuality.\n\n  \u201cThe difference between these cultivated and those rude languages is\n  chiefly merely one of time, and of the more or less fortunate\n  mixture of dialects; though it certainly also depends in a measure\n  on the original mental powers of the nations.\n\n  \u201cThose whose languages we have here analyzed are, in speaking,\n  constantly putting together elementary parts; they connect nothing\n  firmly, because they follow the changing requirements of the moment,\n  joining together only what these requirements demand, and often\n  leave connected through habit that which clear thinking would\n  necessarily divide.\n\n  \u201cHence no just division of words can arise, such as is demanded by\n  accurate and appropriate thought, which requires that each word must\n  have a fixed and certain content and a defined grammatical form, and\n  as is also demanded by the highest phonetic laws.\n\n  \u201cNations richly endowed in mind and sense will have an instinct for\n  such correct divisions; the incessant moving to and fro of\n  elementary parts of speech will be distasteful to them; they will\n  seek true individuality in the words they use; therefore they will\n  connect them firmly, they will not accumulate too much in one, and\n  they will only leave that connected which is so in thought, and not\n  merely in usage or habit.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n            SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF AMERICAN LANGUAGES.[286]\n\n  _Contents._\u2014Study of the human species on the geographic\n  system\u2014Have American languages any common trait?\u2014Duponceau\u2019s\n  theory of polysynthesis\u2014Humboldt on Polysynthesis and\n  Incorporation\u2014Francis Lieber on Holophrasis\u2014Prof. Steinthal on\n  the incorporative plan\u2014Lucien Adam\u2019s criticism of it\u2014Prof.\n  M\u00fcller\u2019s inadequate statement\u2014Major Powell\u2019s omission to\n  consider it\u2014Definitions of polysynthesis, incorporation and\n  holophrasis\u2014Illustrations\u2014Critical application of the theory to\n  the Othomi language\u2014To the Bri-bri language\u2014To the Tupi-Guarani\n  dialects\u2014To the Mutsun\u2014Conclusions\u2014Addendum: critique by M. Adam\n  on this essay.\n\n\nAs the careful study of the position of man toward his surroundings\nadvances, it becomes more and more evident that like other members of\nthe higher fauna, he bears many and close correlations to the\ngeographical area he inhabits. Hence the present tendency of\nanthropology is to return to the classification proposed by Linn\u00e6us,\nwhich, in a broad way, subdivides the human species with reference to\nthe continental areas mainly inhabited by it in the earliest historic\ntimes. This is found to accord with color, and to give five sub-species\nor races, the White or European, the Black or African, the Yellow or\nMongolian (Asiatic), the Brown or Malayan (Oceanic), and the Red or\nAmerican Races.\n\nNo ethnologist nowadays will seek to establish fixed and absolute lines\nbetween these. They shade into one another in all their peculiarities,\nand no one has traits entirely unknown in the others. Yet, in the mass,\nthe characteristics of each are prominent, permanent and unmistakable;\nand to deny them on account of occasional exceptions is to betray an\ninability to estimate the relative value of scientific facts.\n\nDoes this racial similarity extend to language? On the surface,\napparently not. Only one of the races named\u2014the Malayan\u2014is monoglottic.\nAll the others seem to speak tongues with no genetic relationship, at\nleast none indicated by etymology. The profounder study of language,\nhowever, leads to a different conclusion\u2014to one which, as cautiously\nexpressed by a recent writer, teaches that \u201cevery large, connected,\nterrestrial area developed only one, or scarcely more than one,\nfundamental linguistic type, and this with such marked individuality\nthat rarely did any of its languages depart from the general\nscheme.\u201d[287]\n\nThis similarity is not to be looked for in likeness between words, but\nin the inner structural development of tongues. To ascertain and\nestimate such identities is a far more delicate undertaking than to\ncompare columns of words in vocabularies; but it is proportionately more\nvaluable.\n\nNor should we expect it to be absolute. The example of the Basque in a\npure white nation in Western Europe warns us that there are exceptions\nwhich, though they may find a historic explanation, forbid us all\ndogmatic assertion. They are so few, however, that I quote Dr. Winkler\u2019s\nwords as the correct expression of the latest linguistic science, and I\nwish that some investigator would make it the motto of his study of\nAmerican tongues.\n\nThe task\u2014no light one\u2014which such an investigator would have, would be,\nfirst to ascertain what structural traits form the ground plan or plans\n(if there are more than one) of the languages of the New World. Upon\nthis ground-plan he would find very different edifices have been\nerected, which, nevertheless, can be classified into groups, each group\nmarked by traits common to every member of it. These traits and groups\nhe must carefully define. Then would come the separate question as to\nwhether this community of traits has a genetic explanation or not. If\nthe decision were affirmative, we might expect conclusions that would\ncarry us much further than etymological comparisons, and might form a\nscientific basis for the classification of American nations.\n\nPossibly some one or two features might be discovered which though not\npeculiar to American tongues, nor fully present in every one of them,\nyet would extend an influence over them all, and impart to them in the\naggregate a certain aspect which could fairly be called distinctive.\nSuch features are claimed to have been found in the grammatic processes\nof _polysynthesis_ and _incorporation_.\n\nPeter Stephen Duponceau, at one time President of the American\nPhilosophical Society, was the first to assert that there was a\nprevailing unity of grammatic schemes in American tongues. His first\npublished utterance was in 1819, when he distinguished, though not with\ndesirable lucidity, between the two varieties of synthetic construction,\nthe one (incorporation) applicable to verbal forms of expression, the\nother (polysynthesis) to nominal expressions. His words are\u2014\n\n\u201cA _polysynthetic_ or _syntactic_ construction of language is that in\nwhich the greatest number of ideas are comprised in the least number of\nwords. This is done principally in two ways. 1. By a mode of compounding\nlocutions which is not confined to joining two words together, as in\nGreek, or varying the inflection or termination of a radical word as in\nmost European languages, but by interweaving together the most\nsignificant sounds or syllables of each simple word, so as to form a\ncompound that will awaken in the mind at once all the ideas singly\nexpressed by the words from which they are taken. 2. By an analogous\ncombination [of] the various parts of speech, particularly by means of\nthe verb, so that its various forms and inflections will express not\nonly the principal action, but the greatest possible number of the moral\nideas and physical objects connected with it, and will combine itself to\nthe greatest extent with those conceptions which are the subject of\nother parts of speech, and in other languages require to be expressed by\nseparate and distinct words. Such I take to be the general character of\nthe Indian languages.\u201d[288]\n\nDuponceau\u2019s opinion found an able supporter in Wilhelm von Humboldt,\nwho, as already shown, placed the American languages among those acting\non the incorporative plan\u2014_das Einverleibungssystem_. The spirit of this\nsystem he defines to be, \u201cto impress the unity of the sentence on the\nunderstanding by treating it, not as a whole composed of various words,\nbut as one word.\u201d A perfect type of incorporation will group all the\nelements of the sentence in and around the verbal, as this alone is the\nbond of union between the several ideas. The designation of time and\nmanner, that is, the tense and mode signs, will include both the object\nand subject of the verb, thus subordinating them to the notion of\naction. It is \u201can indispensable basis\u201d of this system that there should\nbe a difference in the form of words when incorporated and when not.\nThis applies in a measure to nouns and verbals, but especially to\npronouns, and Humboldt names it as \u201cthe characteristic tendency\u201d of\nAmerican languages, and one directly drawn from their incorporative\nplan, that the personal pronouns, both subjective and objective, used in\nconnection with the verbs, are of a different form from the independent\npersonal pronouns, either greatly abbreviated or from wholly different\nroots. Outside of the verbal thus formed as the central point of the\nsentence, there is no syntax, no inflections, no declension of nouns or\nadjectives.[289]\n\nHumboldt was far from saying that the incorporative system was\nexclusively seen in American languages, any more than that of isolation\nin Chinese, or flexion in Aryan speech. On the contrary, he distinctly\nstates that every language he had examined shows traces of all three\nplans; but the preponderance of one plan over the other is so marked and\nso distinctive that they afford us the best means known for the\nmorphological classification of languages, especially as these traits\narise from psychological operations widely diverse, and of no small\ninfluence on the development of the intellect.\n\nDr. Francis Lieber, in an essay on \u201cThe Plan of Thought in American\nLanguages,\u201d[290] objected to the terms _polysynthesis_ and\n_incorporation_ that \u201cthey begin at the wrong end; for these names\nindicate that that which has been separated is put together, as if man\nbegan with analysis, whereas he ends with it.\u201d He therefore proposed the\nnoun _holophrasis_ with its adjective _holophrastic_, not as a\nsubstitute for the terms he criticised, but to express the meaning or\npurpose of these processes, which is, to convey the whole of a sentence\nor proposition in one word. Polysynthesis, he explains, indicates a\npurely etymological process, holophrasis \u201crefers to the meaning of the\nword considered in a philosophical point of view.\u201d\n\nIf we regard incorporation and polysynthesis as structural processes of\nlanguage aiming to accomplish a certain theoretical form of speech, then\nit will be convenient to have this word _holophrasis_ to designate this\ntheoretical form, which is, in short, the expression of the whole\nproposition in a single word.\n\nThe eminent linguist Professor H. Steinthal, has developed the theory of\nincorporation more fully than any other writer. He expresses himself\nwithout reserve of the opinion that all American languages are\nconstructed on this same plan, more or less developed.\n\nI need not make long quotations from a work so well-known as his\n_Charakteristik der haupts\u00e4chlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues_, one\nsection of which, about thirty pages in length, is devoted to a\nsearching and admirable presentation of the characteristics of the\nincorporative plan as shown in American languages. But I may give with\nbrevity what he regards as the most striking features of this plan.\nThese are especially three:\u2014\n\n1. The construction of words by a mixed system of derivation and new\nformation.\n\n2. The objective relation is treated as a species of possession; and\n\n3. The possessive relation is regarded as the leading and substantial\none, and controls the form of expression.\n\nThe first of these corresponds to what I should call _polysynthesis_;\nthe others to _incorporation_ in the limited sense of the term.\n\nSome special studies on this subject have been published by M. Lucien\nAdam, and he claims for them that they have refuted and overturned the\nthesis of Duponceau, Humboldt, and Steinthal, to the effect that there\nis a process called _incorporative_ or _polysynthetic_, which can be\ntraced in all American languages, and though not in all points confined\nto them, may fairly and profitably be taken as characteristic of them,\nand indicative of the psychological processes which underlie them. This\nopinion M. Adam speaks of as a \u201cstereotyped phrase which is absolutely\nfalse.\u201d[291]\n\nSo rude an iconoclasm as this must attract our careful consideration.\nLet us ask what M. Adam understands by the terms _polysynthesis_ and\n_incorporation_. To our surprise, we shall find that in two works\npublished in the same year, he advances definitions by no means\nidentical. Thus, in his \u201cExamination of Sixteen American Languages,\u201d he\nsays, \u201c_Polysynthesis_ consists essentially in the affixing of\nsubordinate personal pronouns to the noun, the preposition and the\nverb.\u201d In his \u201cStudy of Six Languages,\u201d he writes: \u201cBy _polysynthesis_ I\nunderstand the expression in one word of the relations of cause and\neffect, or of subject and object.\u201d[292]\n\nCertainly these two definitions are not convertible, and we are almost\nconstrained to suspect that the writer who gives them was not clear in\nhis own mind as to the nature of the process. At any rate, they differ\nwidely from the plan or method set forth by Humboldt and Steinthal as\ncharacteristic of American languages. M. Adam in showing that\npolysynthesis in his understanding of the term is not confined to or\ncharacteristic of American tongues, missed the point, and fell into an\n_ignoratio elenchi_.\n\nEqually narrow is his definition of incorporation. He writes, \u201cWhen the\nobject is intercalated between the subject and the verbal theme, there\nis _incorporation_.\u201d If this is to be understood as an explanation of\nthe German expression, _Einverleibung_, then it has been pared down\nuntil nothing but the stem is left.\n\nAs to Dr. Lieber\u2019s suggestion of _holophrastic_ as an adjective\nexpressing the plan of thought at the basis of polysynthesis and\nincorporation, M. Adam summarily dismisses it as \u201ca pedantic\nsuccedaneum\u201d to our linguistic vocabulary.\n\nI cannot acknowledge that the propositions so carefully worked up by\nHumboldt and Steinthal have been refuted by M. Adam; I must say, indeed,\nthat the jejune significance he attaches to the incorporative process\nseems to show that he did not grasp it as a structural motive in\nlanguage, and a wide-reaching psychologic process.\n\nProfessor Friedrich M\u00fcller, whose studies of American languages are\namong the most extended and profitable of the present time, has not\ngiven to this peculiar feature the attention we might reasonably expect.\nIndeed, there appears in the standard treatise on the science of\nlanguage which he has published, almost the same vagueness as to the\nnature of incorporation which I have pointed out in the writings of M.\nAdam. Thus, on one page he defines incorporating languages as those\nwhich \u201cdo away with the distinction between the word and the sentence;\u201d\nwhile on another he explains incorporation as \u201cthe including of the\nobject within the body of the verb.\u201d[293] He calls it \u201ca peculiarity of\nmost American languages, but not of all.\u201d That the structural process of\nincorporation is by no means exhausted by the reception of the object\nwithin the body of the verb, even that this is not requisite to\nincorporation, I shall endeavor to show.\n\nFinally, I may close this brief review of the history of these doctrines\nwith a reference to the fact that neither of them appears anywhere\nmentioned in the official \u201cIntroduction to the Study of Indian\nLanguages,\u201d issued by the United States Bureau of Ethnology! How the\nauthor of that work, Major J. W. Powell, Director of the Bureau, could\nhave written a treatise on the study of American languages, and have not\na word to say about these doctrines, the most salient and characteristic\nfeatures of the group, is to me as inexplicable as it is extraordinary.\nHe certainly could not have supposed that Duponceau\u2019s theory was\ncompletely dead and laid to rest, for Steinthal, the most eminent\nphilosophic linguist of the age, still teaches in Berlin, and teaches\nwhat I have already quoted from him about these traits. What is more,\nMajor Powell does not even refer to this structural plan, nor include it\nin what he terms the \u201cgrammatic processes\u201d which he explains.[294] This\nis indeed the play of \u201cHamlet\u201d with the part of Hamlet omitted!\n\nI believe that for the scientific study of language, and especially of\nAmerican languages, it will be profitable to restore and clearly to\ndifferentiate the distinction between polysynthesis and incorporation,\ndimly perceived by Duponceau and expressed by him in the words already\nquoted. With these may be retained the neologism of Lieber,\n_holophrasis_, and the three defined as follows:\n\n_Polysynthesis_ is a method of word-building, applicable either to\nnominals or verbals, which not only employs juxtaposition with\naph\u00e6resis, syncope, apocope, etc., but also words, forms of words and\nsignificant phonetic elements which have no separate existence apart\nfrom such compounds. This latter peculiarity marks it off altogether\nfrom the processes of agglutination and collocation.\n\n_Incorporation_, _Einverleibung_, is a structural process confined to\nverbals, by which the nominal or pronominal elements of the proposition\nare subordinated to the verbal elements, either in form or position; in\nthe former case having no independent existence in the language in the\nform required by the verb, and in the latter case being included within\nthe specific verbal signs of tense and mood. In a fully incorporative\nlanguage the verbal exhausts the syntax of the grammar, all other parts\nof speech remaining in isolation and without structural connection.\n\n_Holophrasis_ does not refer to structural peculiarities of language,\nbut to the psychologic impulse which lies at the root of polysynthesis\nand incorporation. It is the same in both instances\u2014the effort to\nexpress the whole proposition in one word. This in turn is instigated by\nthe stronger stimulus which the imagination receives from an idea\nconveyed in one word rather than in many.\n\nA few illustrations will aid in impressing these definitions on the\nmind.\n\nAs _polysynthetic_ elements, we have the inseparable possessive pronouns\nwhich in many languages are attached to the names of the parts of the\nhuman body and to the words for near relatives; also the so-called\n\u201cgeneric formatives,\u201d particles which are prefixed, suffixed, or\ninserted to indicate to what class or material objects belong; also the\n\u201cnumeral terminations\u201d affixed to the ordinal numbers to indicate the\nnature of the objects counted; the negative, diminutive and\namplificative particles which convey certain conceptions of a general\ncharacter, and so on. These are constantly used in word-building, but\nare generally not words themselves, having no independent status in the\nlanguage. They may be single letters, or even merely vowel-changes and\nconsonantal substitutions; but they have well-defined significance.\n\nIn _incorporation_ the object may be united to the verbal theme either\nas a prefix, suffix or infix; or, as in Nahuatl, etc., a pronominal\nrepresentative of it may be thus attached to the verb, while the object\nitself is placed in isolated apposition.\n\nThe subject is usually a pronoun inseparably connected, or at least\nincluded within the tense-sign; to this the nominal subject stands in\napposition. Both subjective and objective pronouns are apt to have a\ndifferent form from either the independent personals or possessives, and\nthis difference of form may be accepted as _a priori_ evidence of the\nincorporative plan of structure\u2014though there are other possible origins\nfor it. The tense and mode signs are generally separable, and,\nespecially in the compound tense, are seen to apply not only to the verb\nitself, but to the whole scope of its action, the tense sign for\ninstance preceding the subject.\n\nSome further observations will set these peculiarities in a yet clearer\nlight.\n\nAlthough in polysynthesis we speak of prefixes, suffixes, and\njuxtaposition, we are not to understand these terms as the same as in\nconnection with the Aryan or with the agglutinative languages. In\npolysynthetic tongues they are not intended to form words, but\nsentences; not to express an idea, but a proposition. This is a\nfundamental logical distinction between the two classes of languages.\n\nWith certain prefixes, as those indicating possession, the form of the\nword itself alters, as in Mexican, _amatl_, book, _no_, mine, but\n_namauh_, my book. In a similar manner suffixes or postpositions affect\nthe form of the words to which they are added.\n\nAs the holophrastic method makes no provision for the syntax of the\nsentence outside of the expression of action (_i. e._, the verbal and\nwhat it embraces), nouns and adjectives are not declined. The \u201ccases\u201d\nwhich appear in many grammars of American languages are usually\nindications of space or direction, or of possession, and not\ncase-endings in the sense of Aryan grammar.\n\nA further consequence of the same method is the absence of true relative\npronouns, of copulative conjunctions, and generally of the machinery of\ndependent clauses. The devices to introduce subordinate propositions I\nhave referred to in a previous essay (above, p. 346).\n\nAs the effort to speak in sentences rather than in words entails\nconstant variation in these word-sentences, there arise both an enormous\nincrease in verbal forms and a multiplication of expressions for ideas\nclosely allied. This is the cause of the apparently endless conjugations\nof many such tongues, and also of the exuberance of their vocabularies\nin words of closely similar signification. It is an ancient error\u2014which,\nhowever, I find repeated in the official \u201cIntroduction to the Study of\nIndian Languages,\u201d issued by our Bureau of Ethnology\u2014that the primitive\ncondition of languages is one \u201cwhere few ideas are expressed by few\nwords.\u201d On the contrary, languages structurally at the bottom of the\nscale have an enormous and useless excess of words. The savage tribes of\nthe plains will call a color by three or four different words as it\nappears on different objects. The Eskimo has about twenty words for\nfishing, depending on the nature of the fish pursued. All this arises\nfrom the \u201cholophrastic\u201d plan of thought.\n\nIt will be seen from these explanations that the definition of\nIncorporation as given by M. Lucien Adam (quoted above) is erroneous,\nand that of Professor M\u00fcller is inadequate. The former reduces it to a\nmere matter of position or placement; the latter either does not\ndistinguish it from polysynthesis, or limits it to only one of its\nseveral expressions.\n\nIn fact, Incorporation may take place with any one of the six possible\nmodifications of the grammatical formula, \u201csubject + verb + object.\u201d It\nis quite indifferent to its theory which of these comes first, which\nlast; although the most usual formula is either,\n\n                      subject + object + verb, or,\n                      object + subject + verb;\n\nthe verb being understood to be the verbal theme only\u2014not its tense and\nmode signs. Where either of the above arrangements occurs, we may\nconsider it to be an indication of the incorporative tendency; but as\nmere position is insufficient evidence, incorporation may be present in\nother arrangements of the elements of the proposition.\n\nAs a fair example of polysynthesis in nouns, we may select the word for\n\u201ccross\u201d in the Cree. The Indians render it by \u201cpraying-stick\u201d or \u201choly\nwood,\u201d and their word for \u201cour praying-sticks\u201d (crosses) is:\n\n                      _N't'ayamihew\u00e2ttikumin\u00e2nak_.\n\nThis is analyzed as follows:\n\n_n't'_, possessive pronoun, \u00bd person plural.\n\n_ayami_, something relating to religion.\n\n_he_, indicative termination of the foregoing.\n\n_w_, a connective.\n\n_\u00e2ttik_, suffix indicating wooden or of wood.\n\n_u_, a connective.\n\n_m_, sign of possession.\n\n_i_, a connective.\n\n_n\u00e2n_, termination of \u2153 person plural.\n\n_ak_, termination of animate plural (the cross is spoken of as animate\nby a figure of speech).\n\nNot a single one of the above elements can be employed as an independent\nword. They are all only the raw material to weave into and make up\nwords.\n\nAs a characteristic specimen of incorporation we may select this Nahuatl\nword-sentence:\n\n                  _onictemacac_,\n\n                  I have given something to somebody:\n\nwhich is analyzed as follows:\n\n           _o_, augment of the preterit, a tense sign.\n           _ni_, pronoun, subject, 1st person.\n           _c_, \u201csemi-pronoun,\u201d object, 3d person.\n           _te_, \u201cinanimate semi-pronoun,\u201d object, 3d person.\n           _maca_, theme of the verb, \u201cto give.\u201d\n           _c_, suffix of the preterit, a tense sign.\n\nHere it will be observed that between the tense-signs, which are\nlogically the essential limitations of the action, are included both the\nagent and the near and remote objects of the action.\n\nIn the modifications of meaning they undergo, American verbal themes may\nbe divided into two great classes, either as they express these\nmodifications (1) by suffixes to an unchanging radical, or (2) by\ninternal changes of their radical.\n\nThe last mentioned are most characteristic of synthetic tongues. In all\npure dialects of the Algonkin the vowel of the verbal root undergoes a\npeculiar change called \u201cflattening\u201d when the proposition passes from the\n\u201cpositive\u201d to the \u201csuppositive\u201d mood.[295] The same principle is\nstrikingly illustrated in the Choctaw language, as the following example\nwill show:[296]\n\n   _takchi_, to tie (active, definite).\n   _takchi_, to be tying (active, distinctive).\n   _tak'chi_, to _tie_ (active, emphatic).\n   _taiakchi_, to tie tightly (active, intensive).\n   _tahakchi_, to keep tying (active, frequentative).\n   _tahkchi_, to tie at once (active, immediate).\n   _tullakchi_, to be tied (passive, definite).\n   _tallakchi_, to be the one tied (passive, distinctive), etc., etc.\n\nThis example is, however, left far behind by the Qquichua of Peru, which\nby a series of so-called \u201cverbal particles\u201d affixed to the verbal theme\nconfers an almost endless variety of modification on its verbs. Thus\nAnchorena in his Grammar gives the form and shades of meaning of 675\nmodifications of the verb _munay_, to love.[297]\n\nThese verbal particles are not other words, as adverbs, etc., qualifying\nthe meaning of the verb and merely added to it, but have no independent\nexistence in the language. Von Tschudi, whose admirable analysis of this\ninteresting tongue cannot be too highly praised, explains them as\n\u201cverbal roots which never reached independent development, or fragments\nhanded down from some earlier epoch of the evolution of the\nlanguage.\u201d[298] They are therefore true synthetic elements in the sense\nof Duponceau\u2019s definition, and not at all examples of collocation or\njuxtaposition.\n\nWhile the genius of American languages is such that they permit and many\nof them favor the formation of long compounds which express the whole of\na sentence in one word, this is by no means necessary. Most of the\nexamples of words of ten, twenty or more syllables are not genuine\nnative words, but novelties manufactured by the missionaries. In\nordinary intercourse such compounds are not in use, and the speech is\ncomparatively simple.\n\nOf two of the most synthetic languages, the Algonkin and the Nahuatl, we\nhave express testimony from experts that they can be employed in simple\nor compound forms, as the speaker prefers. The Abb\u00e9 Lacombe observes\nthat in Cree \u201csometimes one can employ very long words to express a\nwhole phrase, although the same ideas can be easily rendered by\nperiphrasis.\u201d[299] In the syllabus of the lectures on the Nahuatl by\nProf. Agustin de la Rosa, of the University of Guadalaxara, I note that\nhe explains when the Nahuatl is to be employed in a synthetic, and when\nin an analytic form.[300]\n\nI shall now proceed to examine those American tongues which have been\nauthoritatively declared to be exceptions to the general rules of\nAmerican grammar, as being devoid of the incorporative and polysynthetic\ncharacter.\n\n\n                            THE OTHOMI.[301]\n\nAs I have said, the Othomi was the stumbling block of Mr. Duponceau, and\nled him to abandon his theory of polysynthesis as a characteristic of\nAmerican tongues. Although in his earlier writings he expressly names it\nas one of the illustrations supporting his theory, later in life the\ninformation he derived from Se\u00f1or Emmanuel Naxera led him to regard it\nas an isolating and monosyllabic language, quite on a par with the\nChinese. He expressed this change of view in the frankest manner, and\nsince that time writers have spoken of the Othomi as a marked exception\nin structure to the general rules of synthesis in American tongues. This\ncontinues to be the case even in the latest writings, as, for instance,\nin the recently published _Anthropologie du Mexique_, of Dr. Hamy.[302]\n\nLet us examine the grounds of this opinion.\n\nThe Othomis are an ancient and extended family, who from the remotest\ntraditional epochs occupied the central valleys and mountains of Mexico\nnorth of the Aztecs and Tezcucans. Their language, called by themselves\n_nhi\u00e2n_ _hi\u00fb_, the fixed or current speech[303] (_nhi\u00e2n_, speech, _hi\u00fb_,\nstable, fixed), presents extraordinary phonetic difficulties on account\nof its nasals, gutturals and explosives.\n\nIt is one of a group of related dialects which may be arranged as\nfollows:\n\n                      { The Othomi.\n                      { The Mazahua.\n                      { The Pame and its dialects.\n                      { The Meco or Jonaz.\n\nIt was the opinion of M. Charencey, that another member of this group\nwas the Pirinda or Matlazinca; a position combatted by Se\u00f1or Pimentel,\nwho acknowledges some common property in words, but considers them\nmerely borrowed.[304]\n\nNaxera made the statement that the Mazahua is monosyllabic, an error in\nwhich his copyists have obediently followed him; but Pimentel pointedly\ncontradicts this assertion and shows that it is a mistake, both for the\nMazahua and for the Pame and its dialects.[305]\n\nWe may begin our study of the language with an examination of the\n\n                         TENSE-SIGNS IN OTHOMI.\n\n                             PRESENT TENSE.\n\n                1. I wish,                _di nee_.\n                2. Thou wishest,          _gui nee_.\n                3. He wishes,             _y nee_.\n\n\n                              PAST AORIST.\n\n                1. I wished,              _da nee_.\n                2. Thou wished,           _ga nee_.\n                3. He wished,             _bi nee_.\n\n                                PERFECT.\n\n                1. I have wished,         _xta nee_.\n                2. Thou hast wished,      _xca nee_.\n                3. He has wished,         _xpi nee_.\n\n                              PLUPERFECT.\n\n                1. I had wished,          _xta nee hma_.\n                2. Thou hadst wished,     _xca nee hma_.\n                3. He had wished,         _xpi nee hma_.\n\n                             FIRST FUTURE.\n\n                1. I shall wish,          _ga nee_.\n                2. Thou wilt wish,        _gui nee_.\n                3. He will wish,          _da nee_.\n\n                             SECOND FUTURE.\n\n                1. I shall have wished,   _gua xta nee_.\n                2. Thou wilt have wished, _gua xca nee_.\n                3. He will have wished,   _gua xpi nee_.\n\nThe pronouns here employed are neither the ordinary personals nor\npossessives (though the Othomi admits of a possessive conjugation), but\nare verbal pronouns, strictly analogous to those found in various other\nAmerican languages. The radicals are:\n\n                             I,      _d_\u2014.\n                             Thou,   _g_\u2014.\n                             He, it, _b_\u2014.\n\nIn the present, the first and second are prefixed to what is really the\nsimple concrete form of the verb, _y-nee_. In the past tenses the\npersonal signs are variously united with particles denoting past time or\nthe past, as _a_, the end, to finish, _ma_ and _hma_, yesterday, and the\nprefix _x_, which is very noteworthy as being precisely the same in\nsound and use which we find in the Cakchiquel past and future tenses. It\nis pronounced _sh_ (as in _sh_ove) and precedes the whole verbal,\nincluding subject, object, and theme; while in the pluperfect, the\nsecond sign of past time _hma_ is a suffix to the collective expression.\n\nThe future third person is given by Neve as _da_, but by Perez as _di_,\nwhich latter is apparently from the future particle _ni_ given by Neve.\nIn the second future, the distinctive particle _gua_ precedes the whole\nverbal, thus inclosing the subject with the theme in the tense-sign,\nstrictly according to the principles of the incorporative conjugation.\n\nThis incorporative character is still more marked in the objective\nconjugations, or \u201ctransitions.\u201d The object, indeed, follows the verb,\nbut is not only incorporated with it, but in the compound tense is\nincluded within the double tense signs.\n\nThus, I find in Perez\u2019s Catechism,\n\n                       _di_    _\u00fbn-ba_  _magetzi_,\n                      He will give-them  heaven.\n\nIn this sentence, _di_ is the personal pronoun combined with the future\nsign; and the verb is _\u00fbn-ni_, to give to another, which is compounded\nwith the personal _ba_, them, drops its final syllable, forming a true\nsynthesis.\n\nIn the phrase,\n\n                   _xpi_   _\u00fbn-ba_  _hma_ _magetzi_,\n                   he had give them (had)  heaven,\n\nboth subject and object, the latter inclosed in a synthesis with the\nradical of the theme, the former phonetically altered and coalesced with\na tense particle, are included in the double tense-sign, _x-hma_. This\nis as real an example of incorporation as can be found in any American\nlanguage.\n\nOrdinary synthesis of words, other than verbs, is by no means rare in\nOthomi. Simple juxtaposition, which Naxera states to be the rule, is not\nall universal. Such a statement by him leads us to suspect that he had\nonly that elementary knowledge of the tongue which Neve refers to in a\nforcible passage in his _Reglas_. He writes: \u201cA good share of the\ndifficulty of this tongue lies in its custom of syncope; and because the\ntyros who make use of it do not syncopate it, their compositions are so\nrough and lacking in harmony to the ears of the natives that the latter\ncount their talk as no better than that of horse-jockeys, as we would\nsay.\u201d[306]\n\nThe extent of this syncopation is occasionally to such a degree that\nonly a fragment of the original word is retained. As:\n\n                   The charcoal-vendor, _na m\u0101thi\u00e2_.\n\nHere _na_ is a demonstrative particle like the Aztec _in_, and _m\u0101thi\u00e2_\nis a compound _p\u00e0_, to sell, and _th\u00eah\u00f1\u00e2_, charcoal.\n\nThe expression,\n\n                     _y mahny oqha_, he loves God,\n\nis to be analyzed,\n\n                       _y_ _m\u00e2hd\u00ee_ _nuny_ _oqha_;\n                       he   loves   him    God;\n\nwhere we perceive not only synthesis, but the object standing in\napposition to the pronoun representing it which is incorporated with the\nverb.\n\nSo: _yot-gua_, light here; from _yotti_, to light, _nugua_, here.\n\nThese examples from many given in Neve\u2019s work seem to me to prove beyond\ncavil that the Othomi exhibits, when properly spoken, precisely the same\ntheories of incorporation and polysynthesis as the other American\nlanguages, although undoubtedly its more monosyllabic character and the\nextreme complexity of its phonetics do not permit of a development of\nthese peculiarities to the same degree as many.\n\nNor am I alone in this opinion. It has already been announced by the\nCount de Charencey, as the result of his comparison of this tongue with\nthe Mazahua and Pirinda. \u201cThe Othomi,\u201d he writes, \u201chas all the\nappearance of a language which was at first incorporative, and which,\nworn down by attrition and linguistic decay, has at length come to\nsimulate a language of juxtaposition.\u201d[307]\n\nSome other peculiarities of the language, though not directly bearing on\nthe question, point in the same direction. A certain class of compound\nverbs are said by Neve to have a possessive declension. Thus, of the two\nwords _puengui_, he draws, and _hi\u00e2_, breath, is formed the verb\n_buehi\u00e2_, which is conjugated by using the verb in the indefinite third\nperson and inserting the possessives _ma_, _ni_, _na_, my, thy, his;\nthus,\n\n                     _ybuemahia_, I breathe.\n                     _ybuenihia_, thou breathest.\n                     _ybuenahia_, he breathes.[308]\n\nLiterally this would be \u201cit-is-drawing, my breath,\u201d etc.\n\nIn the Mazahua dialects there is a remarkable change in the objective\nconjugations (transitions) where the whole form of the verb appears to\nalter. In this language _ti_ = I; _ki_ or _khe_ = thou.\n\n                   I give, _ti une_.\n                   I give thee, _ti dakke_.\n                   He will give us, _ti yakme_.[309]\n\nThe last example is not fully explained by my authorities; but it shows\nthe verbal change.\n\nSomething like this occurs in the Pame dialects. They reveal a manifest\nindifference to the integrity of the theme, characteristic of\npolysynthetic languages. Thus, our only authority on the Pame, Father\nJuan Guadalupe Soriano, gives the preterit forms of the verb \u201cto aid:\u201d\n\n                       _Ku pait_, I aided.\n                       _Ki gait_, thou aidedest.\n                       _Ku mait_, he aided.\n\nSo, of \u201cto burn:\u201d\n\n_Knu aum_, I burned.\n\n_Kuddu du taum_, they burned.[310]\n\nA large number of such changes run through the conjugation. Pimentel\ncalls them phonetic changes, but they are certainly, in some instances,\ntrue syntheses.\n\nAll these traits of the Othomi and its related dialects serve to place\nthem unquestionably within the general plan of structure of American\nlanguages.\n\n\n                         THE BRI-BRI LANGUAGE.\n\nThe late Mr. Wm. M. Gabb, who was the first to furnish any satisfactory\ninformation about it and its allied dialects in Costa Rica, introduces\nthe Bri-Bri language, spoken in the highlands of that State, by quoting\nthe words of Alexander von Humboldt to the effect that \u201ca multiplicity\nof tenses characterizes the rudest American languages.\u201d On this, Mr.\nGabb comments: \u201cThis certainly does not apply to the Costa Rican family,\nwhich is equally remarkable for the simplicity of its inflections.\u201d[311]\n\nThis statement, offered with such confidence, has been accepted and\npassed on without close examination by several unusually careful\nlinguists. Thus Professor Friedrich M\u00fcller, in his brief description of\nthe Bri-Bri (taken exclusively from Gabb\u2019s work), inserts the\nobservation\u2014\u201cThe simple structure of this idiom is sufficient to\ncontradict the theories generally received about American\nlanguages.\u201d[312] And M. Lucien Adam has lately instanced its verbs as\nnotable examples of inflectional simplicity.[313] The study of this\ngroup of tongues becomes, therefore, of peculiar importance to my\npresent topic.\n\nSince Mr. Gabb published his memoir, some independent material,\ngrammatical as well as lexicographical, has been furnished by the Rt.\nRev. B. A. Thiel, Bishop of Costa Rica,[314] and I have obtained, in\naddition, several MS. vocabularies and notes on the language prepared by\nProf. P. J. J. Valentini and others.\n\nThe stock is divided into three groups of related dialects, as follows:\u2014\n\nI. The Brunka, Bronka or Boruca, now in southwestern Costa Rica, but\nbelieved by Gabb to have been the earliest of the stock to occupy the\nsoil, and to have been crowded out by later arrivals.\n\nII. The Tiribi and Terraba, principally on the head-waters of the Rio\nTelorio and south of the mountains.\n\nIII. The Bri-Bri and Cabecar on the head-waters of the Rio Tiliri. The\nBiceitas (Vizeitas) or Cachis, near the mouth of the same stream, are\noff-shoots of the Bri-Bris; so also are the small tribes at Orosi and\nTucurrique, who were removed to those localities by the Spaniards.\n\nThe Bri-Bri and Cabecar, although dialects of the same original speech,\nare not sufficiently alike to be mutually intelligible. The Cabecars\noccupied the land before the Bri-Bris, but were conquered and are now\nsubject to them. It is probable that their dialect is more archaic.\n\nThe Bri-Bri is a language of extreme poverty, and as spoken at present\nis plainly corrupt. Gabb estimates the whole number of words it contains\nas probably not exceeding fifteen hundred. Some of these, though Gabb\nthinks not very many, are borrowed from the Spanish; but it is\nsignificant, that among them is the pronoun \u201cthat,\u201d the Spanish _ese_.\n\nLet us now examine the Bri-Bri verb, said to be so singularly simple. We\nare at once struck by Mr. Gabb\u2019s remark (just after he has been speaking\nof their unparalleled simplicity) that the inflections he gives \u201chave\nbeen verified with as much care as the difficulties of the case would\nadmit.\u201d Evidently, then, there were difficulties. What they are, becomes\napparent when we attempt to analyze the forms of the eighteen brief\nparadigms which he gives.\n\nThe personal pronouns are\n\n                     _je_, I.       _sa_, we.\n                     _be_, thou.    _ha_, you.\n                     _ye_, he, etc. _ye-pa_, they.\n\nThese are both nominative and objective, personal and, with the suffix\n_cha_, possessives.\n\nThe tenses are usually, not always, indicated by suffixes to the theme;\nbut these vary, and no rule is given for them, nor is it stated whether\nthe same theme can be used with them all. Thus,\n\n             To burn, _\u012d-norka_,  present, _i-nyor-ket-ke_.\n             To cook, _i-lu\u2019_.       \u201c     _\u012d-luk_.\n             To start, _i-be-te_.    \u201c     _i-be-te_.\n\nHere are three forms for the present, not explained. Are they three\nconjugations, or do they express three shades of meaning, like the three\nEnglish presents? I suspect the latter, for under _ikiana_, to want,\nGabb remarks that the form in _-etke_, means \u201che _wants_ you,\u201d _i. e._,\nis emphatic.\n\nThe past aorist has two terminations, one in _-na_, and one in _-e_,\nabout the uses and meanings of which we are left equally in the dark.\n\nThe future is utterly inexplicable. Even Prof. M\u00fcller, just after his\nnote calling attention to the \u201cgreat simplicity\u201d of the tongue, is\nobliged to give up this tense with the observation, \u201cthe structural laws\nregulating the formation of the future are still in obscurity!\u201d Was it\nnot somewhat premature to dwell on the simplicity of a tongue whose\nsimplest tenses he acknowledges himself unable to analyze?\n\nThe futures of some verbs will reveal the difficulties of this tense:\u2014\n\n            To burn, _i-nyor-ka_; future, _i-nyor-wane-ka_.\n            To cook, _i-lu\u2019_;        \u201d    _i-lu\u2019_.\n            To start, _i-bete_;      \u201d    _i-bete_.\n            To want, _i-ki-ana_;     \u201d    _i-kie_.\n            To count, _ishtaung_;    \u201d    _mia shta\u2019we_.\n\nIn the last example _mia_ is the future of the verb _imia_, to go, and\nis used as an auxiliary.\n\nThe explanation I have to suggest for these varying forms is, either\nthat they represent in fact that very \u201cmultiplicity of tense-formations\u201d\nwhich Humboldt alluded to, and which were too subtle to be apprehended\nby Mr. Gabb within the time he devoted to the study of the language; or\nthat they are in modern Bri-Bri, which I have shown is noticeably\ncorrupted, survivals of these formations, but are now largely\ndisregarded by the natives themselves.\n\nSigns of the incorporative plan are not wanting in the tongue. Thus in\nthe objective conjugation not only is the object placed between subject\nand verb, but the latter may undergo visible synthetic changes. Thus:\n\n                        _Je be sueng._\n                        I thee see.\n                        _Ke je be wai su-na._\n                        Not I thee (?) see-did.\n\nIn the latter sentence _na_ is the sign of the past aorist, and the verb\nin synthesis with it drops its last syllable. The _wai_ Gabb could not\nexplain. It will be noticed that the negative precedes the whole verbal\nform, thus indicating that it is treated as a collective idea\n(holophrastically).\n\nPrepositions always appear as suffixes to nouns, which, in composition,\nmay suffer elision. This is strictly similar to the Nahuatl and other\nsynthetic tongues.\n\nOther examples of developed synthesis are not uncommon, as\u2014\n\n          away, _imibak_, from _imia_ to go, _jebak_, already.\n          very hot, _palina_, from _ba_ + _ilinia_.\n\nThe opinion that the Bri-Bri is at present a considerably corrupted and\nworn-down dialect of a group of originally highly synthetic tongues is\nborne out by an examination of the scanty materials we have of its\nnearest relations.\n\nThus in the Terraba we find the same superfluous richness of pronominal\nforms which occurs in many South American tongues, one indicating that\nthe person is sitting, another that he is standing, a third that he is\nwalking.[315]\n\nThe Brunka has several distinct forms in the present tense:\n\n           I eat, _cha adeh_, and _atqui chan_ (_atqui_ = I).\n\nAlthough Bishop Thiel supplies a number of verbal forms from this\ndialect, the plan of their construction is not obvious. This is seen\nfrom a comparison of the present and perfect tenses in various words.\nThe pronouns are\u2014\n\n                             \u2153 {_atqui_, I.\n                               (_ique_, he.\n\nFor instance:\n\n                        BRUNKA VERBAL FORMS.\n\n                  To kill (radical, _ai_).\n              Present, I kill, _cha atqui i a\u00edra_.\n              Perfect, he has killed, _iang i a\u00edc_.\n\n                  To die (radical, _cojt_).\n              Present, I die, _c\u00f3jo drah_.\n              Perfect, he has died, _cojt crah_.\n\n                  To hear (radical, _d\u00f3j_).\n              Present, I hear, _aari d\u00f3j ograh_.\n              Perfect, I have heard, _aqui d\u00f3j crah_.\n\n                  To forget.\n              Present, I forget, _asqui chita uringera_.\n              Perfect, I have forgotten, _ochita uringea_.\n\nThese examples are sufficient to show that the Brunka conjugations are\nneither regular nor simple, and such is the emphatic statement of Bishop\nThiel, both of it and all these allied dialects. In his introduction he\nstates that he is not yet ready to offer a grammar of these tongues,\nthough well supplied with lexicographical materials, and that \u201c_their\nverbs are especially difficult_.\u201d[316]\n\nThe Cabecar dialect, in which he gives several native funeral poems,\nwithout translations, is apparently more complicated than the Bri-Bri.\nThe words of the songs are long and seem much syncopated.\n\n\n                       THE TUPI-GUARANI DIALECTS.\n\nSeveral writers of the highest position have asserted that these\ndialects, spoken over so large a portion of the territory of Brazil, are\nneither polysynthetic nor incorporative. Thus the late Prof. Charles F.\nHartt in his \u201cNotes on the Lingoa Geral or Modern Tupi,\u201d expressed\nhimself: \u201cUnlike the North American Indian tongues, the languages of the\nTupi-Guarani family are not polysynthetic in structure.\u201d[317] With\nscarcely less positiveness Professor Fredrich M\u00fcller writes: \u201cThe\nobjective conjugation of the Tupi-Guarani does not show the\nincorporation usually seen in American languages, but rather a mere\ncollocation.\u201d[318]\n\nIt is, I acknowledge, somewhat hazardous to venture an opinion contrary\nto such excellent authorities. But I must say, that while, no doubt, the\nTupi in its structure differs widely from the Algonkin or Nahuatl, it\nyet seems to present unmistakable signs of an incorporative and\npolysynthetic character, such as would be difficult to parallel outside\nof America.\n\nI am encouraged to maintain this by the recent example of the erudite\nDr. Amaro Cavalcanti, himself well and practically versed in the spoken\nTupi of to-day, who has issued a learned treatise to prove that \u201cthe\nBrazilian dialects present undoubtedly all the supposed characteristics\nof an agglutinative language, and belong to the same group as the\nnumerous other dialects or tongues of America.\u201d[319] Dr. Cavalcanti does\nnot, indeed, distinguish so clearly between agglutinative and\nincorporative languages as I should wish, but the trend of his work is\naltogether parallel to the arguments I am about to advance.\n\nFortunately, we do not suffer from a lack of materials to study the\nTupi, ancient and modern. There are plenty of dictionaries, grammars and\ntexts in it, and even an \u201cOllendorff\u2019s Method,\u201d for those who prefer\nthat intellectual (!) system.[320]\n\nAll recent writers agree that the modern Tupi has been materially\nchanged by long contact with the whites. The traders and missionaries\nhave exerted a disintegrating effect on its ancient forms, to some of\nwhich I shall have occasion to refer.\n\n_O Selvagem i Curso da Lingua Geral._ By Dr. Couto de Magalhaes (Rio de\nJaneiro, 1876).\n\nTurning our attention first to its synthetic character, one cannot but\nbe surprised after reading Prof. Hartt\u2019s opinion above quoted to find\nhim a few pages later introducing us to the following example of\n\u201cword-building of a more than usually polysynthetic character.\u201d[321]\n\n               _ak\u00e1yu_, head; _ay\u00fa_, bad.\n\n               _akayay\u00fa_, crazy.\n\n               _muakayayu_, to seduce (make crazy).\n\n               _xayumuakayay\u00fa_, I make myself crazy, etc.\n\nSuch examples, however, are not rare, as may be seen by turning over the\nleaves of Montoya\u2019s _Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani_. The most noticeable\nand most _American_ peculiarity of such compounds is that they are not\ncollocations of words, as are the agglutinative compounds of the\nUral-Altaic tongues, but of particles and phonetic elements which have\nno separate life in the language.\n\nFather Montoya calls special attention to this in the first words of his\n_Advertencia_ to his _Tesoro_. He says:\u2014\u201cThe foundation of this language\nconsists of particles which frequently have no meaning if taken alone;\nbut when compounded with the whole or parts of others (for they cut them\nup a great deal in composition) they form significant expressions; for\nthis reason there are no independent verbs in the language, as they are\nbuilt up of these particles with nouns or pronouns. Thus, _\u00f1embo\u00e9_ is\ncomposed of the three particles _\u00f1e_, _mo_, _e_. The _\u00f1e_ is reciprocal;\n_mo_ an active particle; _e_ indicates skill; and the whole means \u2018to\nexercise oneself,\u2019 which we translate, \u2018to learn,\u2019 or \u2018to teach,\u2019\nindeterminately; but with the personal sign added, _anemboe_, \u2018I\nlearn.\u2019\u201d\n\nThis analysis, which Montoya carries much further, reminds us forcibly\nof the extraordinarily acute analysis of the Cree (Algonkin) by Mr.\nJames Howse.[322] Undoubtedly the two tongues have been built up from\nsignificant particles (not words) in the same manner.\n\nSome of these particles convey a peculiar turn to the whole sentence,\ndifficult to express in our tongues. Thus the element _\u00e9_ attached to\nthe last syllable of a compound gives an oppositive sense to the whole\nexpression; for example, _ajur_, \u201cI come\u201d simply; but if the question\nfollows: \u201cWho ordered you to come?\u201d the answer might be, _ajur\u00e9_, \u201cI\ncome of my own accord; nobody ordered me.\u201d[323]\n\nCavalcanti observes that many of these formative elements which existed\nin the old Tupi have now fallen out of use.[324] This is one of several\nevidences of a change in structure in the language, a loss of its more\npliable and creative powers.\n\nThis synthesis is also displayed in the Tupi, as in the Cree, by the\ninseparable union of certain nouns with pronouns. The latter are\nconstantly united with terms of consanguinity and generally with those\nof members of the body, the form of the noun undergoing material\nmodifications. Thus:\n\n      _tete_, body; _cete_, his body; _xerete_, my body.\n\n      _tuba_, father; _oguba_, his father; _xerub_, my father.\n\n      _mymbaba_, domestic animal; _gueymba_, his domestic animal.\n\n      _tera_, name; _guera_, his name.\n\nPostpositions are in a similar manner sometimes merged into the nouns or\npronouns which they limit. Thus: _tenonde_, before; _guenonde_, before\nhim.\n\nIt appears to me that the substratum, the structural theory, of such a\ntongue is decidedly polysynthetic and not agglutinative, still less\nanalytic.\n\nLet us now inquire whether there are any signs of the incorporative\nprocess in Tupi.\n\nWe are at once struck with the peculiarity that there are two special\nsets of pronouns used with verbals, one set subjective, and the other\nobjective, several of which _cannot be employed in any other\nconstruction_.[325] This is almost diagnostic of the holophrastic method\nof speech. The pronouns in such cases are evidently regarded by the\nlanguage-faculty as subordinate accessories to the verbal, and whether\nthey are phonetically merged in it or not is a secondary question.\n\nThe Tupi pronouns (confining myself to the singular number for the sake\nof brevity) are as follows:\n\n                                              Verbal affixes.\n   Independent personals. Possessives.     Subject.       Object.\n   _ixe_ or _xe_.         _se_ or _xe_. _a._            _xe._\n   _inde_ or _ne_.        _ne_ or _re_. _re_, _yepe_.   _oro._\n   _ae_ or _o_.           _ae_ or _i_.  _o._            _ae_ or _i_.\n\nThe verbal affixes are united to the theme with various phonetic\nchanges, and so intimately as to form one word. The grammars give such\nexample as:\u2014\n\n           _areco_, I hold;        _guereco_, they hold him.\n           _ahenoi_, I call;       _xerenoi_, they call me.\n           _ayaca_, I dispute him; _oroaca_, I dispute thee.\n\nIn the first person singular, the two pronominal forms _xe_ and _a_ are\nusually merged in the synthesis _xa_; as _xamehen_, I love.\n\nAnother feature pointing to the incorporative plan is the location of\nthe object. The rule in the old language was to place the object in all\ninstances _before_ the verb, that is, between the verb and its subject\nwhen the latter was other than a personal suffix. Dr. Cavalcanti says\nthat this is now in a measure changed, so that when the object is of the\nthird person it is placed after the verb, although in the first and\nsecond persons the old rule still holds good.[326] Thus the ancient\nTupis would say:\n\n                         _boia_ _a\u00e8_ _o-sou_,\n                         snake  him  he-bites.\n\nBut in the modern tongue it is:\n\n                          _boia_ _o-sou_  _a\u00e9_\n                          snake  he-bites him.\n\nWith the other persons the rule is still for the object to precede and\nto be attached to the theme:\n\n                     _xeoroinca_, I thee kill.\n                     _xepeinca_, I you kill.\n                     _xeincayepe_, me killest thou.\n\nMany highly complex verbal forms seem to me to illustrate a close\nincorporative tendency. Let us analyze for instance the word,\n\n                             _xeremimboe_,\n\nwhich means \u201chim whom I teach\u201d or \u201cthat which I teach.\u201d Its theme is the\nverbal _mboe_, which in the extract I have above made from Montoya is\nshown to be a synthesis of the three elementary particles _\u00f1e_, _mo_,\nand _e_; _xe_ is the possessive form of the personal pronoun, \u201cmy\u201d; it\nis followed by the participial expression _temi_ or _tembi_, which,\naccording to Montoya, is equivalent to \u201cillud quod facio;\u201d its terminal\nvowel is syncopated with the relative _y_ or _i_, \u201chim, it\u201d; so the\nseparate parts of the expression are:\u2014\n\n               _xe_ + _tembi_ + _y_ + _\u00f1e_ + _mo_ + _e_.\n\nI shall not pursue the examination of the Tupi further. It were, of\ncourse, easy to multiply examples. But I am willing to leave the case as\nit stands, and to ask linguists whether, in view of the above, it was\nnot a premature judgment that pronounced it a tongue neither\npolysynthetic nor incorporative.\n\n\n                              THE MUTSUN.\n\nThis is also one of the languages which has been announced as \u201cneither\npolysynthetic nor incorporative,\u201d and the construction of its verb as\n\u201csimple to the last degree.\u201d[327]\n\nWe know the tongue only through the Grammar and Phrase-Book of Father de\nla Cuesta, who acknowledges himself to be very imperfectly acquainted\nwith it.[328] With its associated dialects, it was spoken near the site\nof the present city of San Francisco, California.\n\nLooking first at the verb, its \u201cextreme simplicity\u201d is not so apparent\nas the statements about it would lead us to expect.\n\nIn the first place, the naked verbal theme undergoes a variety of\nchanges by insertion and suffixes, like those of the Quiche and\nQquichua, which modify its meaning. Thus:\n\n               _Ara_,   to give.\n               _Arsa_,  to give to many, or to give much.\n               _Arapu_, to give to oneself.\n               _Arasi_, to order to give, etc., etc.\n\nAgain:\n\n                     _Oio_,  to catch.\n                     _Oi\u00f1i_, to come to catch.\n                     _Oimu_, to catch another, etc.\n\nThe author enumerates thirty-one forms thus derived from each verb, some\nconjugated like it, some irregularly. With regard to tenses, he gives\neight preterits and four futures; and it cannot be said that they are\nformed simply by adding adverbs of time, as the theme itself takes a\ndifferent form in several of them, _aran_, _aras_, _aragts_, etc. In the\nreflexive conjugation the pronoun follows the verb and is united with\nit: As,\n\n                       _aragneca_, I give myself,\n\nwhere _ca_ is a suffixed form of _can_, I; _ne_ represents _nenissia_,\noneself; the _g_ is apparently a connective; and the theme is _ara_.\nThis is quite in the order of the polysynthetic theory and is also\nincorporative.\n\nSuch syntheses are prominent in imperative forms. Thus from the\nabove-mentioned verb, _oio_, to catch, we have,\n\n                   _oiomityuts_, Gather thou for me,\n\nin which _mit_ is apparently the second person _men_, with a\npostposition _tsa_, _mintsa_; while _yuts_ is a verbal fragment from\n_yuyuts_, which the author explains to mean \u201cto set about,\u201d or \u201cto get\ndone.\u201d This imperative, therefore, is a verbal noun in synthesis with an\ninterjection, \u201cget done with thy gathering.\u201d It is a marked case of\npolysynthesis. A number of such are found in the Mutsun phrases given,\nas:\n\n               _Rugemitithsyuts cannis_, Give me arrows.\n\nIn this compound _cannis_, is for _can_ + _huas_, me + for; _yuts_ is\nthe imperative interjection for _yuyuts_; the remainder of the word is\nnot clear. The phrase is given elsewhere\n\n                  _Rugemitit_, Give (thou) me arrows.\n\nWithout going further into this language, of which we know so little, it\nwill be evident that it is very far from simple, and that it is\ncertainly highly synthetic in various features.\n\n\n                              CONCLUSIONS.\n\nThe conclusions to which the above study leads may be briefly summarized\nas follows:\n\n1. The structural processes of incorporation and polysynthesis are much\nmore influential elements in the morphology of language than has been\nconceded by some recent writers.\n\n2. They are clearly apparent in a number of American languages where\ntheir presence has been heretofore denied.\n\n3. Although so long as we are without the means of examining all\nAmerican tongues, it will be premature to assert that these processes\nprevail in all, nevertheless it is safe to say that their absence has\nnot been demonstrated in any of which we have sufficient and authentic\nmaterial on which to base a decision.\n\n4. The opinion of Duponceau and Humboldt, therefore, that these\nprocesses belong to the ground-plan of American languages, and are their\nleading characteristics, must still be regarded as a correct\ngeneralization.\n\n\n                               [ADDENDUM.\n\n               _Critique by M. Lucien Adam on the above._\n\n  Shortly after the above essay appeared in the _Proceedings_ of the\n  American Philosophical Society, its arguments and conclusions were\n  vigorously attacked by M. Lucien Adam in the _Revue de Linguistique\n  et de Philologie Compar\u00e9e_, Tome XIX (Paris, 1886). He begins by\n  pointing out that examples of incorporation may be found in tongues\n  of the Old World\u2014which has never been denied (see above, pp. 353\u20134).\n  Having acknowledged the incompleteness of his own definitions, he\n  intimates that those I give are calculated rather to sustain my\n  theory than to prove a linguistic trait. He then proceeds to lengthy\n  and minute criticisms of the analyses I have made of the examples\n  given under the several languages discussed. I am quite willing to\n  concede that with the imperfect grammars and lexicons of these\n  tongues so far published, I may have tripped at times in such\n  analyses; but I am far from acknowledging that all those of M. Adam\n  are correct, and I am quite certain that in some he is mistaken. The\n  question, however, is one not possible to discuss in this place, and\n  I must leave it; but I would refer the earnest student to the acute\n  and learned article of M. Adam, which is much the most thorough yet\n  written on the negative side of the debate.]\n\n\n\n\nTHE EARLIEST FORM OF HUMAN SPEECH, AS REVEALED BY AMERICAN TONGUES.[329]\n\n\nArch\u00e6ologists tell us that the manufacturers of those rude stone\nimplements called pal\u00e6oliths wandered up and down the world while a\nperiod of something like two hundred thousand years was unrolling its\neventless centuries. Many believe that these early artisans had not the\npower of articulate expression to convey their emotions or ideas; if\nsuch they had, they were confined to inarticulate grunts and cries.\n\nHaeckel proposed for the species at this period of its existence the\ndesignation _Homo alalus_, speechless man. Anatomists have come forward\nto show that the inferior maxillary bones disinterred in the caves of La\nNaulette and Schipka are so formed that their original possessors could\nnot have had the power of articulation.[330] But the latest\ninvestigators of this point have reached an opposite conclusion.[331] We\nmust, however, concede that the oral communication of men during that\nlong epoch was of a very rudimentary character; it is contrary to every\ntheory of intellectual evolution to suppose that they possessed a speech\napproaching anything near even the lowest organized of the linguistic\nstocks now in existence. By an attentive consideration of some of these\nlowest stocks, can we not form a somewhat correct conception of what was\nthe character of the rudimentary utterances of the race? I think we can,\nbut, as I believe I am the first to attempt such a picture, I offer it\nwith becoming diffidence.\n\nThe physiological possibility that pal\u00e6olithic man possessed a language\nhas, as I have said, been already vindicated; and that he was\nintellectually capable of speech could, I think, scarcely be denied by\nany one who will contemplate the conceptions of symmetry, the technical\nskill, and the wise adaptation to use, manifested in some of the oldest\nspecimens of his art; as for example the axes disinterred from the\nancient strata of San Isidro, near Madrid, those found forty feet deep\nin the post-glacial gravels near Trenton, New Jersey, or some of those\nfigured by De Mortillet as derived from the beds of the Somme in\nFrance.[332] We have evidence that at that period man made use of fire;\nthat he raised shelters to protect himself from the weather; that he\npossessed some means of navigating the streams; that he could\noccasionally overcome powerful and ferocious beasts; that he already\npaid some attention to ornamenting his person; that he lived in\ncommunities; and that his migrations were extensive.[333] In view of all\nthis, is it not highly improbable that he was destitute of any vocal\npowers of expressing his plans and desires? I maintain that we should\ndismiss the _Homo alalus_, as a scientific romance which has served its\ntime.\n\nMore than this, I believe that by a judicious study of existing\nlanguages, especially those which have suffered little by admixture or\nby distant removals, we can picture with reasonable fidelity the\ncharacter of the earliest tongues spoken by man, the speech of the\nPal\u00e6olithic Age.\n\nThis primitive utterance was, of course, not the same everywhere. It\nvaried indefinitely. But for all that it is almost certain that in all\nlocalities it proceeded on analogous lines of development, just as\nlanguages have everywhere and at all times since. By studying simple and\nisolated languages, those which have suffered least by contact with\nothers, or by alterations in conditions of culture, we can catch some\nglimpses of the character of man\u2019s earliest significant expression, the\n\u201cbaby-talk of the race,\u201d if I may use the expression. I have gleaned a\ncertain number of such traits in the field of American linguistics, and\npresent them to you as curiosities, which, like other curiosities, have\nconsiderable significance to those who will master their full purport.\n\nThe question I am about to consider, is, you will observe, quite\ndifferent from that which concerns itself with the origin of _linguistic\nstocks_. Many of these unquestionably arose long after man had acquired\nwell-developed languages, and when the cerebral convolutions whose\nactivity is manifested in articulate expression had acquired a high\ngrade of development through hereditary training. How such stocks may\nhave arisen has been lucidly set forth by my learned friend Mr. Horatio\nHale. He demonstrates by many examples that in the present cerebral\nevolution of man, infants develop an articulate language with the same\nnatural facility that any other species of animal does the vocal\nutterances peculiar to its kind.[334]\n\nBut in this essay I am contemplating man as he was before hundreds of\ngenerations of speaking ancestors had evolved such cerebral powers.\n\nI begin with some observations on the phonetic elements. These are no\nother than what we call the alphabet, the simple sounds which combined\ntogether make up the words of a language. In all European tongues, the\nmere letters of the alphabet, by themselves, have no meaning and convey\nno idea; furthermore, their value in a word is fixed; and, thirdly,\narranged in a word, they are sufficient to convey its sound and sense to\none acquainted with their values.\n\nJudged by certain American examples, all three of these seemingly\nfundamental characteristics of the phonetic elements were absent in\nprimitive speech, and have become stable only by a long process of\ngrowth. We find tongues in which the primary sounds are themselves\nsignificant, and yet at the same time are highly variable; and we find\nmany examples in which they are inadequate to convey the sense of the\narticulate sound.\n\nAs exemplifying these peculiarities I take the Tinn\u00e9 or Athapascan,\nspoken widely in British America, and of which the Apache and Navaho in\nthe United States are branches. You know that in English the vowels A,\nE, I, O, U, and the consonants, as such, F, S, K, and the others, convey\nto your mind no meaning, are not attached to any idea or train of ideas.\nThis is altogether different in the Tinn\u00e9. We are informed by Bishop\nFaraud,[335] a thorough master of that tongue, that its significant\nradicals are the five primitive vowel sounds, A, E, I, O, U. Of these A\nexpresses matter, E existence, I force or energy, O existence doubtful,\nand U existence absent, non-existence, negation or succession. These\nvowels are \u201cput in action,\u201d as he phrases it, by single or double\nconsonants, \u201cwhich have more or less value in proportion as the vowel is\nmore or less strong.\u201d These consonantal sounds, as we learn at length\nfrom the works on this language by Father Petitot, are also materially\nsignificant. They are numerous, being sixty-three in all, and are\ndivided into nine different classes, each of which conveys a series of\nrelated or associated ideas in the native mind.\n\nThus, the labials express the ideas of time and space, as age, length,\ndistance, and also whiteness, the last mentioned, perhaps, through\nassociation with the white hair of age, or the endless snowfields of\ntheir winter. The dentals express all that relates to force terminating,\nhence uselessness, inanity, privation, smallness, feebleness; and also\ngreatness, elevation, the motor power. The nasals convey the general\nnotion of motion in repetition; hence, rotation, reduplication,\ngravitation, and, by a singularly logical association, organic life. The\ngutturals indicate motion in curves; hence, sinuousness, flexibility,\nebullition, roundness, and by a linear figure different from that which\nunderlies the Latin _rectitudo_, justness, correctness. The H, either as\nan aspirate or an hiatus, introduces the ideas of command and\nsubjection, elevation and prostration, and the like.[336]\n\nYou will observe that in some of these cases the signification of a\nsound includes both a notion and its opposite, as greatness and\nsmallness. This is an interesting feature, to which I shall refer later.\n\nTurn now to another language, the Cree. Geographically it is contiguous\nto the Tinn\u00e9; but, says Bishop Faraud, who spoke them both fluently,\nthey resemble each other no more than the French does the Chinese.\nNevertheless, we discover this same peculiarity of materially\nsignificant phonetic elements. Howse, in his _Cree Grammar_, observes\nthat the guttural K and the labial W constitute the essential part of\nall intensive terms in that language, \u201cwhether the same be attributive,\nformative, or personal accident.\u201d Indeed, he maintains that the\narticulate sounds of the Cree all express relative powers, feebleness or\nforce, independent of their position with reference to other sounds.\n\nYou may inquire whether in the different groups of American tongues the\nsame or a similar signification is attached to any one sound, or to the\nsounds of any one organ. If it were so, it would give countenance to\nthose theories which maintain that there is some fixed relation between\nsound and sense in the radicals of languages. I must reply that I have\nfound very little evidence for this theory; and yet some. For example,\nthe N sound expresses the notion of the _ego_, of myself-ness, in a\ngreat many tongues, far apart geographically and linguistically. It is\nfound at the basis of the personal pronoun of the first person and of\nthe words for _man_ in numerous dialects in North and South America.\nAgain, the K sound is almost as widely associated with the ideas of\n_otherness_, and is at the base of the personal pronoun of the second\nperson singular and of the expressions for superhuman personalities, the\ndivine existence.[337] It is essentially demonstrative in its power.\n\nAgain, in a long array of tongues in various parts of the world, the\nsubjective relation is expressed by the M sound, as has been pointed out\nby Dr. Winkler; and other examples could be added. Many of these it is\nimpossible to attribute to derivation from a common source. Some writers\nmaintain that sounds have a subjective and fixed relation to ideas;\nothers call such coincidences \u201cblind chance,\u201d but these should remember\nthat chance itself means merely the action of laws not yet discovered.\n\nYou might suppose that this distinction, I mean that between _self_ and\n_other_, between _I_, _thou_ and _he_, is fundamental, that speech could\nnot proceed without it. You would be mistaken. American languages\nfurnish conclusive evidence that for unnumbered generations mankind got\nalong well enough without any such discrimination. One and the same\nmonosyllable served for all three persons and both numbers. The meaning\nof this monosyllable was undoubtedly \u201cany living human being.\u201d Only\nafter a long time did it become differentiated by the addition of\nlocative particles into the notions, \u201cI\u2014living human being,\u201d\n\u201cThou\u2014living human being,\u201d \u201cHe\u2014living human being,\u201d and so on. Even a\nlanguage spoken by so cultured a people as the ancient Peruvians bears\nunmistakable traces of this process, as has been shown by Von Tschudi in\nhis admirable analysis of that tongue; and the language of the Baures of\nBolivia still presents examples of verbs conjugated without pronouns or\npronominal affixes.[338]\n\nThe extraordinary development of the pronouns in many American\nlanguages\u2014some have as many as eighteen different forms, as the person\nis contemplated as standing, lying, in motion, at rest, alone, in\ncompany, etc., etc.\u2014this multiplicity of forms, I say, is proof to the\nscientific linguist that these tongues have but recently developed this\ngrammatical category. Wherever we find overgrowth, the soil is new and\nthe crop rank.\n\nIn spite of the significance attached to the phonetic elements, they\nare, in many American languages, singularly vague and fluctuating. If in\nEnglish we were to pronounce three words, _loll_, _nor_, _roll_,\nindifferently as one or the other, you see what violence we should do to\nthe theory of our alphabet. Yet analogous examples are constant in many\nAmerican languages. Their consonants are \u201calternating,\u201d in large groups,\ntheir vowels \u201cpermutable.\u201d M. Petitot calls this phenomenon \u201cliteral\naffinity,\u201d and shows that in the Tinn\u00e9 it takes place not only between\nconsonants of the same group, the labials for instance, but of different\ngroups, as labials with dentals, and dentals with nasals. These\ndifferences are not merely dialectic; they are found in the same\nvillage, the same family, the same person. They are not peculiar to the\nTinn\u00e9; they recur in the Klamath. Dr. Behrendt was puzzled with them in\nthe Chapanec. \u201cNo other language,\u201d he writes, \u201chas left me in such doubt\nas this one. The same person pronounces the same word differently; and\nwhen his attention is called to it, will insist that it is the same.\nThus, for devil he will give _Tixambi_ and _Sisaimbui_; for hell,\n_Nakupaju_ and _Nakapoti_.\u201d[339] Speaking of the Guarani, Father Montoya\nsays: \u201cThere is in this language a constant changing of the letters, for\nwhich no sufficient rules can be given.\u201d[340] And Dr. Darapsky in his\nrecently published study of the Araucanian of Chile gives the following\nequation of permutable letters in that tongue:\n\n                     _B=W=F=U=\u00da=I=E=G=GH=HU._[341]\n\nThe laws of the conversion of sounds of the one organ into those of\nanother have not yet been discovered; but the above examples, which are\nby no means isolated ones, serve to admonish us that the phonetic\nelements of primitive speech probably had no fixedness.\n\nThere is another oddity about some of these consonantal sounds which I\nmay notice in passing. Some of them are not true elementary sounds; they\ncannot stand alone, but must always have another consonant associated\nwith them. Thus, the labial _B_ is common in Guarani; but it must always\nbe preceded by an _M_. In Nahuatl the liquid _L_ is frequent; but it is\nthe initial of no word in that language. The Nahuas apparently could not\npronounce it, unless some other articulate sound preceded it.\n\nAlbornoz, in his _Grammar of the Chapanec Tongue_,[342] states that the\nnatives cannot pronounce an initial _B_, _G_, _Y_, or _D_, without\nuttering an _N_ sound before it.\n\nThe third point in the phonology of these tongues to which I alluded is\nthe frequency with which the phonetic elements, as graphically\nexpressed, are inadequate to convey the idea. I may quote a remark by\nHowse in his _Cree Grammar_, which is true probably of all primitive\nspeech, \u201cEmphasis, accent and modifications of vocal expression; which\nare inadequately expressed in writing, seem to constitute an essential,\nperhaps the vital part of Indian language.\u201d In such modifications I\ninclude tone, accent, stress, vocal inflection, quantity and pause.\nThese are with much difficulty or not at all includable in a graphic\nmethod, and yet are frequently significant. Take the pause or hiatus. I\nhave already mentioned that in Tinn\u00e9 it correlates a whole series of\nideas. M. Belcourt, in his Grammar of the Sauteux, an Algonkin dialect,\nstates that the pause may completely change the meaning of a word and\nplace it in another class; it is also essential in that language in the\nformation of the tenses.[343] This is the case in the Guarani of South\nAmerica. Montoya illustrates it by the example: _Peru o\u2019u_, Peter ate\nit; but _Peru ou_, Peter came; quite another thing, you will\nobserve.[344]\n\nThe stress laid on a vowel-sound often alters its meaning. In the\nSauteux, Belcourt points out that this constitutes the only distinction\nbetween the first and second persons in participles. In the Nahuatl this\nalone distinguishes many plural forms from their singulars; and many\nsimilar examples could be cited.\n\nWith difficulties of this nature to encounter, a person accustomed to\nthe definite phonology of European tongues is naturally at a loss. The\nSpanish scholar Uricoechea expresses this in relating his efforts to\nlearn the Chibcha of New Granada, a tongue also characterized by these\nfluctuating phonetics. He visited the region where it is still spoken\nwith a grammar and phrase-book in his hand, and found to his\ndisappointment that they could not understand one word he said. He then\nemployed a native who spoke Spanish, and with him practiced some phrases\nuntil he believed he had them perfect. Another disappointment\u2014not one of\nthem was understood. He returned to his teacher and again repeated them;\nbut what was his dismay when not even his teacher recognized a single\nword! After that Uricoechea gave up the attempt.[345]\n\nLeaving now the domain of phonology and turning to that of lexicography,\nI will point out to you a very curious phenomenon in primitive speech. I\nhave already alluded to it in quoting M. Petitot\u2019s remark that in Tinn\u00e9\na sound often means both a notion and its opposite; that, for instance,\nthe same word may express good and bad, and another both high and low.\nTo use M. Petitot\u2019s own words, \u201ca certain number of consonants have the\npower of expressing a given order of ideas or things, and also the\ncontradictory of this order.\u201d In Tinn\u00e9, a great many words for opposite\nideas are the same or nearly the same, derived from the same significant\nelements. Thus, _son_ good, _sona_ bad; _tezo_, sweet, _tezon_ bitter;\n_ya_ immense, _ya_ very small; _inla_ one time, _inlasin_ every time;\nand so on.\n\nThis union of opposite significations reappears in the ultimate radicals\nof the Cree language. These, says Mr. Howse,[346] whose _Grammar_ I\nagain quote, express _Being_ in its positive and negative modes: \u201cThese\nopposite modes are expressed by modifications of the same element,\nfurnishing two classes of terms widely different from each other in\nsignification.\u201d In Cree the leading substantive radical is _eth_, which\noriginally meant both Being and Not-Being. In the present language _eth_\nremains as the current positive, _ith_ as the current privative. _It_\nmeans within, _ut_ without; and like parallelisms run through many\nexpressions, indicating that numerous series of opposite ideas are\ndevelopments from the same original sounds.\n\nI have found a number of such examples in the Nahuatl of Mexico, and I\nam persuaded that they are very usual in American tongues. Dr. Carl Abel\nhas pointed out many in the ancient Coptic, and I doubt not they were\ncharacteristic of all primitive speech.\n\nTo explain their presence we must reflect on the nature of the human\nmind, and the ascertained laws of thought. One of these fundamental and\nnecessary laws of thought, that usually called the second, was expressed\nby the older logicians in the phrase _Omnis determinatio est negatio_,\nand by their modern followers in the formula, \u201c_A_ is not _not-A_;\u201d in\nother words, a quality, an idea, an element of knowledge, can rise into\ncognition only by being limited by that which it is not. That by which\nit is limited is known in logic as its privative. In a work published\nsome years ago I pointed out that this privative is not an independent\nthought, as some have maintained, but that the positive and its\nprivative are really two aspects of the same thought.[347] This highly\nimportant distinction explains how in primitive speech, before the idea\nhad risen into clear cognition, both it and its privative were expressed\nby the same sound; and when it did rise into such cognition, and then\ninto expression, the original unity is exhibited by the identity of the\nradical. Thus it happens that from such an unexpected quarter as an\nanalysis of Cree grammar do we obtain a confirmation of the starting\npoint of the logic of Hegel in his proposition that the identity of the\n_Being_ and the _Not-being_ is the ultimate equation of thought.\n\nThe gradual development of grammar is strikingly illustrated in these\nlanguages. Their most prominent trait is what is called _incorporation_.\nSubject, verb, direct object and remote object, are all expressed in one\nword. Some have claimed that there are American languages of which this\nis not true; but I think I have shown in an essay published some time\nago,[348] that this opinion arises from our insufficient knowledge of\nthe alleged exceptions. At any rate, this incorporation was undoubtedly\na trait of primitive speech in America and elsewhere. Primitive man,\nsaid Herder, was like a baby; he wanted to say all at once. He condensed\nhis whole sentence into a single word. Archdeacon Hunter, in his\n_Lecture on the Cree Language_, gives as an example the scriptural\nphrase, \u201cI shall have you for my disciples,\u201d which, in that tongue, is\nexpressed by one word.[349]\n\nSo far as I have been able to analyze these primitive sentence-words,\nthey always express _being in relation_; and hence they partake of the\nnature of verbs rather than nouns. In this conclusion I am obliged to\ndiffer with the eminent linguist Professor Steinthal, who, in his\nprofound exposition of the relations of psychology to grammar, maintains\nthat while the primitive sentence was a single word, that word was a\nnoun, a name.[350]\n\nIt is evident that the primitive man did not connect his sentences. One\nfollowed the other disjointedly, unconnectedly. This is so plainly\nmarked in American tongues that the machinery for connecting sentences\nis absent. This machinery consists properly of the relative pronoun and\nthe conjunction. You will be surprised to hear that there is no American\nlanguage, none that I know, which possesses either of these parts of\nspeech. That which does duty for the conjunction in the Maya and\nNahuatl, for instance, is a noun meaning associate or companion, with a\nprefixed possessive.[351]\n\nEqually foreign to primitive speech was any expression of _time_ in\nconnection with verbal forms; in other words, there was no such thing as\ntenses. We are so accustomed to link actions to time, past, present, or\nfuture, that it is a little difficult to understand how this accessory\ncan be omitted in intelligible discourse. It is perfectly evident,\nhowever, from the study of many American tongues, that at one period of\ntheir growth they possessed for a long interval only one tense, which\nserved indifferently for past, present, and future;[352] and even yet\nmost of them form the past and future by purely material means, as the\naddition of an adverb of time, by accent, quantity or repetition, and in\nothers the tense relation is still unknown.[353]\n\nIn some tongues, the Omagua of the upper Orinoco for example, there is\nno sort of connection between the verbal stem and its signs of tense,\nmode or person. They have not even any fixed order. In such languages\nthere is no difference in sound between the words for \u201cI marry,\u201d and \u201cmy\nwife;\u201d \u201cI eat,\u201d and \u201cmy food;\u201d between \u201cPaul dies,\u201d \u201cPaul died,\u201d \u201cPaul\nwill die,\u201d and \u201cPaul is dead.\u201d[354] Through such tongues we can\ndistinctly perceive a time when the verb had neither tense, mode, nor\nperson; when it was not even a verb nor yet a verbal, but an epicene\nsound which could be adapted to any service of speech.\n\nIt is also evident that things were not thought of, or talked of, out of\ntheir natural relations. There are still in most American tongues large\nclasses of words, such as the parts of the body and terms of kinship,\nwhich cannot stand alone. They must always be accompanied by a pronoun\nexpressing relation.\n\nFew American tongues have any adjectives, the Cree, for instance, not a\ndozen in all. Prepositions are equally rare, and articles are not found.\nThese facts testify that what are called \u201cthe grammatical categories\u201d\nwere wholly absent in the primitive speech of man.\n\nSo also were those adjectives which are called _numerals_. There are\nAmerican tongues which have no words for any numerals whatever. The\nnumerical concepts one, two, three, four, cannot be expressed in these\nlanguages for lack of terms with any such meaning.[355] This was a great\npuzzle to the missionaries when they undertook to expound to their\nflocks the doctrine of the Trinity. They were in worse case even than\nthe missionary to an Oregon tribe, who, to convey the notion of _soul_\nto his hearers, could find no word in their language nearer to it than\none which meant \u201cthe lower gut.\u201d\n\nA very interesting chapter in the study of these tongues is that which\nreveals the evolution of specific distinctions, those inductive\ngeneralizations under which primitive man classified the objects of the\nuniverse about him. These distinctions were either grammatical or\nlogical, that is, either formal or material. That most widely seen in\nAmerica is a division of all existence into those which are considered\nliving and those considered not living. This constitutes the second\ngreat generalization of the primitive mind, the first, as I have said,\nhaving been that into Being and Not-being. The distinctions of Living\nand Not-living gave rise to the _animate_ and _inanimate_ conjugations.\nA grammatical sex distinction, which is the prevailing one in the\ngrammars of the Aryan tongues, does not exist in any American dialect\nknown to me.[356]\n\nIt is true that abstract general terms are absent or rare in the most\nprimitive tongues. On the other hand, we find in them a great many\nclassificatory particles. These correspond only remotely to anything\nknown in Aryan speech, and seem far more abstract than generic nouns. I\nwill illustrate what they are by an example taken from the Hidatsa, a\ndialect of the Dakota.\n\nThe word for sled in that dialect is _midu-maidutsada_. The first part\nof this compound, _midu_, means anything of wood or into which wood\nenters. Fire is _mid\u00e9_ because it is kept up with wood. With the\nphonetic laxity which I have before noted, the first syllable _mi_ may\nas correctly be pronounced _bi_ or _wi_. It is a common nominal prefix,\nof vague significance, but seems to classify objects as distinctives.\n_Ma_ designates objects whose immediate use is not expressed; _i_\ndenotes instrument or material; _du_, conveys that the cause of the\naction is not specified; _tsa_ intimates the action is that of\nseparating; _da_, that this is done quickly (_tsa-da_, to slide).[357]\n\nThus by the juxtaposition of one classificatory particle after another,\nseven in number, all of them logical universals, the savage makes up the\nname of the specific object.\n\nThis system was probably the first adopted by man when he began to set\nin order his perceptions within the categories of his understanding,\nwith the aim of giving them vocal expression. It is a plan which we find\nmost highly developed in the rudest languages, and therefore we may\nreasonably believe that it characterized prehistoric speech.\n\nThe question has been put by psychological grammarians, which one of the\nsenses most helped man in the creation of language\u2014or to express it in\nmodern scientific parlance, was primitive man a _visuaire_ or an\n_auditaire_? Did he model his sounds after what he heard, or what he\nsaw? The former opinion has been the more popular, and has given rise to\nthe imitative or \u201conomatopoetic\u201d theory of language. No doubt there is a\ncertain degree of truth in this, but the analysis of American tongues\nleans decidedly toward classing primitive man among the _visuaires_. His\nearliest significant sounds seem to have been expressive of motion and\nrest, energy and its absence, space and direction, color and form, and\nthe like. A different opinion has been maintained by Darwin and by many\nwho have studied the problems presented by the origin of words from a\nmerely physical or physiological standpoint, but a careful investigation\nshows that it was the sense of sight rather than of hearing which was\nthe prompter to vocal utterance. But the consideration of the source of\nprimitive significant sounds lies without the bounds of my present\nstudy.\n\nIt will be seen from these remarks that the primitive speech of man was\nfar more rudimentary than any language known to us. It had no\ngrammatical form; so fluctuating were its phonetics, and so much\ndepended on gesture, tone, and stress, that its words could not have\nbeen reduced to writing, nor arranged in alphabetic sequence; these\nwords often signified logical contradictories, and which of the\nantithetic meanings was intended could be guessed only from the accent\nor sign; it possessed no prepositions nor conjunctions, no numerals, no\npronouns of any kind, no forms to express singular or plural, male or\nfemale, past or present; the different vowel-sounds and the different\nconsonantal groups conveyed specific significance, and were of more\nimport than the syllables which they formed. The concept of time came\nmuch later than that of space, and for a long while was absent.\n\n\n\n\n        THE CONCEPTION OF LOVE IN SOME AMERICAN LANGUAGES.[358]\n\n\n\u201cThe words which denote love, describing a sentiment at once powerful\nand delicate, reveal the inmost heart of those who created them. The\nvital importance attached to this sentiment renders these beautiful\nwords especially adapted to point out the exceeding value of language as\na true autobiography of nations.\u201d\n\nThis quotation is from an essay by a thoughtful writer, Dr. Carl Abel,\nin which he has gathered from four languages, the Latin, English, Hebrew\nand Russian, their expressions for this sweet emotion, and subjected\nthem to a careful analysis.[359] The perusal of his article has led me\nto make some similar examinations of American languages; but with this\ndifference in method, that while Dr. Abel takes the languages named in\nthe fullness of their development and does not occupy himself with the\ngenesis of the terms of affection, I shall give more particular\nattention to their history and derivation as furnishing illustrations of\nthe origin and growth of those altruistic sentiments which are revealed\nin their strongest expression in the emotions of friendship and love.\n\nUpon these sentiments are based those acts which unite man to man in\namicable fellowship and mutual interchange of kindly offices, thus\ncreating a nobler social compact than that which rests merely on\nincreased power of defence or aggression. These sentiments are those\nwhich bind parent to child and child to parent, and thus supply the\nfoundation upon which the family in the true significance of the term\nshould rest. These are they which, directed toward the ruler or the\nstate, find expression in personal loyalty and patriotic devotion.\nSurpassing all in fervor and potency, these sentiments, when exhibited\nin love between the sexes, direct the greater part of the activity of\neach individual life, mould the forms of the social relations, and\ncontrol the perpetuation of the species. Finally, in their last and\nhighest manifestations, these sentiments are those which have suggested\nto the purest and clearest intellects both the most exalted intellectual\ncondition of man, and the most sublime definition of divinity.[360]\nThese are good reasons, therefore, why we should scan with more than\nusual closeness the terms for the conception of love in the languages of\nnations.\n\nAnother purpose which I shall have in view will be to illustrate by\nthese words the wonderful parallelism which everywhere presents itself\nin the operations of the human mind, and to show how it is governed by\nthe same associations of ideas both in the new and the old worlds.\n\nAs a preparation for the latter object, let us take a glance at the\nderivation of the principal words expressing love in the Aryan\nlanguages. The most prominent of them may be traced back to one of two\nruling ideas, the one intimating a similarity or likeness between the\npersons loving, the other a wish or desire. The former conveys the\nnotion that the feeling is mutual, the latter that it is stronger on one\nside than on the other.\n\nThese diverse origins are well illustrated by the French _aimer_ and the\nEnglish _love_. _Aimer_, from the Latin _amare_, brings us to the Greek\n\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1, \u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03c2, both of which spring from the Sanscrit _som_; from which in\nturn the Germans get their words _sammt_, along with, and _zusammen_,\ntogether; while we obtain from this root almost without change our words\n_similar_ and _same_. Etymologically, therefore, those who love are\nalike; they are the _same_ in such respects that they are attracted to\none another, on the proverbial principle that \u201cbirds of a feather flock\ntogether.\u201d\n\nNow turning to the word _love_, German _liebe_, Russian _lubov_,\n_lubity_, we find that it leads us quite a different road. It is traced\nback without any material change to the Sanscrit _lobha_, covetousness,\nthe ancient Coptic \u03bb\u1f30\u03b2\u03b5, to want, to desire. In this origin we see the\npassion portrayed as a yearning to possess the loved object; and in the\nhigher sense to enjoy the presence and sympathy of the beloved, to hold\nsweet communion with him or her.\n\nA class of ideas closely akin to this are conveyed in such words as\n\u201cattached to,\u201d \u201cattraction,\u201d \u201caffection,\u201d and the like, which make use\nof the figure of speech that the lover is fastened to, drawn toward, or\nbound up with the beloved object. We often express this metaphor in full\nin such phrases as \u201cthe bonds of friendship,\u201d etc.\n\nThis third class of words, although in the history of language they are\nfrequently of later growth than the two former, probably express the\nsentiment which underlies both these, and that is a dim, unconscious\nsense of the unity which is revealed to man most perfectly in the purest\nand highest love, which at its sublimest height does away with the\nantagonism of independent personality, and blends the _I_ and the _thou_\nin a oneness of existence.\n\nAlthough in this, its completest expression, we must seek examples\nsolely between persons of opposite sex, it will be well to consider in\nan examination like the present the love between men, which is called\nfriendship, that between parents and children, and that toward the gods,\nthe givers of all good things. The words conveying such sentiments will\nillustrate many features of the religious and social life of the nations\nusing them.\n\n\n                            I. THE ALGONKIN.\n\nI begin with this group of dialects, once widely spread throughout the\nSt. Lawrence valley and the regions adjoining; and among them I select\nespecially the Cree and the Chipeway, partly because we know more about\nthem, and partly because they probably represent the common tongue in\nits oldest and purest type. They are closely allied, the same roots\nappearing in both with slight phonetic variations.\n\nIn both of them the ordinary words for love and friendship are derived\nfrom the same monosyllabic root, _sak_. On this, according to the\ninflectional laws of the dialects, are built up the terms for the love\nof man to woman, a lover, love in the abstract, friend, friendship, and\nthe like. It is also occasionally used by the missionaries for the love\nof man to God and of God to man.[361]\n\nIn the Chipeway this root has but one form, _sagi_; but in Cree it has\ntwo, a weak and a strong form, _saki_ and _sakk_. The meaning of the\nlatter is more particularly to fasten to, to attach to. From it are\nderived the words for string or cord, the verbs \u201cto tie,\u201d \u201cto fasten,\u201d\netc.; and also some of the coarsest words to express the sexual\nrelation.[362] Both these roots are traced back to the primary element\nof the Algonkin language expressed by the letters _sak_ or _s\u2014k_. This\nconveys the generic notion of force or power exerted by one over\nanother,[363] and is apparently precisely identical with the fundamental\nmeaning of the Latin _afficio_, \u201cto affect one in some manner by active\nagency,\u201d[364] from which word, I need hardly add, were derived\n_affectus_ and _affectio_ and our \u201caffection;\u201d thus we at once meet with\nan absolute parallelism in the working of the Aryan Italic and the\nAmerican Algonkin mind.\n\nThe Cree has several words which are confined to parental and filial\nlove and that which the gods have for men. These are built up on the\ndisyllabic radical _espi_ or _aspi_, which is an instrumental particle\nsignifying \u201cby means of, with the aid of.\u201d[365] Toward the gods, such\nwords refer to those who aid us; toward children those whom their\nparents aid; and from children toward parents, again, those from whom\naid is received.\n\nFor love between men, friendship, the Cree employs some words from the\nradical _s\u00e2ki_; but more frequently those compounded with the root _wit_\nor _witch_, which means \u201cin company with,\u201d[366] and is the precise\nanalogue of the syllable _com_ (Latin, _con_) in the English words\ncompanion, comrade, compeer, confederate, etc.; it conveys the idea of\nassociation in life and action, and that association a voluntary and\npleasure-giving one.\n\nIn the Chipeway there is a series of expressions for family love and\nfriendship which in their origin carry us back to the same psychological\nprocess which developed the Latin _amare_ from the Sanscrit _sam_ (see\nabove). They may be illustrated by the melodious term, which in that\ndialect means both friendship and relationship, _inawendawin_. This is\nan abstract verbal noun from the theme _ni inawa_, I resemble him, which\nis built up from the radicle _in_. This particle denotes a certain\nprevailing way or manner, and appears both in Cree and Chipeway in a\nvariety of words.[367] The principle of similarity is thus fully\nexpressed as the basis of friendship. To see how apparent this is we\nhave but to remember the English, \u201cI like him,\u201d _i. e._, there is\nsomething in him _like_ me.\n\nThe feebler sentiment of merely liking a person or thing is expressed in\nthe Chipeway by a derivative from the adjective _mino_, good, well, and\nsignifies that he or it seems good to me.[368]\n\nThe highest form of love, however, that which embraces all men and all\nbeings, that whose conception is conveyed in the Greek \u1f00\u03b3\u1f00\u03c0\u03b7, we find\nexpressed in both the dialects by derivation from a root different from\nany I have mentioned. It is in its dialectic forms _kis_, _keche_, or\n_kiji_, and in its origin it is an intensive interjectional expression\nof pleasure, indicative of what gives joy.[369] Concretely it signifies\nwhat is completed, permanent, powerful, perfected, perfect. As\nfriendship and love yield the most exalted pleasure, from this root the\nnatives drew a fund of words to express fondness, attachment,\nhospitality, charity; and from the same worthy source they selected that\nadjective which they applied to the greatest and most benevolent\ndivinity.[370]\n\n\n                            II. THE NAHUATL.\n\nThe Nahuatl, Mexican or Aztec language was spoken extensively throughout\nMexico and Central America, and every tribe who used it could boast of a\ndegree of culture considerably above that of any of the Algonkin\ncommunities. Such being the case, it is rather surprising to note how\nextremely poor in comparison is the Nahuatl in independent radicals\ndenoting love or affection. In fact, there is only one word in the\nlanguage which positively has this signification, and it, with its\nderivatives, is called upon to express every variety of love, human and\ndivine, carnal and chaste, between men and between the sexes, and by\nhuman beings toward inanimate things.\n\nThis word is _tlaz\u00f3tla_, he loves. It is no easy matter to trace its\nhistory. By well known laws of Nahuatl etymology we know that the root\nis _zo_. We have from this same root several other words of curiously\ndiverse meanings. Thus, _izo_, to bleed, to draw blood, either for\nhealth, or, as was the custom of those nations, as a sacrifice before\nidols; _izolini_, to grow old, to wear out, applied to garments;\n_tlazoti_, to offer for sale at a high price; and _zozo_, to string\ntogether, as the natives did flowers, peppers, beads, etc. Now, what\nidea served as the common starting-point of all these expressions? The\nanswer is that we find it in the word _zo_ as applied to a sharp-pointed\ninstrument, a thorn, or a bone or stone awl, used in the earliest times\nfor puncturing or transfixing objects. From this came _zozo_, to\ntransfix with such an instrument, and string on a cord; _izoliui_, to be\nfull of holes, as if repeatedly punctured, and thus worn out; and _izo_,\nto bleed, because that was done by puncturing the flesh with the thorns\nof the maguey or sharp obsidian points.[371]\n\nBut how do we bring these into connection with the sentiment of love and\nits verbal expression? We might indeed seek an illustration of the\ntransfer from classical mythology, and adduce the keen-pointed arrows of\nCupid, the darts of love, as pointing out the connection. But I fear\nthis would be crediting the ancient Nahuas with finer feelings than they\ndeserve. I gravely doubt that they felt the shafts of the tender passion\nwith any such susceptibility as to employ this metaphor. Much more\nlikely is it that _tlaz\u00f3tla_, to love, is derived directly from the noun\n_tlaz\u00f3tl_, which means something strung with or fastened to another.\nThis brings us directly back to the sense of \u201cattached to\u201d in English,\nand to that of the root _saki_ in Algonkin, the idea of being bound to\nanother by ties of emotion and affection.\n\nBut there is one feature in this derivation which tells seriously\nagainst the national psychology of the Nahuas; this, their only word for\nlove, is not derived, as is the Algonkin, from the primary meaning of\nthe root, but from a secondary and later signification. This hints\nominously at the probability that the ancient tongue had for a long time\nno word at all to express this, the highest and noblest emotion of the\nhuman heart, and that consequently this emotion itself had not risen to\nconsciousness in the national mind.\n\nBut the omissions of the fathers were more than atoned for by the\nefforts of their children. I know no more instructive instance in the\nhistory of language to illustrate how original defects are amended in\nperiods of higher culture by the linguistic faculty, than this precise\npoint in the genesis of the Nahuatl tongue. The Nahuas, when they\napproached the upper levels of emotional development, found their tongue\nsingularly poor in radicals conveying such conceptions. As the literal\nand material portions of their speech offered them such inadequate means\nof expression, they turned toward its tropical and formal portions, and\nin those realms reached a degree of development in this direction which\nfar surpasses that in any other language known to me.\n\nIn the formal portion of the language they were not satisfied with one,\nbut adopted a variety of devices to this end. Thus: all verbs expressing\nemotion may have an intensive termination suffixed, imparting to them\nadditional force; again, certain prefixes indicating civility, respect\nand affection may be employed in the imperative and optative moods;\nagain, a higher synthetic construction may be employed in the sentence,\nby which the idea expressed is emphasized, a device in constant use in\ntheir poetry; and especially the strength of emotion is indicated by\nsuffixing a series of terminations expressing contempt, reverence or\nlove. The latter are wonderfully characteristic of Nahuatl speech. They\nare not confined to verbs and nouns, but may be added to adjectives,\npronouns, participles, and even to adverbs and postpositions. Thus every\nword in the sentence is made to carry its burden of affection to the ear\nof the beloved object!\n\nAdd to these facilities the remarkable power of the Nahuatl to impart\ntropical and figurative senses to words by the employment of rhetorical\nresources, and to present them as one idea by means of the peculiarities\nof its construction, and we shall not consider as overdrawn the\nexpression of Professor De la Rosa when he writes: \u201cThere can be no\nquestion but that in the manifestation in words of the various emotions,\nthe Nahuatl finds no rival, not only among the languages of modern\nEurope, but in the Greek itself.\u201d[372]\n\nThe Nahuatl word for friendship is _icniuhtli_. This is a compound of\nthe preposition _ic_, with; the noun-ending _tli_; and the adverbial\n_yuh_, or _noyuh_, which means \u201cof the same kind.\u201d The word, therefore,\nhas the same fundamental conception as the Latin _amicus_ and the Cree\n_inawema_, but it was not developed into a verbal to express the\nsuffering of the passion itself.[373]\n\n\n                             III. THE MAYA.\n\nThe whole peninsula of Yucatan was inhabited by the Mayas, and tribes\nspeaking related dialects of their tongue lived in Guatemala, Chipapas,\nand on the Gulf Shore north of Vera Cruz. All these depended chiefly on\nagriculture for subsistence, were builders of stone houses, and made use\nof a system of written records. Their tongue, therefore, deserves\nspecial consideration as that of a nation with strong natural tendencies\nto development.\n\nIn turning to the word for love in the Maya vocabulary, we are at once\nstruck with the presence of a connected series of words expressing this\nemotion, while at the same time they, or others closely akin to them and\nfrom the same root, mean pain, injury, difficulty, suffering, wounds and\nmisery. Both are formed by the usual rules from the monosyllable\n_ya_.[374]\n\nWere the ancient Mayas so sensitive to love\u2019s wounds and the pangs of\npassion as to derive their very words for suffering from the name of\nthis sentiment?\n\nNo; that solution is too unlikely for our acceptance. More probable is\nit that we have here an illustration of the development of language from\ninterjectional cries. In fact, we may be said to have the proof of it,\nfor we discover that this monosyllable _ya_ is still retained in the\nlanguage as a verb, with the signification \u201cto feel anything deeply,\nwhether as a pain or as a pleasure.\u201d[375] Its derivatives were developed\nwith both meanings, and as love and friendship are the highest forms of\npleasure, the word _ya_ in its happier senses became confined to them.\n\nIt seems to have sufficed to express the conception in all its forms,\nfor the writers in the language apply it to the love of the sexes, to\nthat between parents and children, that among friends, also to that\nwhich men feel toward God, and that which He is asserted to feel toward\nmen.[376]\n\nThe Mayas, therefore, were superior to the Nahuas in possessing a\nradical word which expressed the joy of love; and they must be placed\nabove even the early Aryans in that this radical was in significance\npurely psychical, referring strictly to a mental state, and neither to\nsimilarity nor desire.\n\nIt is noteworthy that this interjectional root, although belonging to\nthe substructure of the language, does not appear with the meaning of\nlove in the dialects of the Maya stock. In them the words for this\nsentiment are derived from other roots.\n\nThus among the Huastecas, residing on the Gulf of Mexico, north of Vera\nCruz, the word for love is _canezal_. It is employed for both human and\ndivine love, and also means anything precious and to be carefully\nguarded as of advantage to the possessor.[377] There is no difficulty in\nfollowing its development when we turn to the Maya, which preserves the\nmost numerous ancient forms and meanings of any dialect of this stock.\nIn it we discover that the verb _can_ means \u201cto affect another in some\nway, to give another either by physical contact or example a virtue,\nvice, disease or attribute.\u201d[378] Here again we come upon the precise\ncorrelative of the Latin _afficio_, from which proceeds our \u201caffection,\u201d\netc.\n\nThe Guatemalan tribes, the principal of which were and are the Quiches\nand Cakchiquels, did not accept either _ya_ or _can_ as the root from\nwhich to build their expressions for the sentiment of love. In both\nthese dialects the word for to love is _logoh_. It also means \u201cto buy,\u201d\nand this has led a recent writer to hold up to ridicule the Spanish\nmissionaries who chose this word to express both human and divine love.\nDr. Stoll, the writer referred to, intimates that it had no other\nmeaning than \u201cto buy\u201d in the pure original tongue, and that the only\nword for the passion is _ah_, to want, to desire.[379] In this he does\nnot display his usual accuracy, for we find _logoh_ used in the sense\n\u201cto like,\u201d \u201cto love,\u201d in the _Annals of the Cakchiquels_, written by a\nnative who had grown to manhood before the Spaniards first entered his\ncountry.[380]\n\nThat the verb _logoh_ means, both in origin and later use, \u201cto buy,\u201d as\nwell as \u201cto love,\u201d is undoubtedly true. Its root _logh_ is identical\nwith the Maya _loh_, which has the meanings \u201cto exchange, to buy, to\nredeem, to emancipate.\u201d It was the word selected by the Franciscan\nmissionaries to express the redemption of the world by Christ, and was\napplied to the redemption of captives and slaves. It might be suggested\nthat it bears a reference to \u201cmarriage by purchase;\u201d but I think that\n\u201cto buy,\u201d and \u201cto love,\u201d may be construed as developments of the same\nidea of _prizing highly_. When we say that a person is _appreciated_, we\nreally say that he has had a proper price put upon him. The Latin\n_carus_, which Cicero calls _ipsum verbum amoris_,[381] means costly in\nprice as well as beloved; and the tender English \u201cdear\u201d means quite as\noften that the object is expensive to buy, as that we dote very much\nupon it. Nor need we go outside of American languages for illustrations;\nin Nahuatl _tlaz\u00f3ti_ means to offer for sale at a high price; and in\nHuasteca _canel_, from the same root as _canezal_, to love, means\nsomething precious in a pecuniary sense, as well as an object of the\naffections. Other instances will present themselves when we come to\nexamine some of the South American tongues. But from what I have already\ngiven, it is evident that there is nothing contradictory in the double\nmeaning of the verb _logoh_.\n\n\n                           IV. THE QQUICHUA.\n\nThe ancient Peruvians who spoke the Qquichua language had organized a\nsystem of government and a complex social fabric unsurpassed by any on\nthe continent. The numerous specimens of their arts which have been\npreserved testify strongly to the licentiousness of their manners,\nstanding in this respect in marked contrast to the Aztecs, whose art was\npure. It must be regarded as distinctly in connection with this that we\nfind a similar contrast in their languages. We have seen that in the\nNahuatl there appears to have been no word with a primary signification\n\u201cto love\u201d or any such conception. The Qquichua, on the contrary, is\nprobably the richest language on the continent, not only in separate\nwords denoting affection, but in modifications of these by imparting to\nthem delicate shades of meaning through the addition of particles. As an\nevidence of the latter, it is enough to cite the fact that Dr.\nAnchorena, in his grammar of the tongue, sets forth nearly six hundred\ncombinations of the word _munay_, to love![382]\n\nThe Qquichua is fortunate in other respects; it has some literature of\nits own, and its structure has been carefully studied by competent\nscholars; it is possible, therefore, to examine its locutions in a more\nsatisfactory manner than is the case with most American languages. Its\nmost celebrated literary monument is the drama of _Ollanta_, supposed to\nhave been composed about the time of the conquest. It has been\nrepeatedly edited and translated, most accurately by Pacheco\nZegarra.[383] His text may be considered as the standard of the pure\nancient tongue.\n\nOf Qquichua words for the affections, that in widest use is the one\nabove quoted, _munay_. It is as universal in its application as its\nEnglish equivalent, being applied to filial and parental love as well as\nto that of the sexes, to affection between persons of the same sex, and\nto the love of God. No other word of the class has such a wide\nsignificance. It ranges from an expression of the warmest emotion down\nto that faint announcement of a preference which is conveyed in the\nEnglish, \u201cI should prefer.\u201d[384]\n\nOn looking for its earlier and concrete sense, we find that _munay_\nexpressed merely a sense of want, an appetite and the accompanying\ndesire of satisfying it, hence the will, or the wish, not subjectively,\nbut in the objective manifestation.[385] Therefore it is in origin\nnearly equivalent to the earliest meaning of \u201clove,\u201d as seen in the\nSanscrit and the Coptic.\n\nWhile _munay_ is thus to love on reasonable grounds and with definite\npurpose, blind, unreasoning, absorbing passion is expressed by\n_huaylluni_. This is nearly always confined to sexual love, and conveys\nthe idea of the sentiment showing itself in action by those sweet signs\nand marks of devotion which are so highly prized by the loving heart.\nThe origin of this word indicates its sentient and spontaneous\ncharacter. Its radical is the interjection _huay_, which among that\npeople is an inarticulate cry of tenderness and affection.[386]\n\nThe verb _lluylluy_ means literally to be tender or soft, as fruit, or\nthe young of animals; and applied to the sentiments, to love with\ntenderness, to have as a darling, to caress lovingly. It has less of\nsexuality in it than the word last mentioned, and is applied by girls to\neach other, and as a term of family fondness. It is on a parallel with\nthe English \u201cdear,\u201d \u201cto hold dear,\u201d etc.[387]\n\nIn the later compositions in Qquichua the favorite word for love is\n_ccuyay_. Originally this expression meant to pity, and in this sense it\noccurs in the drama of Ollanta; but also even there as a term signifying\nthe passion of love apart from any idea of compassion.[388] In the later\nsongs, those whose composition may be placed in this century, it is\npreferred to _munay_ as the most appropriate term for the love between\nthe sexes.[389] From it also is derived the word for charity and\nbenevolence.\n\nAs _munay_ is considered to refer to natural affection felt within the\nmind, _mayhuay_ is that ostentatious sentiment which displays itself in\nwords of tenderness and acts of endearment, but leaves it an open\nquestion whether these are anything more than simulated signs of\nemotion.[390]\n\nThis list is not exhaustive of the tender words in the Qquichua; but it\nwill serve to show that the tongue was rich in them, and that the\nancient Peruvians recognized many degrees and forms of this moving\nsentiment.\n\nWhat is also noteworthy is the presence in this language of the most\nphilosophical term for friendship in its widest sense that can be quoted\nfrom any American language. It is _runaccuyay_, compounded of _ccuyani_,\nmentioned above, and _runa_, man\u2014the love of mankind. This compound,\nhowever, does not occur in the Ollanta drama, and it may have been\nmanufactured by the missionaries. The usual term is _maciy_, which means\nmerely \u201cassociate,\u201d or _kochomaciy_, a table-companion or _convive_.\n\n\n                          V. THE TUPI-GUARANI.\n\nThe linguistic stock which has the widest extension in South America is\nthat which is represented in Southern Brazil by the Guarani, and in\nCentral and Northern by the Tupi or Lingoa Geral. The latter is spoken\nalong the Amazon and its tributaries for a distance of twenty-five\nhundred miles. It is by no means identical with the Guarani, but the\nnear relationship of the two is unmistakable. The Guarani presents the\nsimpler and more primitive forms, and may be held to present the more\narchaic type.\n\nThe word for love in the Guarani is _aihu_, in another form _haihu_, the\ninitial _h_ being dropped in composition. This expression is employed\nfor all the varieties of the sentiment, between men, between the sexes,\nand for that which is regarded as divine.[391] For \u201ca friend,\u201d they have\nno other term than one which means a visitor or guest; and from this\ntheir expression for \u201cfriendship\u201d is derived, which really means\n\u201chospitality.\u201d[392]\n\nVerbal combinations in Guarani are visually simple, and I do not think\nwe can be far wrong in looking upon _aihu_ as a union of the two primary\nwords _ai_ and _hu_. The former, _ai_, means self or the same; and the\nlatter, _hu_, is the verb to find, or, to be present.[393] \u201cTo love,\u201d in\nGuarani, therefore, would mean, \u201cto find oneself in another,\u201d or, less\nmetaphysically, \u201cto discover in another a likeness to one\u2019s self.\u201d This\nagain is precisely the primary signification of the Latin _amare_; and\nif the sentiment impressed in that way the barbarous ancient Aryans,\nthere is no reason why it would not have struck the Guaranis in the same\nmanner.\n\nIn the Tupi or Lingua Geral the word for love is evidently but a\ndialectic variation of that in Guarani. It is given by some authors as\n_\u00e7ai\u00e7u_, plainly a form of _haihu_; and by others as _\u00e7au\u00e7u_.[394] These\nforms cannot be analyzed in the Tupi itself, which illustrates its more\nmodern type.\n\nThere are other dialects of this widespread stem, but it would not be\nworth while to follow this expression further in its diverse forms. It\nis interesting, however, to note that which appears in the Arawack,\nspoken in Guiana. In that tongue to love is _kanisin_, in which the\nradical is _ani_ or _ansi_. Now we find that _ani_ means \u201cof a kind,\u201d\npeculiar to, belonging to, etc. Once more it is the notion of\nsimilarity, of \u201cbirds of a feather,\u201d which underlies the expression for\nthe conception of love.[395]\n\n\n                              CONCLUSIONS.\n\nIf, now, we review the ground we have gone over, and classify the\nconception of love as revealed in the languages under discussion, we\nfind that their original modes of expression were as follows:\n\n1. Inarticulate cries of emotion (Cree, Maya, Qquichua).\n\n2. Assertions of sameness or similarity (Cree, Nahuatl, Tupi, Arawack).\n\n3. Assertions of conjunction or union (Cree, Nahuatl, Maya).\n\n4. Assertions of a wish, desire or longing (Cree, Cakchiquel, Qquichua,\nTupi).\n\nThese categories are not exhaustive of the words which I have brought\nforward, but they include most of them, and probably were this\ninvestigation extended to embrace numerous other tongues, we should find\nthat in them all the principal expressions for the sentiment of love are\ndrawn from one or other of these fundamental notions. A most instructive\nfact is that these notions are those which underlie the majority of the\nwords for love in the great Aryan family of languages. They thus reveal\nthe parallel paths which the human mind everywhere pursued in giving\narticulate expression to the passions and emotions of the soul. In this\nsense there is a oneness in all languages, which speaks conclusively for\nthe oneness in the sentient and intellectual attributes of the species.\n\nWe may also investigate these categories, thus shown to be practically\nuniversal, from another point of view. We may inquire which of them\ncomes the nearest to the correct expression of love in its highest\nphilosophic meaning. Was this meaning apprehended, however dimly, by man\nin the very infancy of his speech-inventing faculty?\n\nIn another work, published some years ago, I have attempted a\nphilosophic analysis of the sentiment of love. Quoting from some of the\nsubtlest dissectors of human motive, I have shown that they pronounce\nlove to be \u201cthe volition of the end,\u201d or \u201cthe resting in an object as an\nend.\u201d These rather obscure scholastic formulas I have attempted to\nexplain by the definition: \u201cLove is the mental impression of rational\naction whose end is in itself.\u201d[396] As every end or purpose of action\nimplies the will or wish to that end, those expressions for love are\nmost truly philosophic which express the will, the desire, the yearning\nafter the object. The fourth, therefore, of the above categories is that\nwhich presents the highest forms of expression of this conception. That\nit also expresses lower forms is true, but this merely illustrates the\nevolution of the human mind as expressed in language. Love is ever the\nwish; but while in lower races and coarser natures this wish is for an\nobject which in turn is but a means to an end, for example, sensual\ngratification, in the higher this object is the end itself, beyond which\nthe soul does not seek to go, in which it rests, and with which both\nreason and emotion find the satisfaction of boundless activity without\nincurring the danger of satiety.\n\n\n\n\n           THE LINEAL MEASURES OF THE SEMI-CIVILIZED NATIONS\n                  OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA.[397]\n\n\nPositive progress in constructive art can be accurately estimated by the\nkind and perfection of the instruments of precision employed by the\nartists. A correct theory of architecture or of sculpture must have as\nits foundation a correct system of weights and measures, and recognized\nunits and standards of gravity and extension. Where these are not found,\nall is guess-work, and a more or less haphazard rule-of-thumb.\n\nIn a study of the art-products of Mexico and Central America, it has\noccurred to me that we may with advantage call linguistics to our aid,\nand attempt to ascertain, by an analysis of the words for weights and\nmeasures, what units, if any, were employed by those who constructed the\nmassive works in that region, which still remain for our astonishment.\nThe tongues I shall examine are the Maya of Yucatan, its related dialect\nthe Cakchiquel of Guatemala, and the Nahuatl or Aztec of Mexico. The\nmost striking monuments of art in North America are found in the\nterritories where these were spoken at the time of the Conquest. The\nCakchiquel may be considered to include the Quiche and the Tzutuhil,\nboth of which are closely associated to it as dialects of the same\nmother tongue.\n\n\n                               THE MAYAS.\n\nThe generic word in Maya for both measuring and weighing, and for\nmeasures and weights, is at present _ppiz_, the radical sense of which\nis \u201cto put in order,\u201d \u201cto arrange definite limits.\u201d Its apparent\nsimilarity to the Spanish _pesar_, French _peser_, etc., seems\naccidental, as it is in Maya the root of various words meaning battle,\nto fight, etc., from the \u201corder of battle,\u201d observed on such occasions.\nAny weight or measure is spoken of as _ppizib_, to measure land is\n_ppiz-luum_, a foot measure _ppiz-oc_ etc. But I am quite certain that\nthe original scope of the word did not include weight, as there is no\nevidence that the ancient Mayas knew anything about a system of\nestimating quantity by gravity. If the word is not from the Spanish\n_pesar_, it has extended its meaning since the conquest.\n\nThe Maya measures are derived directly, and almost exclusively, from the\nhuman body, and largely from the hand and foot.\n\n_Oc_, the foot; _chekoc_, the footstep, the print or length of the foot,\nis a measure of length. Other forms of the same are _chekel_, _chekeb_,\n_chekeb-oc_, etc.; and this abundance of synonyms would seem to show\nthat the measure of a foot was very familiar and frequent. The verb is\n_chekoc_ (_tah_, _t\u00e9_), as in the phrase:\n\n                   _Chekoct\u00e8 y-otoch Ku._\n                   He measured by feet His house God.\n\n_i. e._ He measured by feet the church. From this was distinguished\u2014\n\n_Xukab_, paces or strides, a word confined to the paces of man. The verb\nis _Xukab_ (_tah_, _t\u00e9_), to step off, to measure by paces.\n\nQuite a series of measures were recognized from the ground (or, as some\nsay, from the point of the foot) to the upper portions of the body.\n\n_Hun cal coy u-xul_ (one to the neck of the ankle its-end), extending\nfrom the ground to the narrowest portion of the ankle.\n\n_Hun ppuloc u-xul_ (one calf-of-the-leg its-end), from the ground to the\nhighest portion of the calf of the leg. The word _xul_ means end or\nlimit, and is used often adverbially, as in the phrase _uay u-xul_,\nliterally \u201chere its end,\u201d or \u201cthus far\u201d (Span. _hasta aqui_).\n\n_Hun pixib_, the distance from the ground (or point of the toes) to the\nknee-cap, from _piix_, the knee. Also called _hun hol piix_, from _hol_,\nhead, the knee-cap being called \u201cthe knee-head.\u201d\n\n_Hun hachabex_, one girdle, from the ground to the belt or girdle, to\nwhich the skirt was fashioned (from _hach_, to tie, to fasten). The same\nmeasure was called _hun theth_, the word _theth_ being applied to the\nknot of the girdle.\n\n_Hun tanam_, from the ground to the border of the true ribs; from\n_tanam_, the liver. The _Diccionario de Motul_ gives the example, _hun\ntanam in ual_, one _tanam_ (is) my corn, _i. e._, my corn reaches to my\nchest. It adds that the measure is from the point of the foot to the\nchest.\n\n_Hun tzem_, a measure from the ground to a line drawn from one mamma to\nthe other.\n\n_Hun cal u-xul_, one neck its-end, from the ground to the border (upper\nor lower) of the neck.\n\n_Hun chi_, from the mouth, _chi_, to the ground.\n\n_Hun holom_, one head, from the top of the head to the ground. This is\nalso called _hun uallah_, one time the stature or height of a man, from\na root meaning \u201cto draw to a point,\u201d \u201cto finish off.\u201d The Spanish\nwriters say that one _uallah_ was equal to about three _varas_, and was\nused as a square measure in meting corn fields.[398] The Spanish _vara_\ndiffered as much as the English ell, and to the writer in question could\nnot have represented quite two feet. Elsewhere he defines the _vara_ as\nhalf a _braza_ or fathom. (See below, _betan_.)\n\nThe hand in Maya is expressed by the word _kab_, which also means the\narm, and is more correctly therefore translated by the anatomical term\n\u201cupper extremity.\u201d This is not an uncommon example in American tongues.\nWhen it is necessary to define the hand specifically the Mayas say _u\ncheel kab_, \u201cthe branch of the arm,\u201d and for the fingers _u nii kab_,\n\u201cthe points (literally, noses) of the arm\u201d or upper extremity.\n\nThe shortest measurements known to them appear to have been\nfinger-breadths, which are expressed by the phrase _u nii kab_. The\nthumb was called _u n\u0101 kab_, literally \u201cthe mother of the hand\u201d or arm,\nand as a measure of length the distance from the first joint to the end\nof the nail was in use and designated by the same term.\n\nWith the hand open and the fingers extended, there were three different\nmeasures or spans recognized by the Mayas.\n\n1. The _n\u0101b_, from the tip of the thumb to the tip of the middle finger.\n\n2. The _oecnab_, or little _n\u0101b_, from the tip of the thumb to the tip\nof the index finger. This is the span yet most in use by the native\ninhabitants of Yucatan (Dr. Berendt).\n\n3. The _chi n\u0101b_, or the _n\u0101b_ which extends to the edge, from the tip\nof the thumb to the tip of the little finger (Pio Perez).\n\nThe _kok_ was a hand measure formed by closing the fingers and extending\nthe thumb. Measuring from the outer border of the hand to the end of the\nthumb, it would be about seven inches.\n\nThe _cuc_ or _noch cuc_ (_noch_ is a term applied to a bony prominence,\nin this instance to the olecranon) was the cubit, and was measured from\nthe summit of the olecranon to the end of the fingers, about eighteen\ninches.\n\nThe most important of the longer measures was the _zap_ or _zapal_. It\nwas the distance between the extremities of the extended arms, and is\nusually put down at a fathom or six feet.\n\nThe half of it was called _betan_ or _p\u0101tan_, meaning \u201cto the middle of\nthe chest.\u201d Canes and cords were cut of the fixed length of the _zap_\nand bore the name _xapalche_, _zap_sticks, as our _yard-sti\u00e7k_ (_che_ ==\nstick), and _hilppiz_, measuring rods (_hil_, a species of cane, and\n_ppiz_, to measure, _Dicc. Motul_).\n\nOn this as a unit, the customary land measure was based. It was the\n_kaan_, one shorter, _hun kaan tah ox zapalche_, a _kaan_ of three\n_zap_, and one longer, _hun kaan tah can zapalche_, a _kaan_ of four\n_zap_. The former is stated to be thirty-six fathoms square, the latter\nforty-eight fathoms square. Twenty _kaan_ made a _vinic_, man, that\namount of land being considered the area requisite to support one family\nin maize.\n\nThe uncertainty about this measure is increased by the evident error of\nBishop Landa, or more probably his copyist, in making the _vinic_ equal\nto 400 square feet, which even in the most favored soils would never\nsupport a family. He probably said \u201c400 feet square,\u201d which in that\nclimate would be sufficient. The _kaan_ is said by Spanish writers to be\nequal to the Mexican _mecate_, which contains 5184 square feet. I\nacknowledge, however, that I have not reconciled all the statements\nreported by authors about these land measures.\n\nGreater measures of length are rarely mentioned. Journeys were measured\nby _lub_, which the Spaniards translated \u201cleagues,\u201d but by derivation it\nmeans \u201cresting places,\u201d and I have not ascertained that it had a fixed\nlength.\n\nThe Mayas were given to the drawing of maps, and the towns had the\nboundaries of their common lands laid out in definite lines. I have\nmanuscripts, some dated as early in 1542, which describe these town\nlands. In most of them only the courses are given, but not the\ndistances. In one, a title to a domain in Acanceh, there are distances\ngiven, but in a measure quite unknown to me, _sicina_, preceded by the\nnumeral and its termination indicating measures, _hulucppiz sicina_,\neleven sicinas.[399]\n\nThe maps indicate relative position only, and were evidently not\ndesigned by a scale, or laid off in proportion to distance. The\ndistinguished Yucatecan antiquary, the Rev. Don Crescencio Carrillo, in\nhis essay on the cartography of the ancient Mayas,[400] apparently came\nto the same conclusion, as he does not mention any method of\nmeasurement.\n\nI do not know of any measurements undertaken in Yucatan to ascertain the\nmetrical standard employed by the ancient architects. It is true that\nDr. Augustus LePlongeon asserts positively that they knew and used _the\nmetric system_, and that the metre and its divisions are the only\ndimensions that can be applied to the remains of the edifices.[401] But\napart from the eccentricity of this statement, I do not see from Dr.\nLePlongeon\u2019s own measurements that the metre is in any sense a common\ndivisor for them.\n\nFrom the linguistic evidence, I incline to believe that the _oc_, the\nfoot, was their chief lineal unit. This name was also applied to the\nseventh day of the series of twenty which made up the Maya month; and\nthere may be some connection between these facts and the frequent\nrecurrence of the number seven in the details of their edifices.[402]\n\n\n                            THE CAKCHIQUELS.\n\nThe root-word for measuring length is, in Cakchiquel, _et_. Its\nprimitive meaning is, a sign, a mark, a characteristic. From this root\nare derived the verbal _etah_, to measure length, to lay out a plan, to\ndefine limits; _etal_, a sign, mark, limit; _etabal_, measuring field;\n_etamah_, to know, _i. e._, to recognize the signs and characters of\nthings; _etamanizah_, to cause to know, to teach, to instruct, etc.\n\nMy authorities do not furnish evidence that the Cakchiquels used the\nfoot as the unit of measurement, differing in this from the Mayas. They\nhad, however, like the latter, a series of measurements from the ground\nto certain points of the body, and they used a special terminal\nparticle, _bem_ (probably from _be_, to go), \u201cup to\u201d to indicate such\nmeasurements, as _vexibem_, up to the girdle (_vex_, girdle, _i_,\nconnective, _bem_, up to, or \u201cit goes to\u201d).\n\nThese body measures, as far as I have found them named, are as follows:\n\n_quequebem_, from the ground to the knee.\n\n_ru-vach a_, from the ground to the middle of the thigh; literally \u201cits\nfront, the thigh,\u201d _ru_, its, _vach_, face, front, _a_, the muscles of\nthe thigh.\n\n_vexibem_, from the ground to the girdle, _vex_.\n\n_qaalqaxibem_, from the ground to the first true ribs.\n\n_kulim_, from the ground to the neck (_kul_).\n\nThe more exact Cakchiquel measures were derived from the upper\nextremity. The smallest was the finger breadth, and was spoken of as\none, two, three, four fingers, _han ca_, _cay ca_, _ox ca_, _cah ca_\n(_ca_=finger). This was used in connection with the measure called\n_tuvic_, the same that I have described as the Maya _kok_, obtained by\nclosing the hand and extending the thumb. They combined these in such\nexpressions as _ca tuvic raqin han ca_, two _tuvics_ with (plus) one\nfinger breadth.[403]\n\nThe span of the Cakchiquels was solely that obtained by extending the\nthumb and fingers and including the space between the extremities of the\nthumb and _middle_ finger. It was called _qutu_, from the radical _qut_,\nwhich means to show, to make manifest, and is hence akin in meaning to\nthe root _et_, mentioned above.\n\nThe cubit, _chumay_, was measured from the point of the elbow to the\nextremities of the fingers. We are expressly informed by Father Coto\nthat this was a customary building measure. \u201cWhen they build their\nhouses they use this cubit to measure the length of the logs. They also\nmeasure ropes in the same manner, and say, _Tin chumaih retaxic riqam_,\nI lay out in cubits the rope with which I am to measure.\u201d\n\nThe different measures drawn from the arms were:\n\n_chumay_, from the elbow to the end of the fingers of the same hand.\n\n_hahmehl_, from the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the opposite\nhand, the arms being outstretched.\n\n_telen_, from the point of the shoulder of one side to the ends of the\nfingers of the outstretched arm on the other side.\n\n_tzam telen_, from the point of the shoulder to the ends of the fingers\non the same side. _Tzam_ means nose, point, beak, etc.\n\n_ru vach qux_, from the middle of the breast to the end of the\noutstretched hand.\n\n_hah_, from the tips of the fingers of one hand to those of the other,\nthe arms outstretched.\n\nAnother measure was from the point of the shoulder to the wrist.\n\nThe _hah_, or fathom, was one of the units of land measure, and the corn\nfields and cacao plantations were surveyed and laid out with ropes,\n_qam_, marked off in fathoms. The fields are described as of five ropes,\nten ropes, etc., but I have not found how many fathoms each rope\ncontained.\n\nAnother unit of land measure in frequent use was the _maaoh_. This was\nthe circumference of the human figure. A man stood erect, his feet\ntogether, and both arms extended. The end of a rope was placed under his\nfeet and its slack passed over one hand, then on top of his head, then\nover the other hand, and finally brought to touch the beginning. This\ngives somewhat less than three times the height. This singular unit is\ndescribed by both Varea and Coto as in common use by the natives.\n\nThere were no accurate measures of long distances. As among the Mayas,\njourneys were counted by resting places, called in Cakchiquel\n_uxlanibal_, literally \u201cbreathing places,\u201d from _uxla_, the breath,\nitself, a derivative of the radical _ux_, to exist, to be, to live, the\nbreath being taken as the most evident sign of life.\n\nThere was originally no word in Cakchiquel meaning \u201cto weigh,\u201d as in a\nbalance, and therefore they adopted the Spanish _peso_, as _tin pesoih_,\nI weigh. Nor, although they constructed stone walls of considerable\nheight, did they have any knowledge of the plumb line or plummet. The\nname they gave it even shows that they had no idea what its use was, as\nthey called it \u201cthe piece of metal for fastening together,\u201d supposing it\nto be an aid in cementing the stone work, rather than in adjusting its\nlines.[404]\n\n\n                              THE AZTECS.\n\nIn turning to the Mexicans or Aztecs, some interesting problems present\nthemselves. As far as I can judge by the Nahuatl language, measures\ndrawn from the upper extremity were of secondary importance, and were\nnot the bases of their metrical standards, and, as I shall show, this is\nborne out by a series of proofs from other directions.\n\nThe fingers, _mapilli_, appear to have been customary measures. They are\nmentioned in the early writers as one equal to an inch. The name\n_mapilli_, is a synthesis of _maitl_, hand, and _pilli_, child,\noffspring, addition, etc.\n\nThe span was called _miztetl_ or _miztitl_, a word of obvious\nderivation, meaning \u201cbetween the finger nails,\u201d from _iztetl_, finger\nnail. This span, however, was not like ours, from the extremity of the\nthumb to the extremity of the little finger, nor yet like that of the\nCakchiquels, from the extremity of the thumb to that of the middle\nfinger, but like that now in use among the Mayas (see above), from the\nextremity of the thumb to that of the index finger.[405]\n\nThere were four measures from the point of the elbow; one to the wrist\nof the same arm, a second to the wrist of the opposite arm, a third to\nthe ends of the fingers of the same arm, and the fourth to the ends of\nthe fingers of the opposite arm, the arms always considered as extended\nat right angles to the body. The terms for these are given somewhat\nconfusedly in my authorities, but I believe the following are correct.\n\n1. From the elbow to the wrist of the same arm; _cemmat__zotzopatzli_,\n\u201ca little arm measure,\u201d from _ce_, a, one, _ma_ from _maitl_, arm or\nhand, _tzotzoca_, small, inferior, _patzoa_, to make small, to diminish.\n\n2. From the elbow to the wrist of the opposite arm, _cemmitl_, an arrow,\na shaft, from _ce_, and _mitl_, arrow, this distance being the approved\nlength of an arrow. We may compare the old English expression, a\n\u201ccloth-yard shaft.\u201d\n\n3. From the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the same arm,\n_cemmolicpitl_, one elbow, _ce_, one, _molicpitl_, elbow. This is the\ncubit.\n\n4. From the elbow to the ends of the fingers of the opposite arm.\n\nThe following were the arm measures:\n\n_Cema\u00e7olli_, from the tip of the shoulder to the end of the hand (_ce_,\none, _ma\u00e7oa_, to extend the arm).\n\n_Cemmatl_, from the tip of the fingers of one hand to those of the\nother. Although this word is apparently a synthesis of _ce_, one,\n_maitl_, arm, and means \u201cone arm,\u201d it is uniformly rendered by the early\nwriters _una braza_, a fathom.\n\n_Cenyollotli_, from the middle of the breast to the end of the fingers\n(_ce_, one, _yollotl_, breast).\n\nIt is known that the Aztecs had a standard measure of length which they\nemployed in laying out grounds and constructing buildings. It was called\nthe _octacatl_, but neither the derivation of this word, nor the exact\nlength of the measure it represented, has been positively ascertained.\nThe first syllable, _oc_, it will be noticed, is the same as the Maya\nword for foot, and in Nahuatl _xocopalli_ is \u201cthe sole of the foot.\u201d\nThis was used as a measure by the decimal system, and there were in\nNahuatl two separate and apparently original words to express a measure\nof ten foot-lengths. One was:\n\n_Matlaxocpallatamachiualoni_, which formidable synthesis is analyzed as\nfollows: _matla_, from _matlactli_, ten, _xocpal_, from _xocpalli_,\nfoot-soles, _tamachiuia_, to measure (from _machiotl_, a sign or mark,\nlike the Cakchiquel _etal_) _l_, for _lo_, sign of the passive, _oni_, a\nverbal termination \u201cequivalent to the Latin _bilis_ or _dus_.\u201d[406] Thus\nthe word means that which is measurable by ten foot-lengths.\n\nThe second word was _matlacyxitlatamachiualoni_.\n\nThe composition of this is similar to the former, except that in the\nplace of the perhaps foreign root _xoc_, foot, _yxitl_, foot, is used,\nwhich seems to have been the proper Nahuatl term.\n\nAs these words prove that the foot-length was one of the standards of\nthe Aztecs, it remains to be seen whether they enlighten us as to the\n_octacail_. I quote in connection an interesting passage by the native\nhistorian, Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl in his _Historia Chichimeca_,\npublished in Lord Kingsborough\u2019s great work on Mexico (Vol. ix., p.\n242). Ixtlilxochitl is describing the vast communal dwelling built by\nthe Tezcucan chieftain Nezahualcoyotl, capable of accommodating over two\nthousand persons. He writes: \u201cThese houses were in length from east to\nwest four hundred and eleven and a half [native] measures, which reduced\nto our [Spanish] measures make twelve hundred and thirty-four and a half\nyards (_varas_), and in breadth, from north to south three hundred and\ntwenty-six measures, which are nine hundred and seventy-eight yards.\u201d\n\nThis passage has been analyzed by the learned antiquary, Se\u00f1or Orozco y\nBerra.[407] The native measure referred to by Ixtlilxochitl was that of\nTezcuco, which was identical with that of Mexico. The yard was the _vara\nde Burgos_, which had been ordered to be adopted throughout the colony\nby an ordinance of the viceroy Antonio de Mendoza. This vara was in\nlength 0.838 metre, and, as according to the chronicler, the native\nmeasurement was just three times this (411\u00bd x 3 = 1234\u00bd, and 326 x 3 =\n978), it must have been 2.514 metre. This is equal in our measure to\n9.842 feet, or, say, nine feet ten inches.\n\nThis would make the _octacatl_ identical with those long-named ten-foot\nmeasures, which, as I have shown, were multiples of the length of the\nfoot, as is proved by an analysis of their component words.\n\nThis result is as interesting as it is new, since it demonstrates that\nthe metrical unit of ancient Mexico was the same as that of ancient\nRome\u2014the length of the foot-print.\n\nSome testimony of another kind may be brought to illustrate this point.\n\nIn 1864, the Mexican government appointed a commission to survey the\ncelebrated ruins of Teotihuacan, under the care of Don Ramon Almaraz. At\nthe suggestion of Se\u00f1or Orozco, this able engineer ran a number of lines\nof construction to determine what had been the metrical standard of the\nbuilders. His decision was that it was \u201cabout\u201d met. 0.8, or, say, 31\u00bd\ninches.[408] This is very close to an even third of the _octacatl_, and\nwould thus be a common divisor of lengths laid off by it.\n\nI may here turn aside from my immediate topic to compare these metrical\nstandards with that of the Mound-Builders of the Ohio valley.\n\nIn the _American Antiquarian_, April, 1881, Prof. W. J. McGee applied\nMr. Petrie\u2019s arithmetical system of \u201cinductive metrology\u201d to a large\nnumber of measurements of mounds and earthworks in Iowa, with the result\nof ascertaining a common standard of 25.716 inches.\n\nIn 1883, Col. Charles Whittlesey, of Cleveland, analyzed eighty-seven\nmeasurements of Ohio earthworks by the method of even divisors and\nconcluded that thirty inches was about the length, or was one of the\nmultiples, of their metrical standard.[409]\n\nMoreover, fifty-seven per cent of all the lines were divisible without\nremainder by ten feet. How much of this may have been owing to the\ntendency of hurried measurers to average on fives and tens, I cannot\nsay; but leaving this out of the question, there is a probability that a\nten foot-length rule was used by the \u201cmound-builders\u201d to lay out their\nworks.\n\nIt may not be out of place to add a suggestion here as to the\napplicability of the methods of inductive metrology to American\nmonuments. The proportions given above by Ixtlilxochitl, it will be\nnoted, are strikingly irregular (411\u00bd, 326). Was this accident or\ndesign? Very likely the latter, based upon some superstitious or\nastrological motive. It is far from a solitary example. It recurs\neverywhere in the remarkable ruins of Mitla. \u201cCareful attention,\u201d says\nMr. Louis H. Aym\u00e9, \u201chas been paid to make the whole asymmetrical. * * *\nThis asymmetry of Mitla is not accidental, I am certain, but made\ndesignedly. M. Desir\u00e9 Charnay tells me he has observed the same thing at\nPalenque.\u201d These examples should be a warning against placing implicit\nreliance on the mathematical procedures for obtaining the lineal\nstandards of these forgotten nations.[410]\n\nWhatever the lineal standard of the Aztecs may have been, we have ample\nevidence that it was widely recognized, very exact, and officially\ndefined and protected. In the great market of Mexico, to which thousands\nflocked from the neighboring country (seventy thousand in a day, says\nCortes, but we can cut this down one-half in allowance for the\nexaggeration of an enthusiast), there were regularly appointed\ngovernment officers to examine the measures used by the merchants and\ncompare them with the correct standard. Did they fall short, the\nmeasures were broken and the merchant severely punished as an enemy to\nthe public weal.[411]\n\nThe road-measures of the Aztecs was by the stops of the carriers, as we\nhave seen was also the case in Guatemala. In Nahuatl these were called\n_neceuilli_, resting places, or _netlatolli_, sitting places; and\ndistances were reckoned numerically by these, as one, two, three, etc.,\nresting places. Although this seems a vague and inaccurate method, usage\nhad attached comparatively definite ideas of distance to these terms.\nFather Duran tells us that along the highways there were posts or stones\nerected with marks upon them showing how many of these stops there were\nto the next market-towns\u2014a sort of mile-stones, in fact. As the\ncompetition between the various markets was very active, each set up its\nown posts, giving its distance, and adding a curse on all who did not\nattend, or were led away by the superior attractions of its rivals.[412]\n\nSo far as I have learned, the lineal measures above mentioned were those\napplied to estimate superficies. In some of the plans of fields, etc.,\nhanded down, the size is marked by the native numerals on one side of\nthe plan, which are understood to indicate the square measure of the\nincluded tract. The word in Nahuatl meaning to survey or measure lands\nis _tlalpoa_, literally \u201cto count land,\u201d from _tlalli_ land, _poa_ to\ncount.\n\nThe Aztecs were entirely ignorant of balances, scales or weights. Cortes\nsays distinctly that when he visited the great market of\nMexico-Tenochtitlan, he saw all articles sold by number and measure, and\nnothing by weight.[413] The historian Herrera confirms this from other\nauthorities, and adds that when grass or hay was sold, it was estimated\nby the length of a cord which could be passed around the bundle.[414]\n\nThe plumb-line must have been unknown to the Mexicans also. Their called\nit _temetztepilolli_, \u201cthe piece of lead which is hung from on high,\u201d\nfrom _temetzli_, lead, and _piloa_, to fasten something high up. Lead\nwas not unknown to the Aztecs before the conquest. They collected it in\nthe Provinces of Tlachco and Itzmiquilpan, but did not esteem it of much\nvalue, and their first knowledge of it as a plummet must have been when\nthey saw it in the hands of the Spaniards. Hence their knowledge of the\ninstrument itself could not have been earlier.\n\nThe conclusions to which the above facts tend are as follows:\n\n1. In the Maya system of lineal measures, foot, hand, and body measures\nwere nearly equally prominent, but the foot unit was the customary\nstandard.\n\n2. In the Cakchiquel system, hand and body measures were almost\nexclusively used, and of these, those of the hand prevailed.\n\n3. In the Aztec system, body measurements were unimportant, hand and arm\nmeasures held a secondary position, while the foot measure was adopted\nas the official and obligatory standard both in commerce and\narchitecture.\n\n4. The Aztec terms for their lineal standard being apparently of Maya\norigin, suggest that their standard was derived from that nation.\n\n5. Neither of the three nations was acquainted with a system of\nestimation by weight, nor with the use of the plumb-line, nor with an\naccurate measure of long distances.\n\n\n\n\n                THE CURIOUS HOAX OF THE TAENSA LANGUAGE.\n\n\nOne might think it a difficult task to manufacture a new language \u201cfrom\nthe whole cloth;\u201d but, in fact, it is no great labor. We have but to\nremember that within the last dozen years more than a dozen\n\u201cworld-languages\u201d have been framed and offered for acceptance, and we at\nonce perceive that a moderate knowledge of tongues and some linguistic\ningenuity are all that is required.\n\nIt is an innocent amusement so long as no fraudulent use is made of the\nmanufactured product; but the temptation to play a practical joke, and\nto palm off a deception on overeager linguists, is as great in languages\nas it is in arch\u00e6ology\u2014and every antiquary knows how suspiciously he has\nto scrutinize each new specimen.\n\nA curious hoax, which deceived some of the best linguists of Europe and\nAmerica, was perpetrated about a decade ago by two young French\nseminarists, Jean Parisot and A. Dejouy. Interested by reading\nCh\u00e2teaubriand, and by various publications on American languages which\nappeared in France about that time, they made up a short grammar and a\nlist of words of what they called the _Tansa_ language, from a name they\nfound in Ch\u00e2teaubriand\u2019s _Voyage en Amerique_, and into this invented\ntongue they translated the Lord\u2019s Prayer, the Creed, an Algonkin hymn\npublished in Paris, and other material.\n\nAt first, the two students pursued this occupation merely as an\namusement, but it soon occurred to them that more could be made of it;\nso M. Parisot sent a batch of the alleged \u201cfragments\u201d of the \u201cTansa\u201d to\nthe publishers, Maisonneuve et Cie, Paris, for publication. The\nmanuscripts were passed over to M. Julien Vinson, editor of the _R\u00e9vue\nde Linguistique_, who addressed the young author for further\nparticulars. M. Parisot replied that these pieces were copies of\noriginals obtained many years before by his grandfather, from what\nsource he knew not, and on the strength of this vague statement, they\nduly appeared in the _R\u00e9vue_.\n\nTheir publication attracted the attention of the eminent French\nlinguist, M. Lucien Adam, who had long occupied himself with American\ntongues, and he entered into correspondence with M. Parisot. The\nlatter\u2019s stock meanwhile had considerably increased. He and his friend\nhad published at Epinal, apparently privately, a small pamphlet, with an\nintroductory note in bad Spanish, containing a number of \u201csongs\u201d in the\n\u201cTaensa,\u201d as they now called their language. They claimed in the note\nthat the songs had been obtained by a traveler in America, in the year\n1827 or 1828, \u201cin the Taensa town, on the banks of the Mississippi or\nthe Alabama\u201d(!)[415]\n\nWith this abundant material at hand, young Parisot replied cheerfully to\nM. Adam, and supplied that scientist with \u201ccopy\u201d from the alleged\nancestral MSS. quite enough to fill a goodly volume of grammar, songs,\nlexicon, and the various paraphernalia of a linguistic apparatus, all of\nwhich eager M. Adam and his collaborator, Mr. A. S. Gatschet, the expert\nlinguist attached to our Bureau of Ethnology, received in good faith and\nwithout a suspicion of the joker who victimized them; and what is more\nsingular, without having a doubt excited by the many and gross blunders\nof the young seminarist.\n\nTheir joint work reached the United States in 1883, and for two years\nwas received both here and in Europe as a genuine production. My\nattention was first attracted to it in 1883, and then I referred to it\nas a \u201cstrange\u201d production; but I did not give it a close examination\nuntil the close of 1884. This examination led me to prepare the\nfollowing article, which was published in the _American Antiquarian_ for\nMarch, 1885:\n\n\n                   THE TAENSA GRAMMAR AND DICTIONARY.\n\n                         _A Deception Exposed._\n\nThe student of American languages is under many obligations to the\neditors and publishers of the _Biblioth\u00e9que Linguistique Am\u00e9ricaine_,\nnine volumes of which have been issued by the firm of Maisonneuve et\nCie., Paris. Most of these contain valuable authentic original material,\nfrom approved sources, and edited with judgment. The exception to this\nrule is the volume last issued, which from its character deserves more\nthan a passing criticism.\n\nThis volume bears the following title: _Grammaire et Vocabulaire de la\nLangue Taensa, avec Textes Traduits et Comment\u00e9s par J. D. Haumont\u00e9,\nParisot, L. Adam_. Pp. 19, III. It contains what professes to be a\ngrammar of the Taensas Indians, who lived near the banks of the lower\nMississippi, in the parish of that name in Louisiana, when it was first\ndiscovered, but who have long since become extinct. Following the\ngrammar are the \u201cTexts,\u201d a remarkable series of native songs in the\nalleged Taensa tongue, with a French translation, accompanied by a\ncommentary and a vocabulary.\n\nAll this array has been received by scholars without question. It looks\nso extremely scientific and satisfactory that no one has dared assail\nits authenticity. Moreover, the book appears with an historical\nintroduction by Mr. Albert S. Gatschet, of our Bureau of Ethnology, and\none of the editors is M. Lucien Adam, a gentleman who stands at the head\nof European Americanists. Mr. Gatschet, moreover, fully recognizes the\nauthenticity of the whole in his latest work, and up to the present I\nknow of no one who has doubted it, either in this country or in Europe.\n\nIt is, therefore, only after a great deal of consideration and\nhesitation that I now give publicity to the opinion I have long\nentertained, that a gross deception has been somewhere practiced in the\npreparation of this book, and that it is not at all what it purports to\nbe. Let it be understood that I distinctly exculpate the gentlemen I\nhave named from any share in this; they can only be charged with the\nvenial error of allowing their enthusiasm for knowledge to get the\nbetter of their critical acumen.\n\nI shall proceed to give with as much brevity as possible the reasons\nwhich have led me to reject the pretended character of this work.\n\nAnd first I may note that both the history of the alleged original\nmanuscript and the method in which it has been presented are to the last\ndegree unsatisfactory. About the former, M. Haumont\u00e9 tells us that among\nthe papers of his grandfather, who died as mayor of Plomb\u00e8res, in 1872,\nhe found a manuscript in Spanish, without date or name of author, and\nthat it is this manuscript \u201ctranslated and arranged,\u201d which is the work\nbefore us. M. Adam adds that for his part he had revised this\ntranslation and advised the omission of certain passages not \u201cprofitable\nto science.\u201d I have been informed by a private source that M. Adam was\nnot shown the original Spanish manuscript, although he asked to see it.\nWe are deprived therefore of any expert opinion as to the age of the\nmanuscript, or its authorship.\n\nWe naturally ask, how did this manuscript come to be in Spanish? No one\nhas been able to point out in the voluminous histories of the Spanish\nMissions a single reference to any among the Taensas. Moreover, this\ntribe was constantly under French observation from its first discovery\nby La Salle in 1682, until its entire destruction and disappearance\nabout 1730\u201340, as is minutely recorded by Charlevoix, who even adds the\nname of the planter who obtained the concession of their lands. With the\nknowledge we have of the early Louisiana colony, it would have been next\nto impossible for a Spanish monk to have lived with them long enough to\nhave acquired their language, and no mention to have been made of him in\nthe French accounts. That a Spaniard, not a monk, should have attempted\nit, would have excited still more attention from national distrust.\n\nThis preliminary ground of skepticism is not removed by turning to the\ngrammar itself. As M. Adam remarks, the language is one \u201cof extreme\nsimplicity,\u201d such simplicity that it excites more than the feeling of\nastonishment. How much liberty M. Haumont\u00e9 allowed himself in his\ntranslation he unfortunately does not inform us; but I suppose that he\nscarcely went so far as to offer original opinions on the pronunciation\nof a language which no man has heard spoken for more than a century. If\nhe did not, then the writer of the original manuscript must have been a\npretty good linguist for his day, since he explains the pronunciation of\nthe Taensa by the French, the English, the German, and the Spanish!! (p.\n4). I suppose the references on p. 11, to the Nahuatl, Kechua and\nAlgonkin tongues are by the translator, though we are not so told; at\nany rate, they are by some one who has given a certain amount of study\nto American languages, and could get up one not wholly unlike them.\nThere is, however, just enough unlikeness to all others in the so-called\nTaensa to make us accept it \u201cwith all reserves,\u201d as the French say. That\nan American language should have a distinctively grammatical gender,\nthat it should have a true relative pronoun, that its numeral system\nshould be based on the nine units in the extraordinarily simple manner\nhere proposed, that it should have three forms of the plural, that its\nverbs should present the singular simplicity of these,\u2014these traits are\nindeed not impossible, but they are too unusual not to demand the best\nof evidence.\n\nBut the evidence which leaves no doubt as to the hum-buggery in this\nwhole business is found in the so-called \u201cCancionero Taensa,\u201d or Taensa\nPoems. There are eleven of these, and according to M. Adam, \u201cthey give\nus unexpected information about the manners, customs and social\ncondition of the Taensas.\u201d If he had also added, still more unexpected\ninformation about the physical geography of Louisiana, he would have\nspoken yet more to the point. For instance, our botanists will be\ncharmed to learn that the sugar maple flourishes in the Louisiana\nswamps, and that it furnished a favorite food of the natives. It is\nrepeatedly referred to (pp. 31, 34, 45, 67). They will also learn that\nthe sugar cane was raised by the Taensas, although the books say it was\nintroduced into Louisiana by the Jesuits in 1761 (p. 45). The potato and\nrice, apples and bananas, were also familiar to them, and the white\nbirch and wild rice are described as flourishing around the bayous of\nthe lower Mississippi! It may be urged that these are all\nmistranslations of misunderstood native words. To this I reply, what\nsort of editing is that which not only could commit such unpardonable\nblunders, but send them forth to the scientific world without a hint\nthat they do not pretend to be anything more than guesses?\n\nBut no such apology can be made. The author of this fabrication had not\ntaken the simplest precaution to make his statements coincide with\nfacts. How dense was his ignorance of the climate of Louisiana is\nmanifested in the pretended \u201cCalendar of the Taensas,\u201d which is printed\non p. 41 of his book. He tells us that their year began at the vernal\nequinox and consisted of twelve or thirteen months named as follows:\n\n            1. Moon of the sugar maples (April).\n            2. Moon of flowers (May).\n            3. Moon of strawberries (June).\n            4. Moon of heat (July).\n            5. Moon of fruits (August).\n            6. Moon of the summer hunts (September).\n            7. Moon of leaves, (falling leaves) (October).\n            8. Moon of cold (November).\n            9. Moon of whiteness (i. e. of snow) (December).\n           10. Moon of fogs (January).\n           11. Moon of winter hunts (February).\n           12. Moon of birds (returning).        } (March).\n           13. Moon of green (returning green).  }\n\nHow absurd on the face of it, such a calendar would be for the climate\nof Tensas Parish, La., need not be urged. The wonder is that any\nintelligent editor would pass it over without hesitation. The not\ninfrequent references to snow and ice might and ought to have put him on\nhis guard.\n\nThe text and vocabulary teem with such impossibilities; while the style\nof the alleged original songs is utterly unlike that reported from any\nother native tribe. It much more closely resembles the stilted and tumid\nimitations of supposed savage simplicity, common enough among French\nwriters of the eighteenth century.\n\nAs a fair example of the nonsense of the whole, I will translate the\nlast song given in the book, that called\n\n                           THE MARRIAGE SONG.\n\n  1. The chief of the Chactas has come to the land of the warriors \u201cI\n  come.\u201d \u201cThou comest.\u201d\n\n  2. Around his body is a beautiful garment, he wears large leggings,\n  sandals, tablets of white wood, feathers behind his head and behind\n  his shoulders, on his head the antlers of a deer, a heavy war club\n  in his right hand.\n\n  3. What is the wish of the great warrior who has come?\n\n  4. He wishes to speak to the chief of the numerous and powerful\n  Taensas.\n\n  5. Let the warrior enter the house of the old men. The chief is\n  seated in the midst of the old men. He will certainly hear thee.\n  Enter the house of the old men.\n\n  6. Great chief, old man, I enter. Thou comest. Enter; bring him in.\n  What wishes the foreign warrior? Speak, thou who hast come.\n\n  7. Old men, ancient men, I am the chief of many men; at ten days\u2019\n  journey up the river there lies the land of poplars, the land of the\n  wild rice, which belongs to the brave warriors, the brothers of the\n  Taensas.\n\n  8. They said to me\u2014since thou hast not chosen a bride, go to the\n  Taensas our brothers, ask of them a bride; for the Chactas are\n  strong; we will ask a bride of the Taensas.\n\n  9. That is well; but speak, warrior, are the Chactas numerous?\n\n  10. Count; they are six hundred, and I am stronger than ten.\n\n  11. That is well; but speak, do they know how to hunt the buffalo\n  and the deer? does the squirrel run in your great forests?\n\n  12. The land of the wild rice has no great forests, but cows, stags\n  and elks dwell in our land in great numbers.\n\n  13. What plants grow in your country?\n\n  14. Poplars, the slupe tree, the myrtle grow there, we have the\n  sugar maple, ebony to make collars, the oak from which to make war\n  clubs; our hills have magnolias whose shining leaves cover our\n  houses.\n\n  15. That is well; the Taensas have neither the slupe tree nor the\n  ebony, but they have the wax tree and the vine: has the land of the\n  wild rice these also?\n\n  16. The Taensas are strong and rich, the Chactas are strong also,\n  they are the brothers of the Taensas.\n\n  17. The Taensas love the brave Chactas, they will give you a bride;\n  but say, dost thou come alone? dost thou bring bridal presents.\n\n  18. Twenty warriors are with me, and _bulls drag a wain_.\n\n  19. Let six, seven, twenty Taensa warriors go forth to meet those\n  who come. For thee, we will let thee see the bride, she is my\n  daughter, of me, the great chief; she is young; she is beautiful as\n  the lily of the waters; she is straight as the white birch; her eyes\n  are like unto the tears of gum that distil from the trees; she knows\n  how to prepare the meats for the warriors and the sap of the sugar\n  maple; she knows how to knit the fishing nets and keep in order the\n  weapons of war\u2014we will show thee the bride.\n\n  20. The strangers have arrived, the bulls have dragged up the wain.\n  The warrior offers his presents to the bride, paint for her eyes,\n  fine woven stuff, scalps of enemies, collars, beautiful bracelets,\n  rings for her feet, and swathing-bands for her first born.\n\n  21. The father of the bride and the old man receive skins, horns of\n  deer, solid bows and sharpened arrows.\n\n  22. Now let the people repose during the night; at sunrise there\n  shall be a feast; then you shall take the bride in marriage.\n\n  And this is the song of the marriage.\n\nThe assurance which has offered this as a genuine composition of a\nLouisiana Indian is only equalled by the docility with which it has been\naccepted by Americanists. The marks of fraud upon it are like Falstaff\u2019s\nlies\u2014\u201cgross as a mountain, open, palpable.\u201d The Choctaws are located ten\ndays\u2019 journey up the Mississippi in the wild rice region about the\nhead-waters of the stream, whereas they were the immediate neighbors of\nthe real Taensas, and dwelt when first discovered in the middle and\nsouthern parts of the present State of Mississippi. The sugar maple is\nmade to grow in the Louisiana swamps, the broad-leaved magnolia and the\nebony in Minnesota. The latter is described as the land of the myrtle,\nand the former of the vine. The northern warrior brings feet-rings and\ninfant clothing as presents, while the southern bride knows all about\nboiling maple sap, and is like a white birch. But the author\u2019s knowledge\nof aboriginal customs stands out most prominently when he has the\nup-river chief come with an ox-cart and boast of his cows! After that\npassage I need say nothing more. He is indeed ignorant who does not know\nthat not a single draft animal, and not one kept for its milk, was ever\nfound among the natives of the Mississippi valley.\n\nI have made other notes tending in the same direction, but it is\nscarcely necessary for me to proceed further. If the whole of this\npretended Taensa language has been fabricated, it would not be the first\ntime in literary history that such a fraud has been perpetrated. In the\nlast century, George Psalmanazar framed a grammar of a fictitious\nlanguage in Formosa, which had no existence whatever. So it seems to be\nwith the Taensa; not a scrap of it can be found elsewhere, not a trace\nof any such tongue remains in Louisiana. What is more, all the old\nwriters distinctly deny that this tribe had any independent language. M.\nDe Montigny, who was among them in 1699, Father Gravier, who was also at\ntheir towns, and Du Pratz, the historian, all say positively that the\nTaensas spoke the Natchez language, and were part of the same people. We\nhave ample specimens of the Natchez, and it is nothing like this alleged\nTaensa. Moreover, we have in old writers the names of the Taensa\nvillages furnished by the Taensas themselves, and they are nowise akin\nto the matter of this grammar, but are of Chahta-Muskoki derivation.\n\nWhat I have now said is I think sufficient to brand this grammar and its\nassociated texts as deceptions practiced on the scientific world. If it\nconcerns the editors and introducers of that work to discover who\npracticed and is responsible for that deception, let the original\nmanuscript be produced and submitted to experts; if this is not done,\nlet the book be hereafter pilloried as an imposture.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nAs soon as I could obtain reprints of the above article I forwarded them\nto M. Adam and others interested in American languages, and M. Adam at\nonce took measures to obtain from the now \u201cAbb\u00e9\u201d Parisot the original\nMSS. That young ecclesiastic, however, professed entire ignorance of\ntheir whereabouts; he had wholly forgotten what disposition he had made\nof this portion of his grandfather\u2019s papers! He also charged M. Adam\nwith having worked over (_remani\u00e9_) his material; and finally disclaimed\nall responsibility concerning it.\n\nIn spite, however, of his very unsatisfactory statements, M. Adam\ndeclined to recognize the fabrication of the tongue, and expressed\nhimself so at length in a brochure entitled, _Le Taensa a-t-il \u00e9t\u00e9 forg\u00e9\nde toutes Pi\u00e8ces? R\u00e9ponse \u00e0 M. Daniel G. Brinton_ (pp. 22, Maissonneuve\nFr\u00e8res et Ch. Leclerc, Paris, 1885). The argument which he made use of\nwill be seen from the following reply which I published in _The American\nAntiquarian_, September, 1885:\n\n\n                   THE TAENSA GRAMMAR AND DICTIONARY.\n\nThe criticism on the Taensa Grammar published in the _American\nAntiquarian_ last March has led to a reply from M. Lucien Adam, the\nprincipal editor, under the following title: \u201c_Le Taensa a-t-il-\u00e9t\u00e9\nforg\u00e9 de toutes Pi\u00e9ces?_\u201d As the question at issue is one of material\nimportance to American arch\u00e6ology, I shall state M. Adam\u2019s arguments in\ndefense of the Grammar.\n\nIt will be remembered that the criticism published last March closed\nwith an urgent call for the production of the original MS., which M.\nAdam himself had never seen. To meet this, M. Adam as soon as\npracticable applied to M. Parisot, who alleged that he had translated\nthe Grammar from the Spanish original, to produce that original. This M.\nParisot professed himself unable to do; although only two or three years\nhave elapsed, he cannot remember what he did with it, and he thinks it\npossible that it is lost or destroyed! The investigations, however,\nreveal two facts quite clearly: first, that the original MS., if there\nwas one, was not in Spanish as asserted, and was not in the handwriting\nof M. Parisot\u2019s grandfather, as was also asserted, as the latter was\ncertainly not the kind of man to occupy himself with any such document.\nHe kept a sort of boardinghouse, and the suggestion now is that one of\nhis temporary guests left this supposed MS. at his house. As its\nexistence is still in doubt, this uncertainty about its origin need not\nfurther concern us.\n\nThe more important question is whether the language as presented in the\nGrammar and texts bears internal evidence of authenticity or not.\n\nM. Adam begins with the texts, the so-called poems. To my surprise, M.\nAdam, so far as they pretend to be native productions, tosses them\noverboard without the slightest compunction. \u201cIn my own mind,\u201d he\nwrites, \u201cI have always considered them the work of some disciple of the\nJesuit Fathers, who had taken a fancy to the Taensa poetry.\u201d This\nemphatic rejection of their aboriginal origin has led me to look over\nthe volume again, as it seemed to me that if such was the opinion of the\nlearned editor he should certainly have hinted it to his readers. Not\nthe slightest intimation of the kind can be found in its pages.\n\nThe original MS. having disappeared, and the texts having been ruled out\nas at best the botch-work of some European, M. Adam takes his stand on\nthe Grammar and maintains its authenticity with earnestness.\n\nI named in my criticism six points in the grammatical structure of the\nalleged Taensa, specifying them as so extremely rare in American\nlanguages, that it demanded the best evidence to suppose that they all\nwere present in this extraordinary tongue.\n\nThese points are discussed with much acuteness and fairness by M. Adam,\nand his arguments within these limits are considered convincing by so\neminent an authority as Professor Friederich M\u00fcller, of Vienna, to whom\nthey were submitted, and whose letter concerning them he publishes. What\nM. Adam does is to show that each of the peculiarities named finds a\nparallel in other American tongues, or he claims that the point is not\nproperly taken. As I never denied the former, but merely called\nattention to the rarity of such features, the question is, whether the\nevidence is sufficient to suppose that several of them existed in this\ntongue; while as to the correctness of my characterization of Taensa\nGrammar, scholars will decide that for themselves.\n\nIt will be seen from the above that, even if some substructure will be\nshown to have existed for this Taensa Grammar and texts (which,\nindividually, I still deny), it has been presented to the scientific\nworld under conditions which were far from adequate to the legitimate\ndemands of students.\n\nM. Adam in the tone of his reply is very fair and uniformly courteous,\nexcept in his last sentence, where he cannot resist the temptation to\nhave a fling at us for the supposed trait which Barnum and his compeers\nhave conferred upon us among those who do not know us. \u201cPermettezmoi de\nvous dire,\u201d he writes, \u201cque la France n\u2019est point la terre classique du\n_humbug_.\u201d Has M. Adam forgotten that George Psalmanazar, he who in the\nlast century manufactured a language out of the whole cloth, grammar and\ndictionary and all, was a Frenchman born and bred? And that if the\nauthor of the Taensa volume has done the same, his only predecessor in\nthis peculiar industry is one of his own nation?\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nM. Adam continued his praiseworthy efforts to unearth the imaginary\noriginals of the Abb\u00e9 Parisot\u2019s hoax, but with the results one can\neasily anticipate\u2014they were not forthcoming.[416]\n\nThe discussion continued in a desultory manner for some time, and Mr.\nGatschet made the most strenuous efforts during his official journeys as\ngovernment linguist in the southwest and in the Indian territory to find\nevidence showing that he had not been taken in by the ingenious French\nseminarists; but his continued silence was evidence enough that none\nsuch came to his ken.\n\nIn 1886 Professor Julien Vinson reviewed the question for the _R\u00e9vue de\nLinguistique_, and delivered what may be considered the final verdict in\nthe case. It is to the effect that the whole alleged language of the\nTaensas,\u2014grammar, vocabulary, prose and poetry\u2014is a fabrication by a\ncouple of artful students to impose on the learned. I may close with the\nProfessor\u2019s own closing words:\n\n\u201cQue restera-t-il du _taensa_? A mon avis, une mystification sans grande\nport\u00e9e et _much ado about nothing_.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n                   INDEX OF AUTHORS AND AUTHORITIES.\n\n\n Abbot, C. C., 27, 32, 53, 185.\n\n Abel-Remusat, 339.\n\n Abel, Carl, 402, 410.\n\n Adair, James, 71, 78.\n\n Adam, Lucien, 36, 355\u20137, 374, 379, 389, 405, 406, 453, _sq._\n\n Adler, C. J., 328, 329.\n\n Aglio, Agostino, 250.\n\n Aguilar, Pedro Sanchez de, 236.\n\n Albornoz, R. F., 399.\n\n Alcazar, Padre, 76.\n\n Almaraz, Ramon, 446.\n\n Ameghino, Fiorentino, 31.\n\n Anales de Chimalpahin, 283.\n\n Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 86, 90, 210, 283.\n\n Anales del Museo Nacional, 210, 439.\n\n Anchieta, Joseph de, 381, _sq._\n\n Anchorena, Jose D., 365, 425, 428.\n\n \u201cAncient Nahuatl Poems,\u201d 97, 154.\n\n Ancona, Eligio, 258.\n\n Andrews, 414.\n\n Angrand, Leonce, 84, 253.\n\n Annals of the Kakchiquels, 100, 423.\n\n Anthony, A. S., 181\u2013192.\n\n Archives pal\u00e9ographiques de l\u2019Orient et de l\u2019Am\u00e9rique, 253.\n\n Aubin, J. M. A., 196, 209, 210, 212, 220, 231, 282.\n\n Av\u00e9 Lallemant, Dr. R., 64.\n\n Aym\u00e9, Louis H., 448.\n\n\n Babbitt, Frances, 54.\n\n Baeza, Bart. G. de, 164, 166.\n\n Baker, Theodore, 293.\n\n Bandelier, A. F., 275, 278.\n\n Baraga, Frederic, 131, 364, 414.\n\n Bartram, John, 75.\n\n Bartram, William, 71, 76, 78.\n\n Beach, W. W., 45.\n\n Beauvois, E., 148.\n\n Belcourt, Pere, 399, 400.\n\n Berendt, C. H., 119, 164, 171, 175, 179, 237, 272, 288, 295, 398.\n\n Beverly, Robert, 70.\n\n Biblioth\u00e9que Linguistique Am\u00e9ricaine, 454.\n\n Bichat, 57.\n\n Biedma, his narrative, 72, 74.\n\n Bienvenida, Lorenzo de, 26.\n\n Blomes, Richard, 76.\n\n Blumenbach, F. J., 38, 56, 57.\n\n Boas, Franz, 22, 64, 286.\n\n Books of the Jew, MS., 273.\n\n Boole, Professor, 402.\n\n Borde, M. de la, 123.\n\n Boturini, B., 116.\n\n Bourbourg, Brasseur de, _see_ Brasseur.\n\n Brasseur (de Bourbourg), C., 84, 105, 107, 120, 126, 128, 167, 170,\n    199, 210, 227, 231, 243, 263, 282.\n\n Bristock, his fabulous narrative, 76.\n\n Buenaventura, Gabriel de San, 237, 249.\n\n Buschmann, J. C. E., 23, 92, 93.\n\n Byington, Cyrus, 364.\n\n\n Campanius, Thomas, 315.\n\n Cancionero, Americano, 453.\n\n Carochi, Horacio, 325, 418.\n\n Carrillo, Crescencio, 258, 265, 439.\n\n Carrillo, Estanislao, 164.\n\n Cartailhac, Emile de, 391.\n\n Casas, Bartolome de las, 124, 234.\n\n Catherwood, Frederick, 254.\n\n Cavalcanti, Amaro, 380\u2013385, 430.\n\n Ceron, Francisco, 107.\n\n Champollion, 227.\n\n Charencey, H. de, 59, 84, 167, 196, 372.\n\n Charlevoix, P. F. X., 69, 456.\n\n Charnay, D., 83, 86, 89, 97, 448.\n\n Chateaubriand, 452.\n\n Chilan Balam, Book of, 248, 254 _sqq._, 303.\n\n Chimalpahin, D. F. de, 283.\n\n Chronicles of the Mayas, 99, 100.\n\n Cicero, M. T., 127, 424.\n\n Clavigero, F., 84.\n\n Codex Bolognensis, 158.\n\n Codex Chimalpopoca, 210, 221.\n\n Codex Cortesianus, 198, 253.\n\n Codex Dresdensis, 199, 200, 250, _sq._\n\n Codex Mexicanus, No. II., 252.\n\n Codex Peresianus, 252, 265.\n\n Codex Poinsett, 154.\n\n Codex Ramirez, the, 84, 89, 90, 91, 92.\n\n Codex Telleriano-Remensis, 280.\n\n Codex Troano, 114, 200, 202, 230, 253, 265.\n\n Codex Vaticanus, 155, 280.\n\n Codex Zumarraga, 250.\n\n Codice Perez, 265.\n\n Cogolludo, D. L., 127, 168, 235, 238, 268.\n\n Colden, C., 68.\n\n Coleccion de Documentos para la Historia de Espa\u00f1a, 235.\n\n Comte, Auguste, 57.\n\n Copway, George, 154.\n\n Cortes, H. de, 448, 449.\n\n Coto, Thomas, 106, 107, 110, 111 _sq._, 440 _sq._\n\n Cresson, H. T., 41, 53.\n\n Cuesta, Arroyo de la, 386\u2013388.\n\n Culin, Stewart, 151.\n\n Cuoq, J. A., 132.\n\n Cushing, Frank, 108.\n\n Cuvier, G., 38, 57, 61.\n\n\n Darapsky, Dr., 398.\n\n Darwin, Charles, 39, 43, 408.\n\n Dawson, J. William, 44.\n\n Dawson, George M., 395.\n\n Dead, Book of the, 136\u2013140.\n\n Dejouy, A., 452 _sq._\n\n Dias, 430.\n\n Diccionario Historico de Yucatan, 263.\n\n Diccionario Huasteca-Espa\u00f1ol, MS., 221.\n\n Diccionario Maya-Espa\u00f1ol de Motul, MS., _see_ Motul.\n\n Dictionaire Galibi, 123.\n\n Distel, Theodore, 330.\n\n D\u2019Orbigny, Alcide, 39.\n\n Dorsey, J. O., 108.\n\n Dumont, M., 77, 78.\n\n Dumoutier, M., 150.\n\n Dunbar, John B., 291.\n\n Dupaix, Captain, 275, 276.\n\n Duponceau, P. S., 36, 94, 191, 321, 351, 389.\n\n Du Pratz, Le Page, 462.\n\n Duran, Diego, 88, 89, 99, 159, 449.\n\n\n Ehrenreich, Paul, 38, 65.\n\n Eliot, John, 190.\n\n El Siglo que Acaba, 274.\n\n Ettwein, J., 183, 191.\n\n\n Faraud, Henry, 21, 394, 395.\n\n Fernandez, Alonzo, 124.\n\n Finch, Prof., 70.\n\n Flint, Earl, 28, 42.\n\n Foley, Dr., 57.\n\n Forneri, R. P., 329.\n\n F\u00f6rstemann, Dr. E., 200, 243, 251.\n\n Foster, J. W., 67.\n\n Fran\u00e7a, E. F., 430.\n\n\n Gabb, William M., 374\u2013378.\n\n Gage, Thomas, 170.\n\n Gallatin, Albert, 88, 100.\n\n Garcia y Garcia, Ap. 165.\n\n Gatschet, A. S., 75, 454 sq.\n\n Gayangos, P. de, 449.\n\n G\u0153the, J. W. von, 260, 284, 316.\n\n Granados y Galvez, I. J., 117.\n\n Gravier, P., 462.\n\n Guzman, Pantaleon de, 107, 128.\n\n\n Haeckel, E., 390.\n\n Hale, Horatio, 35, 393.\n\n Hamann, 284.\n\n Hamy, E. T., 148, 140, 210, 367.\n\n Harpe, M. de la, 77.\n\n Hartmann, W., 189.\n\n Hartt, Charles F., 380, 382.\n\n Haumont\u00e9, J. D., 455 _sq._\n\n Haynes, H. W., 18, 31.\n\n Heckewelder, John, 191, 315.\n\n Hegel, 403.\n\n Henry, V., 405, 467.\n\n Herder, 284, 403.\n\n Herrera, Antonio de, 89, 91, 92, 448, 450.\n\n Hervas, Abb\u00e9, 330.\n\n Herv\u00e9, Georges, 62.\n\n Holden, 196, 197.\n\n Holguin, R. P., 426, 428.\n\n Holmes, W. H., 148.\n\n Hovelacque, Abel, 62.\n\n Howse, James, 36, 383, 395, 399, 401, 414, 415.\n\n Humboldt, Alexander von, 20, 33, 60, 251, 338, 374, 377.\n\n Humboldt, Wilhelm von, 36, 284, 318, 328\u2013348, 353, 405.\n\n Hunter, Archdeacon, 403.\n\n\n Iconographic Encyclop\u00e6dia, The, 52.\n\n Ixtlilxochitl, F., 84, 87, 90, 92, 97, 283, 445.\n\n\n Jesuits, Relations des, 78.\n\n Jones, C. C., 79, 80.\n\n\n Kalm, Peter, 185.\n\n Kane, Paul, 69.\n\n Kingsborough, Lord, 84, 87, 90, 99, 155, 210, 221, 231, 251, 280, 445.\n\n Kollmann, J., 40.\n\n\n Lacombe, Al., 131, 364, 366, 414.\n\n Lafitau, J. F., 69.\n\n Landa, Diego de, 119, 127, 159, 166, 199, 227, 240 _sq._, 256, 257,\n    265, 438.\n\n Lang, Andrew, 102.\n\n Leland, Charles G., 130, 133.\n\n LePlongeon, A., 439.\n\n Lieber, Francis, 355, 357.\n\n Lindstrom, 183.\n\n Linn\u00e6us, C., 38, 349.\n\n Lizana, Bernardo de, 235, 260, 261.\n\n Lower, M. A., 219.\n\n Lopez, J. M., 164.\n\n Luchan, von, 149.\n\n Lund, Dr., 29.\n\n\n Macedo, F. de, 148, 157, 159.\n\n MacLean, J. P., 67.\n\n Magalhaes, Dr. Couto de, 381, 430.\n\n Magio, R. P., 397.\n\n Mallery, Garrick, 156, 159.\n\n Manuscrito Hieratico, 225.\n\n Martyr, Peter, 233.\n\n Matthews, Washington, 62, 407.\n\n McGee, W. J., 447.\n\n Meigs, James A., 63.\n\n Mendoza, Gumesindo, 59.\n\n Michel, F., 21.\n\n Mitre, Bartolome, 26, 27.\n\n Molina, Alonso de, 93, 325, 418, 443.\n\n Montesinos, H., 23.\n\n Montigny, M. de, 462.\n\n Montoya, Ruiz de, 381\u20135, 398, 400, 429.\n\n Morgan, Lewis A., 44, 45, 60.\n\n Morgues, Le Moyne de, 75.\n\n Morse, E. G., 60.\n\n Mortillet, G. de, 390, 391.\n\n Motolinia, P., 85, 99.\n\n Motul, Diccionario de, MS., 119, 127, 177, 250, 325, 421 _sq._, 435\n    _sq._\n\n M\u00fcller, Frederick, 230, 357, 374, 379, 380, 386, 465.\n\n M\u00fcller, Max, 338.\n\n\n Narvaez, Pamfilo de, 72.\n\n Naxera, Emanuel, 366, 371.\n\n Neve y Molina, Luis de, 366, 370, 371.\n\n Nikkanoche, Occola, his narrative, 77.\n\n Nogueira, D. C. Da., 381.\n\n Nostradamus, Michael, 301.\n\n\n Ollanta, Drama of, 300, 425 _sq._\n\n Olshausen, 149.\n\n Orozco y Berra, 23, 84, 87, 90, 95, 196, 210, 231, 277, 282, 446.\n\n Ossado, Ricardo, 273.\n\n\n Paredes, R. P., 420.\n\n Parisot, J., 452 _sq._\n\n Pe\u00f1afiel, Antonio, 210.\n\n Perez, Francisco, 366, 370.\n\n Perez, Pio, 120, 263, 264, 272.\n\n Peschel, Oscar, 64.\n\n Petit, Pere C., 77.\n\n Petitot, Emile, 21, 58, 394, 398, 401.\n\n Petrie, Prof., 447.\n\n Piccolomini, Count, 367.\n\n Pickering, Charles, 33.\n\n Pickett, Thomas E., 82.\n\n Pierret, Paul, 138.\n\n Pimentel, Francisco, 368, 373.\n\n Platzmann, Julius, 58.\n\n Ponce, Alonzo, 234, 255.\n\n \u201cPopol Vuh,\u201d the, 105 _sq._, 171, 424.\n\n Powell, J. W., 68, 319, 358.\n\n Pratz, Le Page du, 78.\n\n Prescott, W. H., 84.\n\n Psalmanazar, George, 462, 466.\n\n Putnam, F. A., 53.\n\n\n Rada y Delgada, J. de D., 226, 227.\n\n Rajendalala, 146.\n\n Ramirez, J. F., 23, 88, 196, 210.\n\n Ramusio, 72, note.\n\n Rand, S. T., 130.\n\n Ranke, Dr., 64.\n\n Rau, Charles, 31.\n\n Recetarios de Indios, MS., 272.\n\n Reichelt, G. H., 430.\n\n Registro Yucateco, 164, 263.\n\n Rennenkampff, A. von, 330.\n\n Rink, Heinrich, 287, 289.\n\n Romans, Bernard, 78.\n\n Rosa, Agostin de la, 326, 366, 420.\n\n Rosny, Leon de, 196, 199, 226, 252, 253, 265.\n\n Ruiz de Montoya, Antonio, 381 _sq._\n\n\n Saint Hilaire, J. G. de, 164.\n\n Santa Rosa, Beltran de, 238.\n\n Sahagun, Bernardino de, 84, 86, 88, 93, 94, 97, 142, 280, 298.\n\n Saz, P., 122.\n\n Schasler, Max, 329.\n\n Schellhas, Dr., 196, 200, 202.\n\n Scherzer, Karl, 114.\n\n Schoolcraft, H. R., 69, 133, 294, 354.\n\n Schuhmann, T. S., 430.\n\n Schweinitz, E. de, 430.\n\n Seler, Ed., 196, 244.\n\n Sequoyah, 198.\n\n Shakespeare, W., 127, 219, 220, 320.\n\n Shea, John G., 386.\n\n Short, John T., 67.\n\n Sim\u00e9on, R\u00e9mi, 94, 283.\n\n Smith, Spencer, 81.\n\n Solana, Alonso de, 235.\n\n Soriano, Juan G., 373.\n\n Sosa, F. de P., 164.\n\n Sotomayor, Damaso, 272, 277.\n\n Sotomayor, J. de Villagutierre de, 239, 247.\n\n Spinoza, B., 411.\n\n Squier, E. G., 69, 81, 133.\n\n Steinen, Karl von den, 34.\n\n Steinthal, H., 329, 355, 390, 403.\n\n Stephens, J. L., 164, 168, 263.\n\n Stoll, Dr. Otto, 35, 100, 109, 112, 122, 423.\n\n Storm, Gustav, 22.\n\n Strebel, M. H., 275.\n\n Sungimoto, K., 151.\n\n\n Tanner, John, 157.\n\n Tapia Zenteno, Carlos de, 423.\n\n Taylor, S., 70.\n\n Ten Kate, Dr. H. F. C., 66.\n\n Testera, Jacobo de, 233.\n\n Tetlapan Quetzanitzin, 299.\n\n Teza, E., 332.\n\n Tezozomoc, A., 23, 89, 93, 143, 283.\n\n Thavenet, Abb\u00e9, 332.\n\n Thiel, B. A., 375, 379.\n\n Thomas, Cyrus, 82, 106, 200, 204, 230, 269.\n\n Timberlake, Lieutenant, 71.\n\n Tolmie, W. F., 396.\n\n Topinard, Paul, 64.\n\n Torquemada, J. de, 94, 234.\n\n Tro y Ortolano, Juan de, 252.\n\n Tschudi, J. J. von, 365, 397, 404.\n\n\n Uricoechea, E., 400, 401.\n\n\n Vaca, Cabeza de, 72.\n\n Valades, D., 206.\n\n Valentini, P. J. J., 197, 227, 228, 243, 263, 375.\n\n Varea, Francisco, 106, 110, 129, 442.\n\n Vedas, the, 142.\n\n Vega, Garcilasso de la, 73, 77.\n\n Veitia, E., 84, 90, 97.\n\n Vico, R. P., 110.\n\n Villaca\u00f1as, Benito de, 107.\n\n Villalpando, R. P., 250.\n\n Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, Juan de, 239, 247.\n\n Vinson, Julien, 453, 467.\n\n Virchow, Rudolph, 63, 64, 153, 158.\n\n\n Waitz, Theo., 260.\n\n Waldeck, Baron de, 254.\n\n Whitney, William D., 327.\n\n Whittlesey, Charles, 447.\n\n Williams, Roger, 131.\n\n Winkler, Heinrich, 58, 350, 351, 386, 399.\n\n Winsor, Justin, 18.\n\n Woodham, 219.\n\n Worsaae, J. J. A., 153, 158.\n\n Wuttke, Dr., 250, 252.\n\n Wyman, Jeffries, 28.\n\n\n Ximenez, Francisco, 105, 111, etc.\n\n\n Zegarra, G. Pacheco, 426.\n\n Zeisberger, D., 187, 189.\n\n Zetina, Lic., 164, 172, 175.\n\n\n\n\n                           INDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\n\n Aba\u00f1e\u00e9nga, language, 381.\n\n Abipones, language of, 336.\n\n Abundance, the house of, 145.\n\n Acheron, the river of Hades, 141.\n\n Acolhuacan, 86.\n\n Acozpa, hieroglyph of, 224.\n\n Adjectives, absence of, 405.\n\n Adjidjiatig, or grave posts of Chipeways, 228.\n\n Age of Iron, Bronze, and Stone, 49.\n\n Agglutination in language, 340, 361.\n\n Ahau katuns of Mayas, 264, 268, 269.\n\n Ahkul Chel, a Maya priest, 248.\n\n Ahpu, magicians, 118.\n\n Ah-raxa-lak, a sacred name, 117.\n\n Ah-raxa-sel, a sacred name, 117.\n\n Ahuitzotzin, Emperor of Mexico, 281\u20133.\n\n Akahal tribe, 423.\n\n Algonkin grammar, remarks on, 190, 364, 366.\n\n Algonkin language, extension of, 35;\n   radicals of, 36, 332, 400;\n   \u201clove words\u201d in, 413.\n\n Algonkins, hero-god of, 130\u2013134.\n\n Algonkin stock, area of, 311.\n\n Algonkin tribes, their \u201cgrandfather,\u201d 184;\n   as mound-builders, 70;\n   legendary origin of, 24.\n\n Alliteration, rare in primitive poetry, 285.\n\n Allibamons, 71.\n\n Alphabet, of Cherokees, 199;\n   of Valades, 200;\n   in early speech, 393;\n   of Landa, 199, 240\u2013245;\n   of Chinese, etc., 214.\n\n Alternating consonants, 398.\n\n Amenti, the Egyptian Hades, 137.\n\n American languages, tenacity of, 35;\n   diversity of, 35;\n   traits of, 36;\n   study of, 37, 308 _sq._\n\n American Indians, origin of, 17.\n\n Anahuac, 84.\n\n Analt\u00e9s, sacred books of Itzas, 239, 247.\n\n Andover, a rebus of, 223.\n\n Animals, transformation into, 114, 170, 171.\n\n Animate and inanimate conjugations, 406.\n\n Animism, doctrine of, 117.\n\n Anthropoid apes, not found in\n\n America, 43.\n\n Anthropology, classification in, 349.\n\n Apaches, language of, 35, 394.\n\n Apalacha, fabulous description of, 76.\n\n Apap, god of evil, in Egypt, 137.\n\n Araucanian language, 398.\n\n Araucanians, skulls of, 39.\n\n Arawacks, tribe, 40;\n   language, 430.\n\n Argillite implements, 41.\n\n Arithmetic of Mayas, 268.\n\n Arizona, ruins in, 25.\n\n Arrhenic gender, 406.\n\n Arrow, in Lenape, 183.\n\n Arrow heads, ancient forms of, 31.\n\n Arrow-release, the American, 60.\n\n Arsut, a song of, 290.\n\n Art, American, wholly indigenous, 60.\n\n Arthur, King, story of, 130, 142.\n\n Artificial shell-heaps, age of, 27.\n\n Aryan languages, the, 312, 323, 344, 358;\n   dialects, alleged, in America, 59;\n   nations, mythology of, 141.\n\n Assumptive arms, in heraldry, 219.\n\n Astrology, native Yucatecan, 259.\n\n Astronomic cycles of Mexicans and Mayas, 23.\n\n Asymmetry, intentional, 448.\n\n Athapascan language, the, 21, 58, 394;\n   extension of the, 35;\n   elements of, 36.\n\n Atecpanamochco, 86.\n\n Atlantis, the fabled, 43.\n\n Atoyac, the river, 86.\n\n Auroral gods, 111, 113.\n\n Autochthony of American culture, 60.\n\n Avalon, the Isle of, 142.\n\n Aymarian depression in American skulls, 62.\n\n Azteca _or_ Aztecs, 85, 87, 367.\n\n Aztec calendar explained, 276\u20139;\n   codices, 221;\n   love songs, 295\u20137;\n   war songs, 298;\n   year cycles of, 159, _see_ Nahuatl, Mexican.\n\n Aztlan, derivation of, 88.\n\n\n Bacab, Maya deities, 173.\n\n Baffin\u2019s Land, natives of, 286.\n\n Balam, meaning of, 128, 258;\n   the Maya prophet, 248.\n\n Balams, Maya deities, 172\u2013176.\n\n Ball play in Mexico, 89.\n\n Banana, not an American plant, 33, 34.\n\n Basque language, the, 316, 351.\n\n Bat, as a totemic animal, 114.\n\n Baures, language of, 397.\n\n Beard in American Indians, 39.\n\n Being and Not-Being, in language, 401.\n\n Biceitas, tribe, 375.\n\n Bilderschrift, 207.\n\n Birds as winds, 123, 175;\n   symbolism of, 169, 179.\n\n Bi-sexual divinities, 96, 109.\n\n Blackfeet, myths of, 131.\n\n Black-tail, a fabulous snake, 178.\n\n Blood, in myths, 114, 124.\n\n Blowpipe, use of, 109.\n\n Blue, as sacred color, 95, 118.\n\n Boat of the Sun, 138;\n   of Charon, 141.\n\n Bokol h\u2019otoch, a Maya imp, 178.\n\n Bones, collection of, 78.\n\n Book, Maya word for, 247.\n\n Books of Chilan Balam, 255 _sqq._\n\n Books of Mayas described, 232, 235, 237.\n\n Bolivia, tribes of, 397, 405.\n\n Boruca language, the, 375 _sq._\n\n Botocudos, traits of, 38, 39, 40, 65.\n\n Bow-and-arrow, modern use of, 31, 183.\n\n Brachycephalism in America, 63.\n\n Brazil, designs of pottery from, 157, 159;\n   mound-builders from, 67;\n   ethnology of, 38, 40;\n   languages\n of, 380 _sq._, 428 _sq._;\n   shell heaps in, 28.\n\n Bri-bri language, the, 374 _sq._\n\n Bronka _or_ Brunka language, 375 _sq._\n\n Bronze, Age of, 49, 50.\n\n Brush-net, use of, 184.\n\n Buenos Ayres, arch\u00e6ology of, 31, 40.\n\n Buffalo, Len\u00e2p\u00e9 name for, 184.\n\n Burial customs, 75, 77, 78, 119.\n\n Burial mounds in Florida, 75.\n\n\n Cabecar language, the, 375 _sq._\n\n Cabrakan, god of earthquakes, 121, 122.\n\n Cachis, tribe, 375.\n\n Cahokia, pyramid at, 81.\n\n Cakchiquels, totemic animals, 114;\n   language, 35, 104, 106, 107, 345, 347, 370, 423;\n   lineal measures of, 433, 439;\n   writing of, 228.\n\n Cakulha-Hurakan, a Quiche god, 120, 121.\n\n Calaveras skull, the, 40.\n\n Calculiform writing explained, 243, 253.\n\n Calendar, mystic relations of, 99, 129;\n   of Mexicans, 276\u20138;\n   the Quiche-Cakchiquel, 129;\n   of the Taensas, 469.\n\n California, languages of, 386;\n   auriferous gravels of, 31;\n   remains from, 40.\n\n Campeachy, Bay of, 233.\n\n Canals, ancient, in Florida, 73.\n\n Canek, chief of Itzas, 239.\n\n Cannibalism, unknown in Yucatan, 235.\n\n Canoes, manufacture of, 185.\n\n Cantico, meaning of, 187.\n\n Canting arms, in heraldry, 218.\n\n Capaha, the village of, 73.\n\n Caracaracol, a Haytian divinity, 116.\n\n Cardinal points, sacred characters, 154, 161, 166, 167, 172, 175;\n   signs for in Maya, 203.\n\n Carib language, 331, 337.\n\n Caribs, mythology of, 123.\n\n Carvara, the dog, 141.\n\n Catarrhine monkeys not found in America, 43.\n\n Ceh Pech, a province of Yucatan, 233.\n\n Central America, poetry of, 288.\n\n Centzon Huitznahua, the, 94.\n\n Cerberus, the dog, 141, 146.\n\n Chiapas, dialects of, 420.\n\n Cincalco, in Aztec myth, 145.\n\n Civilization, centers of, 61.\n\n Chac, Maya deities, 173.\n\n Chahta-Muskokee family, the, 71, 79.\n\n Chahta tribes, the, 80, 81;\n   _see_ Choctaws.\n\n Chan Pal, a Maya imp, 177.\n\n Chapallan, Lake, 88.\n\n Chapanec language, 398.\n\n Charon, the ferryman, 141.\n\n Chelles, objects from, 32.\n\n Cherokees, wars with Iroquois, 69;\n   as mound-builders, 71, 82;\n   alphabet, 198.\n\n Che Vinic, a Maya ogre, 176.\n\n Chibcha language, 400.\n\n Chicagua, a village, 73.\n\n Chichen Itza, 254, 302.\n\n Chichimecs, tribe, 90, 298.\n\n Chicomoztoc, land of, 23.\n\n Chikasaws, 71.\n\n Chilan, signification of, 258, 260, 272;\n   prophecy of, 303.\n\n Chilan Balam, books of, 255.\n\n Chile, languages of, 398.\n\n Chimalman, the virgin, 96.\n\n Chinese, alphabet of, 214, 215;\n   language, the, 323, 336;\n   supposed presence in America, 59;\n   philosophy and symbolism, 150, 151.\n\n Chipi-cakulha, a Quiche god, 120.\n\n Chipeways, build mounds, 70;\n   myths of, 131.\n\n Chipeway pronouns, 324;\n   pictography, 228.\n\n Chipeways, their \u201cgrandfather,\u201d 188.\n\n Chipeway love song, 294;\n   love words, 418.\n\n Chipped Stone, period of, 50.\n\n Chiquita language, 405.\n\n Chirakan Xmucane, a Quiche goddess, 122.\n\n Choctaws, 24, 71, 77, 461;\n   _see_ Chahta.\n\n Choctaw language, the, 364.\n\n Chronological system of Mayas, 263.\n\n Chumayel, book of, 248, 257, 291.\n\n \u201cChunk yards\u201d of the Creeks, 76.\n\n Clark\u2019s Works, mounds at, 81.\n\n Classification of languages, 339.\n\n Coatepetl, the, 86, 89.\n\n Coatlan Tonan, an Aztec goddess, 94.\n\n Codices, the existing Maya, 250.\n\n Coatlicue, an Aztec goddess, 94, 95.\n\n Colhua, Colhuacan, 85.\n\n Color of American Indians, 39, 61.\n\n Colors in races of men, 38;\n   phonetic value in hieroglyphs, 223;\n   symbolism of, 166, 167.\n\n Columbian gravel, relics found in, 53.\n\n Communal burial, 78.\n\n Communal dwellings, 185, 445.\n\n Conjunctions, in American languages, 345, 404.\n\n Connecticut, Indian names in, 309.\n\n Consonants, alternating, 398;\n   significance of, 394.\n\n Copan, calendar stone from, 155, 254.\n\n Coptic, ancient, 215, 402.\n\n Cordova, Hernandez de, his expedition, 232.\n\n Cortes, H., his conquest, 280, 282.\n\n Costa Rica, age of shell-heaps in, 28, 31;\n   languages of, 374 _sq._\n\n Counter-sense in language, 401.\n\n Courous, tribe, 77.\n\n Coyote, as sacred animal, 112.\n\n Cozumel, island of, 232.\n\n Cranial characteristics of red race, 62, 63.\n\n Craniologic data from the mounds, 82.\n\n Cranioscopic formulas of American Indians, 40.\n\n Cree, language, 21, 363, 383, 395, 401, 403;\n   love words in, 413.\n\n Crees, myths of, 131.\n\n Creeks, 24, 71, 76.\n\n Criteria of languages, 336.\n\n Cross, as a sacred symbol, 148 _sqq._\n\n Cubit, as a measure, 441.\n\n Cukulkan, 84.\n\n Culcalkin, a Maya ogre, 177.\n\n Culture-heroes, American, 130.\n\n Cycles, of Aztecs and Mayas, 159, 264.\n\n\n Dakotas, 79;\n   winter counts of, 159;\n   dialects, 407.\n\n Dawn, master of the, 113.\n\n Day-maker, the, 111, 129.\n\n Days, signs of, in Maya MSS., 270.\n\n Death, prognostics of, 169;\n   lord of, 170;\n   primitive notion of, 143;\n   river of, 147.\n\n Deer, as totemic animal, 114, 128.\n\n Delaware, State, discoveries in, 32, 53.\n\n Delaware river, relics from, 41, 53.\n\n Delaware Indians, _see_ Len\u00e2p\u00e9.\n\n D\u00e9n\u00e9 Dindji\u00e9, tribe, 21;\n   language, 395.\n\n Dependent clauses, 404.\n\n Determinatives, their use in writing, 216.\n\n Devil, words for, 126.\n\n Diluvial epoch, human remains in, 29.\n\n Divination, by beans, 118;\n   by thorns, 94;\n   by stones, 165.\n\n Diviners, of Mayas, 165.\n\n Dogs, as sacred animals, 140, 141, 144, 146.\n\n Dresden, the Maya MS. at, 250.\n\n Dwarfs, fabulous, of Mayas, 177.\n\n Dyes used by the Mayas, 246.\n\n\n Earth, the heart of the, 126.\n\n Ego, phonetic element of, 396.\n\n Egyptian theory of the soul, 136\u2013140;\n   hieroglyphic origin of, 216;\n   alphabet, 217.\n\n Eight, as sacred number, 140, 146.\n\n Ekoneil, a fabulous snake, 179.\n\n Elephant, the American, 32.\n\n Elysium, fields of, 141.\n\n Epicanthus, in America, 64.\n\n English language, the, 336.\n\n Epochs of the Pal\u00e6olithic Period, 51.\n\n Escamela, inscribed stone at, 274.\n\n Eskimo, skulls of, 63;\n   physical traits of, 65;\n   songs of, 286\u2013290;\n   language, 58, 338, 340.\n\n Etowah valley, mound in, 80.\n\n Eye, oblique or Mongolian, in America, 63, 64.\n\n\n Fac-simile of Landa\u2019s MS., 242.\n\n Father, the great, 175.\n\n Feathers, as symbolic ornaments, 116.\n\n Female line, hereditary, 189.\n\n Fire, earliest knowledge of, 391;\n   festival of, among Mayas, 168.\n\n Fish, the, in Aztec calendar, 283.\n\n Fishing, ancient methods of, 184\n\n Fleur-de-lys, origin of, 220.\n\n Flores, island, capture of, 239.\n\n Florida, ancient mounds in, 73, 75, 77;\n   shell heaps in, 28, 31;\n   limonite skeletons from, 41.\n\n Folk-lore of Yucatan, 163;\n   of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 181.\n\n Food-plants of native Americans, 33.\n\n Foot, as measure of length, 434 _sq._, 444.\n\n Four, as sacred number, 140, 146, 157.\n\n Four Ages of World, 161.\n\n Four hundred, meaning of, 94.\n\n Friendship, native words for, 420, 428.\n\n Fuegians, appearance of, 39;\n   language, 338.\n\n\n Games, of Lenap\u00e9, 186.\n\n Generation, gods of, 120.\n\n Georgia, antiquities in, 80.\n\n Ghosts, superstitions about, 127.\n\n Giant bison, the American, 41, note.\n\n Giant Grab, 176;\n   Stone of the, 274 _sq._\n\n Glacial age in North America, date of, 41, 44, 54;\n   in South America, 42, 55.\n\n Gluskap the Liar, a Micmac hero, 130.\n\n Grammatic forms, origin of, 331.\n\n Grammatical categories, the, 405.\n\n Graphic systems, phonetic elements of, 195 _sq._\n\n Graphic system of Mayas, 245.\n\n Greek language, the, 344, 348.\n\n Green, as a color symbol, 118.\n\n Greenland, poetry from, 287\u2013290.\n\n Grijalva, Juan de, his expedition, 232.\n\n Guadalajara, University of, 326.\n\n Guarani, language, 35, 380 _sq._, 398, 399, 400;\n   love words in, 428.\n\n Guarayos, bearded Indians, 39, note.\n\n Guatemala, dialects in, 104;\n   tribes of, 105, 420.\n\n Gucumatz, derivation of, 116;\n   transformations of, 171.\n\n Gucumatz Cotuha, a king, 114.\n\n Guiana, shell-heaps in, 31;\n   ethnology of, 39, 40.\n\n Gulf States, antiquities of, 72\u201380.\n\n\n Hades, derivation of, 141;\n   descent to, 125\u20136.\n\n Hair, of American Indians, 62;\n   of the Sun-god, 99, 140, 146;\n   long, as symbol, 146, 280.\n\n Hare, the Great, 132.\n\n Harmachis, Egyptian divinity, 138.\n\n Hatchet, burying the, 71.\n\n Haiti, mythology of, 116, 121.\n\n \u201cHeart of the Lake,\u201d a sacred name, 116.\n\n Heart, as a symbol, 117.\n\n Hell, words for, 126, 127;\n   descent to, 123\u2013130.\n\n Hemenway Exploring Expedition, 25.\n\n Heraldry, methods of, 218, 219.\n\n Hermapolis, eight gods of, 140.\n\n Hesperides, garden of the, 142.\n\n Hidatsa language, 407.\n\n Hieroglyphs, Maya, 201, 265\u20137.\n\n Hog, the, as a god, 113.\n\n Holophrasis, explained, 322, 354 _sq._\n\n _Homo alalus_, the, 390\u2013392.\n\n Homophones in languages, 198, 215, 216.\n\n Hooks, used in fishing, 184.\n\n Horus, the Egyptian, 138.\n\n Horse, Delaware word for, 321;\n   fossil, in America, 31, 32, 42.\n\n Houses, of beams, 97;\n   communal, 185.\n\n Huasteca language, the, 221, 331, 343;\n   love words in, 422.\n\n Hueman, an Aztec hero-god, 96.\n\n Huguenots, settlement of, 74.\n\n Huitzilopochtli, an Aztec god, 85, 88;\n   derivation of, 95;\n   birth of, 96;\n   temple of, 25.\n\n Huitznahua, Aztec divinities, 94, 95.\n\n Human species, divisions of, 38.\n\n Humor, among native Americans, 288.\n\n Hun-ahpu, birth of, 125.\n\n Hun-ahpu-utiu, derivation, 112.\n\n Hun-ahpu-vuch, derivation of, 109.\n\n Hun-came, a Quiche god, 124.\n\n Hunhun-ahpu, a Quiche god, 124.\n\n Hunting, ancient methods of, 184.\n\n Hunyecil, meaning of, 237.\n\n Hurakan, god of the storm, 120\u2013123.\n\n Hurons, burial customs, 69.\n\n Hurricane, derivation of, 121, 122;\n   lord of, 167.\n\n\n Ichcanziho, ancient name of Merida, 233.\n\n Ideograms in phonetic writing, 197;\n   of Mayas, 248.\n\n Idols of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 187;\n   of Itzas, 240;\n   priest of, 248.\n\n Idols, superstitions concerning, 177.\n\n Ikonographic writing, 213.\n\n Ikonomatic method of phonetic writing, 86, 89, 207, 211, 213\u2013229, 281.\n\n Illinois, arch\u00e6ology of, 40, 81.\n\n Implements, simple and compound, 30, 51, 52.\n\n Inca bone, the, 62.\n\n Incas of Peru, false lists of, 23.\n\n Incorporative character of American languages, 36.\n\n Incorporation, explained, 321, 340, 341, 352\u2013357, 403.\n\n Indo-Aryans, myths of, 146.\n\n Industrial art in ancient America, 29.\n\n Ioskeha, Iroquois hero-god, 130.\n\n Iron, Age of, 49, 50.\n\n Iroquois, 24, 68, 69;\n   Len\u00e2p\u00e9 name for, 184.\n\n Itza, town in Yucatan, 302.\n\n Ytzamal, temples of, 236.\n\n Itzamna, hero-god of Mayas, 238.\n\n Itzas, the tribe of, 239.\n\n Itzmiquilpan, hieroglyph of, 223.\n\n\n Jaguar, as sacred animal, 128.\n\n Japanese writing, 231.\n\n Jesuits, settlement near Savannah, 76.\n\n Jew, Book of the, 273.\n\n Jonaz language, the, 368.\n\n\n Katun, lord of the, 249;\n   of Mayas, 260.\n\n Katuns, of Mayas, 159.\n\n K\u00e1ua, Book of Chilan Balam of, 268.\n\n Kentucky, arch\u00e6ology of, 82.\n\n Khetsua language, _see_ Qquichua.\n\n Kiches, _see_ Quiches.\n\n Kichigouai, Algonkin divinities, 111.\n\n Kin Ich, a Maya deity, 170.\n\n Kinich-ahau, hero-god of Mayas, 238.\n\n Kioways, songs of, 293.\n\n Klamath language, the, 321, 398.\n\n Koonak, Mt., poem about, 290.\n\n Kitchen-middens, in America, 27.\n\n\n Labrador, natives of, 311.\n\n Lacandon, province of, 239.\n\n Lagoa Santa, skulls from, 40.\n\n La Naulette, jaw from, 390.\n\n Language, ethnologic value of, 193;\n   origin of, 390.\n\n Languages discussed: _See tribal names._\n\n Laws of Thought, 402.\n\n Lead, known to Mexicans, 450.\n\n Leif Erikson, his voyage, 22.\n\n Left hand, as stronger, 95.\n\n Legends, value in savage tribes, 24.\n\n Len\u00e2p\u00e9, Folk-lore of the, 181;\n   derivation of, 183.\n\n Len\u00e2p\u00e9 dialect, pronunciation of, 189;\n   grammar of, 190, 191, 313.\n\n Letters, single, significant, 394.\n\n Life, the Tree of, 161.\n\n Light, the mother of, 119;\n   divinity of, 112, 129.\n\n Lightning, as a deity, 121, 133, 174.\n\n Lingoa Geral, of Brazil, 380.\n\n Limonite skeletons from Florida, 41.\n\n Lineal measures, American, 433 _sq._\n\n Linguistic stocks, number of in America, 34;\n   origin of, 392.\n\n Lithuanian dialect, the, 316.\n\n Lorelei, an American, 178.\n\n Love, songs of, 293\u20137;\n   conceptions of in American languages, 410 _sq._;\n   definition of, 432.\n\n Lule language, the, 331, 342.\n\n\n Mbaya language, the, 331, 342, 343.\n\n Mackenzie River, tribes of, 35.\n\n Madrid, Maya MSS. at, 253.\n\n Maguey, the, a sacred plant, 88;\n   paper, 253.\n\n Maize, origin and extension of, 33.\n\n Malayan race, the, 349.\n\n Malinalxochitl, an Aztec goddess, 88.\n\n Mammoth, remains of, 32.\n\n Manabozho, a Chipeway hero, 131, 133.\n\n Man, not developed in America, 43;\n   oldest remains of, in America, 53;\n   a singing animal, 284;\n   subdivisions of, 348.\n\n Manco Capac, his date, 22.\n\n Mandioca, a native food-plant, 33.\n\n Manhattan, derivation of, 183.\n\n Mani, the Book of Chilan of, 264.\n\n Manuscripts in Maya characters, 250.\n\n Mapachtepec, hieroglyph of, 222.\n\n Maps of Mayas, 438.\n\n Markets, Mexican, 449.\n\n Marriage song, 460.\n\n Masks, used in rites, 114, 187.\n\n Mass, the field, 165.\n\n Maya language, the, 181, 345;\n   love words in, 420;\n   civilization, 84;\n   witch story, 171;\n   year-counts, 159;\n   phonetic characters, 199,\n   hieroglyphic system, 227, 228;\n\n Mayas, ancient, writings and records of, 230\u2013254;\n   earliest ancestors of, 24;\n   the, traditions of, 22;\n   conversion of, 164;\n   folk-lore of, 162;\n   burial customs of, 119;\n   lineal measures of, 434;\n   maps of, 438.\n\n Mayacimil, meaning of, 237.\n\n Mayapan, ancient city of, 239.\n\n Maya-Quiche linguistic stock, 104.\n\n Mazahua language, the, 368, 372 _sq._\n\n Meco language, the, 368.\n\n Meconetzin, a name of Quetzalcoatl, 88.\n\n Meday magic, figures in, 157.\n\n Meda sticks of Chipeways, 228.\n\n Medical practice among Delawares, 187.\n\n Medicines of the Mayas, 272.\n\n Medicine-songs, native, 292.\n\n Mengwe, name of Iroquois, meaning of, 184.\n\n Merida, ancient ruins at, 26, 233.\n\n Messier Mound, the, 80.\n\n Messianic hope, among natives, 183.\n\n Messou, _see_ Michabo.\n\n Meta river, tribes of, 329.\n\n Metrical standards, native, 446\u20138.\n\n Mexcalla, an island, 88.\n\n Mexi _or_ Mexica, 85, 87.\n\n Mexican phonetic writing, 205.\n\n Mexitl, an Aztec chief, 88.\n\n Mexico, ancient, 23, 84, 88, 282;\n   human remains in, 42.\n\n Mexican grammar, 324, 341, 344, 346.\n   _See_ Aztec, Nahuatl.\n\n Mexico-Tenochtitlan, 85.\n\n Micmacs, mythology of, 130.\n\n Michabo, a Chipeway deity, 131, 132\u20134.\n\n Michoacan, 88.\n\n Mictlan, the Aztec Hades, 143.\n\n Mictlantecutli, the Aztec Pluto, 145.\n\n Migration, lines of in America, 44, 45.\n\n Minsi tribe, 181;\n   derivation of, 189.\n\n Mississippi, the, 74, 77.\n\n Mitla, ruins of, 448.\n\n Mixteca language, the, 331, 345.\n\n Mongolian affinities, alleged, of the American race, 56.\n\n Mongolian eye, the, in America, 63.\n\n Mongoloid traits in Americans, 38, 39, 56.\n\n Monosyllabism in languages, 215.\n\n Montejo, Francisco de, 233.\n\n Montezuma, his hieroglyphs, 208, 209, 282;\n   his forebodings, 302.\n\n Montezuma, Rio de, 86.\n\n Months, hieroglyphs of, of Mayas, 265\u20137.\n\n Moon, origin of, 125.\n\n Moraines, the line of, in North America, 54.\n\n Moteuczomatzin, 283.\n\n Mound-Builders, their nationality, 67;\n   their metrical standard, 447.\n\n Mounds in Ohio and Mississippi valleys, age of, 27.\n\n Mural paintings, of Mayas, 254.\n\n Muskokees, 71, 75.\n\n Mutsun language, 386 _sq._\n\n Mythology, interpretations of, 101.\n\n\n Nabula, the book of, 259.\n\n Nagualism, in Central America, 170.\n\n Nahua ollin, the, 161.\n\n Nahuatl hieroglyphs, dictionary of, 210;\n   geographic names, 210;\n   lineal measures, 444.\n\n Nahuatl language, 23, 59, 205, 363, 366, 399;\n   love words in, 417.\n\n Nahuas, tribes of, 22, 85, 418.\n   _See_ Aztecs, Mexicans.\n\n Names, bestowal of, 114.\n\n Nanabojoo, a Chipeway hero, 131.\n\n Nanahuatl, an Aztec divinity, 116.\n\n Nanih Waiya, the Sloping Hill, 80.\n\n Nanticokes, native name of, 189.\n\n Napiw, a Blackfoot hero, 131.\n\n Nasal index in American Indians, 39, 64.\n\n Natchez, 71, 77, 78, 463.\n\n Navaho language, 394.\n\n Nebraska, ancient lake-beds of, 31.\n\n Nenaboj, a Chipeway hero, 131.\n\n Neolithic period, the, 30, 51.\n\n New England Indians, 131.\n\n Newfoundland, natives of, 311.\n\n New Granada, tribes of, 330;\n   languages, 400.\n\n New Jersey, arch\u00e6ology of, 32, 53.\n\n New Mexico, ruins in, 25.\n\n New York State, earthworks in, 69.\n\n Nezahualcoyotl, a chief, 445.\n\n Nicaragua, ancient human footprints in, 42.\n\n Night, master of the, 113.\n\n Nim-ak, meaning of, 113.\n\n Nine Waters, river of, 143.\n\n Nith songs of Eskimo, 287.\n\n Norsemen, myths of, 142.\n\n North Pacific coast, tribes of, 65.\n\n Northmen, voyages of, 22, note.\n\n Nova Scotia, discovered by Northmen, 22.\n\n Nun, the celestial river, 137, 139.\n\n Numbers, sacred or mystic, 99.\n   _See_ Four, Seven, Twelve, etc.\n\n Numerals, deficiency of, 326.\n\n Numeration, Maya signs of, 268;\n   words for, 406.\n\n\n Oblique eye as racial trait, 39, 63, 64.\n\n Obsidian found in Ohio, 32.\n\n Occipital bone in American skulls, 62.\n\n Ocelotl, _or_ jaguar, in myths, 128.\n\n Ocnakuchil, meaning of 237.\n\n Ogier the Dane, 142.\n\n Ohio, mounds in, 27, 67\u201381;\n   obsidian in, 32.\n\n Ojibway picture writing, 153, 154.\n\n Offogoula, tribe, 77.\n\n Ollanta, drama of, 300.\n\n Omagua language, 405.\n\n Oriental symbols in America, 148 _sqq._\n\n Origin of language, 317.\n\n Orinoco, tribes of, 405.\n\n Orizaba, inscribed stone at, 274.\n\n Orosi, natives at, 375.\n\n Os Inc\u00e6, the, in Americans, 62.\n\n Osiris, the Egyptian god, 137\u2013140.\n\n Otchipwe language, the, 364.\n\n Otherness, how expressed, 396.\n\n Otomis, _or_ Othomis, the tribe, 117;\n   war songs, 298.\n\n Otomi language, the, 59, 366 _sq._\n\n Ouspie, tribe, 77.\n\n Owl, superstitions concerning, 114, 169.\n\n\n Pacaha, a province, 74.\n\n Paducas, tribe of, 291.\n\n Pah ah tun, Maya deities, 166, 173.\n\n Pal\u00e6oliths, American and other, 48.\n\n Pal\u00e6olithic period, the, 30, 51, 390.\n\n Pal\u00e6olithic man, his habitat, 54;\n   language, 390 _sq._\n\n Palenque, the ruins of, 26, 84, 126, 254, 448.\n\n Palpan, a place name, 87.\n\n Pame language, the, 368, 373.\n\n Pampas, lacrustine deposits of, 31;\n   skulls from, 40.\n\n Papa, name of Quetzalcoatl, 99.\n\n Paper of Maya MSS., 253.\n\n Paradise, the Aztec, 144.\n\n Patagonians, height of, 39.\n\n Patine, as a sign of age, 51.\n\n Pavant Indians, the, 321.\n\n Pawnees, poetry of, 291\u20132.\n\n Pech, a Maya priest, 302.\n\n Pennsylvania, ancient works in, 70;\n   Indian names in, 309;\n   relics found in, 53.\n\n Penobscots, mythology of, 130.\n\n Personality, idea of in language, 320.\n\n Peru, ruined cities of, 26.\n\n Peruvians, language of, 397;\n   songs of, 300.\n\n Peten, Lake, conquest of, 239.\n\n Petroglyph, near Orizaba, 274.\n\n Philosophy of language, 328.\n\n Phonetic elements, origin of, 393.\n\n Phonetics of Mexican and Maya writing, 195.\n\n Phoneticism in writing, origin of, 216.\n\n Picture writing, 213, 231;\n   Ojibways, 153, 154, 228;\n   of Mexicans, 221 _sq._\n\n Pirinda language, the, 368, 372.\n\n Pisote, the white, 113.\n\n Pleasure, physiological principle of, 285.\n\n Pleistocene epoch, human remains in, 29.\n\n Plumed serpents, house of, 97.\n\n Plummet, unknown in America, 442, 450.\n\n Pluto, the Greek god, 141.\n\n Poetry, native American, 284 _sq._\n\n Pokonchi dialect, the, 104, 112.\n\n Polished stone, period of, 50.\n\n Polychromatic hieroglyphs, 223.\n\n Polynesians, alleged migrations of, 18, 43.\n\n Polysynthesis, explained, 36, 321, 351 _sq._\n\n Pontemelo, ancient skull from, 40.\n\n Pop, name of a Maya month, 249.\n\n Popol Vuh, the, 105 _sq._\n\n Potato, the, its extension, 33.\n\n Pottery, designs on, 157, 159;\n   of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 185.\n\n Pound-the-stones, Miss, 179.\n\n Prehistoric arch\u00e6ology, 392.\n\n Prepositions, in American languages, 345.\n\n Pronominal languages, 320.\n\n Pronouns, in American languages, 396\u20138.\n\n Proper names, in early times, 218.\n\n Prophecies of Mexicans and Mayas, 302.\n\n Pueblo Indians, 25, 87.\n\n Pulque, liquor made from, 254.\n\n\n Quetzalcoatl, 24, 84 _sq._;\n   baths of, 86;\n   absent, 145.\n\n Quiches, myths of, 104 _sq._, 124, 171;\n   dialect of the, 104, 423;\n   king of, 114;\n   lineal measures of, 433;\n   writing of, 228;\n   sacred book of, 105 _sq._, 171.\n\n Qquichua language, the, 346, 365, 425;\n   traditions, 22;\n   love-words in, 425 _sq._\n\n Qux cah, a sacred name, 116.\n\n Qux cho, a sacred name, 116, 120.\n\n Qux palo, a sacred name, 116.\n\n\n Ra, the sun-god, 137, 140.\n\n Rabbit myths, 112, 132, 179, 276.\n\n Races of men, 348.\n\n Rain, the gods of, 175.\n\n \u201cRakan,\u201d meaning of, 122.\n\n Rattlesnake bites, cure for, 188.\n\n \u201cRax,\u201d in Quiche, meaning of, 118.\n\n Raxa-cakulha, a Quiche god, 120.\n\n Rebus, method of writing by, 211, 215, 219.\n\n Red, as sacred color, 144, 166, 176.\n\n Refref, serpent in Egyptian myth, 137.\n\n Relative pronouns, in American languages, 346.\n\n Religious sentiment, the, 432.\n\n Remedies, native, 272.\n\n Repetition, in poetry, 285.\n\n Reproductive principle, worship of, 119.\n\n Rhyme, unknown in native poetry, 285.\n\n Ring-cross, the, 158.\n\n Rio de Montezuma, 86.\n\n Rio de Tula, 86.\n\n Ritual of the dead, in Egypt, 139.\n\n Rituals of Mayas, 247.\n\n River, the celestial and infernal, 137\u2013145.\n\n Rock Bluff, skulls from, 40.\n\n Rosetta stone, the, 218.\n\n\n St. Augustine, Florida, 74, 75, 77.\n\n St. John River, 74.\n\n St. Louis, \u201cbig mound\u201d at, 81.\n\n San Isidro, stone relics from, 391.\n\n Sacred book of the Quiches, 105, 107.\n\n Saliva, in myths, 124.\n\n Salonge, an ogre, 176.\n\n Salt, magic power of, 171.\n\n Sanscrit language, the, 340, 344, 415;\n   alleged affinity with Nahuatl, 57.\n\n Sambaquis, shell heaps in Brazil, 28, 29.\n\n Sarbacane, the, 109.\n\n Sauteux, language of, 400.\n\n Savacon, a Carib deity, 123.\n\n Schipka cave, bones from, 390.\n\n Sciences of the Mayas, 245.\n\n Seminoles, 71, 77.\n\n Semitic traditions, supposed in America, 21.\n\n Serpent, as sacred animal, 116, 132, 133.\n\n Serpent mount, the, 86.\n\n Serpent, fabulous, of Mayas, 179.\n\n Seven, as sacred number, 124, 129, 171, 439.\n\n Seven Caves, land of the, 23.\n\n Sex distinctions in grammar, 406.\n\n Shell-heaps, the age of, 27;\n   in Florida, Tennessee, Costa Rica, Brazil, 28;\n   in Gulf States, 72.\n\n Shooting stars, in myths, 174.\n\n Shoshonian family, languages of, 23.\n\n Signatures of natives, 234.\n\n Skin, color of, in American Indians, 39.\n\n Skull, shape of, in Americans, 63.\n\n Skulls, types of, in Brazil, 29.\n\n Sky, soul of the, 120.\n\n Snake-Hill, the, 86.\n\n Sodomy, not found in Yucatan, 235.\n\n Sonora, languages of, 23.\n\n Soto, Hernando de, his expedition, 72, 74.\n\n Soul, seat of, 117;\n   food of the, 168;\n   Journey of the, 135\u2013145.\n\n Sound-writing, 213, 230.\n\n Span, as measure, 441.\n\n Speech, earliest form of, 390 _sq._\n\n Speechless man, 390\u2013392.\n\n Spiral, development of the, 159, note.\n\n Spittle, as genetic fluid, 124.\n\n Squaw, word for, 181.\n\n Stars, origin of, 125.\n\n Stature of American Indians, 39.\n\n Stone, age of, its subdivisions, 50;\n   survivals of, 183.\n\n Stone and brick edifices, 25.\n\n Stone of the Giants, 274 _sq._\n\n Stone implements, oldest specimens, 391.\n\n Stone, the clear, divination by, 165.\n\n Stones, adoration of, 40;\n   column of, 70.\n\n Storm, Quiche gods of, 120.\n\n Straw bird, the, 179.\n\n Sun-god, Aztec myth of, 116;\n   in Yucatan, 167.\n\n Sun, origin of, 125;\n   worship in Egypt, 137\u2013140;\n   in America, 146;\n   in picture writing, 156\u20138.\n\n Sun worship in Apalacha, 76;\n   \u201cbrother of,\u201d 77, 78;\n   the mother of, 119;\n   four motions of, 157, 161;\n   worship, 170;\n   place of the, 93;\n   creation of, 95;\n   rays of in symbolism, 146, 280.\n\n Svastika, the, as a symbol, 148 _sqq._\n\n Sweat lodge, of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 187.\n\n Syllabic writing, 231.\n\n Symbols, phonetic, 197;\n   the sacred, in America, 149 _sqq._\n\n Symbolic writing, 213.\n\n Syncope in American languages, 371.\n\n Syphilis, sacred associations of, 115, 116, 144.\n\n\n Taensa language, the hoax of, 452 _sq._\n\n Ta Ki, a Chinese symbol, 148 _sqq._\n\n Tales, Indian, 182.\n\n Tamanaca language, the, 331.\n\n Tamaulipas, Sierra of, 295.\n\n Tampa Bay, mound at, 75.\n\n Tamuch, a Huasteca town, 221.\n\n Tarascas, a tribe, 228.\n\n Tat Acmo, a Maya deity, 175.\n\n Tata Polin, a Maya sprite, 170.\n\n Tat Ich, a Maya sprite, 170.\n\n Tennessee River, shell heaps on, 28.\n\n Tenochtitlan, 25, 85, 100.\n\n Tenochtitlan, state of, 23, 283.\n\n Teotihuacan, ruins of, 446.\n\n Tepeu, sacred name, meaning of, 115.\n\n Terminos, Bahia de, 232.\n\n Terraba language, the, 375 _sq._\n\n Tertiary, human remains in, 43.\n\n Tezcatlipoca, 85, 90;\n   the black and white, 96;\n   contests of, 98.\n\n Tezcuco, State of, 23, 25, 86, 445.\n\n Tezcucans, the, 367;\n   philosophy of, 154.\n\n Thirteen, as sacred number, 161, 167.\n\n T\u2019Ho, native name of Merida, 26.\n\n Thought-writing, 213, 230.\n\n Three-legged figures, 149.\n\n Thunder, in mythology, 174.\n\n Tiahuanaco, ruins near, 26.\n\n Tiger, as totemic animal, 114, 128.\n\n Time, idea of, absent, 404.\n\n Time-wheel, Mexican, 160, 161.\n\n Timuquana tribe, 75.\n\n Tin, use of, 86.\n\n Tinn\u00e9 language, 35, 394, 400.\n\n Tiribi language, the, 375 _sq._\n\n Titicaca, Lake, ruins near, 26.\n\n Tlacopan, State of, 23, 299.\n\n Tlalocan, the Aztec Paradise, 144.\n\n Tlalocs, Aztec rain-gods, 144.\n\n Tlamapa, hieroglyph of, 225.\n\n Tla-pallan, the place of colors, 87.\n\n Tlapan, hieroglyph of, 224.\n\n Tobacco, its origin and extension, 33.\n\n Tollan, 93.\n\n Tollanatl, the, 86, 96.\n\n Toltecs, supposed mound-builders, 67;\n   their fabulous history, 24, 83\u2013100;\n   their mythical home, 145.\n\n Tomahawk, word for, 183.\n\n Tomaka, a town, 77.\n\n Tonacatecutli, an Aztec god, 96.\n\n Tonalan, the sunny place, 93.\n\n Topiltzin, king of Tula, 84.\n\n Totem marks, as autographs, 234.\n\n Totemic deities, 88, 113, 114;\n   divisions of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 189.\n\n Tradition, permanence of, in savages, 22.\n\n Transitions in verbs, 370.\n\n Tree of Life, in Maya and Mexican art, 161.\n\n Trenton gravels, objects discovered in, 32, 53.\n\n Trepanned skulls from Peru, 188.\n\n Trephining, among the Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 188.\n\n Tribute rolls of ancient Mexicans, 231.\n\n Triplicate constitution of things, 154.\n\n Triple division of the human race, 57.\n\n Triquetrum, as a symbol, 149 _sqq._\n\n Triskeles, a sacred symbol, 149 _sqq._\n\n Tucurrique, tribes at, 375.\n\n Tula, the story of, 83\u2013100;\n   derivation, 93.\n\n Tupi, the language, 323, 343, 380 _sq._, 400;\n   love words in, 428.\n\n Turanian languages, 58.\n\n Turtle totem of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 189.\n\n Twins, the divine, 125.\n\n Twelve, as sacred number, 187.\n\n Tzendal dialect, 126.\n\n Tzontemoc, Aztec deity, 146.\n\n Tzontemoc mictlan tecutli, 278\u20139.\n\n Tzutuhil dialect, the, 104, 434.\n\n\n Ua ua pach, a Maya god, 176.\n\n Ucita, a town in Florida, 75.\n\n Underworld, the, in Quiche myth, 125;\n   in other tribes, 128.\n\n Uniter, the Great, 150.\n\n Unwritten languages, study of, 305.\n\n Ural-Altaic languages, 58.\n\n Ursua, General, expedition of, 239.\n\n Usumasinta, river, 126.\n\n Ute language, the, 323.\n\n Utlatlan, a Quiche city, 124.\n\n\n Vaku, a Quiche god, 123.\n\n Valladolid, in Yucatan, 236.\n\n Vancouver\u2019s Island, tribes on, 22;\n   black slate from, 32.\n\n Vara, Spanish, length of, 436, 446.\n\n Verb, the American, 347, 405.\n\n Verb, in Algonkin grammar, 190.\n\n Vineland, its position, 22, note.\n\n Virginia, antiquities of, 70.\n\n Virginia, West, Cherokees in, 82.\n\n Virgin-mother, the myths of, 95, 96, 124, 125.\n\n Visuaires, primitive men were, 408.\n\n Vizeitas, tribe, 375.\n\n Vowels, permutable, 398;\n   significance of, 394.\n\n Vuch, the opossum, etc., 111.\n\n Vukub-came, a Quiche god, 124.\n\n Vukub-hun-ahpu, a Quiche god, 124.\n\n\n Wampum, use among Lenap\u00e9, 188.\n\n Warraus, height of, 39.\n\n War clubs, 183.\n\n War Songs of Aztecs, 299 _sq._\n\n War-whoop, name for, 184.\n\n Way cot, a Maya imp, 178.\n\n Weighing, unknown in America, 434, 449.\n\n West, as abode of souls, 141\u2013144.\n\n West Indies, no pal\u00e6oliths in, 42, 55;\n   native tribes of, 310.\n\n Wetucks, a hero-god, 131.\n\n Wheels, of Mayas, for computing time, 264.\n\n Wheel-cross, the, 158.\n\n White, as sacred color, 113, 132, 166, 186, 188.\n\n Wigwams of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 185.\n\n Winds, the gods of, 123, 175.\n\n Winter-counts, of Dakotas, 139.\n\n Wisakketj\u00e2k, a Cree hero, 131, 132.\n\n Wives, buying, 424.\n\n Wooden utensils of Len\u00e2p\u00e9, 185.\n\n Woods, the Man of the, 176.\n\n Words, number of in American tongues, 325.\n\n Writing, different methods of, 213, 230.\n\n\n Xbalanque, the Quiche hero-god, 123\u2013129.\n\n X bolon thoroch, a Maya imp, 178.\n\n X\u2019Kanleox, a Maya goddess, 166.\n\n Xibalba, the Quiche Hades, 84, 123\u2013129.\n\n Xipacoyan, a river, 86.\n\n Xmucane, a Quiche goddess, 118, 119, 122, 124.\n\n Xocotitlan, a place name, 93.\n\n Xochicalco, hieroglyph of, 282.\n\n Xpiyacoc, a Quiche deity, 118, 119, 124.\n\n Xquiq, the Virgin mother, 124.\n\n X tabai, a Maya sprite, 178.\n\n X Thoh Chaltun, a Maya sprite, 178.\n\n\n Yancopek, a Maya imp, 178.\n\n Yasous, tribe, 77.\n\n Ycasqui, a province, 74.\n\n Year counts, of natives, 159, 160.\n\n Yellow, symbolism of, 166, 167.\n\n Yin and Yang, 151.\n\n Yucatan, ancient, 302;\n   folk-lore of, 163;\n   dialects in, 104;\n   civilization of, 84;\n   ruins in, 26;\n   legendary peopling of, 24.\n\n Yum cim-il, a Maya divinity, 169.\n\n Yurari, the language, 329.\n\n\n Zaki-nim-ak, name of a god, 113.\n\n Zaki-nima-tzyiz, 113.\n\n Zapote, superstition concerning, 169.\n\n Zapotecs, a Mexican tribe, 228.\n\n Zaztun, the, of Mayas, 165.\n\n Zohol chich, a phantom bird, 179.\n\n Zu\u00f1is, the, 108.\n\n-----\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Prof. H. W. Haynes, in _The Narrative and Critical History of\n  America_, p. 329. Edited by Justin Winsor. Boston, 1889.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  This paper was my address as vice-president of the American\n  Association for the Advancement of Science, before the Section of\n  Anthropology, at the meeting in 1887. I have added the foot notes, and\n  revised the text.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  _Vues des Cordilli\u00e8res, et Monumens des Peuples Indig\u00e8nes de\n  l\u2019Am\u00e9rique._ Introduction.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  See F. Michel, _Dix-huit Ans chez les Sauvages. Voyages et Missions de\n  Mgr. Henry Faraud_ (Paris, 1866), and Emile Petitot, _Monographie des\n  D\u00e8n\u00e8-Dindji\u00e9_? (Paris, 1876).\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Professor Gustav Storm has rendered it probable that the Vineland of\n  the Northmen was not further south than Nova Scotia. See his _Studies\n  on the Vineland Voyages_, in _Mems. de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 Royale des\n  Antiquaires du Nord._, 1888.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Such was the opinion of the late Jos\u00e9 Fernando Ramirez, one of the\n  most acute and learned of Mexican antiquaries. See his words in Orozco\n  y Berra\u2019s Introduction to the _Cronica_ of Tezozomoc, p. 213 (Mexico,\n  1878).\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  _Die Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache in N\u00f6rdlichen Mexiko_, etc.\n  (Berlin, 1859.)\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  I would refer the reader who cares to pursue this branch of the\n  subject to my analysis of these stories in _The Myths of the New\n  World_ (second ed., New York, 1876), and _American Hero-Myths_\n  (Philadelphia, 1882).\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  The results of the recent \u201cHemenway South-western Exploring\n  Expedition\u201d do not in the least invalidate this statement.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  A brief but most interesting description of these monuments is\n  preserved in a letter to the Emperor Charles V. by the Friar Lorenzo\n  de Bienvenida, written from Yucatan in 1548.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  _Las Ruinas de Tiahuanaco._ Por Bartolom\u00e9 Mitre. (Buenos Ayres, 1879.)\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  This assertion was attacked by Dr. C. C. Abbott, in an address before\n  the American Association in 1888 (_Proceedings_, Vol. XXXVII, p. 308).\n  But if we assume the medi\u00e6val period of European history to have begun\n  with the fall of the Western Empire, I do not retire from my position.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  D. G. Brinton, _The Floridian Peninsula, its Literary History, Indian\n  Tribes and Antiquities_, p. 177\u2013181 (Philadelphia, 1859). The\n  shell-heaps along the Tennessee River I described in the _Annual\n  Report of the Smithsonian Institution_, for 1866, p. 356.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  His accounts were principally in the Fourth and Seventh _Reports of\n  the Peabody Museum_.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  See the _Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft f\u00fcr Anthropologie_,\n  1886, 1887, 1888.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  I have brought out the distinction between the epoch of simple\n  implements and that of compound implements in an article which is\n  reprinted in this collection. The expressions \u201cearly\u201d and \u201clate\u201d\n  applied to these epochs do not refer to absolute periods of time, but\n  are relative to the progress of individual civilizations.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Exceptions are some of the Floridian shell-heaps and a limited number\n  elsewhere.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Florentine Ameghino, _La Antiguedad del Hombre en el Plata_, Tomo II,\n  p. 434, _et al._ (Buenos Ayres, 1881.) The bow and arrow, being a\n  compound implement, nowhere belonged to the earliest stage of human\n  culture. See also H. W. Haynes\u2019 article, \u201cThe Bow and Arrow unknown to\n  Pal\u00e6olithic Man,\u201d in _Proceedings of Boston Soc. Nat. History_, Vol.\n  XXIII.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Dr. C. C. Abbott, the discoverer and principal explorer of these\n  gravels, reported his discoveries in numerous papers, and especially\n  in his work _Primitive Industry_, chap. xxxii.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  _Expedition durch Central-Brasilien_, pp. 310\u2013314 (Leipzig, 1886).\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  The reference is to Mr. Horatio Hale\u2019s Address \u201cOn the Origin of\n  Language and the Antiquity of Speaking Man.\u201d See _Proc. of the Am.\n  Assoc. for the Adv. of Science_, vol. xxxv., p. 239, sq.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  _Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala_, p. 157 (Zurich, 1884).\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  See Howse, _Grammar of the Cree Language_, p. 143, sqq.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  This question is discussed in more detail in the next essay.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  _L\u2019Homme Americain_, Tome I, p. 126. The tribe is the Guarayos, an\n  offshoot of the Guaranis.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_, 1884, p. 181.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Since this address was delivered Mr. H. T. Cresson has reported the\n  finding of chipped implements made of argillite in a deposit of\n  mid-glacial age on the banks of the Delaware River\u2014_Proc. Boston Soc.\n  Nat. Hist._ vol. xxiv; and portions of two skeletons completely\n  converted into limonite have been exhibited at the Academy of Natural\n  Sciences, Philadelphia, from a deposit in Florida, _below_ one\n  containing the remains of the extinct giant bison.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  I have discussed this fully in a paper in the _Proceedings_ of the\n  Amer. Philosoph. Soc. for 1887, entitled \u201cOn an Ancient Human\n  Footprint from Nicaragua.\u201d\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Man must have descended from the catarrhine division of the\n  anthropoids, none of which occur in the New World. See Darwin, _The\n  Descent of Man_, p. 153.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Address at the British Association for the Adv. of Science, 1887.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  His article, which was first printed in the _North American Review_,\n  1870, may be found in Beach\u2019s _Indian Miscellany_, p. 158 (Albany,\n  1877).\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  The subject of an address before the American Association for the\n  Advancement of Science in 1888, with revision.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  The earliest publication I made on this subject was in an article on\n  Pre-historic Arch\u00e6ology, contributed to _The Iconographic\n  Encyclop\u00e6dia_ (Vol. II, p. 28, Philadelphia, 1886).\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  A possible exception may have been along the line of the Mississippi\n  River, where a pal\u00e6olithic workshop appears to have been discovered\n  above St. Paul, by Miss Babbitt.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  This Paper was read before the American Association for the\n  Advancement of Science, at its meeting in Cleveland, 1888.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  See Foley, _Des Trois Grandes Races Humaines_, Paris, 1881.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  _Uralaltaische V\u00f6lker und Sprachen_, p. 167. I do not think that the\n  verbal coincidences pointed out by Petitot in his _Monographie des\n  D\u00e9n\u00e9 Dindj\u00e9_, and by Platzmann in his _Amerikanisch-Asiatische\n  Etymologien_, merit serious consideration.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Brinton, in _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_, for\n  1885; Charencey, _M\u00e9langes de Philologie et Pala\u00e9ographie Am\u00e9ricaine_,\n  p. 80 (Paris, 1883). See also a later Essay in this volume.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  This example of misdirected erudition may be seen in the _Anales del\n  Museo Nacional de Mexico_. Tomo I.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  Prof. Morse has also pointed out to me that the Mongolian\n  arrow-release\u2014one of the most characteristic of all releases\u2014has been\n  nowhere found on the American continent. This is an important fact,\n  proving that neither as hunters nor conquerors did any stray Mongols\n  leave a mark on American culture.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Hovelacque et Herv\u00e9, _Anthropologie_, pp. 231, 234, 236; and on the\n  Inca bone, see Dr. Washington Matthews in the _American\n  Anthropologist_, vol. II., p. 337.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  In _Verhandlungen der Berliner Anthrop. Gesellschaft_, 1881\u201382.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Dr. Franz Boas, whose accurate studies of the Indians of the Northwest\n  coast are well known, informs me that he has rarely or never noted the\n  oblique eye among them. Yet precisely on that coast we should look for\n  it, if the Mongolian theory has any foundation. Dr. Ranke\u2019s recent\n  studies have proved the oblique eye to be merely an arrest of\n  development.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  _Elements d\u2019 Anthropologie_, p. 1003.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  When this paper appeared in _Science_ (September 14th, 1888), it led\n  to a reply from Dr. H. F. C. Ten Kate, of Leyden, who had published\n  various studies endeavoring to prove the Mongoloid character of the\n  American race. His arguments, however, were merely a repetition of\n  those which I believe I have refuted in the above article, and for\n  that reason I do not include the discussion.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  _The North Americans of Antiquity_, p. 106, (1880.)\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  _The Mound-Builders_, chap. xii, (Cinn., 1879.)\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  _Pre-Historic Races of the United States of America_, pp. 388, 347,\n  (Chicago, 1873.)\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  _Transactions of the Anthropological Society of Washington, D. C._, p.\n  116, (1881.)\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  _History of the Five Nations_, Introduction, p. 16 (London, 1750).\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  _Meurs des Sauvages Am\u00e9ricains compar\u00e9s aux Meurs du Premiers Temps_,\n  chap. xiii.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  _Journal Historique_, p. 377.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  _Wanderings of an Artist among the Indians of North America_, p. 3\n  (London, 1859).\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  H. R. Schoolcraft, _Notes on the Iroquois_, pp. 162, 163, compare pp.\n  66, 67.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Squier and Davis, _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, p.\n  44.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  _Aboriginal Monuments of the State of New York_, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Mr. S. Taylor, _American Journal of Science_, vol. xliv, p. 22.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  _History of Virginia_, book ii, chap. iii, ch. viii.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  See a well-prepared article on this subject by Prof. Finch, in the\n  _American Journal of Science_, vol. vii, p. 153.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  _History of Virginia_, bk. iii, chap. vii.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  _Travels_, p. 367 (Dublin, 1793).\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  _History of the North American Indians_, p. 184. See note at end of\n  this Essay.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  _Relatione que fece Alvaro Nurez, detto Capo di Vacca_, Ramusio,\n  _Viaggi_, tom. iii, fol. 317, 323 (Venice, 1556.)\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  La Vega, _Historia de la Florida_, Lib. ii, cap. xxii.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  Ibid, Lib. vi, cap. vi. See for other examples from this work: Lib.\n  ii, cap. xxx, Lib. iv, cap. xi, Lib. v, cap. iii, etc.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  _Relation de ce qui arriva pendant le Voyage du Capitaine Soto_, p. 88\n  (Ed. Ternaux Compans).\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  _Proceedings_ of the American Philosophical Society, 1879\u20131880.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  _Histoire Notable de la Floride_, pp. 138, 164, etc.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  _Brevis Narratio_, in De Bry, _Peregrinationes in Americam_, Pars. ii,\n  Tab. xl, (1591.)\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  Alcazar, _Chrono-Historia de la Compania de Jesus en la Provincia de\n  Toledo_, Tom. ii, Dec. iii, cap. vi, (Madrid, 1710.)\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  _The Present State of His Majestie\u2019s Isles and Territories in\n  America_, p. 156, (London, 1667.)\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  _The Floridian Peninsula_, p. 95, sqq. (Phila. 1859.)\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Bartram MSS., in the Library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  _Narrative of Occola Nikkanoche, Prince of Econchatti_, by his\n  Guardian, pp. 71\u20132, (London, 1841.)\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  _Annals_, in Louisiana _Hist. Colls._, p. 196.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  _Memoires Historiques de la Louisiane_, Tome ii, p. 109.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  _Letters Edifiantes et Curieuses_, Tome. i, p. 261.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  _History of Louisiana_, vol. ii, p. 188, (Eng. Trans., London, 1763.)\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Adair, _History of the North American Indians_, pp. 184, 185:\u2014William\n  Bartram, _Travels_, p. 561: Dumont, _Memoires Historiques de la\n  Louisiane_, Tome i, pp. 246, 264, et al.: Bernard Romans, _Natural and\n  Civil History of Florida_, pp. 88\u201390, (a good account.)\n\n  The _Relations des Jesuits_ describe the custom among the Northern\n  Indians.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, particularly the Georgian\n  Tribes, p. 135, (New York, 1873.)\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  For particulars of this see my _Myths of the New World_, pp. 241\u20132,\n  (New York, 1876.)\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  C. C. Jones, _Monumental Remains of Georgia_, p. 32.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Ibid., _Antiquities of the Southern Indians_, p. 169.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  Squier & Davis, _Ancient Monuments of the Mississippi Valley_, p. 29.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  _Origin of the Big Mound of St. Louis, a paper read before the St.\n  Louis Academy of Science._\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Thomas E. Pickett, _The Testimony of the Mounds: Considered with\n  especial reference to the Pre-historic Arch\u00e6ology of Kentucky and the\n  Adjoining States_, pp. 9, 28, (Maysville, 1876.)\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  _Myths of the New World._ By D. G. Brinton, chap. vi. _passim_.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  Especially in _American Hero Myths, a study in the Native Religions of\n  the Western Continent_, pp. 35, 64, 82, etc. (Philadelphia, 1882.)\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  M. Charnay, in his essay, _La Civilisation Tolt\u00e8que_, published in the\n  _Revue d\u2019 Ethnographie_, T. iv., p. 281, 1885, states his thesis as\n  follows: \u201cJe veux prouver l\u2019existence du Tolt\u00e8que que certains ont\n  ni\u00e9e; je veux prouver que les civilisations Am\u00e9ricaines ne sont qu\u2019une\n  seule et m\u00eame civilisation; enfin, je veux prouver que cette\n  civilisation est tolt\u00e8que.\u201d I consider each of these statements an\n  utter error. In his _Anciennes Villes du Nouveau Monde_, M. Charnay\n  has gone so far as to give a map showing the migrations of the ancient\n  Toltecs. As a translation of this work, with this map, has recently\n  been published in this country, it appears to me the more needful that\n  the baseless character of the Toltec legend be distinctly stated.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  Ixtlilxochitl, in his _Relaciones Historicas_ (in Lord Kingsborough\u2019s\n  _Antiquities of Mexico_, Vol. ix., p. 333), says that during the reign\n  of Topiltzin, last king of Tula, the Toltec sovereignty extended a\n  thousand leagues from north to south and eight hundred from east to\n  west; and in the wars that attended its downfall five million six\n  hundred thousand persons were slain!!\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Sahagun (_Hist. de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. viii, cap. 5) places the\n  destruction of Tula in the year 319 B. C.; Ixtlilxochitl (_Historia\n  Chichimeca_, iii, cap. 4) brings it down to 969 A. D.; the _Codex\n  Ramirez_ (p. 25) to 1168; and so on. There is an equal variation about\n  the date of founding the city.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  Since writing the above I have received from the Comte de Charencey a\n  reprint of his article on _Xibalba_, in which he sets forth the theory\n  of the late M. L. Angrand, that all ancient American civilization was\n  due to two \u201ccurrents\u201d of Toltecs, the western, straight-headed\n  Toltecs, who entered Anahuac by land from the north-west, and the\n  eastern, flat-headed Toltecs, who came by sea from Florida. It is to\n  criticise such vague theorizing that I have written this paper.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  Motolinia, in his _Historia de los Indios de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, p. 5,\n  calls the locality \u201cel puerto llamado Tollan,\u201d the pass or gate called\n  Tollan. Through it, he states, passed first the Colhua and later the\n  Mexica, though he adds that some maintain these were the same people.\n  In fact, Colhua is a form of a word which means \u201cancestors:\u201d _colli_,\n  forefather; _no-col-huan_, my forefathers; _Colhuacan_, \u201cthe place of\n  the forefathers,\u201d where they lived. In Aztec picture-writing this is\n  represented by a hill with a bent top, on the \u201cikonomatic\u201d system, the\n  verb _coloa_, meaning to bend, to stoop. Those Mexica who said the\n  Colhua proceeded them at Tula, simply meant that their own ancestors\n  dwelt there. The _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_ (pp. 29, 33) distinctly\n  states that what Toltecs survived the wars which drove them southward\n  became merged in the Colhuas. As these wars largely arose from civil\n  dissensions, the account no doubt is correct which states that others\n  settled in Acolhuacan, on the eastern shore of the principal lake in\n  the Valley of Mexico. The name means \u201cColhuacan by the water,\u201d and was\n  the State of which the capital was Tezcoco.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  This description is taken from the map of the location in M. Charnay\u2019s\n  _Anciennes Villes du Nouveau Monde_, p. 83. The measurements I have\n  made from the map do not agree with those stated in the text of the\n  book, but are, I take it, more accurate.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Sometimes called the _Rio de Montezuma_, and also the _Tollanatl_,\n  water of Tula. This stream plays a conspicuous part in the\n  Quetzalcoatl myths. It appears to be the same as the river _Atoyac_ (=\n  flowing or spreading water, _alt_, _toyaua_), or _Xipacoyan_ (= where\n  precious stones are washed, from _xiuitl_, _paca_, _yan_), referred to\n  by Sahagun, _Hist. de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. ix., cap. 29. In it were\n  the celebrated \u201cBaths of Quetzalcoatl,\u201d called _Atecpanamochco_, \u201cthe\n  water in the tin palace,\u201d probably from being adorned with this metal\n  (_Anales de Cuauhtitlan_).\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  See the _Codez Ramirez_, p. 24. Why called Snake-Hill the legend says\n  not. I need not recall how prominent an object is the serpent in Aztec\n  mythology. The name is a compound of _coatl_, snake, and _tepetl_,\n  hill or mountain, but which may also may mean town or city, as such\n  were usually built on elevations. The form _Coatepec_ is this word\n  with the postposition _c_, and means \u201cat the snake-hill,\u201d or, perhaps,\n  \u201cat Snake-town.\u201d\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  Or to one of them. The name is preserved by Ixtlilxochitl, _Relaciones\n  Historicas_, in Kingsborough, _Mexico_, Vol. ix., p. 326. Its\n  derivation is from _palli_, a color (root _pa_), and the postposition\n  _pan_. It is noteworthy that this legend states that Quetzalcoatl in\n  his avatar as _Ce Acatl_ was born in the Palpan, \u201cHouse of Colors;\u201d\n  while the usual story was that he came from Tla-pallan, the place of\n  colors. This indicates that the two accounts are versions of the same\n  myth.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n   There are two ancient Codices extant, giving in picture-writing the\n  migrations of the Mexi. They have been repeatedly published in part or\n  in whole, with varying degrees of accuracy. Orozco y Berra gives their\n  bibliography in his _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tom. iii. p. 61,\n  note. These Codices differ widely, and seem contradictory, but Orozco\n  y Berra has reconciled them by the happy suggestion that they refer to\n  sequent and not synchronous events. There is, however, yet much to do\n  before their full meaning is ascertained.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  The name Aztlan is that of a place and Mexitl that of a person, and\n  from these are derived _Aztecatl_, plural, _Azteca_, and _Mexicatl_,\n  pl. _Mexica_. The Azteca are said to have left Aztlan under the\n  guidance of Mexitl (_Codex Ramirez_). The radicals of both words have\n  now become somewhat obscured in the Nahuatl. My own opinion is that\n  Father Duran (_Hist. de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Tom. i, p. 19) was right in\n  translating Aztlan as \u201cthe place of whiteness,\u201d _el lugar de\n  blancura_, from the radical _iztac_, white. This may refer to the\n  East, as the place of the dawn; but there is also a temptation to look\n  upon Aztlan as a syncope of _a-izta-tlan_, = \u201cby the salt water.\u201d\n\n  Mexicatl is a _nomen gentile_ derived from _Mexitl_, which was another\n  name for the tribal god or early leader Huitzilopochtli, as is\n  positively stated by Torquemada (_Monarquia Indiana_, Lib. viii, cap.\n  xi). Sahagun explains Mexitl as a compound of _metl_, the maguey, and\n  _citli_, which means \u201chare\u201d and \u201cgrandmother\u201d (_Hist. de Nueva\n  Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. x. cap. 29). It is noteworthy that one of the names of\n  Quetzalcoatl is _Meconetzin_, son of the maguey (Ixtlilxochitl, _Rel.\n  Hist._, in Kingsborough, Vol. ix, p. 238). These two gods were\n  originally brothers, though each had divers mythical ancestors.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tom. iii, cap. 4. But\n  Albert Gallatin was the first to place Aztlan no further west than\n  Michoacan (_Trans. American Ethnolog. Society_, Vol. ii, p. 202).\n  Orozco thinks Aztlan was the small island called Mexcalla in Lake\n  Chapallan, apparently because he thinks this name means \u201chouses of the\n  Mexi;\u201d but it may also signify \u201cwhere there is abundance of maguey\n  leaves,\u201d this delicacy being called _mexcalli_ in Nahuatl, and the\n  terminal _a_ signifying location or abundance. (See Sahagun, _Historia\n  de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. vii, cap. 9.) At present, one of the smaller\n  species of maguey is called _mexcalli_.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  It is quite likely that the stone image figured by Charnay, _Anciennes\n  Villes du Nouveau Monde_, p. 72, and the stone ring used in the\n  _tlachtli_, ball play, which he figures, p. 73, are those referred to\n  in the historic legend.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  The _Codex Ramirez_, p. 24, a most excellent authority, is quite\n  clear. The picture-writing\u2014which is really phonetic, or, as I have\n  termed it, _ikonomatic_\u2014represents the Coatepetl by the sign of a hill\n  (_tepetl_) inclosing a serpent (_coatl_). Tezozomoc, in his _Cronica\n  Mexicana_, cap. 2, presents a more detailed but more confused account.\n  Duran, _Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, cap. 3, is worthy of\n  comparison. The artificial inundation of the plain to which the\n  accounts refer probably means that a ditch or moat was constructed to\n  protect the foot of the hill. Herrera says: \u201cCercaron de agua el cerro\n  llamado Coatepec.\u201d _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. 11.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  The _Annals of Cuauhtitlan_, a chronicle written in the Nahuatl\n  language, gives 309 years from the founding to the destruction of\n  Tula, but names a dynasty of only four rulers. Veitia puts the\n  founding of Tula in the year 713 A. D. (_Historia de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_,\n  cap. 23.) Let us suppose, with the laborious and critical Orozco y\n  Berra (notes to the _Codex Ramirez_, p. 210) that the Mexi left Aztlan\n  A. D. 648. These three dates would fit into a rational chronology,\n  remembering that there is an acknowledged hiatus of a number of years\n  about the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the Aztec records (Orozco\n  y Berra, notes to _Codex Ramirez_, p. 213). The _Anales de\n  Cuauhtitlan_ dates the founding of Tula _after_ that of Tlaxcallan,\n  Huexotzinco and Cuauhtitlan (p. 29).\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  As usual, Ixtlilxochitl contradicts himself in his lists of rulers.\n  Those given in his _Historia Chichimeca_ are by no means the same as\n  those enumerated in his _Relaciones Historicas_ (Kingsborough,\n  _Mexico_, Vol. ix, contains all of Ixtlilxochitl\u2019s writings). Entirely\n  different from both is the list in the _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_. How\n  completely euhemeristic Ixtlilxochitl is in his interpretations of\n  Mexican mythology is shown by his speaking of the two leading Nahuatl\n  divinities Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli as \u201ccertain bold warriors\u201d\n  (\u201cciertos caballeros muy valerosos.\u201d _Relaciones Historicas_, in\n  Kingsborough, Vol. ix, p. 326).\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  See the note to page 84. But it is not at all likely that Tula was\n  absolutely deserted. On the contrary, Herrera asserts that _after_ the\n  foundation of Mexico and the adjacent cities (despues de la fundacion\n  de Mexico i de toda la tierra) it reached its greatest celebrity for\n  skilled workmen. _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. 11. The\n  general statement is that the sites on the Coatepetl and the adjacent\n  meadows were unoccupied for a few years\u2014the _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_\n  says nine years\u2014after the civil strife and massacre, and then were\n  settled again. The _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas_, cap.\n  11, says, \u201cy ansi fueron muertos todos los de Tula, que no qued\u00f3\n  ninguno.\u201d\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  See Buschmann, _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, ss. 682, 788. Orozco\n  y Berra, _Geografia de las Lenguas de Mejico_, pp. 248, 255.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  _Historia de las Indias Occidentales_, Dec. iii, Lib. ii, cap. II.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  _Relaciones Historicas_, in Kingsborough\u2019s _Mexico_, Vol. ix, p. 392.\n  Compare his _Historia Chichimeca_.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Buschmann, _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, ss. 682, 797.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  _Cronica Mexicana_, cap. 1, \u201cPartieron de alli y vinieron \u00e1 la parte\n  que llaman Coatepec, t\u00e9rminos de Tonalan, lugar del sol.\u201d In Nahuatl\n  _tonallan_ usually means summer, sun-time. It is syncopated from\n  _tonalli_ and _tlan_; the latter is the locative termination;\n  _tonalli_ means warmth, _sunniness_, akin to _tonatiuh_, sun; but it\n  also means soul, spirit, especially when combined with the possessive\n  pronouns, as _totonal_, our soul, our immaterial essence. By a further\n  syncope _tonallan_ was reduced to _Tollan_ or _Tullan_, and by the\n  elision of the terminal semi-vowel, this again became Tula. This name\n  may therefore mean \u201cthe place of souls,\u201d an accessory signification\n  which doubtless had its influence on the growth of the myths\n  concerning the locality.\n\n  It may be of some importance to note that Tula or Tollan was not at\n  first the name of the town, but of the locality\u2014that is, of the warm\n  and fertile meadow-lands at the foot of the Coatepetl. The town was at\n  first called Xocotitlan, the place of fruit, from _xocotl_, fruit,\n  _ti_, connective, and _tlan_, locative ending. (See Sahagun, _Historia\n  de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. x, cap. 29, secs. 1 and 12.) This name was also\n  applied to one of the quarters of the city of Mexico when conquered by\n  Cortes, as we learn from the same authority.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  Buschmann, _Ueber die Aztekischen Ortsnamen_, ss. 794, 797, (Berlin,\n  1852.)\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  The verbal radical is _tona_, to warm (hazer calor, Molina,\n  _Vocabulario de la Lengua Mexicana_, s. v.); from this root come many\n  words signifying warmth, fertility, abundance, the sun, the east, the\n  summer, the day, and others expressing the soul, the vital principle,\n  etc. Sim\u00e9on, _Dict. de la Langue Nahuatl_, s. v. _tonalli_. As in the\n  Algonkin dialects the words for cold, night and death are from the\n  same root, so in Nahuatl are those for warmth, day and life. (Comp.\n  Duponceau, _M\u00e9moire sur les Langues de l\u2019Am\u00e9rique du Nord_, p. 327,\n  Paris, 1836.)\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  _Coatlan, to-nan_, from _coatl_, serpent; _tlan_, among; _to-nan_, our\n  mother. She was the goddess of flowers, and the florists paid her\n  especial devotion (Sahagun, _Historia_, Lib. ii, cap. 22). A precinct\n  of the city of Mexico was named after her, and also one of the\n  edifices in the great temple of the city. Here captives were\n  sacrificed to her and to the Huitznahua. (Ibid., Lib. ii. Appendix.\n  See also Torquemada, _Monarquia Indiana_, Lib. x. cap. 12.)\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  _Centzon Huitznahua_, \u201cthe Four Hundred Diviners with Thorns.\u201d Four\n  hundred, however, in Nahuatl means any indeterminate large number, and\n  hence is properly translated myriad, legion. _Nahuatl_ means wise,\n  skillful, a diviner, but is also the proper name of the\n  Nahuatl-speaking tribes; and as the Nahuas derived their word for\n  south from _huitzli_, a thorn, the Huitznahua may mean \u201cthe southern\n  Nahuas.\u201d Sahagun had this in his mind when he said the Huitznahua were\n  goddesses who dwelt in the south (_Historia de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib.\n  vii, cap. 5). The word is taken by Father Duran as the proper name of\n  an individual, as we shall see in a later note.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  _Huitzilopochtli_, from _huitzilin_, humming-bird, _opochtli_, the\n  left side or hand. This is the usual derivation; but I am quite sure\n  that it is an error arising from the ikonomatic representation of the\n  name. The name of his brother, Huitznahua, indicates strongly that the\n  prefix of both names is identical. This, I doubt not, is from\n  _huitz-tlan_, the south; _ilo_, is from _iloa_, to turn; this gives us\n  the meaning \u201cthe left hand turned toward the south.\u201d Orozco y Berra\n  has pointed out that the Mexica regarded left-handed warriors as the\n  more formidable (_Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tom. i, p. 125). Along\n  with this let it be remembered that the legend states that\n  Huitzilopochtli was born in Tula, and insisted on leading the Mexica\n  toward the south, the opposition to which by his brother led to the\n  massacre and to the destruction of the town.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  This myth is recorded by Sahagun, _Historia de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib.\n  iii, cap. 1, \u201cOn the Origin of the Gods.\u201d It is preserved with some\n  curious variations in the _Historia de los Mexicanos por sus\n  Pinturas_, cap. 11. When the gods created the sun they also formed\n  four hundred men and five women for him to eat. At the death of the\n  women their robes were preserved, and when the people carried these to\n  the Coatepec, the five women came again into being. One of these was\n  Coatlicue, an untouched virgin, who after four years of fasting placed\n  a bunch of white feathers in her bosom, and forthwith became pregnant.\n  She brought forth Huitzilopochtli completely armed, who at once\n  destroyed the Huitznahua. Father Duran translates all of this into\n  plain history. His account is that when the Aztecs had occupied Tollan\n  for some time, and had fortified the hill and cultivated the plain, a\n  dissension arose. One party, followers of Huitzilopochtli, desired to\n  move on; the other, headed by a chieftain, Huitznahua, insisted on\n  remaining. The former attacked the latter at night, massacred them,\n  destroyed the water-dams and buildings, and marched away (_Historia de\n  las Indias de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Tom. i, pp. 25, 26). According to several\n  accounts, Huitznahua was the brother of Huitzilopochtli. See my\n  _American Hero Myths_, p. 81.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  I have discussed both these accounts in my _American Hero Myths_,\n  chap. iii., and need not repeat the authorities here.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  The most highly-colored descriptions of the mythical Tula are to be\n  found in the third and tenth book of Sahagun\u2019s _Historia de Nueva\n  Espa\u00f1a_, in the _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, and in the various writings\n  of Ixtlilxochitl. Later authors, such as Veitia, Torquemada, etc.,\n  have copied from these. Ixtlilxochitl speaks of the \u201clegions of\n  fables\u201d about Tulan and Quetzalcoatl which even in his day were still\n  current (\u201cotras trescientas fabulas que aun todavia corren.\u201d\n  _Relaciones Historicas_, in Kingsborough, _Mexico_, Vol. ix, p. 332).\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  In the collection of _Ancient Nahuatl Poems_, which forms the seventh\n  volume of my _Library of Aboriginal American Literature_, p. 104, I\n  have printed the original text of one of the old songs recalling the\n  glories of Tula, with its \u201chouse of beams,\u201d _huapalcalli_, and its\n  \u201chouse of plumed serpents,\u201d _coatlaquetzalli_, attributed to\n  Quetzalcoatl.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  _Les Anciennes Villes du Nouveau Monde_, p. 84 (Paris, 1885).\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  _Historia de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. viii, cap. 5.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Father Duran relates, \u201cEven to this day, when I ask the Indians, \u2018Who\n  created this pass in the mountains? Who opened this spring? Who\n  discovered this cave? or, Who built this edifice?\u2019 they reply, \u2018The\n  Toltecs, the disciples of Papa.\u2019\u201d _Historia de las Indias de Nueva\n  Espa\u00f1a_, cap. 79. _Papa_, from _papachtic_, the bushy-haired was one\n  of the names of Quetzalcoatl. But the earlier missionary, Father\n  Motilinia, distinctly states that the Mexica invented their own arts,\n  and owed nothing to any imaginary teachers, Toltecs or others. \u201cHay\n  entre todos los Indios muchos oficios, y de todos dicen _que fueron\n  inventores los Mexicanos_.\u201d _Historia de los Indios de la Nueva\n  Espa\u00f1a_, Tratado iii, cap. viii.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Quetzalcoatl announced that his return should take place 5012 years\n  after his final departure, as is mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl (in\n  Kingsborough, _Mexico_, Vol. ix, p. 332). This number has probably\n  some mystic relation to the calendar.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  _American Hero Myths_, p. 35. The only writer on ancient American\n  history before me who has wholly rejected the Toltecs is, I believe,\n  Albert Gallatin. In his able and critical study of the origin of\n  American civilization (_Transactions of the American Ethnological\n  Society_, Vol. i, p. 203) he dismissed them entirely from historical\n  consideration with the words: \u201cThe tradition respecting the Toltecs\n  ascends to so remote a date, and is so obscure and intermixed with\n  mythological fables, that it is impossible to designate either the\n  locality of their primitive abodes, the time when they first appeared\n  in the vicinity of the Valley of Mexico, or whether they were preceded\n  by nations speaking the same or different languages.\u201d Had this\n  well-grounded skepticism gained the ears of writers since 1845, when\n  it was published, we should have been saved a vast amount of rubbish\n  which has been heaped up under the name of history.\n\n  Dr. Otto Stoll (_Guatemala; Reisen und Schilderungen_, ss, 408, 409,\n  Leipzig, 1886) has joined in rejecting the ethnic existence of the\n  Toltecs. As in later Nahuatl the word _toltecatl_ meant not only\n  \u201cresident of Tollan,\u201d but also \u201cartificer\u201d and \u201ctrader,\u201d Dr. Stoll\n  thinks that the Central American legends which speak of \u201cToltecs\u201d\n  should be interpreted merely as referring to foreign mechanics or\n  pedlers, and not to any particular nationality. I quite agree with\n  this view.\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  Andrew Lang, _Custom and Myth_, p. 28.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  Revised extracts from an article read before the American\n  Philosophical Society in 1881.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  _Las Historias del Origen de los Indios de esta Provincia de\n  Guatemala_. Por el R. P. F. Francisco Ximenez.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  See Dr. Otto Stoll, _Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala_, p. 118. I\n  regret to differ from this able writer, whose studies of the Quiche\n  und Cakchiquel are the most thorough yet made, and from whose version\n  the above translation of the opening lines of the _Popol Vuh_ is\n  taken.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  In his _MS. Dictionary_ is the following entry:\n\n  \u201cPODER: _vtzini\u00e7abal_, vel _vtzinta\u00e7ibal_; deste nombre usa la\n  _Cartilla_ en el Credo para decir por obra vel poder del Spirito\n  Santo. Al poder que tienen los Sacerdotes de perdonar pecados y dar\n  sacramentos, se llaman, o an llamado, _puz_, _naual_. Asi el Ph. Varea\n  en su _Diccionario_ y el Sancto Vico en la _Theologia Indorum_ usa en\n  muchas partes destos vocablos en este sentido. Ya no estan tan en uso,\n  pues entienden por el nombre _poder y vtzinta\u00e7ibal_; y son vocablos\n  que antiguamente aplicaban a sus idolos, y oy se procura que vayan\n  olbidando todo aquello con que se les puede hacer memoria dellos.\u201d\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Coto says, \u201c_Vugh_; nota que esta mesmo nombre tiene un genero de\n  baile en que con los pies dan bueltas a un palo; tambien signfica el\n  temblor de cuerpo que da con la terciana, o la misma cission;\n  significa asi mesmo quando quiere ya amanescer aquel ponerse escuro el\n  cielo; tambien quando suele estar el agua del rio o laguna, por\n  antiparastassis, caliente, al tal calorsillo llaman _Vugh_.\u201d\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  I have traced the growth of this myth in detail in _The Myths of the\n  New World, a Treatise on the Symbolism and Mythology of the Red Race\n  of America_, chap. vi, (New York, 1876.) Dr. Otto Stoll in his most\n  recent discussion of the myth of Hunahpu does not urge the meaning\n  \u201copossum hunter,\u201d and remarks that in the Pokonchi dialect _henahpo_\n  means \u201cmoon-man,\u201d and \u201cmonth,\u201d referring therefore to a night-god.\n  _Ethnologie der Indianer St\u00e4mme von Guatemala_, p. 32, (Leyden, 1889.)\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  _Popol Vuh_, p. 40.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  _Ibid._ pp. 225, 249.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  _Ibid._ p. 314.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  _Die Indianer von Santa Catalina Istlavacan; ein Beitrag zur\n  Culturgeschichte der Urbewohner Central Amerikas._ Von Dr. Karl\n  Scherzer, p. 9 (Wien, 1856).\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  _Ibid._, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  _Escolios \u00e0 las Historias del Origen de los Indios_, p. 157.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  To quote his words:\n\n  \u201cBUBAS: _galel_ vel _tepex_. * * Quando an pasado dicen _xin colah\n  ahauarem_, id est, ya an dejado su se\u00f1oria, porque el que las tiene se\n  esta sentado, sin hacer cosa, como si fuese se\u00f1or \u00f3 se\u00f1ora.\n\n  \u201cSE\u00d1ORA: _xogohau_; Se\u00f1oria, _xogohauarem_. * * Deste nombre _xogohau_\n  vsan metaphoricamente para decir que una muger moza tiene bubas;\n  porque se esta sin hacer cosa, mano sobre mano, * * y quando a anado\n  de la enfermedad, dicen, si es var\u00f3n: _xucolah rahauarem achi rumal\n  tepex. Tepex_ es la enfermedad de bubas.\u201d\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  Sahagun, _Historia de Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. vii, cap. 2. He translates\n  _Nanahuatzih_, \u201cel buboso,\u201d Comp. Boturini, _Idea de una Nueua\n  Historia de la America_, pp. 37, 38.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  The MS. Dictionary of Coto says, s. v. Corazon: \u201cAttribuenle todos los\n  affectos de las potencias, memoria y entendimiento y voluntad, * *\n  unde _ahgux_, el cuidadoso, entendido, memorioso * *; toman este\n  nombre _gux_ por el alma de la persona, y por el spirito vital de todo\n  viviente, v. g. _xel ru gux Pedro_, muri\u00f3 Pedro, vel, salio el alma de\n  Pedro, * * deste nombre _gux_ se forma el verbo _tin gux lah_, por\n  pensar, cuidar, imaginar.\u201d\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  \u201cDe adonde,\u201d remarks Granados y Galvez, \u201cviene que mis Otomites, de\n  una misma manera llaman \u00e0 la alma que al corazon, aplicandoles \u00e0\n  entrambos la voz _muy_.\u201d _Tardes Americanas_, Tarde iv, p. 101.\n  (Mexico, 1778.)\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Ximenez, _Gramatica de la Lengua Quiche_, p. 17.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  _Popol Vuh_, pp. 18, 20, 23, 69, etc.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  \u201cCosa que esta encubierta \u00f3 enterrada.\u201d The _Diccionario de Motul_ is\n  the most complete dictionary of the Maya ever made. It dates from\n  about 1590 and has its name from the town of Motul, Yucatan, where it\n  was written. The author is unknown. Only two copies of it are in\n  existence, one, very carefully made, with numerous notes, by Dr.\n  Berendt, is in my possession. It is a thick 4to of 1500 pages.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, \u00a7 XXXIII.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  \u201cR\u2019atit zih, r\u2019atit zak,\u201d _Popol Vuh_, pp. 18, 20.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  Especially the _membrum virile_, Pio Perez, _Diccionario de la Lengua\n  Maya_, s. v.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  \u201cEntrar, juntarse el macho con la hembra.\u201d Brasseur, _Vocabulaire Maya\n  vancais_, s. v.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  _Popol Vuh_, pp. 8, 14.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  I take the following entries from Coto\u2019s _MSS._:\n\n  \u201cLARGA COSA: Lo ordinario es poner _rakan_ para significar la largura\n  de palo, cordel, etc.\n\n  \u201cGIGANTE: _hu rapah rakan chi vinak, hu chogah rakan chi vanak_; este\n  nombre se usa de todo animal que en su specie es mas alto que los\n  otros. Meo. P^e Saz, serm. de circumsciss, dice del Gigante Golias:\n  _tugotic rogoric rakan chiachi_ Gigante _Golias_.\u201d\n\n  Ignorant, apparently, of this meaning, Dr. Stoll continues in his\n  latest work to interpret Hurakan \u201cwith one foot.\u201d _Die Ethnologie der\n  Indianer St\u00e4mme von Guatemala_, p. 31, (Leiden, 1889.) The chapter on\n  mythology is the least satisfactory in this important work.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  De la Borde, _Relation de l\u2019origine, etc., des Caraibes_, p. 7.\n  (Paris, 1674.)\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Las Casas, _Historia Apologetica de las Indias Occidentales_, cap.\n  cxxiv (Madrid edition): P. F. Alonzo Fernandez, _Historia\n  Ecclesiastica de Nuestros Tiempos_, p. 137 (Toledo, 1611).\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  _Dissertation sur les Mythes de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 Americane_, \u00a7 8 (Paris,\n  1861); see also his note to the _Popol Vuh_, p. 70.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  _Ch\u2019u qux uleu_, \u201cin its heart the earth.\u201d (Coto, _Dicc._ s. v.)\n\n  Coto adds that the ancient meaning of the word was a ghost or vision\n  of a departed spirit\u2014\u201cantiguamente este nombre _Xibalbay_ significaba\n  el demonio, vel los diffuntos \u00f4 visiones que se les aperescian, y asi\n  decian, y aun algunos ay que lo dicen oy _xuqutzii xibalbay ri cetzam\n  chi nu vach_, se me apereci\u00f3 el diffunto.\u201d\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  \u201cEl Demonio se llamaba _Xibilha_, que quiere decir el que se desparece\n  \u00f3 desbanece.\u201d _Historia de Yucatan_, Lib. iv, cap. vii. Cogolludo had\n  lived in Yucatan twenty-one years when he was making the final\n  revision of his History, and was moderately well acquainted with the\n  Maya tongue.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  The _Diccionario de Motul_, MS., gives:\n\n  \u201cXIBIL, _xibi_, _xibic_: cundir como gota de aceita; esparcirse la\n  comida en la digestion, y deshacerse la sal, nieve \u00f4 yelo, humo \u00f4\n  niebla. _Item:_ desparecerse una vision \u00f4 fantasma. _Item:_ temblar de\n  miedo y espantarse.\u201d\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  _De Legibus_, Lib. ii, cap. 2.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  \u201cLes petits Tigres,\u201d _Mythes de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 Americane_, \u00a7 viii, _Popol\n  Vuh_, p. 34, note.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  _Compendio de Nombres en Lengua Cakchiquel, MS._\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  _Las Historias del Origen de los Indios_, p. 16.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  Father Varea, in his _Calepino de la Lengua Cakchiquel. MS._, gives\n  the following entries:\n\n  \u201cBALAM: el tigre, _zakbalam_, tigre peque\u00f1o de su naturelezo; _gana\n  balam_, el grande, tainbein sig^a un signo de los Indios. _Maceval gih\n  P^o balam_, \u00f4 _Maria xbalam_. _Balam_ se llama el echizero.\u201d\n\n  \u201c_Queh_: el venado. Sig^a un cierto dia; otras veces dos dias; otras\n  veces es signo de trece, otras veces cinco \u00f3 seis dias \u00e1 la quenta de\n  los Indios: _xa hun queh v\u0153 gih_, \u00f4, _cay queh_, _voo queh_, _vahaki_,\n  \u00f3, _oxlahuh queh_.\u201d\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  Published in the _American Antiquarian_, for May, 1885.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  _The Algonquin Legends of New England_, (Boston, 1884.)\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  The Micmac word _k\u0115loosk\u0103b\u0101we_, means \u201che is a cheat,\u201d probably one\n  who cheats by lying. See Rand, _Micmac Dictionary_, s. v. A cheat.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  _Dictionnaire de la Langue des Cris_, sub. voce _Wisakketj\u00e2k_. \u201cHomme\n  fabuleux des diff\u00e9rentes tribus du Nord, auquel elles attribuent une\n  puissance surnaturelle, avec un grand nombre de ruses, de tours, et de\n  folies. Il est regard\u00e9 comme le principal g\u00e9nie et le fondateur de ces\n  nations. Chez les Sauteux on l\u2019appelle _Nenaboj_, chez les\n  Pieds-Noirs, _N\u00e2piw_. _Wisakkeljakow_, C\u2019est un fourbe, un trompeur.\u201d\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n   Baraga, _Otchipwe Dictionary_.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  _Key into the language of America_, p. 24.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  _Lexique de la Langue Algonquine_, p. 443. (Montreal, 1886.)\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  See his article in _The American Review_, for 1848, entitled\n  \u201cManabozho and the Great Serpent, an Algonquin legend.\u201d\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  _Algic Researches_, Vol. 1, p. 134.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  An address delivered at the annual meeting of the Numismatic and\n  Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, and published in its\n  _Proceedings_ for 1883.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  This paper was read before the American Philosophical Society in\n  December, 1888, and was printed in its _Proceedings_.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  Dr. E. T. Hamy, _An Interpretation of one of the Copan Monuments_, in\n  _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, February 1887; also,\n  _Revue d\u2019 Ethnographie_, 1886, p. 233; same author, _Le Svastika et la\n  Roue Solaire en Am\u00e9rique_, _Revue d\u2019 Ethnographie_, 1885, p. 22. E.\n  Beauvois, in _Annales de Philosophie Chretienne_, 1877, and in various\n  later publications. Ferraz de Macedo, _Essai Critique sur les Ages\n  Prehistorique de Bresil_, Lisbon, 1887, etc.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  See his article, \u201cArt in Shell of the Ancient Americans,\u201d _Second\n  Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_, p. 270.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  See his article in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_, 1886, p. 223.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  Von Luchan, in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_, 1886, p. 301.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  See Dumoutier, _Le Svastika et la Roue Solaire en Chine_, in _Revue d\u2019\n  Ethnologie_, 1885, pp. 333, _sq._\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  I am indebted for some of these explanations to Mr. K. Sungimoto, an\n  intelligent Japanese gentleman, well acquainted with Chinese, late\n  resident in Philadelphia.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  George Copway, _Traditional History of the Ojibway Nation_, p. 134. It\n  will be noted that in the sign for sunrise the straight line meets the\n  curve at its _left_ extremity, and for sunset at its _right_. This\n  results from the superstitious preference of facing the south rather\n  than the north.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  The triplicate constitution of things is a prominent feature of the\n  ancient Mexican philosophy, especially that of Tezcuco. The visible\n  world was divided into three parts, the earth below, the heavens\n  above, and man\u2019s abode between them. The whole was represented by a\n  circle divided into three parts, the upper part painted blue, the\n  lower brown, the centre white (See Duran, _Historia_, Lam. 15^a, for\n  an example). Each of these three parts was subdivided into three\n  parts, so that when the Tezcucan king built a tower as a symbol of the\n  universe, he called it \u201cThe Tower of Nine Stories\u201d (see my _Ancient\n  Nahuatl Poetry_, Introduction, p. 36).\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  Mallery, _Pictography of the North American Indians_, in _Fourth\n  Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology_, p. 239.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  _Captivity and Adventures of John Tanner_, pp. 359, 360.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Dr. Ferraz de Macedo, _Essai Critique sur les Ages Prehistorique de\n  Bresil_, p. 38 (Lisbonne, 1887).\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  Op. cit., p. 38.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  See Worsaae, _Danish Arts_, and Virchow, in various numbers of the\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_. The ring-cross is a common figure in\n  American symbolism and decorative art. It frequently occurs on the\n  shields depicted in the Bologna Codex, and the two codices of the\n  Vatican (Kingsborough\u2019s _Antiquities of Mexico_, Vols. ii. and iii).\n  Dr. Ferraz de Macedo says that the most common decorative design on\n  both ancient and modern native Brazilian pottery is the ring-cross in\n  the form of a double spiral, as in Fig. 19 (_Essai Critique sur les\n  Ages Prehistorique de Bresil_, p. 40). A very similar form will be\n  found in the Bologna Codex, pl. xviii, in Kingsborough\u2019s _Mexico_,\n  Vol. ii.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  See Mallery, _Pictography of the North American Indians_, pp. 88, 89,\n  128, etc.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  This name is given in Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, p.\n  313.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  _Historia de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Trat. III, cap. i.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  Printed originally in _The Folk-Lore Journal_, London, 1883.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  _Informe del Se\u00f1or Cura de Yaxcab\u00e0_, Don Bartolom\u00e9 del Granado Baeza,\n  in the _Registro Yucateco_, tomo i, pp. 165 _et seq._\n\n  The Rev. Estanislao Carrillo was cura of Ticul, where he died in 1846.\n  He was a zealous arch\u00e6ologist, and is frequently mentioned by Mr.\n  Stephens in his travels in Yucatan. He is deservedly included in the\n  _Manual de Biografia Yucateca_ of Don Francisco de P. Sosa (Merida,\n  1866). His article on the subject of the text appeared in the\n  _Registro Yucateco_, tomo iv. p. 103.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  \u201cDe idolatras paganos que eran, solo se ha conseguido que se\n  conviertan en idolatras cristianos.\u201d\u2014Apolinar Garcia y Garcia,\n  _Historia de la Guerra de Castas en Yucatan_, Prologo, p. xxiv\n  (Merida, 1865).\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, pp. 208 _et seq._ The work\n  of Landa was first printed at Paris in 1864.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  Charencey, _Des Couleurs consid\u00e9r\u00e9es comme Symboles des Points de\n  l\u2019Horizon chez les Peuples du Nouveau-Monde_, in the _Actes de la\n  Soci\u00e9t\u00e8 Philologique_, tome vi (Octobre 1876).\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  _Chrestomathie de Lit\u00e9rature Maya_, p. 101, in the second volume of\n  the _Etudes sur le Syst\u00e8me Graphique et la Langue des Mayas_ (Paris,\n  1870).\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  \u201cLa fiesta de fuego, que hasta ahora en esta provincia se hacia.\u201d\u2014Fr.\n  Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, tomo i, p. 483 (3d ed.\n  Merida, 1867).\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  Thomas Gage, _A New Survey of the West Indi\u00e8s_, pp. 377 _et seq._\n  (London, 1699). The Abb\u00e9 Brasseur is willing to consider these tales\n  fictitious, \u201csuppos\u00e9 qu\u2019ils n\u2019eussent eu, en realit\u00e9, aucune\n  communication avec les puissances du monde invisible,\u201d about which,\n  however, he is evidently not altogether sure.\u2014_Voyage sur l\u2019Isthme de\n  Tehuantepec_, p. 175 (Paris, 1862).\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  _Popol Vuh, le Livre Sacr\u00e9 des Quiches_, p. 315 (Paris, 1864).\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  The derivation of this word is from _kat_, which in the _Di\u00e7cionario\n  Maya-Espa\u00f1ol del Convento de Motul_, MS. of about 1580, is defined as\n  \u201cla tierra y barro de las olleras,\u201d but which Perez in his modern Maya\n  dictionary translates \u201collas \u00f4 figuras de barro\u201d; _ob_, is the plural\n  termination; _lox_, is strong, or the strength of anything; _h\u2019_ or\n  _ah_, as it is often written, is the rough breathing which in Maya\n  indicates the masculine gender.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  From the _Journal of American Folk-lore_, 1888.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  The form from which he derives it is _lenni-peu_.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  Read before the Anthropological Section of the American Association\n  for the Advancement of Science, at Buffalo, August, 1886, and\n  published in the _American Antiquarian_ in November of the same year.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  _Study or the MS. Troano_, p. 141.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  _Erl\u00e4uterungen der Maya Hand-schrift_, etc., p. 2. (Dresden, 1886.)\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  _Die Maya Hand-schrift der K\u00f6nig._ _Bib. zu Dresden_, p. 77; (Berlin,\n  1886.)\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  _Die Maya Hand-schrift_, etc., p. 47.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  _American Antiquarian_, March, 1886.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  The first of M. Aubin\u2019s Memoirs appeared in 1849, and was the result\n  of studies begun in 1830. A new and enlarged edition has lately been\n  edited by Dr. Hamy: _M\u00e9moires sur la Peinture Didactique et l\u2019Ecriture\n  Figurative des Anciens Mexicains_. Par. J. M. A. Aubin (Paris 1885.)\n  But Dr. Hamy has traveled very far beyond the limits of a sober\n  appreciation of M. Aubin\u2019s results when he writes: \u201cLes recherches de\n  M. Aubin ont r\u00e9ussi \u00e0 resoudre presque toutes les difficult\u00e9s que\n  presentait la lecture des hieroglyphes nahuas.\u201d (Introduction, p.\n  viii.) He is also in error in supposing (in a note to same page) that\n  Aubin\u2019s theory is not well-known to Americanists. Brasseur popularized\n  it in his introductions to his _Histoire du Mexique_. Aubin, in fact,\n  guided by the Spanish writers of the 16th century and the annotators\n  of the Codices, first clearly expressed the general principles of the\n  phonetic picture writing; but his rules and identifications are\n  entirely inadequate to its complete or even partial interpretation.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, (Mexico, 1880). The\n  Atlas to this work contains a large number of proposed identifications\n  of hieroglyphics. See also by the same writer, _Ensayo de Descifracion\n  Geroglifica_ in the _Anales del Museo Nacional_, tom. II. Much of this\n  is founded on Ramirez\u2019s studies, who, however, by his own admission,\n  knew little or nothing of the Nahuatl language (as he states in his\n  introduction to the _Codex Chimalpopoca_ or _Anales de Quauhtitlan_).\n  Dr. Pe\u00f1afiel\u2019s praiseworthy collection is entitled _Catalogo\n  Alfabetico de los nombres de Lugares pertenecientes al Idioma Nahuatl,\n  Estudio Jeroglifico_. (Mexico, 1885.)\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  This paper was originally read before the American Philosophical\n  Society in October, 1886, and was published in their _Proceedings_.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  The following elements occur in the old Egyptian writing:\n\n              1. Ideographic.\u2014(_a_) Pictures or ikonographs.\n                               (_b_) Symbols.\n                               (_c_) Determinatives.\n\n                      2. Phonetic.\u2014(_a_) Words.\n                                    (_b_) Syllables.\n                                    (_c_) Letters.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  See M. A. Lower, _Curiosities of Heraldry_, Chap. vi (London, 1845).\n  An appropriate motto of one of these bearings was: \u201cNon verbis sed\n  _rebus_ loquimur.\u201d\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  _Tam_, near; _uch_, scorpion. _Diccionario Huasteca-Espa\u00f1ol_, MS., in\n  my possession. This and most of the other instances quoted are to be\n  found in Lord Kingsborough\u2019s great work on Mexico, and also in Dr.\n  Pe\u00f1afiel\u2019s _Cat\u00e0logo Alfabetico de los Nombres de Lugares\n  pertenecientes al Idioma Nahuatl_ (Mexico, 1885).\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  It is given in the appendix to the _Ensayo sobre la Interpretacion de\n  la Escritura Hieratica de la America Central_, by De Rosny, translated\n  by D. Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgada (Madrid, 1884).\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Valentini\u2019s Essay appeared in the _Proceedings of the American\n  Antiquarian Society_, April, 1880. Landa\u2019s work was originally\n  published by the Abb\u00e9 Brasseur (de Bourbourg) at Paris, 1864, and more\n  accurately at Madrid, 1884, under the supervision of Don Juan de Dios\n  de la Rada y Delgada.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  Originally published as an introduction to Dr. Cyrus Thomas\u2019 _Study of\n  the Manuscript Troano_, issued by the U. S. Geographical and\n  Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington, 1882,\n  (revised with additions for the present volume).\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  Dr. Friedrich M\u00fcller, _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Band i, pp.\n  151\u2013156.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  Aubin. _M\u00e9moire sur la Peinture didactique et l\u2019\u00c9criture figurative\n  des anciens Mexicains_, in the introduction to Brasseur (de\n  Bourbourg)'s _Histoire des Nations civilis\u00e9es du Mexique et de\n  l\u2019Am\u00e9rique Centrale_, tom. i; Manuel Orozco y Berra _Ensayo de\n  Descifracion geroglifica_, in the _Anales del Museo Nacional de\n  M\u00e9xico_, tom. i, ii.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  Peter Martyr, Decad. iv, cap. viii.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  \u201cSe sujetaron de su propria voluntad al Se\u00f1orio de los Reies de\n  Castilla, recibiendo al Emperador, como Rei de Espa\u00f1a, por Se\u00f1or\n  supremo y universal, e hicieron ciertas se\u00f1ales, como Firmas; las\n  quales, con testimonio de los Religiosos Franciscos, que alli estaban,\n  llev\u00f3 consigo el buen Obispo de Chiapa, Don Fr. Bartolom\u00e9 de las\n  Casas, amparo, y defensa de estos Indios, quando se fu\u00e9 \u00e1 Espa\u00f1a.\u201d\n  Torquemada, _Monarquia Indiana_, lib. xix, cap. xiii.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  \u201cLetreros de ciertos caracteres que en otra ninguna parte.\u201d Las Casas,\n  _Historia Apologetica de las Indias Occidentales_, cap. cxxiii.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  _Relacion Breve y Verdadera de Algunas Cosas de las muchas que\n  sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonso Ponce, Commissario General, en las\n  Provincias de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, in the _Coleccion de Documentos para\n  la Historia de Espa\u00f1a_, tom. lviii, p. 392. The other traits he\n  praises in the natives of Yucatan are their freedom from sodomy and\n  cannibalism. (For the text see later, p. 255.)\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Bernardo de Lizana, _Historia de Yucatan. Devocionario de Nuestra\n  Se\u00f1ora de Izamal, y Conquista Espiritual_, 8vo. Pinci\u00e6 (Valladolid),\n  1633.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  For these facts see Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, lib.\n  ix, cap. xv. Cogolludo adds that in his time (1650\u2013'60) Solana\u2019s MSS.\n  could not be found; Lizana may have sent them to Spain.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  I add the original of the most important passage: \u201cLa historia y\n  autores que podemos alegar son unos antiguos caracteres, mal\n  entendidos de muchos, y glossados de unos indios antiguos, que son\n  hijos de los sacerdotes de sus dioses, que son los que solo sabian\n  leer y adivinar, y a quien creian y reverenciavan como \u00e1 Dioses\n  destos.\u201d\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Pedro Sanchez de Aguilar, _Informe contra Idolorum cultores del\n  Obispado de Yucatan_. 4to. Madrid, 1639, ff. 124.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  \u201cEl primero quo hall\u00f3 las letras de la lengua Maya \u00e9 hiz\u00f3 el c\u00f3mputo\n  de los a\u00f1os, meses y edades, y lo ense\u00f1o todo a los Indios de esta\n  Provincia, fu\u00e9 un Indios llamado _Kinchahau_, y por otro nombre\n  Tzamna.\u201d Fr. Pedro Beltran de Santa Rosa Maria, _Arte del Idioma\n  Maya_, p. 16 (2d ed., M\u00e9rida de Yucatan, 1859).\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  Diego Lopez Cogolludo, _Historia de Yucatan_, lib. iv, cap. III. The\n  original is: \u201cNo acostumbraban escribir los pleitos, aunque tenian\n  caracteres con que se entendian, de que se ven muchos en las ruinas de\n  los edificios.\u201d\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  \u201cPorque lo leia su Rey en sus Analtehes, tenian Noticias de aquellas\n  Provincias de Yucatan (que Analtehes, \u00f2 Historias, es una misma cosa)\n  y de que sus Pasados avian salido de ellas.\u201d _Historia de la Conquista\n  de la Provincia de el Itza, Reduccion y Progressos de la de el\n  Lacandon_, etc., (folio, Madrid, 1701) lib. vi, cap. iv.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  _Ibid._, lib. vii, cap. i.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  \u201cY en su casa tambien tenia de estos Idolos, y Mesa de Sacrificios, y\n  los Analtehes, \u00f2 Historias de todo quanto los avia sucedido.\u201d _Ibid._,\n  lib. viii, cap. xiii.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  Diego de Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, pp. 316, 318,\n  _seq._\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Dr. Valentini\u2019s article was published in the _Proceedings of the\n  American Antiquarian Society_, 1880. More recently Dr. Ed. Seler has\n  condemned the Landa alphabet as \u201cein Versuch von Ladinos, von in die\n  Spanische Wissenschaft eingeweihten Eingebornen in der Art, wie sie\n  die Spanier ihre Lettern verwenden sahen, auch mit den Eingebornen\n  gel\u00e4ufigen Bildern und Charaktern zu hantiren.\u201d _Verhandlungen der\n  Berliner anthropologischen Gesellschaft_, 1887, s. 227. I am far from\n  adopting this sweeping statement, which I believe is contradicted by\n  the whole tenor of Landa\u2019s words and the testimony of other writers.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Diego de Landa, _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, p. 44.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  I add a few notes on this text:\n\n  _Enhi_ is the preterit of the irregular verb, _hal_, to be, pret.\n  _enhi_, fut. _anac_. _Katun yum_, father or lord of the Katun or\n  cycle. Each Katun was under the protection of a special deity or lord,\n  who controlled the events which occurred in it. _Tu co\u0254 pop_, lit.,\n  \u201cfor the rolling up of Pop,\u201d which was the first month in the Maya\n  year. _Holom_ is an archaic future from _hul_; this form in _om_ is\n  mentioned by Buenaventura, _Arte de la Lengua Maya_, 1684, and is\n  frequent in the sacred language, but does not occur elsewhere. _Tucal\n  ya_, on account of his love; but _ya_ means also \u201csuffering,\u201d \u201cwound,\u201d\n  and \u201cstrength,\u201d and there is no clue which of these significations is\n  meant. _Ahkinob_; the original has _lukinob_, which I suspect is an\n  error; it would alter the phrase to mean \u201cIn that day there are\n  fathers\u201d or lords, the word _yum_, father, being constantly used for\n  lord or ruler. The _ahkin_ was the priest; the _ahbobat_ was a diviner\n  or prophet. The 9th Ahau Katun was the period of 20 years which began\n  in 1541, according to most native authors, but according to Landa\u2019s\n  reckoning in the year 1561.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  In quoting and explaining Maya words and phrases in this article, I\n  have in all instances followed the _Diccionario Maya-Espa\u00f1ol del\n  Convento de Motul_ (Yucatan); a copy of which in manuscript (one of\n  the only two in existence) is in my possession. It was composed about\n  1580. The still older Maya dictionary of Father Villalpando, printed\n  in Mexico in 1571, is yet in existence in one or two copies, but I\n  have never seen it.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia, at\n  its twenty-fourth annual meeting, January 5th, 1882, and published in\n  _The Penn Monthly_.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  Of the numerous authorities which could be quoted on this point, I\n  shall give the words of but one, Father Alonso Ponce, the Pope\u2019s\n  Commissary-General, who traveled through Yucatan in 1586, when many\n  natives were still living who had been born before the Conquest\n  (1541). Father Ponce had traveled through Mexico, and, of course, had\n  learned about the Aztec picture writing, which he distinctly contrasts\n  with the writing of the Mayas. Of the latter, he says: \u201c_Son alabados\n  de tres cosas entre todos los demas de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a, la una de que\n  en su antiguedad tenian caracteres y letras, con que escribian sus\n  historias y las ceremonias y orden de los sacrificios de sus idolos y\n  su calendario, en libros hechos de corteza de cierto arbol, los cuales\n  eran unas tiras muy largas de quarta \u00f3 tercia en ancho, que se\n  doblaban y recogian, y venia \u00e1 queder \u00e1 manera de un libro\n  encuardenado en cuartilla, poco mas \u00f3 menos. Estas letras y caracteres\n  no las entendian, sino los sacerdotes de los idolos. (que en aquella\n  lengua se llaman \u2018ahkines,\u2019) y algun indio principal. Despues las\n  entendieron y supieron l\u00e9er algunos frailes nuestros y aun las\n  escribien._\u201d\u2014(\u201c_Relacion Breve y Verdadera de Algunas Cosas de las\n  Muchas que Sucedieron al Padre Fray Alonso Ponce, Comisario-General en\n  las Provincias de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a_,\u201d page 392). I know no other author\n  who makes the interesting statement that these characters were\n  actually used by the missionaries to impart instruction to the\n  natives; but I have heard that an example of one such manuscript has\n  been discovered, and is now in the hands of a well-known Americanist.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  \u201c_Se les quemamos todos_,\u201d he writes, \u201c_lo qual \u00e1 maravilla sentian y\n  les dava pena_.\u201d\u2014\u201c_Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_,\u201d page 316.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  _Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan_, page 160.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  See above, pp. 128 and 172. The terminal letter in both these\n  words\u2014\u201c_chilan_,\u201d \u201c_balam_,\u201d\u2014may be either \u201c_n_\u201d or \u201c_m_,\u201d the change\n  being one of dialect and local pronunciation. I have followed the\n  older authorities in writing \u201c_Chilan Balam_,\u201d the modern preferring\n  \u201c_Chilam Balam_.\u201d Se\u00f1or Eligio Ancona, in his recently published\n  _Historia de Yucatan_, (Vol. i., page 240, note, Merida, 1878), offers\n  the absurd suggestion that the name \u201c_balam_\u201d was given to the native\n  soothsayers by the early missionaries in ridicule, deriving it from\n  the well-known personage in the Old Testament. It is surprising that\n  Se\u00f1or Ancona, writing in Merida, had never acquainted himself with the\n  Perez manuscripts, nor with those in possession of Bishop Carrillo.\n  Indeed, the most of his treatment of the ancient history of his\n  country is disappointingly superficial.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  For example, in the _Registro Yucateco, Tome III: Diccionario\n  Universal de Historia y Geograf\u00eda, Tome VIII._ (Mexico, 1855);\n  _Diccionario Historico de Yucatan, Tome I._ (Merida, 1866); in the\n  appendix to Landa\u2019s _Cosas de Yucatan_ (Paris, 1864), etc. The epochs,\n  or _katuns_, of Maya history have been recently again analyzed by Dr.\n  Felipe Valentini, in an essay in the German and English languages, the\n  latter in the _Proceedings_ of the American Antiquarian Society, 1880.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  The Abb\u00e9\u2019s criticism occurs in the note to page 406 of his edition of\n  Landa\u2019s _Cosas de Yucatan_.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  It is described at length by Don Crescencio Carrillo y Ancona, in his,\n  \u2018_Disertacion sobre la Historia de la Lengua Maya_\u2019 (Merida, 1870).\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  \u201c_Je dois d\u00e9clarer que l\u2019examen dans tous leurs d\u00e9tails du \u2018Codex\n  Troano\u2019 et du \u2018Codex Peresianus\u2019 m\u2019invite de la fa\u00e7on la plus s\u00e9rieuse\n  \u00e0 n\u2019accepter ces signes, tout au moins au point de vue de l\u2019exactitude\n  de leur trac\u00e9, qu\u2019 avec une certaine r\u00e9serve._\u201d\u2014Leon de Rosny\u2019s _Essai\n  sur le D\u00e9chiffrement de l\u2019Ecriture Hi\u00e9ratique de l\u2019Am\u00e9rique Centrale_,\n  page 21 (Paris, 1876). By the \u201c_Codex Peresianus_,\u201d he does not mean\n  the \u201c_Codice Perez_,\u201d but the Maya manuscript in the Biblioth\u00eaque\n  Nationale. The identity of the names is confusing and unfortunate.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  \u201cThe Manuscript Troano,\u201d published in _The American Naturalist_,\n  August, 1881, page 640. This manuscript or codex was published in\n  chrome-lithograph, Paris, 1879, by the French Government.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  \u201c_Declarar las necesidades y sus remedios._\u201d\u2014_Relacion de las Cosas de\n  Yucatan_, page 160. Like much of Landa\u2019s Spanish, this use of the word\n  \u201c_necesidad_\u201d is colloquial, and not classical.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  A _Medicina Domestica_, under the name of \u201cDon Ricardo Ossado, (alias,\n  _el Judio_,)\u201d was published at Merida in 1834; but this appears to\n  have been merely a bookseller\u2019s device to aid the sale of the book by\n  attributing it to the \u201cgreat unknown.\u201d\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  Read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian Society of Philadelphia in\n  1889.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  _Los Aztecas_, Mexico, 1888.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  Dupaix, _Antiquit\u00e9s Mexicaines_. 1st Exped., p. 7, Pl. vi, vii, fig.\n  6, 7. At that time the flat surface of the rock was the floor of a\n  cabin built upon it. At present the cabin has disappeared, Mr.\n  Bandelier does not seem to have visited this stone when he was at\n  Orizaba, although he refers to Dupaix\u2019s explorations. _Report of an\n  Arch\u00e6ological Tour in Mexico in 1881_, p. 26 (Boston, 1884). Nor does\n  M. H. Strebel, though he also refers to it, give any fresh information\n  about it. See his _Alt-Mexiko_, Band I, s. 30.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  One appears to be a gigantic full face; another an animal like a frog,\n  with extended legs; two others are geometrical designs, the outlines\n  of which have evidently been recently freshened with a steel\n  implement. Future observers should be on their guard that this\n  procedure shall not have mutilated the early workmanship.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  It is needless to expand this explanation of the Aztec Calendar; but\n  it is worth while to warn the student of the subject that the problem\n  is an intricate one and has never yet been satisfactorily solved,\n  because the information presented is both incomplete and\n  contradictory. I consider the most instructive discussion of the\n  Calendar is that in Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Lib.\n  iv., Cap. 1\u20136.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  Father Sotomayor, in the newspaper account above referred to, states\n  that tradition assigned the inscription to the time of Cortes\u2019 march\n  to the City of Mexico; a date which he quite properly ridicules as\n  impossible. The vicinity of Orizaba was, moreover, not a part of the\n  Mexican State until some time after the middle of the 15th century.\n  See Bandelier, _Arch\u00e6ological Tour in Mexico_, pp. 22, sqq.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  _Tzontemoc_, a compound of _tzontli_, hair, and _temoa_, to fall;\n  _mictlan_, locative from _mictli_, to die; _tecutli_, lord, noble. For\n  a description of this deity see Sahagun, _Historia de la Nueva\n  Espa\u00f1a_, Lib. iii, Appendix, chap. I. I have elsewhere suggested that\n  the falling hair had reference to the long slanting rays of the\n  setting sun. See above, p. 146.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  Both are reproduced in Kingsborough\u2019s _Mexican Antiquities_. But I\n  would warn against the explanations in Spanish of the _Codex\n  Telleriano-Remensis_. They are the work of some ignorant and careless\n  clerk, who often applies the explanation of one plate and date to\n  another, through sheer negligence.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  I would refer to an explanation of this system published by me in the\n  _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_, for 1886.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  The phonetic significance of this symbol is well established. See\n  Aubin in the Introduction to Brasseur, _Histoire des Nations\n  Civilis\u00e9es de la Mexique_, Tome I, p. lxix.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  _Historia Antigua de Mexico_, Tomo III, p. 426.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  Ixtlilxochitl, _Historia Chichimeca_, cap. 70. He errs in assigning it\n  to the year 1503, as all the other narratives of importance are\n  against him.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  _Annales de Chimalpahin_, p. 173 (Ed. Sim\u00e9on, Paris, 1889). His words\n  are \u201cauh \u00e7a niman ihcuac oncan in hual motlatocalli in\n  Moteuhc\u00e7omatzin,\u201d which Sim\u00e9on renders \u201cImm\u00e9diatement apres,\u201d etc.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  Tezozomoc, _Cronica Mexicana_, cap. 81. This writer adds that the\n  emperor expected his approaching end, and made a number of\n  preparations with regard to it. The _Anales de Cuauhtitlan_, p. 80,\n  places the events of 10 _tochtli_ under the following year 11 _acatl_,\n  and the reverse. It reads \u201cmurio el se\u00f1or de Tenochtitlan,\n  Ahuitzotzin, le sucedio immediatamente Moteuczomatzin.\u201d\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  Selections from an Address read before the Numismatic and Antiquarian\n  Society of Philadelphia, in 1886.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  An Address delivered by request before the Historical Societies of\n  Pennsylvania and New York, in 1885. It was printed in the\n  _Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography_ for that year.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  For another derivation, see _ante_, p. 182.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  _Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages._ By J. W. Powell\n  (second edition, Washington, 1880).\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  This essay is extracted from a more general discussion of Humboldt\u2019s\n  linguistic philosophy which I read before the American Philosophical\n  Society in 1885, and which was printed in their _Proceedings_ for that\n  year. Humboldt\u2019s great work was his Introduction to his essay on the\n  Kawi language under the title: _Ueber die Verschiedenheit des\n  menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige\n  Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts_. Prof. Adler translates this,\n  \u201cThe Structural Differences of Human Speech and their Influence on the\n  Intellectual Development of the Human Race.\u201d The word _geistige_,\n  however, includes emotional as well as intellectual things. Of the\n  many commentators on this masterly production, I have used\n  particularly the following:\n\n  _Die Elemente der Philosophischen Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von\n  Humboldt\u2019s. In systematischer Entwicklung dargestellt und kritisch\n  erl\u00e4utert_, von Dr. Max Schasler, Berlin, 1847.\n\n  _Die Sprachwissenschaft Wilhelm von Humboldt\u2019s und die Hegel\u2019sche\n  Philosophie_, von Dr. H. Steinthal, Berlin, 1848. The same eminent\n  linguist treats especially of Humboldt\u2019s teachings in _Grammatik,\n  Logik und Psychologic, ihre Principien und ihr Verh\u00e4ltniss zu\n  einander_, pp. 123\u2013135 (Berlin, 1855); in his well-known volume\n  _Characteristik der Haupts\u00e4chlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues_, pp.\n  20\u201370 (Berlin, 1860); in his oration _Ueber Wilhelm von Humboldt_\n  (Berlin, 1883); and elsewhere.\n\n  _Wilhelm von Humboldt\u2019s Linguistical Studies._ By C. J. Adler, A. M.\n  (New York, 1866). This is the only attempt beside my own, so far as I\n  know, to present Humboldt\u2019s philosophy of language to English readers.\n  It is meritorious, but certainly in some passages Prof. Adler failed\n  to catch Humboldt\u2019s meaning.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., Bd. vi, s. 271, note. I may say,\n  once for all, that my references, unless otherwise stated, are to the\n  edition of Humboldt\u2019s _Gesammelte Werke_, edited by his brother,\n  Berlin, 1841\u20131852.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  _Aus Wilhelm von Humboldt\u2019s letzten Lebensjahren. Eine Mittheilung\n  bisher unbekannter Briefe_, von Theodor Distel, p. 19 (Leipzig, 1883).\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  From his memoir _Ueber das vergleichende Sprachstudium in Beziehung\n  auf die verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung_, Bd. iii, s. 249.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  He draws examples from the Carib, Lule, Tupi, Mbaya, Huasteca,\n  Nahuatl, Tamanaca, Abipone, and Mixteca; _Ueber das Entstehen der\n  grammatischen Formen, und ihren Einfluss auf die Ideenentwicklung_,\n  Bd. iii, ss. 269\u2013306.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren Zusammenhang mit dem\n  Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s. 526.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  This letter is printed in the memoir of Prof. E. Teza, _Intorno agli\n  Studi del Thavenet sulla Lingua Algonchina_, in the _Annali delle\n  Universit\u00e1 toscane_, Tomo xviii (Pisa, 1880).\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  Compare Prof. Adler\u2019s Essay, above mentioned, p. 11.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  This is found expressed nowhere else so clearly as at the beginning of\n  \u00a7 13, where the author writes: \u201cDer Zweck dieser Einleitung, die\n  Sprachen, in der Verschiedenartigkeit ihres Baues, als die nothwendige\n  Grundlage der Fortbildung des menschlichen Geistes darzustellen, und\n  den wechselseitigen Einfluss des Einen auf das Andre zu er\u00f6rtern, hat\n  mich gen\u00f6thigt, in die Natur der Sprache \u00fcberhaupt einzugehen.\u201d Bd.\n  vi, s. 106.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  \u201cDas Studium der verschiedenen Sprachen des Erdbodens verfehlt seine\n  Bestimmung, wenn es nicht immer den Gang der geistigen Bildung im Auge\n  beh\u00e4lt, und darin seinen eigentlichen Zweck sucht.\u201d _Ueber den\n  Zusammenhang der Schrift mit der Sprache_, Bd. vi, s. 428.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  \u201cEine Gedankenwelt an T\u00f6ne geheftet.\u201d _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und\n  ihre Zusammenhang mit dem Sprachbau_, Bd. vi, s. 530.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  This cardinal point in Humboldt\u2019s philosophy is very clearly set forth\n  in his essay, _Ueber die Aufgabe des Geschichtschreibers_. Bd. i, s.\n  23, and elsewhere.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  This reasoning is developed in the essay, _Ueber das Vergleichende\n  Sprachstudium_, etc., _Gesammelte Werke_, Bd. iii, ss. 241\u2013268; and\n  see Ibid., s. 270.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  See the essay _Ueber die Buchstabenschrift und ihren Zusammenhang mit\n  dem Sprachbau_, _Ges. Werke_, Bd. vi, ss. 551\u20132.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  _Ueber das Entstehen der grammatischen Formen_, etc., _Werke_, Bd.\n  iii, s. 292.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  Speaking of such \u201cimperfect\u201d languages, he gives the following wise\n  suggestion for their study: \u201cIhr einfaches Geheimniss, welches den Weg\n  anzeigt, auf welchem man sie, mit g\u00e4nzlicher Vergessenheit unserer\n  Grammatik, immer zuerst zu entr\u00e4thseln versuchen muss, ist, das in\n  sich Bedeutende unmittelbar an einander zu reihen.\u201d _Ueber das\n  Vergleichende Sprachstudium_, etc., _Werke_, Bd. iii, s. 255; and for\n  a practical illustration of his method, see the essay, _Ueber das\n  Entstehen der grammatischen Formen_, etc., Bd. iii, s. 274.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  His teachings on this point, of which I give the barest outline, are\n  developed in sections 12 and 13 of his Introduction, _Ueber die\n  Verschiedenheit_, etc. Steinthal\u2019s critical remarks on these sections\n  (in his _Charakteristik der haupt. Typen des Sprachbaues_) seem to me\n  unsatisfactory, and he even does not appear to grasp the chain of\n  Humboldt\u2019s reasoning.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  _Lettre \u00e0 M. Abel-Remusat_, Werke, Bd. vii, s. 353.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  \u201cDaher ist das Einschliessen in Ein Wort mehr Sache der\n  Einbildungskraft, die Trennung mehr die des Verstandes.\u201d _Ueber die\n  Verschiedenheit_, etc., s. 327. Compare also, s. 326 and 166.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  \u201cDer Mexikanischen kann man am Verbum, in welchem die Zeiten durch\n  einzelne Endbuchstaben und zum Theil offenbar symbolisch bezeichnet\n  werden, Flexionen und ein gewisses Streben nach Sanskritischer\n  Worteinheit nicht absprechen.\u201d _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc.,\n  _Werke_, Bd. vi, s. 176.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  Read before the American Philosophical Society in 1885, and revised\n  from the _Proceedings_ of that year.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  \u201cDiese thatsachen scheinen darauf hinzudeuten, dass jeder gr\u00f6ssere in\n  sich zusammenh\u00e4ngende l\u00e4ndercomplex nur einen oder doch nur ganz\n  wenige sprachgrundtypen herausbildet, so eigenartig, dass selten eine\n  spr\u00e4che ganz aus dem allgemeinen rahmen heraustritt.\u201d Dr. Heinrich\n  Winkler, _Uralaltaische V\u00f6lker und Sprachen_, s. 147 (Berlin, 1884).\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  _Report of the Corresponding Secretary to the Committee, of his\n  progress in the Investigation committed to him of the General\n  Character and Forms of the Languages of the American Indians._ Read\n  (12th Jan., 1819) in the _Transactions of the Historical and Literary\n  Committee of the American Philosophical Society_. Vol. i, 1819, pp.\n  xxx, xxxi.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  See _Ueber die Verschiedenheit_, etc., pp. 170\u2013173, 325\u20136, etc.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  Published in H. R. Schoolcraft\u2019s _History and Statistics of the Indian\n  Tribes of the United States_. Vol. ii, pp. 346\u2013349 (Washington, 1853).\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  \u201cJe suis donc autoris\u00e9 \u00e0 conclure qu\u2019il faut tenir pour absolument\n  fausse cette proposition devenue faute d\u2019y avoir regard\u00e9 de pr\u00e8s, une\n  sorte de clich\u00e8: que si les langues Am\u00e9ricaines diff\u00e8rent entre elles\n  par la lexique, elles possedent n\u00e9anmoins en commun une seule et m\u00e9me\n  grammaire.\u201d _Examen grammatical compar\u00e9 de seize langues Am\u00e9ricaines_,\n  in the Compte-rendu of the Congr\u00e8s international des Am\u00e9ricanistes,\n  1877, Tome ii, p. 242. As no one ever maintained the unity of American\n  grammar outside of the _Einverleibungssystem_, it must be to this\n  theory only that M. Adam alludes.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  _Etudes sur Six Langues Am\u00e9ricaines_, p. 3 (Paris, 1878); and compare\n  his _Examen Grammatical_ above quoted, p. 24, 243.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Von Dr. Friedrich M\u00fcller. Compare\n  Bd. i., s. 68, und Bd. ii, s. 182.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  _Introduction to the Study of Indian Languages._ By J. W. Powell, p.\n  55, Second edition. Washington, 1880.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  This obscure feature in Algonkin Grammar has not yet been\n  satisfactorily explained. Compare Baraga, _Grammar of the Otchipwe\n  Language_, p. 116 (Montreal, 1878), and A. Lacombe, _Grammaire de la\n  Langue des Cris_, p. 155 (Montreal, 1874).\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  See _Grammar of the Ch\u00f2ctaw Languages_. By the Rev. Cyrus Byington.\n  Edited by D. G. Brinton, pp. 35, 36 (Philadelphia, 1870).\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  _Gram\u00e1tica Quechua, \u00f3 del Idioma del Imperio de los Incas._ Por el Dr.\n  Jos\u00e9 Dionisio Anchorena, pp. 163\u2013177 (Lima, 1874).\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  _Organismus der Khetsua Sprache._ Von J. J. von Tschudi, p. 368\n  (Leipzig, 1884).\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  \u201cCes exemples font comprendre combien quelquefois on peut rendre des\n  mots tres longs, pour exprimer toute une phrase, quoiqu\u2019 aussi on\n  puisse facilement rendre les m\u00eames ide\u00e9s par des p\u00e9riphrases.\u201d\n  Lacombe, _Grammaire de la Langue des Cris_, p. 11 (Montreal, 1874).\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  \u201cSe explicara la razon filos\u00f3fica de los dos modos de usar las\n  palabras en Mexicano, uno componiendo de varias palabras uno solo, y\n  otro dejandolas separadas y enlazandolas solo por regimen.\u201d From the\n  programme of Prof. A. de la Rosa\u2019s course in 1870.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  The original authorities I have consulted on the Othomi are:\n\n  _Reglas de Orthographia, Diccionario, y Arte del Idioma Othomi._ By\n  Luis de Neve y Molina (Mexico, 1767).\n\n  _De Ling\u00faa Othomitorum Dissertatio._ By Emmanuel Naxera (Philadelphia,\n  1835).\n\n  _Catecismo en Lengua Otomi._ By Francisco Perez (Mexico, 1834).\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  He speaks of the Othomi in these terms:\u2014\u201cUne langue aux allures toutes\n  sp\u00e9ciales, fondamentalement distincte de toutes les langues qui se\n  parlent aujourd\u2019 hui sur le continent am\u00e9ricain.\u201d _Mission\n  Scientifique au Mexique._ Pt. i. Anthropologie, p. 32 (Paris, 1884).\n  This is the precise opinion, strongly expressed, that it is my object\n  to controvert. Many other writers have maintained it. Thus Count\n  Piccolomini in the _Prolegomena_ to his version of Neve\u2019s Othomi\n  Grammar says: \u201cLa loro lingua che con nessuna altra del mondo\n  conosciuto ha la menoma analogia, \u00e8 semplice. * * * La formazione del\n  loro verbi, nomi ed altri derivati ha molta semplecit\u00e1,\u201d etc.\n  _Grammatica della Lingua Otomi_, p. 3 (Roma, 1841). This writer also\n  offers an illustration of how imperfectly Duponceau\u2019s theory of\n  polysynthesis has been understood. Not only does Piccolomini deny it\n  for the Otomi, but he denies that it is anything more than merely\n  running several words together with some phonetic syncopation. See the\n  _Annotationi_ at the close of his Othomi Grammar.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  This is the orthography of Neve. The terminal vowels are both nasals;\n  _nhian_ is from the radical _hia_, to breathe, breath.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  See the \u201cComparacion del Othomi con el Mazahua y el Pirinda,\u201d in the\n  _Cuadro Descriptivo y Comparativo de las Lenguas Indigenas de Mexico_,\n  por Francisco Pimentel. Tomo iii, pp. 431\u2013445 (Mexico, 1875).\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  See Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, etc. Tomo iii, pp. 426 and 455.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  \u201cParte de la dificultad de este idioma consiste en la syncopa, pues el\n  no syncopar los principiantes artistas, es causa de que sus periodos y\n  oraciones sean tan rispidos, y faltos de harmonia, por cuyo motivo los\n  nativos los murmuran, y tienen (como vulgarmente decimos), por\n  quartreros.\u201d _Reglas de Orthographia_, etc., p. 146.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  \u201cL\u2019Othomi nous a tout l\u2019air d\u2019une langue primitivement incorporante,\n  et qui, parvenu au dernier degr\u00e9 d\u2019usure et d\u00e9labrement, a fini par\n  prendre les allures d\u2019un dialecte \u00e0 juxtaposition.\u201d _Melanges de\n  Philologie et de Pal\u00e9ographie Am\u00e9ricaine._ Par le Comte de Charencey,\n  p. 80 (Paris, 1883).\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  Neve, _Reglas_ etc., pp. 159, 160.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, Tom. iii, p. 424.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  Pimentel, _Cuadro Descriptivo_, Tomo iii, p. 462.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  Wm. M. Gabb, _On the Indian Tribes and Languages of Costa Rica_, in\n  the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society for 1875, p.\n  532.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  \u201cDessen einfacher Bau die \u00fcber die Amerikanischen Sprachen im\n  Allgemeinen verbreiteten Theorien zu widerlegen im Stande ist.\u201d\n  _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, ii Band, s. 318 (Wien, 1882).\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  _Le Taensa a-t-il \u00e9t\u00e9 forg\u00e9 de toutes Pi\u00e9ces?_ R\u00e9ponse \u00e0 M. Daniel G.\n  Brinton, Par Lucien Adam, p. 19 (Paris, Maisonneuve et Cie, 1885).\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  _Apuntes Lexicograficos de las Lenguas y Dialectos de los Indios de\n  Costa-Rica._ Por Bernardo Augusto Thiel, Obispo de Costa-Rica, (San\n  Jos\u00e9 de Costa-Rica, 1882. Imprenta Nacional).\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  Gabb, ubi supra, p. 539.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  \u201cEspecial dificultad ofrecen los verbos.\u201d _Apuntes Lexicograficos_,\n  etc. Introd. p. iv. This expression is conclusive as to the\n  incorrectness of the opinion of M. Adam, and Prof. M\u00fcller above\n  quoted, and shows how easily even justly eminent linguists may fall\n  into error about tongues of which they have limited means of\n  knowledge. The proper course in such a case is evidently to be\n  cautious about venturing positive assertions.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  _Transactions of the American Philological Association_, 1872, p. 58.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Bd. ii, p. 387.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  _The Brazilian Language and its Agglutination._ By Amaro Cavalcanti,\n  LL. B., etc., p. 5 (Rio Janeiro, 1883).\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  The most valuable for linguistic researches are the following:\n\n  _Arte de Grammatica da Lingua ma\u00eds usada na Costa do Brazil._ By\n  Joseph de Anchieta. This is the oldest authority, Anchieta having\n  commenced as missionary to the Tupis in 1556.\n\n  _Arte, Vocabulario y Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani, \u00f3 mas bien Tupi._ By\n  Antonio Ruiz de Montoya. An admirable work representing the southern\n  Tupi as it was in the first half of the seventeenth century.\n\n  Both the above have been republished in recent years. Of modern\n  writings I would particularly name:\n\n  _Apontamentos sobre o Aba\u00f1e\u00e9nga tambem chamado Guarani on Tupi._ By\n  Dr. B. C. D\u2019A. Nogueira (Rio Janeiro, 1876).\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  _Notes on the Lingoa Geral_, as above, p. 71.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  James Howse, _A Grammar of the Cree Language_ (London, 1844). A\n  remarkable production which has never received the attention from\n  linguists which it merits.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  Anchieta, _Arte de Grammatica_, etc., p. 75.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  _The Brazilian Language_, etc., pp. 48\u20139.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  See Anchieta, _Arte de Grammatica_, etc., p. 52.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  _The Brazilian Language_, etc., p. 111.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  \u201cKein polysynthesis und keine incorporation,\u201d says Dr. Heinrich\n  Winkler (_Uralaltaische V\u00f6lker und Sprachen_, p. 149), who apparently\n  has obtained all his knowledge of it from the two pages devoted to it\n  by Professor Friedrich M\u00fcller, who introduces it as \u201c\u00e4usserst\n  einfach.\u201d _Grundriss der Sprachwissenschaft_, Bd. ii, p. 257.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  _Grammatica Mutsun_; Por el R. P. F. F. Arroyo de la Cuesta; and\n  _Vocabulario Mutsun_, by the same, both in Shea\u2019s \u201cLibrary of American\n  Linguistics.\u201d\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  Read before the American Philosophical Society in 1888, and published\n  in their _Proceedings_ under the title \u201cThe Language of Pal\u00e6olithic\n  Man.\u201d\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  \u201cL\u2019homme chelleen n\u2019 avait pas la parole,\u201d Mortillet, _La\n  Prehistorique Antiquit\u00e9 de l\u2019 Homme_, p. 250 (Paris, 1883).\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  See Dr. H. Steinthal, _Der Ursprung der Sprache_, s. 264, et seq.\n  (Berlin, 1888), who rehearses the discussion of the point with\n  sufficient fullness.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  See, for instance, Plate X of Mortillet, _Mus\u00e9e Pr\u00e9historique_:\n  Cartailhac, _Ages Pr\u00e9historiques de l\u2019 Espagne_, plate on p. 27.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  I have collected the evidence for this in an Essay on Prehistoric\n  Arch\u00e6ology, in the _Iconographic Encyclopedia_, Vol. ii.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  See his address on \u201cThe Origin of Languages and the Antiquity of\n  Speaking Man,\u201d in the _Proceedings of the American Association for the\n  Advancement of Science._ Vol. xxxv, p. 279.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  _Dix-huit Ans chez les Sauvages_, p. 85.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  Petitot, _Dictionnaire de la Langue D\u00e9n\u00e9 Dindji\u00e9_, Introduction.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  On the astonishingly wide distribution of the n and k sounds as\n  primitive demonstratives, compare H. Winkler, _Uralaltaische V\u00f6lker\n  und Sprachen_, s. 86, 87, (Berlin, 1884). For other comparisons, see\n  Tolmie and Dawson, _Vocabularies of Inds. of British Columbia_, p.\n  128.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  \u201cEs hat offenbar eine Zeit gegeben, in der _ka_ alleiniges Pron. pers.\n  f\u00fcr alle drei Personen war, erst allm\u00e4hlig entwickelten sich _\u00f1o ka_,\n  ego, _ka m_, tu, _ka y_, ille.\u201d J. J. von Tschudi, _Organismus der\n  Khetsua Sprache_, s. 184 (Leipzig, 1884). In the language of the\n  Baures of Bolivia when the verb takes the negative termination\n  _apico_, the pronominal signs are discarded; thus, _era_, to drink, a\n  drink; _erapico_\u2014I, thou, he, we, you, they, do not drink. Magio,\n  _Arte de la Lengua de los Indios Baures_, p. 82 (Paris, 1880). This\n  reveals a time when both affirmative and negative verbals dispensed\n  with pronouns altogether.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  _Apuntes sobre la Lengua Chapaneca, MS._\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  _Arte de la Lengua Guarani_, p. 93.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  _La Lengua Araucana_, p. 15 (_Santiago de Chile_, 1888).\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  Albornoz, _Arte de la Langua Chapaneca_, p. 10.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  _Principes de la Langue des Sauvages appell\u00e9s Sauteux._ Introd.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  _Arte de la Lengua Guarani, \u00f3 mas bien Tupi._ Por el P. Antonio Ruiz\n  de Montoya, p. 100.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  _Grammatica de la Lengua Chibcha._ Introd.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  See Howse. _Grammar of the Cree Language_, pp. 16, 134, 135, 169, etc.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  _The Religious Sentiment; Its Source and Aim. A Contribution to the\n  Science of Religion._ By D. G. Brinton, p. 31 (New York, 1876). The\n  statement in the text can be algebraically demonstrated in the\n  mathematical form of logic as set forth by Prof. Boole, thus: _A_=not\n  (not-_A_); which, in its mathematical expression becomes, _x_=_x^2_.\n  Whence by transposition and substitution we derive, _x^2_=1; in which\n  equation 1=_A_. See Boole. _An Investigation into the Laws of Thought_\n  (London, 1854).\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  _On Polysynthesis and Incorporation_, in _Proceedings_ of the American\n  Philosophical Society, 1885. (See the preceding essay.)\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  _On the Grammatical Construction of the Cree Language_, p. 12 (London,\n  1875).\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  Steinthal, _Gramatik, Logik und Psychologie_, s. 325.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  In Maya the conjunction \u201cand\u201d is rendered by _yetl_, a compound of the\n  possessive pronoun, third person singular _y_, and _etl_, companion.\n  The Nahuatl, _ihuan_, is precisely the same in composition.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  \u201cDie meisten amerikanischen Sprachen haben die Eigenth\u00fcmlichkeit, dass\n  in der Regel die Haupttempora in Auwendung kommen und unter diesen\n  besonders das Pr\u00e4sens, selbst wenn von einer bestimmten, besonders\n  aber von einer unbestimmten Vergangenheit gesprochen wird.\u201d J. J. von\n  Tschudi, _Organismus der Khetsua Sprache_, s. 189. The same tense is\n  also employed for future occurrences. What classical grammarians call\n  \u201cthe historical present,\u201d will illustrate this employment of a single\n  tense for past and future time.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  The Chiquita of Bolivia is an extreme example. \u201cLa distinction du\n  pass\u00e9, du pr\u00e9sent et du futur n\u2019existe pas dans cette langue \u00e9trange.\u201d\n  _Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Chiquita_. Por. L. Adam, y V. Henry,\n  p. x.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  _On the Verb in American Languages._ By Wilhelm von Humboldt.\n  Translated by D. G. Brinton, in _Proceedings of the American\n  Philosophical Society_, 1885.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  A striking example is the Chiquita of Bolivia. \u201cNo se puede en\n  chiquito, ni contar dos, tres, cuatro, etc., ni decir segundo,\n  tercero, etc.\u201d _Arte y Vocabulario de la Lengua Chiquita_, p. 19\n  (Paris, 1880).\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  Those distinctions, apparently of sex, called by M. Lucien Adam\n  _anthropic_ and _metanthropic_, _arrhenic_ and _metarrhenic_, found in\n  certain American tongues, belong to the material, not the formal part\n  of the language, and, strictly speaking, are distinctions not really\n  based on sexual considerations. See Adam, _Du Genre dans les Diverses\n  Langues_ (Paris, 1883).\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  Washington Matthews, _Grammar and Dictionary of the Language of the\n  Hidatsa_ (New York, 1873) In a letter received since the first\n  publication of this essay, Dr. Matthews writes that the analysis in\n  the text is quite correct.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  Extract from a paper read before the American Philosophical Society in\n  1886.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  _Linguistic Essays_, by Carl Abel, Ph. D. (London, 1882).\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  I scarcely need say that I refer to the marvelous words of St. John: \u1f41\n  \u03bc\u03b7 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03c9\u03bd. \u03bf\u03c5\u03ba \u03b5\u03b3\u03bd\u03c9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd, \u03bf\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u03b3\u03b1\u03c0\u03bc \u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd (1 John iv, 8);\n  and to the _amor intellectualis_, the golden crown of the philosophy\n  of Spinoza as developed in the last book of his _Ethica_.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  Chipeway: _nin sagiiwin_, I love; _sagiiwewin_, love; _saiagiiwed_, a\n  lover.\n\n  Cree: _s\u00e2kihituwin_, friendship; _manitowi s\u00e2kihewewin_, the love of\n  God. The words from the Chipeway are from Baraga\u2019s _Otchipwe\n  Dictionary_; those from the Cree from Lacombe\u2019s _Dictionnaire de la\n  langue des Cris_, except when otherwise noted.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  Chipeway: _sagibidjigan_, a string or cord.\n\n  Cree: _sakkappitew_, he fastens, he ties; _sakkahigan_, a nail;\n  _sakkistiwok_, coeunt, copulati sunt.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  See Joseph Howse, _Grammar of the Cree Language_, p. 165.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  See the remarks in Andrew\u2019s _Latin Lexicon_, s. v.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  Cree: _espiteyimit kije-manito_, for the love of God;\n  _espiteyimatijk_, for the love of the children.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  Cree: _ni wittjiw\u00e2gan_, my friend; _wi\u2019chettuwin_, a confraternity, or\n  society.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  Chipeway: _inawema_, I am his relative, or, his friend.\n\n  Cree: _ijin\u00e1kusiw_, he has such an appearance. This particle of\n  similarity is considered by Howse to be \u201cone of the four primary\n  generic nouns\u201d of the Algonkin language. _Grammar of the Cree\n  Language_, p. 135.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  Chipeway: _nin minenima_, I like (him, her, it).\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  See Howse, _Grammar of the Cree Lang._, p. 157. _Keche_ (_kees_) as an\n  interjection of pleasure, he considers in antithesis to _ak_ (compare\n  German _ach!_) as an interjection of pain, and cites abundant\n  examples.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  Chipeway: _nin kijewadis_, I am amicable, benevolent; _kijewadisiwin_,\n  charity, benevolence, benignity, compassion; _kije manitowin_,\n  God-head, divine nature.\n\n  Cree: _kisatew_, he is devoted to (him, her); _kisew_, she loves (her\n  children); _kisewatisiwin_, charity, the highest virtue; _kise\n  manito_, \u201cl\u2019esprit charitable, Dieu,\u201d and numerous others.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  The following words and meanings are from Carochi\u2019s Grammar and\n  Molina\u2019s Dictionary of this tongue:\n\n               _\u00e7o_, punzar, sangrar.\n               _\u00e7o\u00e7o_, ensartar, como flores, cuentas, etc.\n               _\u00e7otica_, estar ensartada la cuenta, etc.\n               _tla\u00e7otl_, cosa ensartada.\n\n  The original meaning of _zo_, a pointed tool or awl, is not given by\n  Molina, but is repeatedly expressed in the phonetic picture-writing of\n  the Aztecs.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  _Estudio de la Filosofia y Riqueza de la Lengua Mexicana._ Par Agostin\n  de la Rosa, p. 78 (Guadalajara, 1877).\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  There is another word in Nahuatl of similar derivation. It is _pohui_,\n  to make much of a person, to like one. The root is _po_, which carries\n  with it the idea of sameness, similarity or equality; as _itelpocapo_,\n  a boy like himself. (Paredes, _Promptuario Manual Mexicano_, p. 140.)\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  Thus:\n\n   _ya_ or _yail_, love; pain, sickness, a wound; difficult, laborious.\n   _yate_, to love.\n   _yacunah_, to love.\n   _yaili_, painfully, laboriously.\n   _yalal_, to taste; to have relations with a woman.\n   _yatzil_, love, charity; something difficult or painful.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  \u201c_Ya_: sentir mucho una cosa.\n  _yamab_: sin sentir [the _ma_ is the negative].\u201d\n\n    _Diccionario Maya-Espa\u00f1ol del Convento de Motul._ (MS. in my\n       possession).\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  Thus:\n\n           _yahtetabal cah tumen Dios_, we are loved by God.\n           _u yacunah Dios toon_, the love of God to us.\n           _yacunahil Dios_, the love with which God is loved.\n           _mehenbit yacunah_, filial love.\n           _bakil yacunah_, carnal love.\n\n  All from the _Diccionario de Motul_ (MS.).\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  Thus:\n\n  _tatu canel ixall\u00e9_, my beloved wife.\n  _ma a canezal a Dios_, dost thou love God?\n\n    _Diccionario Huasteca-Espa\u00f1ol_, por Carlos de Tapia Zenteno (Mex.,\n       1767).\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  A number of examples are given in the _Diccionario de Motul_ (MS.).\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  \u201cDer blosse Begriff derjenigen Liebe, welche das lateinische Zeitwort\n  _amare_ ausdr\u00fcckt, dem Cakchiquel Indianer fremd ist.\u201d _Zur\n  Ethnographie der Republik Guatemala._ Von Otto Stoll, M. D., p. 146\n  (Z\u00fcrich, 1884).\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  _Xelogox ka chiri ruma Akahal vinak_, \u201cthey were loved by the Akahal\n  men.\u201d _Annals of the Cakchiquels_, p. 126 (Vol. VI of Brinton\u2019s\n  Library of Aboriginal American Literature). In the Quiche _Popol Vuh_\n  the word has the same meaning, as (page 102):\n\n                  _chi log u vach_, their beloved face.\n\n  In fact, the word Dr. Stoll gives as that now usual among the\n  Cakchiquels for \u201cto love\u201d\u2014to desire, in the _Popol Vuh_ is applied to\n  the price paid for wives (p. 304):\n\n              _rahil pu mial_, the price of their daughters.\n\n  This word may be a derivative from the Maya _ya_, above mentioned.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  _De Natur\u00e2 Deorum_, I, 44.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  _Gram\u00e1tica Quechua_, por Dr. J. D. Anchorena, pp. 163\u2013177 (Lima,\n  1874).\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  _Ollanta: Drame en vers Quechuas du Temps des Incas._ Traduit et\n  comment\u00e9 par Gavino Pacheco Zegarra (Paris, 1878).\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  Thus, from the _Ollanta_:\n\n  _Ollantaytan munar ccanqui_, thou lovest Ollanta! (line 277).\n  _munacusccallay_, my well beloved! (the Inca to his daughter, line\n     344).\n  _munayman_, I should prefer (line 1606).\n\n  Holguin, in his _Vocabulario de la Lengua Qquichua_, gives:\n\n                      _Dios munay_, the love of God.\n                      _munaricuy_, unchaste love.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  Holguin (u. s.) gives the definitions:\n\n   _munana_, la voluntad que es potentia.\n   _munay_, voluntad, el querer, el gusto, appetito \u00f4 amor que es acto.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  From the _Ollanta_:\n\n                  _Huay ccoyailay, Huay mamallay,\n                  Ay, huayllucusccay ccosallay._\n                  Oh, my queen! Oh my mother!\n                  Oh, my husband so beloved! (305, 306).\n\n  These lines show both the word and its derivation.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  From the _Ollanta_:\n\n           _\u00f1a llulluspa_, caress thee, are fond of thee (934).\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  From the _Ollanta_:\n\n                _ccuyaccuscallay_, my beloved one (1758).\n                _ccuyaska_, compassionate (1765).\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  See the Qquichua love songs, _harahui_ and _huaynu_, as they are\n  called, given by Anchorena in his _Gram\u00e1tica Quechua_, pp. 131\u2013135.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  See Holguin, _Vocabulario Qquichua_, s. v. _mayhuay_ and\n  _mayhuayccuni_.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  Thus:\n\n           _Tupa nande raihu_, God loves us.\n           _Tupa nande haihu_, the love which we have for God.\n           _ahaihu_, I love her (him, it).\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  _yecotiaha_, friend; compounded of _coti_, a dwelling, and _aha_, to\n  go,\u2014a goer to a dwelling, a visitor. This, and the other Guarani words\n  given, are taken from Ruiz de Montoya\u2019s _Tesoro de la Lengua Guarani_\n  (ed. Vienna, 1876).\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  Another possible derivation would be from _ahii_, desire, appetite\n  (Spanish, _gana_); and _hu_, in the sense of being present. This would\n  express a longing, a lust, like love (see above).\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  I find _\u00e7ai\u00e7u_ given by Dr. Couto de Magalhaes in his _Cours da Lingoa\n  Geral segundo Ollendorf_ (Rio de Janeiro, 1876); _saisu_ by Dr. Amaro\n  Cavalcanti in _The Brazilian Language and its Agglutination_ (Rio\n  Janeiro, 1883); _\u00e7au\u00e7ub_ by Dias, _Diccionario da Lingua Tupy_\n  (Leipzig, 1858), and by Dr. E. F. Fran\u00e7a in his _Chrestomathia da\n  Lingua Brasilica_ (Leipzig, 1859).\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  \u201c_Ani_, es geh\u00f6rt, ist eigen; _ta ani_, nach seiner Art.\u201d\n  _Arawackisch-Deutsches W\u00f6rterbuch._ This dictionary, published\n  anonymously at Paris, in 1882, in Tome viii of the _Bibliotheque\n  Linguistique Am\u00e9ricaine_, is the production of the Moravian\n  Missionary, Rev. T. S. Schuhmann. See _The Literary Works of the\n  Foreign Missionaries of the Moravian Church_. By the Rev. G. H.\n  Reichelt. Translated and annotated by Bishop Edmund de Schweinitz, p.\n  13 (Bethlehem, 1886).\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  _The Religious Sentiment, its Source and Aim; a Contribution to the\n  Science and Philosophy of Religion_, p. 60 (New York, 1876).\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  From the _Proceedings_ of the American Philosophical Society for 1885.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  _Diccionario del Convento de Motul_, MS., s. v.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  _Acanceh Cheltun. Titulo de un solar y Monte in Acanceh_, 1767, MS.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  _Geografia Maya._ _Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico_, Tomo ii, p.\n  435.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  \u201cThe metre is the _only measure of dimension_ which agrees with that\n  adopted by these most ancient artists and architects.\u201d\u2014Dr. LePlongeon.\n  _Mayapan and Maya Inscriptions_, in _Proceedings_ of the American\n  Antiquarian Society, April, 1881.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  \u201cNearly all the monuments of Yucatan bear evidence that the Mayas had\n  a predilection for the number _seven_,\u201d etc. LePlongeon, _Vestiges of\n  the Mayas_, p. 63 (New York, 1881). Of course, this may have other\n  symbolic meanings also.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  Coto, _Diccionario de la Lengua Cakchiquel_, MS.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n  Coto, _Diccionario_, MS., s. v. \u201cPloma de alba\u00f1il.\u201d\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n  \u201cCuanto se mide con el pulgar y el indice.\u201d Molina, _Vocabulario de la\n  Lengua Mexicana_.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n  Carochi, _Arte de la Lengua Mexicana_, p. 123.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n  Orozco y Berra, _Historia Antigua de la Conquista de Mexico_, Tomo i,\n  pp. 557\u20138, (Mexico, 1880).\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n  _Memoria de los Trabajos ejecutados por la comision scientifica de\n  Pachuca en el a\u00f1o de 1861_, p. 357, quoted by Orozco. Almaraz\u2019s words\n  are not at all precise: \u201cla unidad lineal, con peque\u00f1as\n  modificaciones, debi\u00f3 ser cosa de o, m 8, \u00f3 cuatro palmos\n  pr\u00f3ximamente.\u201d\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n  _The Metrical Standard of the Mound-Builders._ Reduced by the Method\n  of Even Divisors. By Col. Chas. Whittlesey (Cleveland, 1883).\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n  _Notes on Mitla_, in _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian\n  Society_, April, 1882, p. 97.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n  See Herrera, _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. ii, Lib. vii, cap. xvi, and\n  Dec. iii, Lib. iv. cap. xvii. \u201cCastigaban mucho alque falseaba\n  medidas, diciendo que era enemigo de todos i ladron publico,\u201d etc.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n  \u201cHabian terminos se\u00f1alados de cuantas leguas habian de acudir \u00e1 los\n  mercados,\u201d etc. Diego Duran, _Historia de la Nueva Espa\u00f1a_, Vol. ii,\n  pp, 215, 217. Both the terms in the text are translated _legua_ in\n  Molina\u2019s Vocabulary, so that it is probable that the resting places\n  were something near two and a half to three miles apart.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n  \u201cTodo lo venden por cuenta y medida, excepto que fasta agora no se ha\n  visto vender cosa alguna por peso.\u201d _Cartas y Relaciones de Hernan\n  Cortes_, p. 105. (Ed. Gayangos.)\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n  \u201cTenian medida para todas las cosas; hasta la ierva, que era tanta,\n  quanta se podia atar con una cuerda de una braza por un tomin.\u201d\n  Herrera, _Decadas de Indias_, Dec. ii, Lib. vii, cap. xvi. In another\n  passage where this historian speaks of weights (Dec. iii, Lib. iv,\n  cap. xvii), it is one of his not infrequent slips of the pen.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n  A copy of this curious production called _Cancionero Americano_ is in\n  the Library of the Bureau of Ethnology at Washington. The introductory\n  note is as follows:\n\n  \u201cEsos cantos, escogidos en el a\u00f1o mil y ocho cientos veinte y siete, \u00f3\n  veinte y ocho, por un viagero en America, y despues hallados en sus\n  papeles, no vinieron jam\u00e1s, siquiera por lo que podemos saber,\n  conocidos del publico sabio. Estos son los mismos cantos del Pueblo\n  Taensa, para las orillas del Misisipi \u00f3 del Alabama, todos escritos en\n  el dulce y pulido dialecto de aquel pueblo. Todos los amigos de la\n  ciencia han de sentir el precio de esta peque\u00f1a colleccion.\u201d\n\n  It will be noticed that the Spanish is full of errors, as _esos_ for\n  _estos_, _hallados_ for _encontrados_, _para las orillas_ for _por las\n  orillas_; and _sentir el precio_ does not mean _appreciate_, as the\n  author would say, but \u201cregret the price.\u201d\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n  The discussion elicited the following additional brochures from M.\n  Adam: _Le Taensa n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 forg\u00e9 de toutes piec\u00e8s. Lettre de M.\n  Friedrich M\u00fcller \u00e1 Lucien Adam_, pp. 4.\n\n  _Dom Parisot ne produira pas le Manuscrit Taensa. Lettre \u00e1 M. Victor\n  Henry_, pp. 13.\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\n\n                          TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTES\n\n\n 1. P. 67, changed \u201chas certain\u201d to \u201chas a certain\u201d.\n 2. P. 132, changed \u201cLeixque de la Langue Algonquine\u201d to \u201cLexique de la\n      Langue Algonquine\u201d.\n 3. P. 172, changed \u2018yalahi: Zazaba\u2019 to \u2018yalahi: \u201cZazaba\u2019.\n 4. P. 255, changed \u201cqus se doblaban\u201d to \u201cque se doblaban\u201d.\n 5. P. 255, changed \u201cde un libo encuardenado\u201d to \u201cde un libro\n      encuardenado\u201d.\n 6. P. 293, changed \u201cA maiden who loves me we\u201d to \u201cA maiden who loves me\n      well\u201d.\n 7. P. 301, changed \u201callegiance turn to hatred\u201d to \u201callegiance turns to\n      hatred\u201d.\n 8. P. 433, changed \u201cthese where spoken\u201d to \u201cthese were spoken\u201d.\n 9. P. 452, removed footnote anchor from the end of \u201cTHE CURIOUS HOAX OF\n      THE TAENSA LANGUAGE\u201d as there was no corresponding footnote.\n10. Silently corrected typographical errors and also variations in\n      spelling.\n11. Retained anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as\n      printed.\n12. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.","title":"Essays of an Americanist: I. Ethnologic and Arch\u00e6ologic. II. Mythology and Folk Lore. III. Graphic Systems and Literature. IV. Linguistic.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":129192}