The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History

Lord Monboddo, a Scotchman, who wrote in the seventeenth century, quotes several instances to show that the language of the native Highlanders was spoken in America. In one of the English expeditions to discover the North Pole, he relates, there were an Eskimo and a Scotchman, who, after a few days practice, were able to converse together readily. He also states "that the Celtic language was spoken by many of the tribes of Florida, which is situated at the north end of the gulf of Mexico; and that he was well acquainted with a gentleman from the Highlands of Scotland, who was several years in Florida, in a public character, and who stated that many of the tribes with whom he had become acquainted, had the greatest affinity with the Celtic in their language."[245 - We read farther: 'But what is still more remarkable, in their war song he discovered, not only the sentiments, but several lines, the very same words as used in Ossian's celebrated majestic poem of the wars of his ancestors, who flourished about thirteen hundred years ago. The Indian names of several of the streams, brooks, mountains and rocks of Florida, are also the same which are given to similar objects, in the highlands of Scotland.' All this, could we believe it, would fill us with astonishment; but the solution of the mystery lies in the next sentence: 'This celebrated metaphysician (Monboddo) was a firm believer in the anciently reported account of America's having been visited by a colony from Wales long previous to the discovery of Columbus.' Priest's Amer. Antiq., p. 230. It is this being a 'firm believer' in a given theory that makes so many things patent to the enthusiast which are invisible to ordinary men.]

Claims have also been put in for an Irish discovery of the New World; St Patrick is said to have sent missionaries to the 'Isles of America,'[246 - Monastikon Britannicum, pp. 131-2, 187-8, cited in De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. xviii.] and early writers have gravely discussed the probability of Quetzalcoatl having been an Irishman. There is no great improbability that the natives of Ireland may have reached, by accident or otherwise, the north-eastern coasts of the new continent, in very early times, but there is certainly no evidence to prove that they did.[247 - See Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 188-90; De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., pp. xviii. – xx.]

The nations of southern Europe have not been entirely forgotten by the theorists on the question of origin. Those who have claimed for them the honor of first settling or civilizing America, are not many, however; nor is the evidence they adduce of a very imposing nature.

Lafitau supposes the Americans to be descended from the ancient inhabitants of the Grecian archipelago, who were driven from their country by the subjects of Og, King of Bashan. In every particular, he says, the people of the New World resemble the Hellenes and Pelagians. Both were idolators; used sacred fire; indulged in Bacchanalian revels; held formal councils; strong resemblances are to be found in their marriage customs, system of education, manner of hunting, fishing, and making war, in their games and sports, in their mourning and burial customs, and in their manner of treating the sick.[248 - Mœurs des Sauvages Amériquains Comparées aux Mœurs des Premiers Temps. Paris, 1724.] García knew a man in Peru who knew of a rock on which was what looked very much like a Greek inscription. The same writer says that the Athenians waged war with the inhabitants of Atlantis, and might therefore have heard of America. That the Greeks were navigators in very early times is shown by Jason's voyage in search of the Golden Fleece. Both Greeks and Americans bored their ears and sang the deeds of their ancestors; besides which, many words are common to both peoples.[249 - García, Orígen de los Ind., pp. 189-92.] Like García, Mr Pidgeon also knew a man – a farmer of Montevideo, in Brazil – who in 1827 discovered in one of his fields a flat stone, upon which was engraven a Greek inscription, which, as far as it was legible, read as follows: "During the dominion of Alexander, the son of Philip, King of Macedon, in the sixty-third Olympiad, Ptolemaios." Deposited beneath the stone were found two ancient swords, a helmet, and a shield. On the handle of one of the swords was a portrait of Alexander; on the helmet was a beautiful design representing Achilles dragging the corpse of Hector round the walls of Troy. "From this discovery, it is evident" – to Mr Pidgeon – "that the soil of Brazil was formerly broken by Ptolemaios, more than a thousand years before the discovery by Columbus."[250 - Pidgeon's Trad., p. 16.] Brasseur de Bourbourg seeks to identify certain of the American gods with Greek deities.[251 - Landa, Relacion, pp. lxx. – lxxx.] Jones finds that the sculpture at Uxmal very closely resembles the Greek style.[252 - Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 107. In the Greeks of Homer I find the customs, discourse, and manners of the Iroquois, Delawares, and Miamis. The tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides paint to me almost literally the sentiments of the red-men, respecting necessity, fatality, the miseries of human life, and the rigour of blind destiny. Volney's View of the Climate and Soil of the United States of America. London, 1804.]

The vastness of some of the cities built by the civilized Americans, the fine roads they constructed, their fondness for gladiatorial combats, and a few unreliable accounts that Roman coins have been found on the continent, constitute about all the evidence that is offered to show that the Romans ever visited America.[253 - See Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 385-90; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 255; Scenes in Rocky Mts., pp. 199-202; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, p. 6; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 184, 527-8.]

THE ANCIENT ATLANTIS

The story of Atlantis, that is, of a submerged, lost land that once lay to the west of Europe, is very old. It was communicated to Solon, according to Plutarch, by the Egyptian priests of Psenophis, Sonchis, Heliopolis, and Saïs; and if we may believe Plato, Solon did not hear of the events until nine thousand Egyptian years after their occurrence. Plato's version is as follows:

"Among the great deeds of Athens, of which recollection is preserved in our books, there is one which should be placed above all others. Our books tell that the Athenians destroyed an army which came across the Atlantic Sea, and insolently invaded Europe and Asia; for this sea was then navigable, and beyond the strait where you place the Pillars of Hercules there was an island larger than Asia (Minor) and Libya combined. From this island one could pass easily to the other islands, and from these to the continent which lies around the interior sea. The sea on this side of the strait (the Mediterranean) of which we speak, resembles a harbor with a narrow entrance; but there is a genuine sea, and the land which surrounds it is a veritable continent. In the island of Atlantis reigned three kings with great and marvelous power. They had under their dominion the whole of Atlantis, several other islands, and some parts of the continent. At one time their power extended into Libya, and into Europe as far as Tyrrhenia, and, uniting their whole force, they sought to destroy our countries at a blow; but their defeat stopped the invasion and gave entire independence to all the countries this side of the Pillars of Hercules. Afterward, in one day and one fatal night, there came mighty earthquakes and inundations, which ingulfed that warlike people; Atlantis disappeared beneath the sea, and then that sea became inaccessible, so that navigation ceased on account of the quantity of mud which the ingulfed island left in its place."[254 - See Baldwin's Anc. Amer., p. 177; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 394-5.]

It is only recently that any important signification has been attached to this passage. It was previously regarded rather as one of those fabulous accounts in which the works of the writers of antiquity abound, than as an actual statement of facts. True, it had been frequently quoted to show that the ancients had a knowledge more or less vague of the continent of America, but no particular value was set upon the assertion that the mysterious land was ages ago submerged and lost in the ocean. But of late years it has been discovered that traditions and records of cataclysms similar to that referred to by the Egyptian priests, have been preserved among the American nations; which discovery has led several learned and diligent students of New World lore to believe that after all the story of Atlantis, as recorded by Plato, may be founded upon fact, and that in bygone ages there did actually exist in the Atlantic Ocean a great tract of inhabited country, forming perhaps part of the American continent, which by some mighty convulsion of nature was suddenly submerged and lost in the sea.

BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG'S THEORIES

Foremost among those who have held and advocated this opinion stands the Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg. This distinguished Américaniste goes farther than his fellows, however, in that he attempts to prove that all civilization originated in America, or the Occident, instead of in the Orient, as has always been supposed. This theory he endeavors to substantiate not so much by the Old World traditions and records as by those of the New World, using as his principal authority an anonymous manuscript written in the Nahua language, which he entitles the Codex Chimalpopoca. This work purports to be on the face of it a 'History of the Kingdoms of Culhuacan and Mexico,' and as such it served Brasseur as almost his sole authority for the Toltec period of his Histoire des Nations Civilisées. At that time the learned Abbé regarded the Atlantis theory, at least so far as it referred to any part of America, as an absurd conjecture resting upon no authentic basis.[255 - Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 6.] In a later work, however, he more than retracts this assertion; from a sceptic he is suddenly transformed into a most devout and enthusiastic believer, and attempts to prove by a most elaborate course of reasoning that that which he before doubted is indubitably true. The cause of this sudden change was a strange one. As, by constant study, he became more profoundly learned in the literature of ancient America, the Abbé discovered that he had entirely misinterpreted the Codex Chimalpopoca. The annals recorded so plainly upon the face of the mystic pages were intended only for the understanding of the vulgar; the stories of the kings, the history of the kingdoms, were allegorical and not to be construed literally; deep below the surface lay the true historic record – hidden from all save the priests and the wise men of the West – of the mighty cataclysm which submerged the cradle of all civilization.[256 - 'Imaginez un livre entier écrit en calembours, un livre dont toutes les phrases, dont la plupart des mots ont un double sens, l'un parfaitement net et distinct de l'autre, et vous aurez, jusqu'à un certain point, l'idée du travail que j'ai entre les mains. C'est en cherchant l'explication d'un passage fort curieux, relatif à l'histoire de Quetzal-Coatl, que je suis arrivé à ce résultat extraordinaire. Oui, Monsieur, si ce livre est en apparence l'histoire des Toltèques et ensuite des rois de Colhuacan et de Mexico, il présente, en réalité, le récit du cataclysme qui bouleversa le monde, il y a quelques six ou sept mille ans, et constitua les continents dans leur état actuel. Ce que le Codex Borgia de la Propagande, le Manuscrit de Dresde et le Manuscrit Troano étaient en images et en hiéroglyphes, le Codex Chimalpopoca en donne la lettre; il contient, en langue nahuatl, l'histoire du monde, composée par le sage Hueman, c'est-à-dire par la main puissante de Dieu dans le grand Livre de la nature, en un mot, c'est le Livre divin lui-même, c'est le Teo-Amoxtli.' Brasseur de Bourbourg.Quatre Lettres, p. 24.] Excepting a dozen, perhaps, of the kings who preceded Montezuma, it is not a history of men, but of American nature, that must be sought for in the Mexican manuscripts and paintings. The Toltecs, so long regarded as an ancient civilized race, destroyed in the eleventh century by their enemies, are really telluric forces, agents of subterranean fire, the veritable smiths of Orcus and of Lemnos, of which Tollan was the symbol, the true masters of civilization and art, who by the mighty convulsions which they caused communicated to men a knowledge of minerals.[257 - Id., p. 39.]

I know of no man better qualified than was Brasseur de Bourbourg to penetrate the obscurity of American primitive history. His familiarity with the Nahua and Central American languages, his indefatigable industry, and general erudition, rendered him eminently fit for such a task, and every word written by such a man on such a subject is entitled to respectful consideration. Nevertheless, there is reason to believe that the Abbé was often rapt away from the truth by excess of enthusiasm, and the reader of his wild and fanciful speculations cannot but regret that he has not the opportunity or ability to intelligently criticise by comparison the French savant's interpretation of the original documents. At all events it is certain that he honestly believed in the truth of his own discovery; for when he admitted that, in the light of his better knowledge, the Toltec history, as recorded in the Codex Chimalpopoca, was an allegory – that no such people as the Toltecs ever existed, in fact – and thereby rendered valueless his own history of the Toltec period, he made a sacrifice of labor, unique, I think, in the annals of literature.

Brasseur's theory supposes that the continent of America occupied originally the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, and extended in the form of a peninsula so far across the Atlantic that the Canary islands may have formed part of it. All this extended portion of the continent was many ages ago engulfed by a tremendous convulsion of nature, of which traditions and written records have been preserved by many American peoples.[258 - In the Codex Chimalpopoca, Brasseur reads that 'à la suite de l'éruption des volcans, ouverts sur toute l'étendue du continent américain, double alors de ce qu'il est aujourd'hui, l'éruption soudaine d'un immense foyer sous-marin, fit éclater le monde et abîma, entre un lever et un autre de l'étoile du matin, les régions les plus riches du globe.' Quatre Lettres, p. 45.] Yucatan, Honduras, and Guatemala, were also submerged, but the continent subsequently rose sufficiently to rescue them from the ocean. The testimony of many modern men of science tends to show that there existed at one time a vast extent of dry land between Europe and America.[259 - Id., p. 108.]

It is not my intention to enter the mazes of Brasseur's argument here; once in that labyrinth there would be small hope of escape. His Quatre Lettres are a chaotic jumble of facts and wild speculations that would appal the most enthusiastic antiquarian; the materials are arranged with not the slightest regard for order; the reader is continually harassed by long rambling digressions – literary no-thoroughfares, as it were, into which he is beguiled in the hope of coming out somewhere, only to find himself more hopelessly lost than ever; for mythological evidence, the pantheons of Phœnicia, Egypt, Hindostan, Greece, and Rome, are probed to their most obscure depths; comparative philology is as accommodating to the theorist as ever, which is saying a great deal; the opinions of geologists who never dreamed of an Atlantis theory, are quoted to show that the American continent formerly extended into the Atlantic in the manner supposed.

I have presented to the reader the bare outline of what Brasseur expects to prove, without giving him the argument used by that learned writer, for the reason that a partial résumé of the Quatre Lettres would be unfair to the Abbé, while an entire résumé would occupy more space than I can spare. I will, however, deviate from the system I have hitherto observed, so far as to express my own opinion of the French savant's theory.

Were the original documents from which Brasseur drew his data obtainable, we might, were we able to read and understand them, know about how far his enthusiasm and imagination have warped his calmer judgment; as it is, the Atlantis theory is certainly not proved, and we may therefore reasonably decline to accept it. In my opinion there is every reason to believe that his first interpretation of the Codex Chimalpopoca was the true one, and that the 'double meaning' had no existence save in his own distorted fancy.[260 - See farther, concerning Atlantis: Brasseur de Bourbourg, MS. Troano, tom. i., pp. 29-32, 199; Irving's Columbus, vol. i., pp. 24, 38, vol. iii., pp. 419, 492-4, 499-512; Baril, Mexique, p. 190; Dally, Races Indig., p. 7; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., pp. 41-2; De Costa's Pre-Columbian Disc. Amer., p. xiii.; Heylyn's Cosmog., pp. 943-4; Sanson d'Abbeville, Amérique, pp. 1-3; Willson's Amer. Hist., pp. 90-1; Warden, Recherches, pp. 97-113; Carli, Cartas, pt i., p. 1; Brasseur de Bourbourg, in Landa, Relacion, pp. xviii. – cxii.; Davis' Anc. Amer., p. 13; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. i., pp. 28-30, 213-15; Wilson's Prehist. Man, pp. 392-3; Kingsborough's Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 181-4; Foster's Pre-Hist. Races, pp. 394-9; Larrainzar, Dictamen, pp. 8-25; Stratton's Mound-Builders, MS.; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 216-22; Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 174-84; Mitchill, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Transact., vol. i., p. 340; Faliés, Études Hist. sur les Civilisations, tom. i., pp. 185-93, 218; M'Culloh's Researches on Amer., pp. 26-32; Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. i., pp. 42, 130-206, tom. ii., pp. 46, 163-214; Oviedo, Hist. Gen., tom. i., pp. 14-18, 22; Monglave, in Antiq. Mex., pp. 57-60; Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, p. 126; Villagutierre, Hist. Conq. Itza, pp. 5-6; Purchas his Pilgrimes, vol. v., pp. 799-801; Torquemada, Monarq. Ind., tom. i., p. 29; West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, pt i., pp. 4-5; Montanus, Nieuwe Weereld, pp. 18-19; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 31; Despréaux, in Museo Mex., tom. ii., pp. 84-6; Major's Prince Henry, p. 83; Rafinesque, in Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 123-4; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 42-6, 413-14; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 256-7; Herrera, Hist. Gen., tom. i., lib. i., cap. ii.; Smith's Human Species, p. 83; Soc. Géog., Bulletin, tom. iv., p. 235.]

AUTOCHTHONIC ORIGIN

It only remains now to speak of the theory which ascribes an autochthonic origin to the Americans. The time is not long past when such a supposition would have been regarded as impious, and even at this day its advocates may expect discouragement if not rebuke from certain quarters.[261 - Davis, Anc. Amer., p. 12, thinks that a portion of the animals of the original creation migrated west. 'If this idea,' he says, 'is new to others, I hope it may be considered more reasonable than the infidel opinion, that men and animals were distinct creations from those of Asia.' 'Think you,' he adds sagely, 'they would have transported venomous serpents from the old to the new world?'] It is, nevertheless, an opinion worthy of the gravest consideration, and one which, if we may judge by the recent results of scientific investigation, may eventually prove to be scientifically correct. In the preceding pages it will have been remarked that no theory of a foreign origin has been proven, or even fairly sustained. The particulars in which the Americans are shown to resemble any given people of the Old World are insignificant in number and importance when compared with the particulars in which they do not resemble that people.

As I have remarked elsewhere, it is not impossible that stray ships of many nations have at various times and in various places been cast upon the American coast, or even that adventurous spirits, who were familiar with the old-time stories of a western land, may have designedly sailed westward until they reached America, and have never returned to tell the tale. The result of such desultory visits would be exactly what has been noticed, but erroneously attributed to immigration en masse. The strangers, were their lives spared, would settle among the people, and impart their ideas and knowledge to them. This knowledge would not take any very definite shape or have any very decided effect, for the reason that the sailors and adventurers who would be likely to land in America under such circumstances, would not be thoroughly versed in the arts or sciences; still they would know many things that were unknown to their captors, or hosts, and would doubtless be able to suggest many improvements. This, then, would account for many Old World ideas and customs that have been detected here and there in America, while at the same time the difficulty which arises from the fact that the resemblances, though striking, are yet very few, would be satisfactorily avoided. The foreigners, if adopted by the people they fell among, would of course marry women of the country and beget children, but it cannot be expected that the physical peculiarities so transmitted would be perceptible after a generation or two of re-marrying with the aboriginal stock. At the same time I think it just as probable that the analogies referred to are mere coincidences, such as might be found among any civilized or semi-civilized people of the earth. It may be argued that the various American tribes and nations differ so materially from each other as to render it extremely improbable that they are derived from one original stock, but, however this may be, the difference can scarcely be greater than that which apparently exists between many of the Aryan branches.[262 - Concerning unity or variety of the American races, see: Prichard's Researches, vol. i., p. 268, vol. v., pp. 289, 374, 542; Morton's Crania Amer., p. 62; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 197-98; Baldwin's Anc. Amer., pp. 66-7; Maury, in Nott and Gliddon's Indig. Races, p. 81; Humboldt, Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 83; Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 21-36; Willson's Amer. Hist., p. 89; Jones' Hist. Anc. Amer., p. 4; Smith's Human Species, p. 251; Catlin's N. Amer. Ind., vol. ii., p. 234; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 3-4.]

CONCLUSIONS

Hence it is many not unreasonably assume that the Americans are autochthones until there is some good ground given for believing them to be of exotic origin.[263 - 'I am compelled to believe that the Continent of America, and each of the other Continents, have had their aboriginal stocks, peculiar in colour and in character – and that each of these native stocks has undergone repeated mutations, by erratic colonies from abroad.' Catlin's N. Amer. Ind., vol. ii., p. 232; Bradford's Amer. Antiq., pp. 224-5, thinks it consonant with the Bible to suppose 'distinct animal creations, simultaneously, for different portions of the earth.' A commentator on Hellwald who advocates autochthon theory remarks that: 'the derivation of these varieties from the original stock is philosophically explained on the principle of the variety in the offspring of the same parents, and the better adaptation and consequent chance of life.' Smithsonian Rept., 1866, p. 345. 'That theory is probably, in every point of view, the most tenable and exact which assumes that man, like the plant, a mundane being, made his appearance generally upon earth when our planet had reached that stage of its development which unites in itself the conditions of the man's existence. In conformity with this view I regard the American as an autochthon.' The question of immigration to America has been too much mixed with that of the migration in America, and only recently has the opinion made progress that America has attained a form of civilization by modes of their own. Neither the theory of a populating immigration or a civilizing immigration from the old world meet any countenance from the results of the latest investigations. Hellwald, in Id., p. 330. All tribes have similarities among them which make them distinct from old world. Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i., p. 23. Dr. Morton says the study of physical conformation alone, excludes every branch of the Caucasian race from any obvious participation in the peopling of this continent, and believes the Indians are all of one race, and that race distinct from all others. Mayer's Observations, p. 11. We can never know the origin of the Americans. The theory that they are aborigines is contradicted by no fact and is plausible enough. Morelet, Voyage, tom. i., pp. 177-8. The supposition that the Red Man is a primitive type of a human family originally planted in the western continent presents the most natural solution of the problem. The researches of physiologists, antiquaries, philologists, tend this way. The hypothesis of an immigration, when followed out, is embarrassed with great difficulties and leads to interminable and unsatisfying speculations. Norman's Rambles in Yuc., p. 251. God has created several couples of human beings differing from one another internally and externally, and these were placed in appropriate climates. The original character is preserved, and directed only by their natural powers they acquired knowledge and formed a distinct language. In primitive times signs and sounds suggested by nature were used, but with advancement, dialects formed. It requires the idea of a miracle to suppose that all men descend from one source. Kames, in Warden, Recherches, p. 203. 'The unsuccessful search after traces of an ante-Columbian intercourse with the New World, suffices to confirm the belief that, for unnumbered centuries throughout that ancient era, the Western Hemisphere was the exclusive heritage of nations native to its soil. Its sacred and sepulchral rites, its usages and superstitions, its arts, letters, metallurgy, sculpture, and architecture, are all peculiarly its own.' Wilson's Prehist. Man, p. 421. Morton concludes 'that the American Race differs essentially from all others, not excepting the Mongolian; nor do the feeble analogies of language, and the more obvious ones in civil and religious institutions and the arts, denote anything beyond casual or colonial communication with the Asiatic nations; and even these analogies may perhaps be accounted for, as Humboldt has suggested, in the mere coincidence arising from similar wants and impulses in nations inhabiting similar latitudes.' Crania Amer., p. 260. 'I am firmly of opinion that God created an original man and woman in this part of the globe, of different species from any in the other parts.' Romans' Concise Natural Hist. of E. and W. Florida. 'Altamirano, the best Aztec scholar living, claims that the proof is conclusive that the Aztecs did not come here from Asia, as has been almost universally believed, but were a race originated in America, and as old as the Chinese themselves, and that China may even have been peopled from America.' Evans' Our Sister Rep., p. 333. Swan believes that 'whatever was the origin of different tribes or families, the whole race of American Indians are native and indigenous to the soil.' N.W. Coast, p. 206.] To express belief, however, in a theory incapable of proof appears to me idle. Indeed, such belief is not belief; it is merely acquiescing in or accepting a hypothesis or tradition until the contrary is proved. No one at the present day can tell the origin of the Americans; they may have come from any one, or from all the hypothetical sources enumerated in the foregoing pages, and here the question must rest until we have more light upon the subject.

CHAPTER II.

INTRODUCTORY TO ABORIGINAL HISTORY

Origin and Earliest History of the Americans Unrecorded – The Dark Sea of Antiquity – Boundary between Myth and History – Primitive Annals of America compared with those of the Old World – Authorities and Historical Material – Traditional Annals and their Value – Hieroglyphic Records of the Mayas and Nahuas – Spanish Writers – The Conquerors – The Missionaries – The Historians – Converted Native Chroniclers – Secondary Authorities – Ethnology – Arts, Institutions, and Beliefs – Languages – Material Monuments of Antiquity – Use of Authorities and Method of Treating the Subject.

The preceding résumé shows pretty conclusively that the American peoples and the American civilizations, if not indigenous to the New World, were introduced from the Old at a period long preceding any to which we are carried by the traditional or monumental annals of either continent. We have found no evidence of any populating or civilizing migration across the ocean from east or west, north or south, within historic times. Nothing approaching identity has been discovered between any two nations separated by the Atlantic or Pacific. No positive record appears even of communication between America and the Old World, – intentionally by commercial, exploring, or warlike expeditions, or accidentally by shipwreck, – previous to the voyages of the Northmen in the tenth century; yet that such communication did take place in many instances and at different periods is extremely probable. The numerous trans-oceanic analogies, more or less clearly defined, which are observed, may have resulted partially from this communication, although they do not of themselves necessarily imply such an agency. If scientific research shall in the future decide that all mankind descended from one original pair, that the centre of population was in Asia rather than in America, and that all civilization originated with one Old World branch of the human family – and these are all yet open questions – then there will be no great difficulty in accounting for the transfer of both population and culture; in fact the means of intercontinental intercourse are so numerous and practicable that it will perhaps be impossible to decide on the particular route or routes by which the transfer was effected. If, on the other hand, a contrary decision be reached on the above questions, the phenomena of American civilization and savagism will be even more easily accounted for.

THE MYSTERY OF ANTIQUITY

Regarding North America then, at the most remote epoch reached by tradition, as already peopled for perhaps hundreds of centuries, I propose in the remaining pages of this volume to record all that is known of aboriginal history down to the period when the native races were found by Europeans living under the institutions and practicing the arts that have been described in the preceding volumes of this work. Comparatively little is known or can ever be known of that history. The sixteenth century is a bluff coast line bounding the dark unnavigable sea of American antiquity. At a very few points along the long line headlands project slightly into the waters, affording a tolerably sure footing for a time, but terminating for the most part in dangerous reefs and quicksands over which the adventurous antiquarian may pass with much risk still farther from the firm land of written record, and gaze at flickering mythical lights attached to buoys beyond. As a rule, nothing whatever is known respecting the history of savage tribes until they come in contact with nations of a higher degree of culture possessing some system of written record. Respecting the past of the Wild Tribes by whom most of our territory was inhabited, we have only a few childish fables of creation, the adventures of some bird or beast divinity, of a flood or some other natural convulsion, a victory or a defeat which may have occurred one or a hundred generations ago. These fables lack chronology, and have no definite historical signification which can be made available. The Civilized Nations, however, had recorded annals not altogether mythical. The Nahua annals reach back chronologically, although not uninterruptedly to about the sixth century of our era; the Maya record is somewhat less extensive in an unbroken line; but both extend more or less vaguely and mythically to the beginning of the Christian era, perhaps much farther. Myths are mingled in great abundance with historical traditions throughout the whole aboriginal period, and it is often utterly impossible to distinguish between them, or to fix the boundary line beyond which the element of history is absolutely wanting. The primitive aboriginal life, not only in America but throughout the world, is wrapped in mystery. The clear light of history fades gradually, as we recede from the present age, into an ever-deepening shadow, which, beyond a varying indefinable point, a border-land of myth and fable, merges into the black night of antiquity. The investigations of modern science move back but slowly this bound between the past and present, and while the results in the aggregate are immense, in shedding new light on portions of the world's annals, progress toward the ultimate end is almost inappreciable. If the human mind shall ever penetrate the mystery, it will be one of its last and most glorious triumphs. America does not differ so much as would at first thought appear from the so-called Old World in respect to the obscurity that shrouds her early history, if both are viewed from a corresponding stand-point – in America the Spanish Conquest in the sixteenth century, in the eastern continent a remote period when history first began to be recorded in languages still in use. Or if we attach greater importance to Biblical than to other traditions, still America should be compared, not with the nations whose history is traced in the Hebrew record, but with the distant extremities of Asia, Europe, and Africa, on whose history the Bible throws no light, save the statement that they were peopled from a common centre, in which populating movement America has equal claims to be included. To all whose investigations are a search for truth, darkness covers the origin of the American peoples, and their primitive history, save for a few centuries preceding the Conquest. The darkness is lighted up here and there by dim rays of conjecture, which only become fixed lights of fact in the eyes of antiquarians whose lively imagination enables them to see best in the dark, and whose researches are but a sifting-out of supports to a preconceived opinion.

The authorities on which our knowledge of aboriginal history rests are native traditions orally handed down from generation to generation, the Aztec picture-writings that still exist, the writings of the Spanish authors who came in contact with the natives in the period immediately following the Conquest, and also of converted native writers who wrote in Spanish, or at least by the aid of European letters. In connection with these positive authorities the actual condition, institutions, and beliefs of the natives at the Conquest, together with the material monuments of antiquity, all described in the preceding volumes, constitute an important illustrative, corrective, or confirmatory source of information.

TRADITION AS AN AUTHORITY

Oral tradition, in connection with linguistic affinities, is our only authority in the case of the wild tribes, and also plays a prominent part in the annals of the civilized nations. In estimating its historical value, not only the intrinsic value of the tradition itself, but the authenticity of the version presented to us must be taken into consideration; the latter consideration is, however, closely connected with that of the early writers and their reliability as authorities on aboriginal history. No tribe is altogether without traditions of the past, many – probably most – of which were founded on actual occurrences, while a few are wholly imaginary. Yet, whatever their origin, all are, if unsupported by written records, practically of little or no value. Every trace of the circumstances that gave rise to a tradition is soon lost, although the tradition itself in curiously modified forms is long preserved. Natural convulsions, like floods and earthquakes, famines, wars, tribal migrations, naturally leave an impression on the savage mind which is not easily effaced, but the fable in which the record is embodied may have assumed a form so changed and childish that we pass over it to-day as having no historical value, seeking information only in an apparently more consistent tale, which may have originated at a recent date from some very trivial circumstance. Examples are not wanting of very important events in the comparatively modern history of Indian tribes, the record of which has not apparently been preserved in song or story, or the memory of which at least has become entirely obliterated in little more than a hundred years. Oral tradition has no chronology that is not purely imaginary; "many moons ago," "our fathers did thus and so," may refer to antediluvian times or to the exploits of the narrator's grandfather. Among the American savages there was not even a pride in the pedigree of families or horses to induce care in this respect, as among the Asiatic hordes of patriarchal times. But the traditions of savages, valueless by themselves for a time more remote than one or two generations, begin to assume importance when the events narrated have been otherwise ascertained by the records of some contemporary nation, throwing indirectly much light on history which they were powerless to reveal. Three traditions are especially prevalent in some form in nearly every section of America; – that of a deluge, of an aboriginal migration, and of giants that dwelt upon the earth at some time in the remote past. These may be taken as examples and interpreted as follows, the respective interpretations being arranged in the order of their probability.

The tradition of a flood would naturally arise, 1st, from the destruction of a tribe or part of a tribe by the sudden rising of a river or mountain stream – that is from a modern event such as has occurred at some time in the history of nearly every people, and which a hundred years and a fertile imagination would readily have converted into a universal inundation. 2d. From the finding of sea-shells and other marine relics inland, and even on high mountains, suggesting to the natives' untutored mind what it proves to later scientific research – the fact that water once covered all. 3d. From the actual submersion of some portions of the continent by the action of volcano or earthquake, an event that geology shows not to be improbable, and which would be well calculated to leave a lasting impression on the minds of savages. 4th. From the deluge of the scriptural tradition, the only one of the many similar events that may have occurred which makes any claims to have been historically recorded. The accompanying particulars would be naturally invented. Some must have escaped, and an ark or a high mountain are the natural means.

A traditional migration from north, south, east, or west may point to the local journeying of a family or tribe, either in search of better hunting-grounds, or as a result of adverse fortune in war; in a few cases a general migration of many tribes constituting a great nation may be referred to; and finally, it is not quite impossible that a faint memory of an Old World origin may have survived through hundreds of generations.

INTERPRETATION OF TRADITION

So with the giant tradition, resulting, 1st, from the memory of a fierce, numerous, powerful, and successful enemy, possibly of large physique. No tribe so valiant that it has not met with reverses, and the attributing of gigantic strength and supernatural powers to the successful foe, removes among the descendants the sting of their ancestors' defeat. 2d. From the discovery of immense fossil bones of mastodons and other extinct species. It is not strange that such were deemed human remains by the natives when the Spaniards in later times have honestly believed them to be the bones of an extinct gigantic race. 3d. From the existence of grand ruins in many parts of the country, far beyond the constructive powers of the savage, and therefore in his eyes the work of giants – as they were intellectually, in comparison with their degenerate descendants. 4th. From an actual traditional remembrance of those who built the ruined cities, and intercourse with comparatively civilized tribes. 5th. From the existence in primitive times of a race of giants.

Numerous additional sources for each of these traditions might doubtless be suggested; but those given suffice for illustration, and, as I have remarked, they are arranged in each case in what would seem the natural order of probability. The near and natural should always be preferred to the remote and supernatural; and the fables mentioned should be referred to Noah's deluge, Asiatic origin, and the existence of a gigantic race, only when the previous suppositions are proved by extraneous evidence to be untenable. The early writers on aboriginal America, using their reason only when it did not conflict with their faith, reversed the order of probability, and thus greatly impaired the usefulness of their contributions to history. The supposition of a purely imaginary origin, common to aboriginal legend and modern romance, should of course be added to each of the preceding lists, and generally placed before the last supposition given.

Passing from the wild tribes to the civilized nations of Mexico and Central America, we find tradition, or what is generally regarded as such, much more complete and extensive in its scope, less childish in detail, and with a more clearly defined dividing line between history and mythology. Theoretically we might expect a higher grade of tradition among a partially civilized people; but on the other hand, what need had the Nahuas or Mayas of oral tradition when they had the art of recording events? In fact, our knowledge of Aztec and Maya history is not in any proper sense traditional, although commonly spoken of as such by the writers. Previous to the practice of the hieroglyphic art – the date of whose invention or introduction is unknown, but must probably be placed long before the Christian era – oral tradition was doubtless the only guide to the past; but the traditions were recorded as soon as the system of picture-writing was sufficiently perfected to suggest if not to clearly express their import. After picture-writing came into general use, it is difficult to imagine that any historical events should have been handed down by tradition alone. Still in one sense the popular knowledge of the past among the Mexicans may be called traditional, inasmuch as the written records of the nation were not in the hands of the people, but were kept by a class of the priesthood, and may be supposed to have been read by comparatively few. The contents of the records, however, except perhaps some religious mysteries which the priests alone comprehended, were tolerably well known to the educated classes; and when the records were destroyed by Spanish fanaticism, this general knowledge became the chief source whence, through the 'talk of the old men,' the earlier writers drew their information. It is in this light that we must understand the statement of many able writers, that the greater part of our knowledge of early American history is traditional, since this knowledge was not obtained by an actual examination of the records by the Spaniards, but orally from the people, the upper classes of whom had themselves read the pictured annals, while the masses were somewhat familiar through popular chants and plays with their contents. The value of history faithfully taken from such a source cannot be doubted, but its vagueness and conflicting statements respecting dates and details may be best appreciated by questioning intelligent men in the light of nineteenth century civilization respecting the details of modern history, withholding the privilege of reference to books or documents.

HIEROGLYPHIC RECORDS

Of the Nahua hieroglyphic system and its capabilities enough has been said elsewhere.[264 - Vol. ii., pp. 523-52.] By its aid, from the beginning of the Toltec period at least, all historical events were recorded that were deemed worthy of being preserved. The popular knowledge of these events was perpetuated by means of poems, songs, and plays, and this knowledge was naturally faulty in dates. The numerous discrepancies which students of the present day meet at every step in the investigation of aboriginal annals, result chiefly from the almost total destruction of the painted records, the carelessness of those who attempted to interpret the few surviving documents at a time when such a task by native aid ought to have been feasible, the neglect of the Spanish priesthood in allowing the art of interpretation to be well-nigh lost, their necessary reliance for historical information on the popular knowledge above referred to, and to a certain degree doubtless from their failure to properly record information thus obtained.

But few native manuscripts have been preserved to the present time, and only a small part of those few are historical in their nature, two of the most important having been given in my second volume.[265 - pp. 544-9.] Most of the events indicated in such picture-writings as have been interpreted are also narrated by the early writers from traditional sources. Thus we see that our knowledge of aboriginal history depends chiefly on the hieroglyphic records destroyed by the Spaniards, rather than on the few fragments that escaped such destruction. To documents that may be found in the future, and to a more careful study of those now existing, we may look perhaps for much corrective information respecting dates and other details, but it is not probable that newly discovered picture-writings or new readings of old ones will extend the aboriginal annals much farther back into the past. These remarks apply of course only to the Aztec documents; the Maya records painted on skin and paper, or inscribed on stone, are yet sealed books, respecting the nature of whose contents conjecture is vain, but from which the future may evolve revelations of the greatest importance.

THE SPANISH WRITERS

Closely connected with the consideration of tradition and hieroglyphic records as authorities for my present subject, is that of the Spanish and native writers through whom for the most part American traditions, both hieroglyphically recorded and orally transmitted – in fact, what was known to the natives at the Conquest of their own past history – are made known to the modern student. These were Catholic missionaries and their converts, numerous, zealous, and as a class honest writers. Through an excess of religious zeal they had caused at the first irreparable harm by destroying the native records, but later they seem to have realized to a certain extent their error, and to have done all in their power to repair its consequences by zealously collecting such fragments of historical knowledge as had been preserved among the people. Their works have passed the test of severe criticism, and the defects of each have been fairly pointed out, exaggerated, or defended, according to the spirit of the critic; but the agreement of the different works in general outline, and even their differences in detail and their petty blunders, show that in their efforts to record all that could be ascertained of the history of the New World and the institutions of its people, their leading motive was the discovery of the truth, although they were swayed like other writers of their time, and all other times, by the spirit of the age, and by various religious, political, and personal prejudices.

The prevailing weakness of Spanish writers on America is well known – their religious enthusiasm and strong attachment to church dogmas, which, in view of some of its consequences, is pronounced at least mistaken zeal even by devoted churchmen of the present day. They believed in the frequent miraculous interposition of God in the work of converting the native pagans; in the instrumentality of the devil in the spiritual darkness preceding the Conquest. In their antiquarian researches a passage of scripture as commented by the Fathers brought infinitely stronger conviction to their minds than any sculptured monument, hieroglyphic record, historical tradition, or law of nature. In short, they were true Catholics of their time.[266 - The fact that they were Spaniards and Catholics is enough to condemn them with critics of a certain class, of which Adair may be quoted as an example: 'I lay little stress upon Spanish testimonies, for time and ocular proof have convinced us of the labored falsehood of almost all their historical narrations… They were so divested of those principles inherent to honest enquirers after truth, that they have recorded themselves to be a tribe of prejudiced bigots.' Amer. Ind., p. 197.] The prevalence of this religious spirit among the only men who had an opportunity to clear up some of the mysteries of the American past is to be regretted. They could have done their work much better without its influence; but, on the other hand, without such a motive as religious enthusiasm there is little probability that the work would have been done at all. It is not only in American researches, however, that this imperfection prevails. As we recede from the present we find men more and more religious, and religion has ever been an imperious mistress, brooking no rivalry on the part of reason. Reliance on superstition and prejudice, rather than facts and reason, is not more noticeable perhaps in works on ancient America than in other old works. The faith of the Spaniards renders their conclusions on origin and the earlier periods of primitive history valueless, but if that were all, the defect would be of slight importance, for it is not likely that the natives knew anything of their own origin, and the Spaniards had no means not now accessible of learning anything on that subject from other sources. We may well pardon them for finding St Thomas and his Christian teachings in the Toltec traditions of Quetzalcoatl; the ten lost tribes of Israel in the American aborigines; Noah's flood and the confusion of tongues in an Aztec picture of a man floating on the water and a bird speaking from a tree; provided they have left us a correct version of the tradition, a true account of the natives and their institutions, and an accurate copy of the picture referred to. But it is not improbable that their zeal gave a coloring to some traditions and suppressed others which furnished no support to the Biblical accounts, and were invented wholly in the interests of the devil. Fortunately it was chiefly on the mythological traditions supposed to relate to the creation, deluge, connection of the Americans with the Old World peoples, and other very remote events that they exercised their faith, rather than on historical traditions proper; fortunately, because the matters of origin and the earliest primitive history were entirely beyond the reach of such authorities, even had they been represented with the most perfect accuracy.

The writings of the authors in question were moreover submitted to a rigorous system of censorship by Spanish councils and tribunals under the control of the priesthood, without the approval of whose officials no work could be published. The spirit that animated these censors was the same as that alluded to above, and their zeal was chiefly directed to the discovery and expurgation of any lurking anti-Catholic sentiment. Many valuable works were doubtless suppressed, but such of them as were preserved in manuscript, or those whose contents have since been made known, have not proved that the censors directed their efforts against anything but heterodoxy and unfavorable criticism of Spanish dealings with the natives.

Spanish credulity accepted as facts many things which modern reason pronounces absurd; shall we therefore reject all statements that rest on Spanish authority? Do we reject all the events of Greek and Roman history, because the historians believed that the sun revolved about the earth, and attributed the ordinary phenomena of nature to the actions of imaginary gods? Should we deny the historical value of the Old Testament records because they tell of Jonah swallowed by a whale, and the sun ordered to stand still? Do we refuse to accept the occurrences of modern Mexican history because many of the ablest Mexican writers apparently believe in the apparition of Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe? And finally, can we reject the statements of able and conscientious men – many of whom devoted their lives to the study of aboriginal character and history, from an honest desire to do the natives good – because they deemed themselves bound by their priestly vows and the fear of the Inquisition to draw scriptural conclusions from each native tradition? The same remarks apply to the writings of converted and educated natives, influenced to a great degree by their teachers; more prone, perhaps, to exaggeration through national pride, but at the same time better acquainted with the native character and with the interpretation of the native hieroglyphics. To pronounce all these works deliberately executed forgeries, as a few modern writers have done, is too absurd to require refutation.

The writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who derived their information from original sources, and on whose works all that has been written subsequently is founded, comprise, 1st, the conquerors themselves, chiefly Cortés, Diaz del Castillo, and the Anonymous Conqueror, whose writings only touch incidentally upon a few points of ancient history. 2d. The first missionaries who were sent from Spain to supplement the achievements of Cortés by spiritual conquests. Such were José de Acosta, Bernardino Sahagun, Bartolomé de Las Casas, Juan de Torquemada, Diego Duran, Gerónimo de Mendieta, Toribio de Benavente (Motolinia), Diego García de Palacio, Didaco Valades, and Alonzo de Zurita. Of these Torquemada is the most complete and comprehensive, so far as aboriginal history is concerned, furnishing an immense mass of material drawn from native sources, very badly arranged and written. Duran also devotes a large portion of his work[267 - Historia Antigua de la Nueva España, MS. of 1588, folio, 3 volumes. A part of this work has recently been printed in Mexico. I have a manuscript copy made by Mr C. A. Spofford from that existing in the Congressional Library in Washington.] to history, confining himself chiefly, however, to the annals of the Aztecs. The other authorities named, although containing full accounts of the natives and their institutions, devote comparatively little space to historical traditions; Sahagun is the best authority of all, so far as his observations go in this direction. All have been printed, either in the original Spanish or in translations, except Las Casas, whose great historical works exist only in manuscript. 3d. The native writers who after their conversion acquired the Spanish language and wrote on the history of their people, either in Spanish or in their own language, employing the Spanish alphabet. Most of them were thoroughly imbued with the spirit of their converters, and their writings as a class are subject to the same criticism. Domingo Muñoz Camargo, a noble Tlascaltec, wrote, about 1585, a history of his own people, which has been published only in a French translation. Fernando de Alvarado Tezozomoc, descended from the royal family of Azcapuzalco, wrote the chronicles of Mexican history from the standpoint of the Tepanecs, represented at the time of the Conquest by the kingdom of Tlacopan. Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl was a grandson of the last king of Tezcuco, from whom he inherited all that were saved of the records in the public archives. His works are more extensive than those of any other native writer, covering the whole ground of Nahua history, although treating more particularly of the Chichimecs, his ancestors.[268 - Ixtlilxochitl has been the subject of much criticism favorable and otherwise. The verdict of the best authors seems to be that he wrote honestly, compiling from authentic documents in his possession, but carelessly, especially in the matter of chronology which presents contradictions on nearly every page. Even Wilson, Conq. Mex., pp. 23, 61, who stigmatizes as liars all the early writers on this subject, admits that Alva lies elegantly, and has written an able though fictitious narrative. Carelessness in dates and a disposition to unduly exalt his own race and family, are the most glaring faults of this author, and are observable also to a certain extent in all the native historians.]

SECONDARY AUTHORITIES

In this class should be included the reported but little known writings of Juan Ventura Zapata y Mendoza, Tadeo de Niza, and Alonzo Franco.[269 - Veytia, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. ii., p. 91; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., p. 10; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. ii., p. 196.] There are also many manuscripts by native authors whose names are unknown, brought to light by comparatively recent researches, and preserved for the most part in the Brasseur and Aubin collections in Paris. Their contents are unknown except through the writings of the Abbé Brasseur. The Popol Vuh is another important document, of which there are extant a Spanish and a French translation. 4th. Spanish authors who passed their lives mostly in Spain, and wrote chiefly under royal appointment. Their information was derived from the writers already mentioned, from the official correspondence of the colonists, and from the narratives of returning adventurers. Most of them touched upon aboriginal history among other topics. To this class belonged Peter Martyr, Francisco Lopez de Gomara, Antonio de Herrera, and Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdés. 5th. Catholic priests and missionaries who founded or were in charge of the missions at later periods or in remote regions, as Yucatan, Guatemala, Chiapas, Oajaca, Michoacan, and the north-western provinces of New Spain. They wrote chiefly in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and treat principally of the conversion of the natives, but include also in many cases their historical traditions and their explanations of the few aboriginal documents that fell into the possession of the converts. The number of such works is very great, and many of them have never been printed. Among the most important writers of this class are Diego de Landa, Diego Lopez Cogolludo, Padre Lizana, and Juan de Villagutierre Soto-Mayor, on Yucatan; Ramon de Ordoñez y Aguiar,[270 - Historia de la Creacion del Cielo y de la Tierra, conforme al Sistema de la gentilidad Americana.] Fuentes y Guzman,[271 - Recopilacion Florida de la Historia del Reyno de Guatemala, MS. in the Guatemalan Archives.] F. E. Arana,[272 - Memorial de Tecpan-Atitlan, a history of the Cakchiquel Kingdom, MS. discovered by Brasseur.] Francisco García Pelaez,[273 - Memorias para la Historia del Antiguo Reyno de Guatemala. Guatemala, 1852.] and Domingo Juarros, on Guatemala; Francisco Nuñez de la Vega,[274 - Constituciones Diocesanas del Obispado de Chiappas. Rome, 1702.] Francisco Ximenez,[275 - Vol. iii. of a History of Chiapas and Guatemala, found by Scherzer at the University of San Carlos. See Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. viii., xiii.] and Antonio de Remesal, on Chiapas; Ribas, Alegre, and Arricivita on the north-western provinces; and Francisco de Burgoa on Oajaca. To the above should be added the regular records kept in all the missions, and the numerous letters and reports of the missionaries in distant provinces, many of which have been preserved, and not a few printed. There may also be included in this class the writings of some later Mexican authors, such as Boturini, Sigüenza y Góngora, Veytia, Leon y Gama, and Clavigero. Their works were mostly founded on the information supplied by their predecessors, which they did much to arrange and classify, but they also had access to some original authorities not previously used. Clavigero is almost universally spoken of as the best writer on the subject, but it is probable that he owes his reputation much more to his systematic arrangement and clear narration of traditions that had before been greatly confused, and to the omission of the most perplexing and contradictory points, than to deep research or new discoveries.

The preceding classes include all the original authorities, that is, all founded on information not accessible to later writers. These works have been the foundation of all that has been written since, except what has been developed from linguistic and other scientific researches. All that modern authors have done may be followed step by step, their facts as well as their conclusions.

Of the secondary authorities already alluded to, the condition and institutions of the natives, with the material relics of their past, not much need be said. It is only indirectly by means of comparisons that these authorities can help us in the study of history. How little they can teach unaided is illustrated in the case of the wild tribes, for whose history they are practically the only authorities. In Mexico and Central America the state of civilization as shown in native art, religion, government, or manners and customs, may indicate by resemblances or dissimilarities a connection or want of it between the different civilized tribes, and may thus corroborate or modify their written annals; it may even throw some light on the unity or diversity of its own origin by showing the nature of the connection between the Nahua and Maya cultures, in which striking resemblances as well as contrasts are observed. Outside of the regions mentioned, where there were no tangible records, we can only search among the wilder tribes for points of likeness by which to attach their past to that of the civilized nations. It may be foreseen that the results of such a search will be but meagre and unsatisfactory, yet on several important branches of the subject, such as the relation borne by the Mound-Builders and Pueblos to the southern nations, it furnishes our only light.

LANGUAGE AS A HISTORICAL AUTHORITY