[596] Zoeckler, Das Kreutz Christi, p. 9, Güterslo,
1875, and Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1870, p. 232.
[597] Mr. Bancroft remarks, “He happens, however, here to have
selected two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in
America. In the preceding volume of this work, page 333, is given a cut
of what is called the ‘Tablet of the Cross’ at Palenque. In this we
see a cross and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two
human figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering.
In Mr. Stephens’ representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost
the same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented
Latin cross, we have here a crux commissa, or patibulata;
that instead of one bird there are two, not on the cross but
immediately above it, and that the figures, though in profile and
holding the same general positions, are dressed in a different manner,
and are apparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making
an offering to it; in Mr. Stephens’ representation from the obelisk of
Carnac, however, a priest is evidently making an offering to a large
bird perched upon an altar; and here again the human figures occupy the
same position. The hieroglyphics, though the characters are of course
different, are, it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in much the
same manner. The frontispiece of Stephens’ Cent. Amer., vol. ii,
described on p. 352, represents the tablet, on the back wall of the
altar, Casa No. 3 at Palenque. Once more here are two priests clad in
all the elaborate insignia of their office, standing one on either side
of a table or altar, upon which are erected two batons, crossed in such
a manner as to form a crux decussata, and supporting a hideous
mask. To this emblem they are making an offering.”—Bancroft’s Native
Races, vol. v, pp. 60–1, note.
[598] W. H. Holmes in Bulletin of the Geog. and Geol.
Survey of the Territories, Vol. II, No. I, p. 20, Pl. 11 and 12.
[599] Landa, Relacion, p. 44. Villagutierre,
Conq.Itza, pp. 393–4. Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 768.
[601] Peter Martyr, Dec. iv, lib. viii. Bancroft, vol. ii, pp.
769–70.
[602] Stephens’ Cent. Amer., vol. ii, pp. 342, 453–5.
[603] Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. ii, p.
780. Brasseur’s admission will be found in the Bibliothéque
Mexico-Guatemalienne, Paris, 1871, p. xxvii. The translation,
prefaced with 136 quarto pages devoted to a consideration of the Maya
characters, is published under the title, MS. Troano: Etudes sur le
systéme graphique et la langue des Mayas. Paris, 1869–70. 4to, 2
vols., 70 colored plates.
[605] The original of Landa’s explanation is as follows: “De
sus letras porne aqui un a, b, c, que no permite
su pesadumbre mas porque usan para todas las aspiraciones de las letras
de un caracter, y despues, al puntar de las partes otro, y assi viene a
hazer in infinitum, como se podra ver en el siguiente exemplo:
Lé, quiere dezir laço y caçar con el; para escrivirle con sus
carateres, haviendoles nosotros hecho entender que son dos letras, lo
escrivian ellos con tres, puniendo a la aspiracion de la l la
vocale é que antes de si trae, y en esto no hierran. aunque
usense, si quisieren ellos de su curiosidad, exemplo: e L e Lé.
Despues al cabo le pegan la parte junta. Ha que quiere dezir
agua, porque la haché tiene a, h, antes de si
la ponen ellos al prinicipio con a, y al cabo deste manera,
ha. Tambien lo escriven a partes pero de la una y otra manera,
yo no pusiera aqui ni tratara dello sino por dar cuenta enters de las
cosas desta gente. Ma in kati quiere dezir no quiero, ellos
lo escriven a partes desta manera: ma i n ka ti.”—Landa,
Relacion, p. 318, translated by Bancroft, Native Races, vol.
ii, p. 778.
[607] Bollaert, Examination of Central American
Hieroglyphs, in Memoirs of Anthropological Soc. of London,
vol. iii, pp. 288–314. London, 1870.
[608] Charencey, Essai de Déchiffrement d’un fragment
d’inscription palenquéenne, in Actes de la Société
Philologique, tom. i. March, 1870.
[609] Rosny, Essai sur le Déchiffrement de L’Écriture
Hiératique de L’Amérique Centrale, Paris, 1876, folio, with large
colored plates and fac-similes. In three parts, two of which only have
as yet appeared (Oct. 1878). The author informs me (Feb. 1879) that a
fourth part will be required to complete the work.
[610] Bollaert in Memoirs of Anthropol. Soc. of London,
vol. iii, p. 298.
[621] Mex. Antiq., vol. i, pl. lxi; explanation, vol.
v, pp. 96–7; Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 538–40.
[622] Delafield, Antiq. of Am., pp. 42–7. M. Ed.
Madier de Montjau has recently added much to our understanding of
Aztec picture-writing in his Chronologie hieroglyphico-phonétic des
rois Aztèques de 1352–1522 retrouvée dans diverses mappes américaines
antiques, expliquée et précédée d’une introduction sur l’Écriture
mexicaine. A valuable article on the same subject is found in the
Congrès des Américanistes, Luxembourg, 1877, tom. ii, pp.
346–362, by M. l’Abbé Jules Pipart, entitled Eléments phonétiques dans
les Ecritures figuratives des anciens Mexicains.
[623] An excellent account of the various collections of
Aztec picture-writing will be found in the introduction to Domenech’s
Manuscrit Pictographique, Paris, 1860, 8vo; a book which would
be valueless but for that feature. See also account of M. Aubun’s
collection in Brasseur de Bourbourg, Hist. Nat. Civ., tom. i,
pp. lxxvi–lxxviii. For general description of hieroglyphic principles
see Tylor, Researches, pp. 89–101, and Humboldt, Vues,
tom. i, pp. 177–9, 162–202. See also Boturini, Idea de una
Hist., pp. 5, 77, 87, 96, 112, 116. Prescott, Conq. Mex.
(Kirk’s ed., 1875), vol. i, pp. 94, 99, 107–9. Clavigero, Storia
Ant. del Messico, tom. ii, pp. 187–94. Mendoza, in Soc. Mex.
Geog. Boletin, 2d época, tom. i, pp. 896–904. Gallatin in Amer.
Ethno. Soc. Transact., vol. i, pp. 126, 165–69. Kingsborough’s
Mex. Ant., vol. vi, p. 87, and Ixtlilxochitl’s Hist.
Chich. in Kingsborough, vol. ix, p. 201. Torquemada, Monarq.
Ind., tom. i, p. 149. Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. ii, pp. 521–52.
[624] Landa, Relation, pp. 204–316, and the work by
Perez, entitled Cronologia Antigua de Yucatan, with Brasseur’s
translation into French in the above work, pp. 366–429. Also see
English translation in Stephens’ Yucatan, vol. i, pp. 434–59.
See also Orozco y Berra, Geografia, pp. 104–8, and an able
discussion in Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. ii, pp. 755–67.
[625] Landa’s Relacion, p. 204. Bancroft’s Native
Races, vol. ii, p. 756.
[627] See Perez’s Appendix to Stephens’ Yucatan, vol.
i, pp. 458–59, and in Landa’s Relacion, Appendix, pp. 370–382,
and Brasseur in the same. Especially Rosny, Essai sur le Dech. de
L’Écrit. Hiérat. de L’Amér. Cent., pp. 15–24.
[628] Landa, Relacion, p. 234. Perez in Landa, pp. 394
et seq., and in Stephens’ Yucatan, vol. i, p. 439; also
see Bancroft, vol. ii, pp. 759 et seq.
[629] Perez in Landa, Relacion, pp. 366–8; also cited
by Bancroft, vol. ii, p. 759.
[630] Stephens’ Yucatan, vol. ii, pp. 318–19. Stephens
was unable to assign any use to the pillars referred to. He counted
upwards of 380. Dr. Le Plongeon accords with our view.
[632] See Landa, Relacion, pp. 313, 400–412; Stephens,
Yucatan, Perez, vol. i, pp. 441–447, MS. cited in vol. ii,
pp. 465–469; Bancroft, Native Races, vol. ii, pp. 762–765; M.
Delaporte, Le Calendrier Yucatèque, MS. cited by Rosny, Essai
sur le déchiffrement de L’Écriture Hiératique, p. 25.
[634] Sahagun, Hist. Gen., tom. i, lib. ii, pp. 49–76;
lib. iv, pp. 282–310, gives a partial though very satisfactory account.
Leon y Gama, Dos Piedras, is critical and learned, but often
incorrect. Humboldt, Vues, furnishes an elaborate account, which
is very valuable though complicated. Veytia’s explanation is the result
of thorough research, Hist. Ant. Mej., tom. i. Gallatin is
extremely clear and reliable in Amer. Ethno. Soc. Transactions,
vol. i. McCulloch’s Researches in Amer., pp. 201–25. Bancroft’s
Native Races, vol. ii, pp. 502–22, furnishes us an account,
clear and full, as are all of his discussions. Several cuts enhance
the value of the chapter. We especially refer the reader to his rich
bibliography of the subject, appended in notes. A number of additional
authors are before us: Ixtlilxochitl, Müller, Herrera, Clavigero,
Brasseur de Bourbourg, Boturini, Prichard, but last and best is the
ingenious and masterly Vortrag über den Mexicanischen Calender stein
gehalten von Prof. Ph. Valentini, am 30 April, 1878 (in
Republican Hall, New York), vor dem Deutsch ges. wissenschaftlichen
Verein, 32 pp. 8vo, recently translated and published by Stephen Salisbury, Jr.
[640] Mr. Bancroft incorrectly states that thirteen days were
intercalated at the end of each tlalpilli (13 years). It is plain
that if 365 days constitute a year, the lost time would not amount to
thirteen days before fifty-two years.
[641] Prof. Valentini quotes the terms given above, and Mr.
Bancroft states that the same process of computation was pursued in
both divisions.
[642] See The Nation for Aug. 8, 1878, p. 84, and
for Sept. 19, 1878. Also Mr. Salisbury’s translation of Valentini’s
Vortrag, Worcester, 1879.
[643] Prof. Valentini cites Codex Vaticanus, pl.
91, Codex Boturini, pl. 10, Codex Tellerianus, pl. 6
and 8. The Professor in making the comparison, remarks: “Auf beiden
senkt sich ein Schaft in ein rundes Loch, von welchem aus sich etwas
volutenähnliches hervorwindet. Wir gewahren auf den gemalten Bildern,
dass jede der Voluten in 2 Hälften getheilt ist, die eine grau die
andere roth gemalt. Dieselbe Abtheilung finden wir auch auf der
Sculptur. Was dieses Symbol bedeute, wird uns aus der Beobachtung klar,
dass wir es in den gemalten Jahrestafeln immer nur dann wiederkehrend
finden, sobald 52 Jahre verflossen sind. Wir sehen es immer gerade an
das Symbol dieses 52ten Jahres angehängt, an einer Stelle, in Cod.
Tell. IV, Pl. 8. 1. Kingsb. Coll., vol. i, es erscheint auch mit einem
erklärenden Texte. Er lautet: ‘Dieses ist das Zeichen für die
Zusammenbindung der 52 Jahre.’”—Vortrag, pp. 23, 24.
[644] Prof. Valentini, Vortrag, pp. 24, 25, cites
Codex Selden, pl. 10, Codex Laud, pl. 8, and Codex
Veletri, fol. 34.
[645] Prof. Valentini cites a Codex from the Squier
collection, where the symbol occurs accompanied with the word
Molpiynxihuitl, which translated means “the binding of the
years.” He also cites Codex Boturini, pl. 10, Kingsborough
Collection.—Vortrag, pp. 25, 26.
[646] Dr. Le Plongeon in Yucatan, by Stephen Salisbury,
Jr., p. 88. Worcester, 1877.
[649] Vues, p. 152. On page 150 he furnishes tables
of comparison which show unmistakably the analogy between the Mexican
Calendar and that of the people of Eastern Asia.
[650] Cabrera, Teatro in Rio’s Description, pp.
103–5.
[655] “It is impossible on reading what Mexican mythology
records of the war in heaven, and of the fall of Zoutemoque and
the other rebellious spirits; of the creation of light by the word
Touacatecutli, and of the division of the waters; of the sin of
Yztlacohuhqui, and his blindness and nakedness; of the temptation of
Suchiquecal and her disobedience in gathering roses from a tree, and
the consequent misery and disgrace of herself and all her posterity—not
to recognize scriptural analogies. But the Mexican tradition of the
deluge is that which bears the most unequivocal marks of having been
derived from a Hebrew source. This tradition records that a few
persons escaped in the Ahuehuete, or ark of fir, when the earth was
swallowed up by the deluge, the chief of whom was named Patecatle or
Cipaquetona; that he invented the art of making wine; that Xelua, one
of his descendants, at least one of those who escaped with him in the
ark, was present at the building of a high tower, which the succeeding
generation constructed with a view of escaping from the deluge should
it again occur; that Tonacatecutli, incensed at their presumption,
destroyed the tower with lightning, confounded their language and
dispersed them; and that Xelua led a colony to the New World.”—Mex.
Antiq., tom. vi, p. 401.
[656] Ixtlilxochitl’s Relaciones in Mex. Ant.,
vol. ix, and this work, chap. vi.
[657] See Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. iii, pp. 66,
68.
[667] The following is Kingsborough’s account of the Mexican
baptism: “The midwife took the infant in her arms naked, and carried it
into the court of the mother’s house, in which court were strewed reeds
or rushes, which they call Tule, upon which was placed a small vessel
of water, in which the said midwife bathed the said infant; and after
she had bathed it, three boys being seated near the said rushes, eating
roasted maize mixed with boiled beans, which kind of food they named
Yxcue, which provision or paste they set before the said boys, in order
that they might eat it. After the said bathing or washing, the said
midwife desired the said boys to pronounce the name aloud, bestowing a
new name on the infant which had been thus bathed; and the name which
they gave it was that which the midwife wished.”—Mex. Antiq.,
vol. vi, p. 45.
[673] Mex. Antiq., vol. vi, p. 125; Codex
Telleriano-Remensis, pl. xix; Mex. Antiq., vol. vii,
pp. 240–1, and Duran, MS., part ii, cap. 20; see further, Mex.
Antiq., vol. vi, pp. 135–218.
[674] Mex. Antiq., vol. vi, pp. 121–2. He cites several
authors to prove this sweeping statement, and is not content with
finding it among the Indians, but is provoked by his zeal to discover
the practice of the same rite among the Hottentots. See Ibid.,
vol. vi, pp. 272, 333–5; vol. viii, pp. 143, 391, 20. On page 393, vol
vi, he makes this remarkable statement: “From an examination of some
of the Mexican paintings, it would appear that circumcision among the
Indians was not confined to the human species.” Also vol. viii, p. 155:
“The head of the Totonac high-priest, was anointed by the blood of
circumcised children.”
[675] Mex. Antiq., vol. vi, p. 273; vol. viii, pp. 157,
236, 160.
[689] Mex. Antiq., vol. vi, pp. 207–8. He thinks the
gospel must have been preached at an early day in Yucatan, and in proof
cites from the sixth chapter of the Fourth Book of Cogolludo’s History
the following: “A certain ecclesiastic wrote to a priest commissioned
by Las Casas, that he met a principle-lord, who, on being questioned
respecting the ancient religion which they professed, told him that
they knew and believed in the God who was in Heaven, and that this
God was the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and that the Father was named
Yzona, who had created man; and that the Son was called Bacab, who was
born of a virgin of the name of Chiribirias, and that the mother of
Chiribirias was named Yxchel; and that the Holy Ghost was named Echvah.
Of Bacab, the Son, they said he was put to death and scourged and
crowned with thorns and placed with his arms extended upon a beam of
wood, to which they did not suppose that he had been nailed, but that
he was tied, where he died and remained dead during three days, and on
the third day came to life and ascended into heaven, where he is with
his Father; and that immediately afterwards Echvah, who is the Holy
Ghost, came and filled the earth with whatsoever it stood in need of.”
[690] Mr. Bancroft in his fifth vol., pp. 84–89, has collated
a great number of Lord Kingsborough’s analogies. Our limited space
forbids further treatment.
[691] Bancroft, Native Races, vol. v, p. 41; Humboldt’s
Vues, tom. i, p. 236.
[692] Bancroft, Native Races, vol. v, p. 41; Humboldt,
Vues, p. 256; Tschudi, Peruvian Antiq., p. 211.
[697] Brasseur in Introduction to Landa’s
Relacion, pp. lxx–i.
[698] Landa’s Relacion, Introduc., pp. lxxi
et seq.
[699] Brasseur de Bourbourg in Landa, pp. lxvi–ix.
[700] We have not thought it necessary to treat the mythology
or religious systems of the Mayas and Nahuas in any formal manner,
but only incidentally to call attention to some salient features,
cropping out in connection with the subject in hand. The religions of
the ancient Americans have been so often and so admirably treated, that
anything relating to them in this connection would be superfluous.
See especially Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. iii; Müller’s
Geschichte der Amerikanischen Urreligionen; Squier’s Serpent
Symbol in America; Brinton’s Myths of the New World, and
Ibid., Religious Sentiments in the New World.
[701] Families of Speech, pp. 134–6. London, 1873.
12mo.
[702] Spanish, in Kingsborough’s Mex. Antiq., vol.
viii, pp. 110–15.
[703] English translation in Prescott’s Mexico, vol.
iii, and Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. ii, pp. 494–97.
[705] The same author refers to the classification of
languages adopted by Prof. Steinthal in his Charakteristik der
hauptsächlichsten Typen des Sprachbaues. Languages are divided
into cultivated and uncultivated, and each again
are subdivided into isolating and inflectional. The
American languages are classed as uncultivated and inflectional by
incorporation.—(Families of Speech, p. 127.)
[706] See Bancroft’s Native Races, vol. iii, pp. 559,
670–2. See on the latter page especially a vocabulary of resemblances.
[707] We refer the reader who is interested in the aboriginal
languages of the North-west to the Contributions to North American
Ethnology, published by the Department of the Interior, under the
direction of Major J. W. Powell, Washington, 1877. 3 vols. 4to.
[708] Garcia y Cubas, The Republic of Mexico in 1876.
A political and ethnographical division of the population, etc.,
translated by Geo. F. Henderson, p. 66. Mexico, 1876. Most of the above
names are cited by Mr. Bancroft, Native Races, vol. iii, p.
760; by Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 18–25 et passim,
and by Pimentel, Lenguas Indígenas de Mex., vol. ii, p. 5 et
seq.
[713] Communication of Dr. Le Plongeon to the Hon. John W.
Foster, minister of the United States at Mexico, dated Island of
Cozumel, May 1, 1877, in Salisbury’s Dr. Le Plongeon in Yucatan,
p. 83.
[714] Dr. Le Plongeon, communication to Stephen Salisbury,
Jr., Esq., dated Island of Cozumel, June 15, 1877. He remarks:
“Notwithstanding a few guttural sounds, the Maya is soft, pliant,
rich in diction and expression, even every shade of thought may be
expressed.” “Strange to say the language remained unaltered. Even
to-day, in many places in Yucatan the descendants of the Spanish
conquerors have forgotten the native tongue of their sires, and only
speak Maya, the idiom of the vanquished.”—Communication above cited
in Salisbury’s Le Plongeon in Yucatan, pp. 95 et seq.