Essays of an Americanist I. Ethnologic and Archæologic. II. Mythology and Folk Lore. III. Graphic Systems and Literature. IV. Linguistic. — Story, Setting & Ideas

ructors of mounds, the Iroquois, Algonkins, Cherokees and Chahta-Muskoki family. Descriptions from De Soto’s expedition; from Huguenots in Florida; from French writers on Louisiana; great size of the southern mounds; probable builders of Ohio mounds.

THE TOLTECS AND THEIR FABULOUS EMPIRE 83–100

Statement of the question; the current opinion; the adverse opinion; Tula as an historic site; the Serpent-Hill; the Aztec legends about Tula; date of the desertion of Tula; meaning of the name Tula or Tollan; the mythical cyclus of Tula; birth of Huitzilopochtli; myth of Quetzalcoatl at Tula; his subjects, the Toltecs; purely fabulous narratives concerning them.

MYTHOLOGY AND FOLK-LORE.

THE SACRED NAMES IN QUICHE MYTHOLOGY 104–129

The Quiches of Guatemala, and their relationship; sources of information. Their Sacred Book, the _Popol Vuh_; its opening words; The name Hun-Ahpu-Vuch, the God of Light; Hun-Ahpu-Utiu; Nim-ak, the Great Hog; Nim-tzyiz; Tepeu; Gucumatz; Qux-cho and Qux-palo; Ah-raxa-lak and Ah-raxa-sel; Xpiyacoc and Xmucane, the primal pair; Cakulha; Huracan and Cabrakan; Chirakan, the god of the Storm and the Earthquake; Xbalanque and his journey to Xibalba, or the Descent into Hell.

THE HERO-GOD OF THE ALGONKINS AS A CHEAT AND LIAR 130–134

Micmac story of Gluskap, the Liar; the Cree god, the Deceiver; Michabo and his tricks; psychological significance of such stories.

THE JOURNEY OF THE SOUL 135–147

General belief in a soul; Egyptian theory of its fate; it sinks and rises with the sun; invocation to Osiris; symbols of the river, the boat, the dog, and the sacred numbers; recurrence of these symbols in Greek, Vedantic and Norse beliefs; the Aztec account of the soul’s journey to Paradise. Origin of these symbolic narratives from the apparent daily course of the Sun.

THE SACRED SYMBOLS IN AMERICA 148–162

The four symbols of the Ta Ki, the Triskeles, the Svastika and the Cross; the prevalence of the Triskeles in the Old World; the meaning of the Ta Ki in Chinese philosophy; the Yin and Yang; the Svastika; origin illustrated from n picture-writing; the Copan stone; the earth-plain; the wheel-cross; winter-counts and year cycles; time-wheels and sun-motions; the Four Ages and Tree of Life.

THE FOLK-LORE OF YUCATAN 163–180

Mental activity of the Mayas; the diviners; the “field mass”; invocation to the rain-gods; fire-worship; prognostics; transformations of sorcerers; nagualism; a Maya witch story; the Balams; the Man of the Woods; stories of dwarfs and imps; female deceivers; fabulous birds and snakes.

FOLK-LORE OF THE MODERN LENAPE 181–192

Source of information; reminiscences of the tribe; Messianic hopes; relics of the Stone Age; methods of hunting and fishing; utensils, boats and houses; the native games; the sweat-lodge; their canticos, and the derivation of the term; medical knowledge; cure for rattlesnake bites; native trephining; position of the Lenâpé as “grandfathers”; wampum belts; totemic divisions; peculiarities of the dialect; Lenâpé grammar.

GRAPHIC SYSTEMS AND LITERATURE.

THE PHONETIC ELEMENTS IN THE GRAPHIC SYSTEMS OF THE MAYAS AND MEXICANS 195–212

Material for the study; were the native hieroglyphs phonetic? Character and arrangement of phonetic symbols; the failure of Landa’s alphabet; phonetic signs in Maya MSS.; hieroglyph of the firmament; phonetic terminals; signs of cardinal points; Mexican phonetic elements; principle of the rebus; examples; the ikonomatic system.

THE IKONOMATIC METHOD OF PHONETIC WRITING 213–229

Thought-Writing and Sound-Writing; the ikonomatic method explained; illustrations from Egyptian inscriptions; from the canting arms in heraldry; from the Mexican picture-writing; values of position and colors; determinatives and ideograms in Aztec MSS.; further illustrations from Maya hieroglyphs; Chipeway pictography.

THE WRITING AND RECORDS OF THE ANCIENT MAYAS 230–254

1. Introductory—Phoneticism in Maya and Aztec writing. 2. Descriptions by Spanish writers; by Peter Martyr; by Las Casas; by Alonso Ponce; by Lizana; by Aguilar; by Buena Ventura; by Cogolludo; by Soto-Mayor; by Landa; facsimile of Landa’s alphabet; critiques on it; conclusions. 3. References from native sources; Maya words for “writing,” “book,” “calendar,” etc.; a prophecy of Ahkul Chel translated. 4. The existing Codices; the Dresden Codex; the Codex Peresianus; the Codex Troano; the Codex Cortesianus; the mural paintings and inscriptions.

THE BOOKS OF CHILAN BALAM 255–273

High civilization of ancient Mayas; destruction of their literature; modern Books of Chilan Balam; signification of this name; contents of the Books; specimen of the prophecies; linguistic value; opinion of Pio Perez; length of the Maya year-cycles; hieroglyphs of the months and days; the 13 _ahau katuns_; medical contents of the books.

ON THE “STONE OF THE GIANTS.” 274–283

Location of the Stone near Orizaba; its figures; refer to a date in February, 1502; translation of the hieroglyphs, and identification of the date as that of the death of the Emperor Ahuitzotzin; the stone a sepulchral tablet.

NATIVE AMERICAN POETRY 284–304

Nature of poetry; principle of repetition; Eskimo nith songs; other Eskimo songs; a Pawnee song; Kioway love songs; a Chipeway serenade; Aztec love songs; war-songs of the Otomis; of the Aztecs; of the Qquichuas; prophetic chants of the Mayas. Faculty of poetry universal.

AMERICAN LANGUAGES, AND WHY WE SHOULD STUDY THEM. 308–327

Indian geographic names; language a guide to ethnology; reveals the growth of arts and the psychologic processes of a people; illustration from the Lenâpé tongue; structure of language best studied in savage tongues; rank of American tongues; characteristic traits; pronominal forms; idea of personality; polysynthesis; incorporation; holophrasis; origin of these; lucidity of American tongues; their vocabularies; power of expressing abstract ideas; conclusion.

WILHELM VON HUMBOLDT’S RESEARCHES IN AMERICAN LANGUAGES 328–348

What led Humboldt toward the American tongues; progress of his studies; fundamental doctrine of his philosophy of language; his theory of the evolution of languages; opinion on American languages; his criterion of the relative perfection of languages; not abundance of forms, nor verbal richness; American tongues not degenerations; Humboldt’s classification of languages; psychological origin of Incorporation in language; its shortcomings; in simple sentences; in compound sentences; absence of true formal elements; the nature of the American verb.

SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF AMERICAN LANGUAGES 349–389

Study of the human species on the geographic system; have American languages any common trait? Duponceau’s theory of polysynthesis; Humboldt on Polysynthesis and Incorporation; Francis Lieber on Holophrasis; Prof. Steinthal on the incorporative plan; Lucien Adam’s criticism of it; Prof. Müller’s inadequate statement; Major Powell’s omission to consider it; definitions of polysynthesis, incorporation and holophrasis; illustrations; critical application of the theory to the Othomi language; to the Bri-bri language; to the Tupi-Guarani dialects; to the Mutsun; conclusions; addendum; critique by M. Adam on this essay.

THE EARLIEST FORM OF HUMAN SPEECH AS REVEALED BY AMERICAN TONGUES 390–409

The _Homo alalus_ or speechless man, a romance; linguistic stocks; the phonetic elements significant; examples; but not of same significance in different stocks; notion of _self_ and _other_; pronouns a late development; alternating consonants and permutable vowels; examples; phoneticism inadequate; difficulties thus created; counter-sense in language; notion of Being and Not-Being; incorporation; sentence-words; no dependent clauses; no tenses; no adjectives; no numerals; notion of Animate and Inanimate; classificatory particles; primitive man a _visuaire_.

THE CONCEPTION OF LOVE IN SOME AMERICAN LANGUAGES 410–432

Significance of love-words; various origins. I. Algonkin love-words; various senses; highest forms. II. Nahuatl love-words; poverty of the tongue; made up by terminations; words for friendship. III. Maya love-words; singular derivations; the Huasteca dialect; the Cakchiquel dialect; comparisons. IV. Qquichua love-words; abundant; various meanings. V. Tupi-Guarani love-words; meaning of. Conclusions.

THE LINEAL MEASURES OF THE SEMI-CIVILIZED NATIONS OF MEXICO AND CENTRAL AMERICA 433–451

Metrical standards a criterion of progress; those of the Mayas; of the Cakchiquels; of the Mexicans or Aztecs; of the Mound-Builders of Ohio. Conclusions.

THE CURIOUS HOAX OF THE TAENSA LANGUAGE 452–467

How it began; the deception exposed; absurdities of the invention; a wonderful calendar; a yet more wonderful marriage-song; a second Psalmanazar; rejoinder of the editor; reply to that; final verdict.

INDEX OF AUTHORS AND AUTHORITIES 469–474

INDEX OF SUBJECTS 475–489

ETHNOLOGIC AND ARCHÆOLOGIC.

Ever since America was discovered, the question about it which has excited the most general interest has been, Whence came its inhabitants? The inquiry, Who are the American Indians? has been the theme of many a ponderous folio and labored dissertation, with answers nearly as various as the number of debaters.

Few or none of them have reflected on the unphilosophical character of the inquiry as thus crudely put. Take a precisely analogous question, and this will be apparent—Whence came the African Negroes? All will reply—From Africa, of course. Originally? Yes, originally; they constitute the African or Negro sub-species of Man.

The answer in the case of the American Indians is entirely parallel—their origin is American; the racial type was created and fixed on the American continent; they constitute as true and distinct a sub-species as do the African or the White Race.

Each of the great continental areas moulded the plastic, primitive man into a conformation of body and mind peculiar to itself, in some special harmony with its own geographic features, thus producing a race or sub-species, subtly correlated in a thousand ways to its environment, but never forfeiting its claim to humanity, never failing in its parallel and progressive development with all other varieties of the species.

America was no exception to this rule, and it is time to dismiss as trivial all attempts to connect the American race genealogically with any other, or to trace the typical culture of this continent to the historic forms of the Old World. My early studies inclined me to these opinions, and they have been constantly strengthened by further research. Yet they are not popularly accepted; the very latest writer of competence on the pre-history of America says, “It is now generally held that the earliest population (of the continent) was intruded upon by other races, coming either from Asia or from the Pacific Islands, from whom were descended the various tribes which have occupied the soil down to the present time.”[1]

It is true that this opinion is that generally held, and for this reason I have selected for reprinting some articles intended to show that it is utterly fallacious—devoid of any respectable foundation.

The first two papers treat of the archæologic material, and its value for ascertaining the pre-historic life of the American race; the third, on its pretended affinities to Asiatic peoples. These are followed by two papers respectively on the Toltecs and Mound-Builders, setting aright, I hope, the position of these semi-mythical shapes in the culture-history of North America, maintaining that for neither do we have to call in as explanation migrations from Asia, Europe, Oceanica or Africa, as has so often been attempted.

A REVIEW OF THE DATA FOR THE STUDY OF THE PRE-HISTORIC CHRONOLOGY OF AMERICA.[2]

Early in this century the doubt was expressed by Alexander von Humboldt[3] whether it is philosophical to inquire into the origin of any of the human races or sub-species. Although he expressed this doubt with particular reference to the American race, I believe I am right in assuming that the hesitancy he felt in pushing inquiry so far should now diminish in view of new methods of research and a wider range of observations. We may not, in fact we shall not, be able to trace the American or any other sub-species directly back to its origin in place or time; but by reviewing all the data which have been offered in solution of such a problem, we may perceptibly narrow the question, and also estimate the relative value of the means proposed. It is to such a review, applied to the American race, that I now invite your attention.

The data upon which theories of the antiquity, the genealogy and the affinities of this race have been constructed are varied. For convenience of treatment I shall class them under six heads. They are:

I. _Legendary_, including the traditions of the native tribes and their own statements of their history.

II. _Monumental_, where we have to do with those structures whose age or character seems to throw light on the question.

III. _Industrial_, under which heading we may inquire as to the origin of both the useful and the decorative arts in the New World.

IV. _Linguistic_, broaching the immense and important questions as to the diversity and affinities of languages.

V. _Physical_, which takes into consideration the anatomic and morphologic peculiarities of the American race; and finally,

VI. _Geologic_, where its position in the geologic horizons is to be determined, and the influence upon it of the physical geography of the continent.

_Legendary._ Turning to the first of these, the legendary data, I confess to a feeling of surprise that learned scholars should still hold to the opinion that the native tribes, even some of the most savage of them, retain to this day traditions which they had brought from their supposed Asiatic homes. Thus the missionaries, Bishop Henry Faraud and the Abbé Emile Petitot, both entirely familiar with the Cree and the Athapaskan languages and lore, insist that the myths and legends of these tribes bear such strong resemblances to the Semitic traditions that both must have had a common origin.[4] No one can deny the resemblance; but the scientific student of mythology discovers such identities too frequently, and at points too remote, to ask any other explanation for them than the common nature of the human mind.

The question has been often raised how long a savage tribe, ignorant of writing, is likely to retain the memory of past deeds. From a great many examples in America and elsewhere, it is probable that the lapse of five generations, or say two centuries, completely obliterates all recollection of historic occurrences. Of course, there are certain events of continuous influence which may be retained in memory longer—for example, the federation of prominent tribes; and perhaps a genealogy may run back farther. My friend, Dr. Franz Boas, informs me that some tribes on Vancouver’s Island pretend to preserve their genealogies for twelve or fifteen generations back; but he adds that the remoter names are clearly of mythical purport.

It appears obvious that all efforts to establish a pre-historic chronology by means of the legends of savage tribes, are and must be vain.

The case is not much better with those semi-civilized American nations, the Mayas and Nahuas, who possessed a partially phonetic alphabet, or with the Quichuas, who preserved their records by the ingenious device of the quipu. Manco Capac, the alleged founder of the Peruvian state, floats before us as a vague and mythical figure, though he is placed in time not earlier than the date when Leif, the son of Erik, anchored his war-ship on the Nova Scotian coast.[5] Historians are agreed that the long lists of Incas in the pages of Montesinos, extending about two thousand years anterior to the Conquest, are spurious, due to the imagination or the easy credulity of that writer.

The annals of Mexico fare no better before the fire of criticism. It is extremely doubtful that their earliest reminiscences refer to any event outside the narrow valley parcelled out between the petty states of Tenochtitlan, Tezcuco, and Tlacopan.[6] The only fact that bears out the long and mysterious journey from the land of the Seven Caves, Chicomoztoc, in the distant northwest, by the great water, is that the learned and indefatigable Buschmann has conclusively shown that the four languages of Sonora and all the dialects of the Shoshonian family reveal marks of continued and deep impressions of the Nahuatl tongue.[7] But the chronicles of Mexico proper contain no fixed date prior to that of the founding of the city of Tenochtitlan, in the year 1325 of our era.

I am aware that there are still some writers who maintain that both the Mexican and the Maya astronomic cycles assume a commencement for their records centuries, even thousands of years, before the beginning of our era. These opinions, however, have not obtained the assent of other students. We are too ignorant both of the astronomy and the methods of writing of these nations to admit such claims; and the facts advanced are capable of quite other interpretation.

It is, on the whole, rare for the American tribes to declare themselves autochthonous. The Mayas, on the peninsula of Yucatan, stated that their earliest ancestors came there from beyond the seas, some from the far east, others from the west. So the Toltecs, under Quetzalcoatl, were fabled to have entered Mexico from beyond the Eastern Ocean. The Creeks and Choctaws pointed to the west, the Algonkins generally to the east, as their primal home.[8] These legends are chiefly mythical, not much truer than those of other tribes who claimed to have climbed up from some under-world. Sifting them all, we shall find in them little to enlighten us as to the pre-historic chronology of the tribes, though they may furnish interesting vistas in comparative mythology.

That in which we may expect the legends of tribes to be of most avail is their later history, the record of their wars, migrations and social development within a few generations. The spirit of the uncivilized man is, however, very careless of the past. We have means of testing the exactness of such traditions in some instances, and the result is rarely such as to inspire confidence in verbal records. Those of you who were present at the last meeting will remember how diversely two able students of Iroquois tradition estimated its value. Even when remarkable events are not forgotten, the dates of their occurrence are generally vague. The inference, therefore, is that very few data, dependent on legendary evidence alone, can be accepted.

_Monumental._ When we turn to the monumental data, to the architecture and structural relics of the ancient Americans, we naturally think first of the imposing stone-built fortresses of Peru, the massive pyramids and temples of Yucatan and Mexico, and the vast brick-piles of the Pueblo Indians.

It is doubtful if any of these notable monuments supply pre-historic dates of excessive antiquity. The pueblos, both those now occupied and the vastly greater number whose ruins lie scattered over the valleys and mesas of New Mexico and Arizona, were constructed by the ancestors of the tribes who still inhabit that region, and this at no distant day. Though we cannot assign exact dates to the development of this peculiar civilization, there are abundant reasons, drawn from language, physical geography and the character of the architecture, to include all these structures within the period since the commencement of our era.[9]

There is every reason to suppose that the same is true of all the stone and brick edifices of Mexico and Central America. The majority of them were occupied at the period of the Conquest; others were in process of building; and of others the record of the date of their construction was clearly in memory and was not distant. Thus, the famous temple of Huitzilopochtli at Tenochtitlan, and the spacious palace—or, if you prefer the word, “communal house”—of the ruler of Tezcuco, had been completed within the lifetime of many who met the Spaniards. To be sure, even then there were once famous cities fallen to ruin and sunk to oblivion in the tropical forests. Such was Palenque, which could not have failed to attract the attention of Cortes had it been inhabited. Such also was T’Ho, on the site of the present city of Mérida, Yucatan, where the earliest explorers found lofty stone mounds and temples covered with a forest as heavy as the primitive growth around it.[10] But tradition and the present condition of such of these old cities as have been examined, unite in the probability that they do not antedate the Conquest more than a few centuries.

In the opinion of some observers, the enigmatical ruins on the plain of Tiahuanaco, a few leagues from the shore of Lake Titicaca, in Peru, carry us far, very far, beyond any such modern date. “Even the memory of their builders,” says one of the more recent visitors to these marvellous relics, General Bartolomé Mitre, “even their memory was lost thousands of years before the discovery of America.”[11]

Such a statement is neither more nor less than a confession of ignorance. We have not discovered the period nor the people concerned in the ruins of Tiahuanaco. It must be remembered that they are not the remains of a populous city, but merely the foundations and beginnings of some vast religious edifice which was left incomplete, probably owing to the death of the projector or to unforeseen difficulties. If this is borne in mind, much of the obscurity about the origin, the purpose and the position of these structures will be removed. They do not justify a claim to an age of thousands of years before the Conquest; hundreds will suffice. Nor is it necessary to assent to the opinion advanced by General Mitre, and supported by some other archæologists, that the most ancient monuments in America are those of most perfect construction, and, therefore, that in this continent there has been, in civilization, not progress but failure, not advance but retrogression.