The Project Gutenberg eBook of Latin American Mythology, by Hartley Burr Alexander.

[15] There is no reason to assume any essential difference in character in the shamans or medicine-men of the North and South American Indians. In general, the lower the tribe in the scale of political organization, the more important is the shaman or doctor, and the more distinctly individual and the less tribal are the offices which he performs; as organization grows in social complexity, the function of priest emerges as distinct from that of doctor, the priest becoming the depository of ritual, and the doctor or shaman, on a somewhat lower level, attending the sick or practising magic and prophecy. Apparently in the Antilles the two offices were on the way to differentiation, if, indeed, they were not already distinct. The bohutis, buhuitihus, boii, or, as Peter Martyr latinizes, bovites of this region were evidently both doctors and priests. Certainly both Ramon Pane's and Peter Martyr's descriptions imply this; though there are some hints which would seem to point to a special class of ritual priests, who may or may not have been doctors, as when priests are said to act as mouthpieces of the cacique in giving oracles from hollow statues, or as when Martyr (following Pane) says that "only the sons of chiefs" are allowed to learn the traditional chants of the great ceremonials (p. 172). The term peaiman, applied to the shamans of the Guiana tribes, is, says im Thurn (p. 328), an Anglicized form of the Carib word puyai or peartzan. The peaiman, im Thurn states, "is not simply the doctor, but also, in some sense, the priest or magician." As matter of fact, the priestly element is slight among the continental Caribs, their practice being pure shamanism; and Fewkes ([b], p. 54) says that they "still speak of their priests as ceci-semi"—a term clearly related to zemi. "The prehistoric Porto Ricans," he says again (ib. p. 59), "had a well-developed priesthood, called boii (serpents), mabouya, and buhiti, which are apparently dialect or other forms of the same word." It was in Porto Rico, of course, that Carib and Taïno elements were most mixed. Brett [a], p. 363, in a note, derives the word piai from Carib puiai, which, he says, is in Ackawoi piatsan; while the Arawak use semecihi, and the Warau wisidaa, for the same functionary. Certainly the resemblance of boye and puiai, and of zemi and semecihi, or ceci-semi, indicates identities of origin, though the particular meanings are not altogether the same.

[16] Little is preserved of Antillean myth, and that little is contained almost wholly in the narrative of Ramon Pane. The authorities here quoted are Ramon Pane, chh. i, ix-xi, ii-vii (tr. Pinkerton, xii); Peter Martyr (tr. MacNutt, i. 167-70); Benzoni; and Ling Roth, in JAI xvi. 264-65. Stoddard gives free versions of several of the tales.

[17] Peter Martyr, loc. cit. (quoting pp. 166-67, 172-76).

[18] Gómara [a], ch. xxvii, p. 173, ed. Vedia (tr. Fewkes [b], pp. 66-67); cf. Benzoni, pp. 79-82; Las Casas [b], ch. clxvii. The plate representing the Earth Spirit ceremony is taken from (cf. Fewkes [b], Plate IX) Picart, The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Several Nations of the known World, London, 1731-37, Plate No. 78.

[19] Im Thurn, pp. 335-38; cf. Fewkes [e], p. 355.

[20] Ramon Pane, chh. xiv, xxv; Gómara [a], ch. xxxiii, pp. 175-76, ed. Vedia, gives supplementary information.

[21] Authorities cited for Carib lore are Columbus, Select Letters, pp. 29-37; im Thurn, pp. 192, 217, 222; Fewkes [b], pp. 27, 217-20, 68; Ballet, citing du Tertre and others, pp. 421-22, 433-38, 400-01; Davies, cited by Fewkes [b], pp. 60, 65; Currier, citing la Borde, pp. 508-09.

[22] Holmes, "Areas of American Culture" (in AA, new series, xvi, 1914) gives a chart of North America showing five culture areas for Mexico and Central America, in general corresponding to the grouping here made. The American Indian of Wissler, the Ancient Civilizations of Spinden, the Manuel of Beuchat and the Mexican Archaeology of Joyce follow approximately the same lines. E. G. Tarayre's "Report" in Archives de la commission scientifique du Mexique, iii (Paris, 1867) contains "Notes ethnographiques sur les régions mexicaines." For linguistic divisions the standard works are Orozco y Berra [b], Nicolás León [a], and especially Thomas and Swanton, Indian Languages of Mexico and Central America (44 BBE); cf. Mechling [b]. Contemporary ethnography is described in Lumholtz [a], [b], [c], in McGee, and in Starr [a], [b].

[23] Doubtless it should be stated at the outset that there is serious and reasonable question on the part of not a few students of aboriginal Mexico as to whether Aztec institutions merit the name "empire" in any sense analogous to those of the imperial states of the Old World. "A loose confederacy of democratic Indians" is the phrase employed by Waterman [a], p. 250, in describing the form of the Mexican state as it is pictured by Morgan, Bandelier, Fiske, and others (see Waterman, loc. cit., for sources); and it is altogether reasonable to expect that Americanist studies will eventually show that the great Middle American nations were developed from, and retained characteristics of, communities resembling the Pueblos of our own Southwest rather than the European states which the Spaniards had in the eye when they made their first observations. It is to be expected, too, that a changed complexion put upon the interpretation of Mexican society will eventually modify the interpretation of Mexican ritual and mythology, giving it, for example, something less of the uranian significance upon which scholars of the school of Förstemann and Seler put so great weight, and something more, if not of the Euhemerism of Brasseur de Bourbourg, at least of reliance upon social motives and historical traditions.

[24] Of all regions of primitive America, ancient Mexico is represented by the most extensive literature; and here, too, more has been transmitted directly from native sources than is the case elsewhere. The hieroglyphic codices, the anonymous Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas and Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico (better known and commonly cited as The Annals of Quauhtitlan), and the writings of men of native blood in the Spanish period, notably Ixtlilxochitl, Tezozomoc, and Chimalpahin, are the most important of these sources; unless, as is doubtless proper, the works of Sahagun, originally written in Nahuatl from native sources, be here included—undoubtedly the single source of greatest importance. Among Spanish writers of the early period, after Sahagun, the most important are Cristobal del Castillo, Diego Durán, Gómara, Herrera, Mendieta, Motolinia, Tobar, and Torquemada. Boturini, Clavigero, Veytia, Kingsborough, Prescott, and Brasseur de Bourbourg are important names of the intermediate period; while recent scholarship is represented by Brinton, Bancroft, Hamy, García Icazbalceta, Orozco y Berra, Peñafiel, Ramirez, Rosny, and most conspicuously by Seler. The most convenient recent introductions to the subject are afforded by Beuchat, Manuel; Joyce, Mexican Archaeology; Spinden, Ancient Civilizations of Mexico; while the best guide to the whole literature is Lehmann's "Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexikanistischen Forschung," in Archiv für Anthropologie, new series, vi, 1907 (translated as Methods and Results in Mexican Research, Paris, 1909). But while the material is relatively abundant, it is so only for the dominant race represented by the Aztec. For the non-Nahuatlan civilizations of Mexico the literature is sparse, especially upon the side of mythology. Sahagun gives certain details, mainly incidental, except in X. xxix, which is devoted to a brief description of the peoples of Mexico. Gómara, Herrera, and Torquemada afford added materials, touching several regions. For the Totonac-Huastec region the sources are particularly scanty, except for such descriptions of externals as naturally appear in the chronicles of Cortez, Bernal Diaz, and other conquistadores who here made their first intimate acquaintance with the mainland natives. Fewkes [g] deals with the monuments of the Totonac region, and expresses the opinion (p. 241, note) that the Codex Tro-Cortesianus, commonly said to be Maya, was obtained in this region, near Cempoalan; Holmes [b], and Seler, in numerous places, are also material sources for interpretation of the monuments. For the Tarascans of Michoacan the most important source is an anonymous Relacion de las ceremonias, rictos, población y gobernacion de los Indios de Michuacan hecha al illmo. Sr. D. Ant. de Mendoza (Madrid, 1875; Morelia, 1903), while of recent studies Nicolás León's Los Tarascos (see León [c]) is the most comprehensive. The Mixtec-Zapotec area fares better, both as to number of sources and later studies. Burgoa, Juan de Córdoba, Gregorio García, Balsalobre, Herrera, Las Casas, and Torquemada are the primary authorities; while the most significant later studies are doubtless those of Seler, "The Mexican Chronology with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," and "Wall Paintings of Mitla," both in 28 BBE. Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], bk. ix, deals with the Mixtec-Zapotec and Tarascan peoples, and is still a good introduction to the literature. Cf. also Alvarez; Castellanos (himself a Zapotec); Génin; León [d]; Mechling; Portillo; Radin.

[25] The works of Clavigero, Helps, Prescott, Orozco y Berra [b], and Veytia are the best-known histories narrating the Spanish conquest of Mexico. Of the earlier writers Bernal Diaz, who took part in the expeditions of Cordova and Grijalva, as well as in that of Cortez, is the most important (of his work there are several English translations besides that of Maudsley in HS—by Maurice Keatinge, London, 1800, by John G. Lockhart, London, 1844, and a condensed version by Kate Stephens, The Mastering of Mexico, New York, 1915).

[26] Bernal Diaz, ch. xcii (quoted), describes the ascent of the temple overlooking Tlatelolco. Seler [a], ii. 769-70, says that on the upper platform were two shrines, one to Tlaloc, the other to the three idols described by Bernal Diaz, of which the principal was not "Huichilobos" (Huitzilopochtli), but Coatlicue, the earth goddess. The "page" Seler regards as the tutelary of Tlatelolco, called Tlacauepan. The great temple of Huitzilopochtli was in the centre of the city, on the site of the present Cathedral. See León y Gama; Seler [a], loc. cit.; and cf. Zelia Nuttall, "L'Évèque Zumárraga et les principales idoles du Templo Mayor de Mexico," in SocAA xxx (1911).

[27] General descriptions of the Aztec pantheon are given by Beuchat, livre ii, Ie partie, chh. v, vi, and by Joyce [b], ch. ii. The most important early source is Sahagun, bk. i; other primary sources are Mendieta, bk. ii (derived from de Olmos), León y Gama (in part from Cristobal del Castillo), Ruiz de Alarcón, Jacinto de la Serna, the Tratado de los ritos y ceremonias y dioses of the Códice Ramirez (see Tobar, in Bibliography), and the explanations of the Codices Vaticanus A and Telleriano-Remensis (Kingsborough, v, vi). Of recent works the most significant are Seler [a] (collected essays), and [b], [c], [d], [e] (analyses of divinatory or astrological codices).

[28] For data concerning the use of these numbers by American peoples north of Mexico, see Mythology of All Races, Boston, 1916, x, Ch. IX, iv, and Notes 11, 31, 42, 50, with references there given. Further allusions to the nine and thirteen of Mexican cosmology will be found infra, Ch. III, i, iii. The origin of the peculiar uses of the number thirteen is a puzzle without satisfactory solution. In the explanation of Vaticanus A (Kingsborough, vi. 198, note), it is said—referring to the statement that "Tonacatecotle" presides over the "thirteen causes"—that "the causes are really only nine, corresponding in number with the heavens. But since four of them are reckoned twice in every series of thirteen days, in order that each day might be placed under some peculiar influence, they are said to be thirteen." This, however, is probably assuming effect for cause (cf. Ch. III, iii).

[29] Sahagun, VI. xxxii. Other references to Sahagun are, III, Appendix i; X. xxi.

[30] Seler [b], p. 31; [c], pp. 5, 10, 14.

[31] Seler [c], pp. 5-31, where he discusses the whole problem of cruciform and caryatid figures; as also in [e], ii., 107, 126-34; [d], pp. 76-93.

[32] Seler [a], index, s. w., is a guide to the manifold attributes of the Aztec gods. The most important myths concerning them are related by Sahagun, bk. iii, and by the authorities cited with respect to cosmogonies, infra, Ch. III, i, ii.

[33] See especially Seler [a], ii, "Die Ausgrabungen am Orte des Haupttempels in Mexico"; [c], p. 112; Sahagun, III. i; Tratado de los Ritos, etc. (see Tobar, in Bibliography); Robelo [a], s. v.; and Charency, L'Origine de la légende d'Huitzilopochtli (Paris, 1897); cf. also infra, Ch. III, v. The story of Tlahuicol is given by Clavigero, V. vi.

[34] See Seler [b], p. 60; [c], pp. 33, 205; [d], pp. 77, 95-96; [e], index. The prayers quoted are in Sahagun, VI. i, iv, v, vi; while the famous sacrifice is described in II. v, xxiv (also by Torquemada, VII. xix and X. xiv; and picturesquely by Prescott, I. iii). The myths are in Sahagun, III. iv ff.; a version with a different list of magicians (Ihuimecatl and Toltecatl are the companions of Tezcatlipoca) is given by Ramirez, Anales de Cuauhtitlan, pp. 17-18.

[35] See Seler, indexes, and the picturesque and romantic treatment by Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], iii. The more striking early sources are Sahagun, III. iii-xv; VI. vii, xxv (quoted), xxxiv (quoted); IX. xxix; X. iii, iv; Ixtlilxochitl, Historia Chichimeca, I. i, ii; Anales de Cuauhtitlan, pp. 17-23; Mendieta, II. v; and Explicación del Codex Telleriano-Remensis (Kingsborough, v). For later discussions see Léon de Rosny, "Le Mythe de Quetzalcoatl," in Archives de la société des américanistes de France (Paris, 1878); Seler [a], iii, "Ueber die natürlichen Grundlagen mexikanischer Mythen"; [b], pp. 41-48 (p. 45 here quoted); and Joyce [b], pp. 46-51. Duplicates or analogues of Quetzalcoatl are described in Mythology of All Races, Boston, 1916, x, Ch. IX, iii, v; Ch. XI, ii (p. 243); and infra, Ch. IV, ii; Ch. V, iv; Ch. VI, iv; Ch. VII, iv; Ch. VIII, ii.

[36] For Tlaloc see especially Seler [a], iii. 100-03; [b], pp. 62-67; Sahagun, I. iv, xxi; II. i, iii, xx (quoted), and Appendix, where is given the description of the curious octennial festival in which the rain-gods were honoured with a dance at which live frogs and snakes were eaten; the feast was accompanied by a fast viewed as a means of permitting the deities to resuscitate their food-creating energies, which were regarded as overworked or exhausted by their eight years' labour. See also Historia de los Mexicanos for sus Pinturas, chh. ii, vi; and Hamy [b]. References to Chalchiuhtlicue will be found in Seler [a], index; [b], pp. 56-58; etc. The ritual prayer is recorded by Sahagun, VI. xxxii.

[37] Sahagun, bk. i; Seler [a], index; and Robelo [a], are guides to the analysis and grouping of the Aztec deities.

[38] See Seler [d], pp. 130-131.

[39] Seler [a], ii. 1071-78, and CA xiii. 171-74 (hymn to Xipe Totec, here freely rendered). See, also, Seler [b], pp. 100-104, and [a], ii, "Die religiösen Gesänge der alten Mexikaner" (cf. Brinton [d], [e]), where a number of deities are characterized by translations and studies of hymns preserved in a Sahagun MS. A description of the Pawnee form of the arrow sacrifice will be found in Mythology of All Races, Boston, 1916, x. 76 (with plate), and Note 58. The Aztec form is pictured in Codex Nuttall, No. 83, as is also the famous sacrificio gladiatorio (as the Spaniards called it), of which Durán, Album, gives several drawings. The sacrificio gladiatorio was apparently in some rites a first stage leading to the arrow sacrifice (see Seler [e], i. 170-73, where several figures are reproduced).

[40] Tonacatecutli is treated by Seler [d], pp. 130 ff. See also, supra, Ch. II, iii; infra, Ch. III, i.

[41] Seler [d], p. 133; and for discussion of Xochiquetzal, Seler [b], pp. 118-24.

[42] Sahagun, I. vi, xii. Seler [b], pp. 92-100, discusses Tlazolteotl, on p. 93 giving the story of the sacrifice of the Huastec, taken from Ramirez, Anales, pp. 25-26.

[43] The conception of sacrifice as instituted to keep the world vivified, and especially to preserve the life of the Sun, appears in a number of documents, particularly in connexion with cosmogony (see Ch. III, i, ii), as Sahagun, III, Appendix, iv; VI. iii; VII. ii; Explicacion del Codex Telleriano-Remensis (Kingsborough, v. 135); and especially in the Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas; see also Payne, i. 577-82; Seler [a], iii. 285; [b], pp. 37-41; "Die Sage von Quetzalcouatl," in CA xvi (Vienna, 1910).

[44] Sahagun, III, Appendix, i (quoted); cf. Seler [b], pp. 82-86. See also Sahagun, loc. cit., ch. ii, for a description of Tlalocan, and ch. iii. for a description of the celestial paradise (cf. I. x and VI. xxix).

[45] The meaning of Tamoanchan is discussed by Preuss, "Feuergötter," who regards it as an underworld region; by Beyer, in Anthropos, iii, who explains it as the Milky Way; and by Seler [a], ii, "Die religiösen Gesänge der alten Mexikaner," and [e] (see index), who identifies it with the western region, the house of the evening sun. Xolotl is discussed, in the same connexions, by Seler; see especially [b], pp. 108-12. The myth from Sahagun is in VII. ii; those from Mendieta in II. i, ii.

[46] The limbo of children's souls is described in the Spiegazione dette tavole del Códice Mexicano (here quoting Kingsborough, vi. 171).

[47] Mexican cosmogonies are discussed by Robelo [a], art. "Cosmogonia," in AnMM, 2a época, iii; Bancroft, III. ii (full bibliographical notes); R. H. Lowie, art. "Cosmogony and Cosmology (Mexican and South American)," in ERE; Brühl, pp. 398-401; Brinton [a], vii; Charency [a]; Müller, pp. 510-12; Spence [b], iii. A literary version of some of the old cosmogonic stories is given by Castellanos [b].

[48] Herrera, III. iii. 10 (quoted by León, in AnMM, 2a época, i. 395).

[49] Mixtec and Zapotec myth are studied by Seler, 28 BBE, pp. 285-305 (pp. 289, 286 are here quoted); the source cited for the Mixtec myth is Gregorio García, Origen de los Indios, V. iv; for Zapotec, Juan de Córdoba, Arte del Idioma Zapoteca.

[50] Sahagun, VI. vii, with reference to the Chichimec (elsewhere he speaks of Mixcoatl as an Otomian god); X. xxix. I, with reference to the Toltec; III. i, ii, and VII. ii, with reference to the origin of the sun, etc.

[51] Seler [b], p. 38.

[52] Mendieta (after Fray Andrés de Olmos), II. i-iv.

[53] The fullest versions of the Mexican cosmic ages, or "Suns," are: (a) Ixtlilxochitl (Historia Chichimeca, I. i; Relaciones, ed. Kingsborough, ix. 321 ff., 459); (b) Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas, i-viii—the narrative which most resembles a primitive myth; (c) Anales de Cuauhtitlan (ed. Ramirez, pp. 9-11), partly translated into French by Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], i. Appendice, pp. 425-27, where the version of the deluge myth is given; (d) Spiegazione dette tavole del Codice Mexicano (i.e. Codex Vaticanus A), where Plates VII-X are described as symbols of the Suns; though a discordant explanation is given in connexion with Plate V. Other authorities are Gómara [b], p. 431; Muñoz Camargo, p. 132; Humboldt [a], ii, Plate XXVI; and especially Charency [a], who makes a comparative study of the myth. Monumental evidences are discussed by Seler [a], ii, "Die Ausgrabungen am Orte des Haupttempels in Mexico," and by MacCurdy [a]. Maya forms of the myth are sketched infra, pp. 153-55; cf. pp. 159 ff.

[54] The Spiegazione contains the description of the deluge (Kingsborough, vi. 195-96), chiefly in connexion with Plate XVI. Similar material, briefly treated, is in the Explicación del Codex Telleriano-Remensis.

[55] The literature dealing with the Mexican calendar is voluminous. Summary treatments of the subject, based on recent studies, are to be found in Beuchat, II. i. 5; Joyce [b], iii.; Preuss, art. "Calendar (Mexican and Mayan)," in ERE. The primary sources for knowledge of the calendar are three: (1) writings of the early chroniclers, among whom the most noteworthy are Sahagun, books ii, iv, vii, and León y Gama, who derives in part from Cristobal del Castillo; (2) calendric codices, the more important being Codex Borgia, studied by Fábrega, in AnMM v, and by Seler [a], i, and [e]; Codex Borbonicus, studied by Hamy [a], and de Jonghe; Codex Vaticanus B (3773), studied by Seler [d]; Codex Ferjérváry-Mayer, studied by Seler [c]; Codex Bologna (or Cospianus), studied by Seler [a], i; Codex Nuttall, studied by Nuttall; and the Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection, studied by Seler [b]; (3) monuments, especially calendar stones: León y Gama, Dos Piedras; Chavero [a]; MacCurdy [a]; and Róbelo [b] are studies of such monuments. Recent investigations of importance, in addition to papers by Seler ([a] and elsewhere), are Z. Nuttall, "The Periodical Adjustments of the Ancient Mexican Calendar," in AA, new series, vi (1904), and Preuss, "Kosmische Hieroglyphen der Mexikaner," in ZE xxxiii (1901). Studies of the Maya calendar (especially the important contributions of Förstemann, in 28 BBE) and of that of the Zapotec (Seler, "The Mexican Chronology, with Special Reference to the Zapotec Calendar," ib.) are, of course, intimately related to the Aztec system. For statement of current problems, see Lehmann [a], pp. 164-66.

[56] For Mexican astronomy, in addition to the studies of the codices, see Sahagun, bk. vii; Tezozomoc, lxxxii; Seler, 28 BBE, "The Venus Period in the Picture Writings of the Borgian Codex Group" (tr. from art. in Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 1898); Hagar [a], [b]; Chavero [b]; and Nuttall [a], especially pp. 245-59. On the question of the zodiac, advocated by Hagar, see H. J. Spinden, "The Question of the Zodiac in America," in AA, new series, xviii (1916), and the bibliography there given.

[57] Accounts of the archaeology of Tollan, or Tula, are to be found in Charnay [a], iv-vi, and in Joyce [b], especially in the Appendix. Sahagun's description of the Toltec is in X. xxix. 1. The Spiegazione of Codex Vaticanus A, Plate X, gives interesting additions (here quoted from Kingsborough, vi. 178). The chief authority, however, is Ixtlilxochitl, whose accounts of the Toltec, Chichimec, and especially Tezcucan powers have frequently been regarded with suspicion, as coloured by too free a fancy. Nevertheless, as Lehmann points out ([a], p. 121), it is certain that Ixtlilxochitl had at his command sources now lost. Much of his material is clearly in a native vein, and there is no impossibility that it is a version of history which is only slightly exalted.

[58] Spanish and French versions of the elegy of Nezahualcoyotl (here rather freely adapted) are in TC xiv. 368-73.

[59] The Aztec migration is a conspicuous feature of native tradition, and is, therefore, prominent in the histories, being figured by several of the codices, as well as in Durán's Album. An early narration of the Aztec myth forms chh. ix ff. of the Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas, while the Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de México, the narrative of the "Anónimo Mexicano," and Tezozomoc, i-iii, give other native versions. Mendieta, Sahagun, and Durán, are other sources for the myth. Seler [a], ii, "Wo lag Aztlan, die Heimat der Azteken?" gives a careful study of the mythical elements in the migration-story as displayed in the Codex Boturini and elsewhere. Orozco y Berra [a], iv, presents a comparative study of the Aztec rulers, drawn from the various accounts. Buelna's Peregrinación is generally regarded as the completest study of the migration from both legendary and archaeological evidence. Brasseur de Bourbourg [a], VI. iv, contains an account of the Aztlan myth, while VII sketches the development of Nahuatlan power in Tezcuco and Mexico; in ii. 598-602, the Abbé gives his chronological restoration of the history of Anahuac. Motezuma's Corona Mexicana should be mentioned as a partly native source for the records of the Aztec monarchs; while Chimalpahin represents not only a native record, but one composed in the native tongue.

[60] Mendieta, II. xxxiii-xxxiv.

[61] Sahagun, X. xxix. 12.

[62] Best known is the Codex Boturini (reproduced in Kingsborough, i; see also García Cubas [b], where Codex Boturini is compared with a supplementary historical painting; interesting reproductions of related Acolhua paintings, the "Mappe Tlotzin" and the "Mappe Quinatzin," are in Aubin [a]).

[64] Accounts of the portents that preceded the coming of Cortez are conspicuous in nearly all the early narratives; among them Acosta, VI. xxii; Clavigero, V. xii, etc.; Chimalpahin, "Septième relation"; Durán, lxi, lxiii, etc.; Ixtlilxochitl, Historia Chichimeca, II. lxxii; Sahagun, XII. i; Tezozomoc, xcvii; Torquemada, III. xci.

[65] The Papago myth is given by Bancroft, III. ii (after Davidson, Report on Indian Affairs [Washington, 1865], pp. 131-33); cf. Lumholtz [c], p. 42.

[66] For identification of the Nicaraguan divinities (originally described by Oviedo) see Seler [a], ii. 1029-30. Phases of contemporary pagan myth in Mexico are treated by Lumholtz (passim), Preuss, Mechling [a], Mason, and Radin. Interesting ritualistic analogies are suggested by Fewkes, Evans, Génin, Nuttall, and Preuss.

[67] Preuss [a], [b], and Lumholtz [b], I. xxix.

[68] Preuss, "Die magische Denkweise der Cora-Indianer," in CA xviii (London, 1913), pp. 129-34.

[69] Seler [a], iii. 376, regards the Huichol Tamats as the Morning Star, which is certainly plausible in view of his similarity to Chuvalete of the Cora. Huichol myth and deities are described by Lumholtz [a], ii (p. 12 here quoted); [b], II. ix; cf., also, Preuss.

[70] Lumholtz [b], i. 356.

[71] The physiography and ethnography of the Maya region are summarized in Spinden [a]; Beuchat, II, ii; and in Joyce [b], ch. viii. Wissler, The American Indian in this, as in other fields, most effectively presents the relations—ethnical, cultural, historical—to the other American groups. Recent special studies of importance are Tozzer [a]; Starr, In Indian Mexico, etc.; Sapper [b]; and the more distinctively archaeological studies of Holmes, Morley, Spinden, and others.

[72] It is unfortunate that the region of Maya culture was the subject of no such full reports, dating from the immediate post-Conquest period, as we possess from Mexico. The more important of the Spanish writers who deal with the Yucatec centres are Aguilar, Cogolludo, Las Casas, Landa, Lizana, Nuñez de la Vega, Ordoñez y Aguiar, Pio Pérez, Pedro Ponce, and Villagutierre, with Landa easily first in significance. The histories of Eligio Ancona and of Carrillo y Ancona are the leading Spanish works of later date. Native writings are represented by three hieroglyphic pre-Cortezian codices, namely, Codex Dresdensis, Codex Tro-Cortesianus, and Codex Peresianus, as well as by the important Books of Chilam Balam and the Chronicle of Nakuk Pech from the early Spanish period (for description of thirteen manuscripts and bibliography of published works relating to their interpretation, see Tozzer, "The Chilam Balam Books," in CA xix [Washington, 1917]). Yet what Mayan civilization lacks in the way of literary monuments is more than compensated by the remains of its art and architecture, to which an immense amount of shrewd study has been devoted. The more conspicuous names of those who have advanced this study are mentioned in connexion with the literature of the Maya calendar, Note 92, infra. The region has been explored archaeologically with great care, the magnificent reports of Maudsley (in Biología Centrali-Americana) and of the Peabody Museum expeditions (Memoirs), prepared by Gordon, Maler, Thompson, and others, being the collections of eminence. Brasseur de Bourbourg can scarcely be mentioned too often in connexion with this field. His fault is that of Euhemerus, but he is neither the first nor the last of the tribe of this sage; while for his virtues, he shows more constructive imagination than any other Americanist: probably the picture which he presents would be less criticized were it less vivid.

[73] Landa, chh. v-xi (vi, ix, being here quoted).

[74] The sources for the history of the Maya are primarily the native chronicles (the Books of Chilam Balam), the Relaciones de Yucatán, and the histories of Cogolludo, Landa, Lizana, and Villagutierre. The deciphering of the monumental dates of the southern centres has furnished an additional group of facts, the correlation of which to the history of the north has become a special problem, with its own literature. The most important attempts to synchronize Maya dates with the years of our era are by Pio Pérez (reproduced both by Stephens [b] and by Brasseur de Bourbourg [b]); Seler [a], i, "Bedeutung des Maya-Kalenders für die historische Chronologie"; Goodman [a], [b]; Bowditch [a]; Spinden [a], pp. 130-35; [b] (with chart); Joyce [b], Appendix iii (with chart); and Morley [a], [b], [c] and [d]. Bowditch, Spinden, Joyce, and Morley are not radically divergent and may be regarded as representing the conservative view—here accepted as obviously the plausible one. Carrillo y Ancona, ch. ii, analyzes some of the earlier opinions; while the first part of Ancona's Historia de Yucatán is devoted to ancient Yucatec history and is doubtless the best general work on the subject.