Local History And War Memories In Hokkaido

Philip A Seaton download

https://ebookbell.com/product/local-history-and-war-memories-in-
hokkaido-philip-a-seaton-44503716

Explore and download more ebooks at ebookbell.com

Here are some recommended products that we believe you will be
interested in. You can click the link to download.

Decentering Cold War History Local And Global Change Hardcover Jadwiga
E Piepermooney Fabio Lanza

https://ebookbell.com/product/decentering-cold-war-history-local-and-
global-change-hardcover-jadwiga-e-piepermooney-fabio-lanza-7360268

Decentering Cold War History Local And Global Change Jadwiga E Pieper
Mooney Fabio Lanza

https://ebookbell.com/product/decentering-cold-war-history-local-and-
global-change-jadwiga-e-pieper-mooney-fabio-lanza-10553432

Out Of Line Out Of Place A Global And Local History Of World War I
Internments Rotem Kowner

https://ebookbell.com/product/out-of-line-out-of-place-a-global-and-
local-history-of-world-war-i-internments-rotem-kowner-49194614

Out Of Line Out Of Place A Global And Local History Of World War I
Internments Rotem Kowner Editor Iris Rachamimov Editor

https://ebookbell.com/product/out-of-line-out-of-place-a-global-and-
local-history-of-world-war-i-internments-rotem-kowner-editor-iris-
rachamimov-editor-51933732
A Hard Local War The British Army And The Guerrilla War In Cork
19191921 William Sheehan

https://ebookbell.com/product/a-hard-local-war-the-british-army-and-
the-guerrilla-war-in-cork-19191921-william-sheehan-60444986

Family History And Local History In England David Hey

https://ebookbell.com/product/family-history-and-local-history-in-
england-david-hey-43220000

Changing Approaches To Local History Warwickshire History And Its

Historians Christopher Dyer

https://ebookbell.com/product/changing-approaches-to-local-history-
warwickshire-history-and-its-historians-christopher-dyer-48776112

Making Time For The Past Local History And The Polis Katherine Clarke

https://ebookbell.com/product/making-time-for-the-past-local-history-
and-the-polis-katherine-clarke-1385810

International Genealogy And Local History 1st Edition Author

https://ebookbell.com/product/international-genealogy-and-local-
history-1st-edition-author-50993778
Discovering Diverse Content Through
Random Scribd Documents
 religion, sciences et arts des Aztèques, etc.—Tome IV. vi. et 851
pp. Conquête du Mexique, du Michoacan et du Guatémala, etc.
Etablissement des Espagnols et fondation de l’Eglise catholique.
Ruine de l’idolâtrie, déclin et abaissement de la race indigène,
jusqu’à la fin du xvie siècle.
In his introduction (p. lxxiv) Brasseur gives a list of the
manuscript and printed books on which he has mainly depended,
the chief of which are: Burgoa, Cogolludo, Torquemada,
Sahagún, Remesal, Gomara (in Barcia), Lorenzana’s Cortes,
Bernal Diaz, Vetancurt’s Teatro Mexicano (1698), Valades’
Rhetorica Christiana (1579), Juarros, Pelaez, Leon y Gama, etc.

[955] Kirk’s Prescott, i. 10. There are lists of Brasseur’s works in his
own Bibliothèque Mex.-Guatémalienne, p. 25; in the Pinart
Catalogue, no. 141, etc.; Field, p. 43; Sabin, ii. 7420. Cf. notices
of his labors by Haven in Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., Oct., 1870, p. 47;
by Brinton in Lippincott’s Mag., i. 79. There is a Sommaire des
voyages scientifiques et des travaux de géographie, d’histoire,
d’archéologie et de Philologie américaines, publiés par l’abbé
Brasseur de Bourbourg (St. Cloud, 1862).

[956] Abor. Amer. Authors, 57.

[957] Cf. Bandelier, Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., n. s., i. 93; Field, no.
176; H. H. Bancroft’s Nat. Races, ii. 116, 780; v. 126, 153, 236,
241,—who says of Brasseur that “he rejects nothing, and
transforms everything into historic fact;” but Bancroft looks to
Brasseur for the main drift of his chapter on pre-Toltec history. Cf.
Brinton’s Myths of the New World, p. 41.

[958] Bancroft, Nat. Races, v. 176; Baldwin, Anc. America.

[959] Reference may be made to H. T. Moke’s Histoire des peuples

Américains (Bruxelles, 1847); Michel Chevalier’s “Du Mexique
avant et pendant la Conquête,” in the Revue des deux Mondes,
1845, and his Le Méxique ancien et moderne (Paris, 1863); and
some parts of the Marquis de Nadaillac’s L’Amérique préhistorique
(Paris, 1883). A recent popular summary, without references, of
the condition and history of ancient Mexico, is Lucien Biart’s Les
Aztèques, histoire, mœurs, coutumes (Paris, 1885), of which
there is an English translation, The Aztecs, their history, etc.,
translated by J. L. Garnier (Chicago, 1887).
[960] Leclerc, no. 1147; Field, no. 620; Squier, no. 427; Sabin, vii.
28,255; Bandelier in Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., n. s., i. 116. It has
never yet been reprinted. The early date, as well as its rarity,
have contributed to give it, perhaps, undue reputation. It is worth
from £3 to £4.

[961] Leclerc, no. 1119. See Vol. II. p. 415.

[962] Leclerc, no. 2079; Brasseur, Bib. Mex.-Guat., p. 113.

[963] For the Historia de Mexico of Carbajal Espinosa, see Vol. II. p.
428. Cf. Alfred Chavero’s México á través de los Siglos.

[964] Discrediting Gomara’s statement that De Ayllon found tribes

near Cape Hatteras who had tame deer and made cheese from
their milk, Dr. Brinton says: “Throughout the continent there is
not a single authentic instance of a pastoral tribe, not one of an
animal raised for its milk, nor for the transportation of persons,
and very few for their flesh. It was essentially a hunting race.”
(Myths of the New World, 21.) He adds: “The one mollifying
element was agriculture, substituting a sedentary for a wandering
life, supplying a fixed dependence for an uncertain contingency.”

[965] See Vol. II. p. 98.

[966] It was two years earlier, in 1517, that Hernandez de Cordova

had first noticed the ruins of the Yucatan coast, though
Columbus, in 1502, near Yucatan had met a Maya vessel, which
with its navigators had astonished him.

[967] “No writer,” says Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Repts. ii. 674),
“has been more prolific in pictures of pomp, regal wealth and
magnificence, than Bernal Diaz. Most of the later writers have
placed undue reliance on his statements, assuming that the
truthfulness of his own individual feelings was the result of cool
observation. Any one who has read attentively his Mémoirs will
become convinced that he is in fact one of the most unreliable
eye-witnesses, so far as general principles are concerned....
Cortes had personal and political motives to magnify and
embellish the picture. If his statements fall far below those of his
troopers in thrilling and highly-colored details, there is every
reason to believe that they are the more trustworthy.... In the
descriptions by Cortes we find, on the whole, nothing but a
 barbarous display common to other Indian celebrations of a
similar character.”
Bandelier’s further comment is (Ibid. ii. 397) “A feudal empire
at Tezcuco was an invention of the chroniclers, who had a direct
interest, or thought to have one, in advancing the claims of the
Tezcucan tribe to an original supremacy.”
Bandelier again (Ibid. ii. 385) points out the early statements
of the conquerors, and of their annalists, which have prompted
the inference of a feudal condition of society; but he refers to
Ixtlilxochitl as “the chief originator of the feudal view;” and from
him Torquemada draws his inspiration. Wilson (Prehist. Man, i.
242) holds much the same views.

[968] Peabody Mus. Tenth Rept. vol. ii. 114.

[969] Bandelier (“Art of War, etc.,” in Peabody Mus. Rept. x. 113)

again says of De Pauw’s Recherches philosophiques sur les
Américaines, that it is “a very injudicious book, which by its
extravagance and audacity created a great deal of harm. It
permitted Clavigero to attack even Robertson, because the latter
had also applied sound criticism to the study of American
aboriginal history, and by artfully placing both as upon the same
platform, to counteract much of the good effects of Robertson’s
work.”

[970] Peabody Mus. Repts. ii. 114.

[971] In regard to the nature of the chief-of-men we find, among

much else of the first importance in the study of the Mexican
government, an exposition in Sahagún (lib. vi. cap. 20), which
seems to establish the elective and non-hereditary character of
the office. It was “this office and its attributes,” says Bandelier
(Peabody Mus. Repts. ii. 670), “which have been the main stays
of the notion that a high degree of civilization prevailed in
aboriginal Mexico, in so far as its people were ruled after the
manner of eastern despotisms.” Bandelier (Ibid. ii. 133) says: “It
is not impossible that the so-called empire of Mexico may yet
prove to have been but a confederacy of the Nahuatlac tribe of
the valley, with the Mexicans as military leaders.” His argument
on the word translated “king” is not convincing.

[972] Peabody Mus. Repts. ii. 435.

[973] Introd. to Conquest of Mexico. See Vol. II. p. 426. In the
Appendix to his third volume, Prescott, relying mainly on the
works of Dupaix and Waldeck, arrived at conclusions as respects
the origin of the Mexican civilization, and its analogies with the
Old World, which accord with those of Stephens, whose work had
not appeared at the time when Prescott wrote.

[974] Houses and House Life, p. 222.

[975] Bancroft (ii. 92) says: “What is known of the Aztecs has
furnished material for nine tenths of all that has been written on
the American civilized nations in general.”

[976] Anahuac, or Mexico and the Mexicans, Ancient and Modern

(London, 1861). Tylor enlarges upon what he considers the
evidences of immense populations; and respecting some of their
arts he adds, from inspection of specimens of their handicraft,
that “the Spanish conquerors were not romancing in the
wonderful stories they told of the skill of the native goldsmiths.”
On the other hand, Morgan (Houses and House Life, 223) thinks
the figures of population grossly exaggerated.

[977] Vol. II. p. 427.

[978] When we consider that Rome, Constantinople, and

Jerusalem, in spite of rapine, siege and fire, still retain numerous
traces of their earliest times, and that not a vestige of the Aztec
capital remains to us except its site, we must assume, in Wilson’s
opinion (Prehistoric Man, i. 331), that its edifices and causeways
must have been for the most part more slight and fragile than the
descriptions of the conquerors implied. Morgan instances as a
proof of the flimsy character of their masonry, that Cortes in
seventeen days levelled three fourths of the city of Mexico. But,
adds Wilson, “so far as an indigenous American civilization is
concerned, no doubt can be entertained, and there is little room
for questioning, that among races who had carried civilization so
far, there existed the capacity for its further development,
independently of all borrowed aid” (p. 336). The Baron
Nordenskjöld informs me that there is in the library at Upsala a
MS. map of Mexico by Santa Cruz (d. 1572) which contains
numerous ethnographical details, not to be found in printed maps
of that day.

[979] Native Races, ii. 159.

[980] Ibid. ii. 133.

[981] Bancroft has recently epitomized his views afresh in the Amer.
Antiquarian, Jan., 1888.

[982] Bancroft wrote in San Francisco, it will be remembered.

[983] It was for Bandelier, in his “Social organization and mode of

government of the ancient Mexicans” (Peabody Mus. Repts. ii.
557), to demonstrate the proposition that tribal society based,
according to Morgan, upon kin, and not political society, which
rests upon territory and property, must be looked for among the
ancient Mexicans.

[984] Morgan’s Houses, etc., 225. Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Rept.,

vol. ii. 114) speaks of the views advanced by Morgan in his
“Montezuma’s Dinner,” as “a bold stroke for the establishment of
American ethnology on a new basis.” It must be remembered
that Bandelier was Morgan’s pupil.

[985] Ibid. 222.

[986] Morgan says of his predecessors, “they learned nothing and

knew nothing” of Indian society.

[987] Ibid. 223.

[988] In this he of course assumes that the ruins in Spanish

America are of communal edifices.

[989] Bandelier’s papers are in the second volume of the Reports of

the Peabody Museum at Cambridge. He contends in his “Art of
Warfare among the Ancient Mexicans,” that he has shown the
non-existence of a military despotism, and proved their
government to be “a military democracy, originally based upon
communism in living.” A similar understanding pervades his other
essay “On the social organization and mode of government of the
ancient Mexicans.” Morgan and Bandelier profess great
admiration for each other,—Morgan citing his friend as “our most
eminent scholar in Spanish American history” (Houses, etc., 84),
and Bandelier expresses his deep feeling of gratitude, etc.
(Archæolog. Tour, 32). This affectionate relation has very likely
done something in unifying their intellectual sympathies. The
Ancient Society, or researches in the lines of human progress
 from savagery through barbarism to civilization (N. Y. 1877), of
Morgan is reflected very palpably in these papers of Bandelier.
The accounts of the war of the conquest, as detailed in Bancroft’s
Mexico (vol. i.), and the views of their war customs (Native
Races, ii. ch. 13), contrasted with Bandelier’s ideas,—who finds in
Parkman’s books “the natural parallelism between the forays of
the Iroquois and the so-called conquests of the Mexican
confederacy” (Archæol. Tour, 32), and who reduces the battle of
Otumba to an affair like that of Custer and the Sioux (Art of
Warfare),—give us in the military aspects of the ancient life the
opposed views of the two schools of interpreters.

[990] Being vol. iv. of the Contributions to No. Amer. Ethnol. in

Powell’s Survey of the Rocky Mt. Region. Some of Morgan’s
cognate studies relating to the aboriginal system of consanguinity
and laws of descent are in the Smithsonian Contributions, xvii.,
the Smithsonian Misc. Coll. ii., Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci. Trans.
vii., and Am. Assoc. Adv. Sci. Proc., 1857.

[991] Morgan in this, his last work, condenses in his first chapter
those which were numbered 1 to 4 in his Ancient Society, and in
succeeding sections he discusses the laws of hospitality,
communism, usages of land and food, and the houses of the
northern tribes, of those of New Mexico, San Juan River, the
moundbuilders, the Aztecs, and those in Yucatan and Central
America. Among these he finds three distinct ethnical stages, as
shown in the northern Indian, higher in the sedentary tribes of
New Mexico, and highest among those of Mexico and Central
America. S. F. Haven commemorated Morgan’s death in the Am.
Antiq. Soc. Proc., Apr., 1880.

[992] Cf. Bandelier on “the tenure of lands” in Peabody Mus. Repts.

(1878), no. xi., and Bancroft in Nat. Races, ii. ch. 6, p. 223.

[993] Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Repts. ii. 391) points out that when
Martin Ursúa captured Tayasál on Lake Petin, the last pueblo
inhabited by Maya Indians, he found “all the inhabitants living
brutally together, an entire relationship together in one single
house,” and Bandelier refers further to Morgan’s Ancient Society,
Part 2, p. 181.

[994] Bandelier (Peabody Mus. Repts. ii. 673) accepts the views of
Morgan, calling it “a rude clannish feast,” given by the official
household of the tribe as a part of its daily duties and obligations.
[995] On the character of the Tecpan (council house, or official
house) of the Mexicans, which the early writers translate
“palace,” with its sense of magnificence, see Bandelier (Peabody
Mus. Repts. ii. 406, 671, etc.), with his references. Morgan holds
that Stephens is largely responsible for the prevalence of
erroneous notions regarding the Mayas, by reason of using the
words “palaces” and “great cities” for defining what were really
the pueblos of these southern Indians. Bancroft (ii. 84), referring
to the ruins, says: They have “the highest value as confirming the
truth of the reports made by Spanish writers, very many, or
perhaps most, of whose statements respecting the wonderful
phenomena of the New World, without this incontrovertible
material proof, would find few believers among the skeptical
students of the present day.” Bancroft had little prescience
respecting what the communal theorists were going to say of
these ruins.

[996] Cf. Bancroft’s Cent. America, i. 317. Sir J. William Dawson, in

his Fossil Men (p. 83), contends that Morgan has proved his
point, and he calls the ruins of Spanish America “communistic
barracks” (p. 50). Higginson, in the first chapter of his Larger
History, which is a very excellent, condensed popular statement
of the new views which Morgan inaugurated, says of him very
truly, that he lacked moderation, and that there is “something
almost exasperating in the positiveness with which he sometimes
assumes as proved that which is only probable.”

[997] Bancroft in his foot-notes (vol. ii.) embodies the best

bibliography of this ancient civilization. Cf. Wilson’s Prehistoric
Man, i. ch. 14; C. Hermann Berendt’s “Centres of ancient
civilization and their geographical distribution,” an Address before
the Amer. Geog. Soc. (N. Y. 1876); Draper’s Intellectual
Development of Europe; Brasseur’s Ms. Troano; Humboldt’s
Cosmos (English transl. ii. 674); Michel Chevalier in the Revue de
deux Mondes, Mar.-July, 1845, embraced later in his Du Méxique
avant et pendant la Conquête (Paris, 1845); Brantz Mayer’s
Mexico as it was; The Galaxy, March, 1876; Scribner’s Mag. v.
724; Overland Monthly, xiv. 468; De Charency’s Hist. du
Civilisation du Méxique (Revue des Questions historiques), vi.
283; Dabry de Thiersant’s Origine des indiens du Nouveau Monde
(Paris, 1883); Peschel’s Races of Men, 441; Nadaillac’s Les
premiers hommes et les temps préhistoriques, ii. ch. 9, etc.
[998] For the bibliography of his works see Brunet, Sabin, Field,
etc. The octavo edition of his Vues has 19 of the 69 plates which
constitute the Atlas of the large edition. See the chapter on Peru
for further detail.

[999] John Lloyd Stephens, Incidents of travel in Central America,

Chiapas, and Yucatan, Lond. and N. Y. 1841,—various later eds.,
that of London, 1854, being “revised from the latest Amer. ed.,
with additions by Frederick Catherwood.” Stephens started on this
expedition in 1839, and he was armed with credentials from
President Van Buren. He travelled 3000 miles, and visited eight
ruined cities, as shown by his route given on the map in vol. i. Cf.
references in Allibone, ii. p. 2240; Poole’s Index, p. 212; his
Incidents of Travel in Yucatan will be mentioned later.
Frederick Catherwood’s Views of Ancient Monuments in Central
America, Chiapas, and Yucatan (Lond. 1844) has a brief text (pp.
24) and 25 lithographed plates. Some of the original drawings
used in making these plates were included in the Squier
Catalogue, p. 229. (Sabin’s Dict. iii. no. 11520.) Captain Lindesay
Brine, in his paper on the “Ruined Cities of Central America”
(Journal Roy. Geog. Soc. 1872, p. 354; Proc. xvii. 67), testifies to
the accuracy of Stephens and Catherwood. These new
developments furnished the material for numerous purveyors to
the popular mind, some of them of the slightest value, like Asahel
Davis, whose Antiquities of Central America, with some slight
changes of title, and with the parade of new editions, were
common enough between 1840 and 1850.

[1000] Viollet le Duc, in his Histoire de l’habitation humaine depuis

les temps préhistoriques (Paris, 1875), has given a chapter (no.
xxii.) to the “Nahuas and Toltecs.” Views more or less studied,
comprehensive, and restricted are given in R. Cary Long’s Ancient
Architecture of America, its historic value and parallelism of
development with the architecture of the Old World (N. Y. 1849),
an address from the N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc. 1849, p. 117; R. P.
Greg on “the Fret or Key Ornament in Mexico and Peru,” in the
Archæologia (London), vol. xlvii. 157; and a popular summary on
“the pyramid in America,” by S. D. Peet, in the American
Antiquarian, July, 1888, comparing the mounds of Cholula,
Uxmal, Palenqué, Teotihuacan, Copan, Quemada, Cohokia, St.
Louis, etc. John T. Short summarizes the characteristics of the
Nahua and Maya styles (No. Amer. of Antiquity, 340, 359). There
 are chapters on their architecture in Bancroft, Nat. Races, ii.; but
the references in his vol. iv. are most helpful.

[1001] Vols. v. vi. vii. on “Ancient Mexican Civilization,” “Pyramid of

Teotihuacan,” “Sacrificial Calendar Stone,” “Central America at
time of Conquest,” “Ruins at Palenque and Copan,” “Ruins of
Uxmal,” etc.

[1002] Duplicates were placed in the Nat. Museum at Washington

by the liberality of Pierre Lorillard.

[1003] The English translation is condensed in parts: The ancient

cities of the New World: being travels and explorations in Mexico
and Central America from 1857-1882. Translated from the French
by J. Gonino and Helen S. Conant. (London, 1887.) Some of his
notable results were the discovery of stucco ornaments in the
province of Iturbide, among ruins which he unfortunately named
Lorillard City (Eng. tr. ch. 22). The palace at Tula is also figured in
Brocklehurst’s Mexico to-day, ch. 25. The discovery of what
Charnay calls glass and porcelain is looked upon as doubtful by
most archæologists, who believe the specimens to be rather
traces of Spanish contact.

[1004] Bancroft, iv. 453, and references.

[1005] Bandelier (p. 235) is confident that it was built by an earlier

people than the Nahuas.

[1006] Cf. Bandelier, p. 247. Short, p. 236.

[1007] Bancroft (v. 200) gives references on these points, and

particular note may be taken of Veytia, i. 18, 155, 199; and
Brasseur, Hist. Nations Civ. iv. 182. Cf. also Nadaillac, p. 351.
Bandelier (Archæolog. Tour, 248, 249) favors the gradual growth
theory, and collates early sources (p. 250). Bancroft (iv. 474)
holds that we may feel very sure its erection dates back of the
tenth, and perhaps of the seventh, century.

[1008] Bandelier’s idea (p. 254) is that as the Indians never repair a
ruin, they abandoned this remaining mound after its disaster, and
transplanted the worship of Quetzalcoatl to the new mound, since
destroyed, while the old shrine was in time given to the new cult
of the Rain-god.
[1009] As Bancroft thinks; but Bandelier says that it was not of this
mound, but of the temple which stood where the modern
convent stands, that this count was made. Arch. Tour, 242.

[1010] Storia Ant. del Messico, ii. 33.

[1011] Vues, i. 96 pl. iii., or pl. vii., viii. in folio ed.; Essai polit., 239.
The later observers are: Dupaix (Antiq. Mex., and in
Kingsborough, v. 218; with iv. pl. viii.). Bancroft remarks on the
totally different aspects of Castañeda’s two drawings. Nebel, in
his Viaje pintoresco y Arqueolójico sobre la república Mejicana,
1829-34 (Paris, 1839, folio), gave a description and a large
colored drawing. Of the other visitors whose accounts add
something to our knowledge, Bancroft (iv. 471) notes the
following: J. R. Poinsett, Notes on Mexico (London, 1825). W. H.
Bullock, Six Months in Mexico (Lond., 1825). H. G. Ward, Mexico
in 1827 (Lond., 1828). Mark Beaufoy, Mex. Illustrations (Lond.,
1828), with cuts. Charles Jos. Latrobe, Rambles in Mexico (Lond.,
1836). Brantz Mayer, Mexico as it was (N. Y., 1854); Mexico,
Aztec, etc. (Hartford, 1853); and in Schoolcraft, Ind. Tribes, vi.
582. Waddy Thompson, Recoll. of Mexico (N. Y., 1847). E. B.
Tylor, Anahuac (Lond., 1861), p. 274. A. S. Evans, Our Sister
Republic (Hartford, 1870). Summaries later than Bancroft’s will be
found in Short, p. 369, and Nadaillac, p. 350. Bancroft adds (iv.
471-2) a long list of second-hand describers.

[1012] It is illustrated with a map of the district of Cholula (p. 158),

a detailed plan of the pyramid or mound (Humboldt is responsible
for the former term) as it stands amid roads and fields (p. 230),
and a fac-simile of an old map of the pueblo of Cholula (1581).
Bandelier speaks of the conservative tendencies of the native
population of this region, giving a report that old native idols are
still preserved and worshipped in caves, to which he could not
induce the Indians to conduct him (p. 156); and that when he
went to see the Mapa de Cuauhtlantzinco, or some native
pictures of the 16th century, representing the Conquest, and of
the highest importance for its history, he was jealously allowed
but one glance at them, and could not get another (Archæol.
Tour, p. 123). He adds: “The difficulty attending the consultation
of any documents in the hands of Indians is universal, and results
from their superstitious regard for writings on paper. The bulk of
the people watch with the utmost jealousy over their old
 papers.... They have a fear lest the power vested in an original
may be transferred to a copy” (pp. 155-6).

[1013] Pinart, no. 590.

[1014] He repeats Alzate’s plate of the restoration of the ruins.

[1015] Bancroft refers (iv. 483) to various compiled accounts, to

which may be added his own and Short’s (p. 371). Cf. F. Boncourt
in the Revue d’Ethnographie (1887).

[1016] Prescott, Kirk ed., i. 12. See the map of the plateau of
Anahuac in Ruge, Gesch. des Zeitalters der Entdeck., i. 363.

[1017] Cf. Gros in the Archives de la Com. Scient. du Méxique, vol.

i.; H. de Saussure on the Découverte des ruines d’une ancienne
ville Méxicaine située sur le plateau de l’Anahuac (Paris, 1858,—
Bull. Soc Géog. de Paris).

[1018] The same is true of the earliest Spanish buildings.

Icazbalceta (México en 1554, p. 74) says that the soil is
constantly accumulating, and the whole city gradually sinks.

[1019] Bancroft (iv. 505, 516, with references) says that such
objects, when brought to light by excavations, have not always
been removed from their hiding-places; and he argues that
beneath the city there may yet be “thousands of interesting
monuments.” Cf. B. Mayer’s Mexico as it was, vol. ii.
Bandelier (Archæol. Tour, Part ii. p. 49) gives us valuable
“Archæological Notes about the City of Mexico,” in which he says
that Alfredo Chavero owns a very large oil painting, said to have
been executed in 1523, giving a view of the aboriginal city and
the principal events of the Conquest. It shows that the ancient
city was about one quarter the size of the modern town.
We find descriptions of the city before the conquerors
transformed it, in Brasseur’s Hist. Nations Civ. iii. 187; iv. line 13;
and in Bancroft (ii. ch. 18) there is a collation of authorities on
Nahua buildings, with specific references on the city of Mexico (ii.
p. 567). Bandelier describes with citations its military aspects at
the time of the Conquest (Peabody Mus. Reports, x. 151).
The movable relics found in Mexico are the following:—
1. The calendar stone. See annexed cut.
2. Teoyamique. See cut in the appendix of this volume.
 3. Sacrificial stone. See annexed cut.
4. Indio triste. See annexed cut.
5. Head of a serpent, discovered in 1881. Cf. Bandelier’s
Archæol. Tour, p. 69.
6. Human head. Cf. Bancroft, iv. 518. All of the above, except
the calendar stone, are in the Museo Nacional.
7. Gladiatorial stone, discovered in 1792, but left buried. Cf. B.
Mayer’s Mexico, 123; Bancroft, iv. 516; Kingsborough, vii. 94;
Sahagún, lib. ii.
8. A few other less important objects. Cf. Bandelier, Archæol.
Tour, 52.
Antonio de Leon y Gama, who unfortunately had no knowledge
of the writings of Sahagún, has discussed most of these relics in
his Descripcion histórico y Cronológico de las dos Piedras &. (2d
ed. Bustamante, 1832.)

[1020] Bancroft, iv. 520, with authorities, p. 523. Cf. American

Antiquarian, May, 1888.

[1021] Bancroft’s numerous references make a foot-note (iv. 530).

He adds a plan from Almaraz, and says that the description of
Linares (Soc. Mex. Geog. Boletin, 30, i. 103) is mainly drawn from
Almaraz. It is believed, but not absolutely proven, that the
mounds were natural ones, artificially shaped (Bandelier, 44). The
extent of the ruins is very great, and it is a current belief that the
city in its prime must have been very large. The whole region is
exceptionally rich in fragmentary and small relics, like pottery,
obsidian implements, and terra-cotta heads. Cf. for these last,
Lond. Geog. Soc. Journal, vii. 10; Thompson’s Mexico, 140;
Nebel, Viaje; Mayer’s Mexico as it was, 227 (as cited in Bancroft,
iv. 542); and later publications like T. U. Brocklehurst’s Mexico to-
day (Lond., 1883), and Zelia Nuttall’s “Terra Cotta Heads from
Teotihuacan,” in the Amer. Journal of Archæology (June and Sept.
1886), ii. 157, 318.
Bancroft judges that the ruins date back to the sixth century,
and says that these mounds served for models of the Aztec
teocallis. On the commission already referred to was Antonio
García y Cubas, who conducted some personal explorations, and
in describing these in a separate publication, Ensayo de un
Estudio Comparativo entre las Pirámides Egípcias y Mexicanas
(Mexico, 1871), he points out certain analogies of the American
and Egyptian structures, which will be found in epitome in
 Bancroft (iv. 543). In discussing the monoliths of the ruins, Amos
W. Butler (Amer. Antiquarian, May, 1885), in a paper on “The
Sacrificial Stone of San Juan Teotihuacan,” advanced some views
that are controverted by W. H. Holmes in the Amer. Journal of
Archæology (i. 361), from whose foot-notes a good bibliography
of the subject can be derived. Bandelier (Archæol. Tour, 42)
thinks that because no specific mention is made of them in
Mexican tradition, it is safe to infer that these monuments
antedate the Mexicans, and were in ruins at the time of the
Conquest.

[1022] The early writers make little mention of the place except as
one of the halting-places of the Aztec migration. Torquemada has
something to say (quoted in Soc. Mex. Geog. Bol., 2º, iii. 278,
with the earliest of the modern accounts by Manuel Gutierrez, in
1805). Capt. G. F. Lyon (Journal of a residence and tour in
Mexico, London, 1828) visited the ruins in 1828. Pedro Rivera in
1830 described them in Márcos de Esparza’s Informe presentado
al Gobierno (Zacatecas, 1830,—also in Museo Méxicano, i. 185,
1843). The plan in Nebel’s Viaje (copied in Bancroft, iv. 582) was
made for Governor García, by Berghes, a German engineer, in
1831, who at the time was accompanied by J. Burkart (Aufenthalt
und Reisen in Mexico, Stuttgart, 1836), who gives a plan of fewer
details. Bancroft (iv. 579) thinks Nebel’s views of the ruins the
only ones ever published, and he enumerates various second-
hand writers (iv. 579).
Cf. Fegeux, “Les ruines de la Quemada,” in the Revue
d’Ethnologie, i. 119. The noticeable features of these ruins are
their massiveness and height of walls, their absence of decoration
and carved idols, and the lack of pottery and the smaller relics.
Their history, notwithstanding much search, is a blank.

[1023] Cf. Bandelier, p. 320.

[1024] Bandelier, p. 276.

[1025] Ramirez, ed. 1867.

[1026] His brief account is copied by Mendieta and Torquemada,

and is cited in Bandelier, p. 324.

[1027] Geog. Descripcion, ii. cited in Bandelier, 324. Cf. Soc. Mex.
Geog. Boletin, vii. 170.
[1028] Bandelier says (p. 279) that he saw them in the library of
the Institute of Oaxaca, and that, though admirable, they have a
certain tendency to over-restoration,—the besetting sin of all
explorers who make drawings.

[1029] Cf. Field, no. 1612.

[1030] Ruines, etc., 261, and Viollet le Duc, p. 74; Anciens Villes,
ch. 24.

[1031] There is a Rapport sur les ruines, by Doutrelaine, in the

Archives de la Commission Scientifique du Méxique (vol. iii.);
Nadaillac (p. 364) and Short (p. 361) have epitomized results,
and Louis H. Aymé gives some Notes on Mitla in the Amer. Antiq.
Soc. Proc., April, 1882, p. 82; Bancroft (iv. 391) enumerates
various second-hand descriptions.

[1032] I do not understand Bandelier’s statement (p. 277) that it is

taken from Bancroft’s plan, which it only resembles in a general
way.

[1033] Bancroft classifies their architectural peculiarities (iv. pp.

267-279).

[1034] See Vol. II. ch. 3. Bancroft (ii. p. 784) collates the early
accounts of the habitations of the people, and (iv. 254, 260, 261)
the descriptions of the ruins and statelier edifices, as seen by
these explorers.

[1035] For. Q. Rev., xviii. 251.

[1036] Cf. Poole’s Index, p. 1439.

[1037] Bancroft, iv. 145; Field, no. 1138; Leclerc, no. 1217; Pilling,
p. 2767; Dem. Review, xi. 529. Cf. Poole’s Index, P. 1439.

[1038] Registro Yucateco, ii. 437; Diccionario Universal (México,

1853), x. 290.

[1039] Bandelier, Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., n. s., i. 92, calls the paper
“not very valuable.”

[1040] This gentleman, since the death of his father, of the same
name, succeeded, after an interval, the elder antiquary in the
president’s chair of the American Antiquarian Society.
[1041] Cf. Short, p. 396. Le Plongeon retorts (Amer. Antiq. Soc.
Proc., n. s., i. 282) by telling his critic that he had never been in
Yucatan. Considering the effect of contact in many of those who
have written of the ruins, it may be a question if the implication is
valuable as a piece of criticism. Mr. Salisbury and Dr. Le Plongeon
reported from time to time in the Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc. the
results of the latter’s investigations, and the researches to which
they gave rise. Those in April, 1876, and April, 1877, of these
Proceedings, were privately printed by Mr. Salisbury, as The
Mayas, etc. In April, 1878, Mr. Salisbury reported upon the “Terra-
cotta figures from Isla Mujeres.” In Oct., 1878, there were
communications from Dr. Le Plongeon, and from Alice D. Le
Plongeon, his wife. In April, 1879, Dr. Le Plongeon communicated
a letter on the affinities of Central America and the East. Since
this the Le Plongeons have found other channels of
communication. Dr. Le Plongeon expanded his somewhat
extravagant notions of Oriental affinities in his Sacred mysteries
among the Mayas and the Quiches, 11,500 years ago; their
relation to the sacred mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Chaldea, and
India. Freemasonry in times anterior to the temple of Solomon
(New York, 1886).
His preface is largely made up with a rehearsal of his rebuffs
and in complaints of the want of public appreciation of his labors.
He is, however, as confident as ever, and deciphers the bas-reliefs
and mural inscriptions of Chichen-Itza by “the ancient hieratic
Maya alphabet” which he claims to have discovered, and shows
this alphabet in parallel columns with that of Egypt as displayed
by Champollion and Bunsen. Mrs. Le Plongeon published her
Vestiges of the Mayas in New York, in 1881, and gathered some
of her periodical writings in her Here and There in Yucatan (N. Y.,
1886). Cf. her letter on the ancient records of Yucatan in The
Nation, xxix. 224.

[1042] Baldwin (p. 125), in a condensed way, and likewise Short

(ch. 8) and Bancroft (iv. ch. 5), more at length, have mainly
depended on Stephens. Cf. references in Bancroft, iv. 147, and
Bandelier’s list in the Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., n. s., i. 82, 95. E. H.
Thompson has contributed papers in Ibid. Oct., 1886, p. 248, and
April, 1887, p. 379, and on the ruins of Kich-Moo and Chun-Kal-
Cin in April, 1888, p. 162. Brasseur, beside his Hist. Nat. Civ., ii.
20, has something in his introduction to his Relation de Landa.
The description of the ruins at Zayi, which Stephens gives, shows
that some of the rooms were filled solid with masonry, and he
 leaves it as an unaccountable fact; but Morgan (Houses and
House Life, p. 267) thinks it shows that the builders constructed a
core of masonry, over which they reared the walls and ceilings,
which last, after hardening, were able to support themselves,
when the cores were removed; and that in the ruins at Zayi we
see the cores unremoved.

[1043] Cf. the pros and cons in Waldeck and Charnay. Waldeck first
named the ornaments as “Elephants’ trunks” (Voy. Pitt. p. 74).
There are cuts in Stephens, reproduced in Bancroft. There is also
a cut in Norman. Cf. E. H. Thompson in Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc.,
April, 1887, p. 382.

[1044] Stephens, Yucatan, ii. 265, gives an ancient Indian map

(1557), and extracts from the archives of Mani, which lead him to
infer that at that time it was an inhabited Indian town.

[1045] Bancroft (iv. 151) gives various references to second-hand

descriptions, noted before 1875, to which may be added those in
Short, p. 347; Nadaillac, 334; Amer. Antiquarian, vii. 257, and
again, July, 1888.
Probably the most accurate of the plans of the ruins is that of
Stephens (Yucatan, i. 165), which is followed by Bancroft (iv.
153). Brasseur’s report has a plan, and others, all differing, are
given by Waldeck (pl. viii.), Norman (p. 155), and Charnay
(Ruines, p. 62). Views and cuts of details are found in Waldeck,
Stephens, Charnay,—whence later summarizers like Bancroft,
Baldwin, and Short have drawn their copies; while special cuts
are copied in Armin (Das Heutige Mexico); Larenaudière (Mexique
et Guatemala, Paris, 1847); Le Plongeon (Sacred Mysteries);
Ruge (Zeitalter der Entdeckungen, p. 357); Morgan (Houses, etc.,
ch. xi.), and in various others. One can best trace the varieties
and contrasts of the different accounts of the various edifices in
Bancroft’s collations of their statements. His constant citation,
even to scorn them, of the impertinencies of George Jones’s Hist.
of Anc. America (London, 1842),—the later notorious Count
Johannes,—was hardly worth while.

[1046] Landa described the ruins. Relation, p. 340.

[1047] All other accounts are based on these. Bancroft, who gives
the best summary (iv. 221), enumerates many of the second-
hand writers, to whom Short (p. 396) must be added. Stephens
 gives a plan (ii. 290) which Bancroft (iv. 222) follows; and it
apparently is worthy of reasonable confidence, which cannot be
said of Norman’s. The ruins present some features not found in
others, and the most interesting of such may be considered the
wall paintings, one representing a boat with occupants, which
Stephens found on the walls of the building called by him the
Gymnasium, because of stone rings projecting from the walls
(see annexed cut), which were supposed by him to have been
used in ball games. Norman calls the same building the Temple;
Charnay, the Cirque; but the native designation is Iglesia.

[1048] Yucatan, i. 94. Cf. Bancroft, Native Races, ii. 117; v. 164,
342.

[1049] Bancroft collates the views of different writers (iv. 285). He

himself holds that these buildings are more ancient than those of
Anáhuac; consequently he rejects the arguments of Stephens,
that it was by the Toltecs, after they migrated south from
Anáhuac, that these constructions were raised (Native Races, v.
165, and for references, p. 169). Charnay (Bull. de la Soc. de
Géog., Nov., 1881) believes they were erected between the
twelfth and fourteenth centuries.
It is well known now that the concentric rings are a useless
guide in tropical regions to determine the age of trees, though in
the past, the immense size of trees as well as the deposition of
soil have been used to determine the supposed ages of ruins.
Waldeck counted a ring a year in getting two thousand years for
the time since the abandonment of Palenqué; but Charnay (Eng.
tr. Ancient Cities, p. 260) says that these rings are often formed
monthly. Cf. Nadaillac, p. 323.

[1050] So called because near a modern village of that name,

founded by the Spaniards about 1564. Bancroft (iv. 296) says the
ruins are ordinarily called by the natives Casas de Piedra.
Ordoñez calls them Nachan, but without giving any authority, and
some adopt the Aztec equivalent Calhuacan, city of the serpents.
Because Xibalba is held by some to be the name of the great city
of this region in the shadowy days of Votan, that name has also
been applied to the ruins. Otolum, or the ruined place, is a
common designation thereabouts, but Palenqué is the appellation
in use by most travellers and writers.
[1051] The fact is, that widely distinct estimates have been held,
some dating them back into the remotest antiquity, and others
making them later than the Conquest. Bancroft (iv. 362) collates
these statements. Cf. Dr. Earl Flint in Amer. Antiquarian, iv. 289.
Morelet identifies them with the Toltec remains, supposing them
to be the work of that people after their emigration, and to be of
about the same age as Mitla. Charnay (Anc. Cities of the New
World, p. 260) claims that Cortes knew the place as the religious
metropolis of the Acaltecs. On the question of Cortes’ knowledge
see Science, Feb. 27, 1885, p. 171; and Ibid. (by Brinton) March
27, 1885, p. 248.

[1052] The original is in the Roy. Acad. of Hist. at Madrid (Brasseur,

Bib. Mex.-Guat., p. 125), and is called Descripcion del terreno
publacion antigua.

[1053] Field, no. 231; Sabin, xvii. p. 292. The report of Rio was
brief, and as we would judge now, superficial. Dupaix treats him
disparagingly. The appended essay by Cabrera, an Italian, is said
to have been largely filched from Ramon’s paper, which had been
confidentially placed in his hands (Short, 207). A Spanish text of
Cabrera is in the Museo Nacional. Cf. Brasseur (Bib. Mex.-Guat.),
p. 30; Pinart, no. 186. It is a question if the plates, which
constituted the most interesting part of the English book, be Rio’s
after all; for though they profess to be engraved after his
drawings, they are suspiciously like those made by Castañeda,
twenty years after Rio’s visit (Bancroft, iv. 290). David B. Warden
translated Rio’s report in the Recueil de voyages et de Mémoires,
par la Soc. de in Géog. de Paris. (vol. ii.), and gave some of the
plates. (Cf. Warden’s Recherches sur les antiquités de l’Amérique
Septentrionale, Paris, 1827, in Mém. de la Soc. de Géog.) There is
a German version, Beschreibung einer alten Stadt (Berlin, 1832),
by J. H. von Minutoli, which is provided with an introductory
essay.

[1054] Sabin, x. 209, 213. Cf. Annales de Philos. Chrétienne, xi.

[1055] Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de Paris, ix. (1828) 198. Dupaix, i.

2d div. 76.

[1056] “Palenque et autres lieux circonvoisins,” in Dupaix, i. 2d div.

67 (in English in Literary Gazette, London, 1831, no. 769, and in
Lond. Geog. Soc. Journal, iii. 60). Cf. Bull. de la Soc. de Géog. de
 Paris, 1832. He is overenthusiastic, as Bandelier thinks (Amer.
Ant. Soc. Proc., n. s., i. p. 111).

[1057] The report by Angrand, which induced this purchase, is in

the work as published.

[1058] He had described them in his Hist. Nat. Civ., i. ch. 3.

[1059] The book usually sells for about 150 francs.

[1060] Given, also enlarged, in the folio known as Catherwood’s

Views.

[1061] The German version was made from this (Jena, 1872).

[1062] Particularly ch. 13, 14. Charnay is the last of the explorers of
Palenqué. All the other accounts of the ruins found here and
there are based on the descriptions of those who have been
named, or at least nothing is added of material value by other
actual visitors like Norman (Rambles in Yucatan, p. 284). Bancroft
(iv. 294) enumerates a number of such second-hand describers.
The most important work since Bancroft’s summary is Manuel
Larrainzar’s Estudios sobre la historia de America, sus ruinas y
antigüedades, y sobre el orígen de sus habitantes (Mexico, 1875-
78), in five vols., all of whose plates are illustrations from the
ruins of Palenqué, which are described and compared with other
ancient remains throughout the world. Cf. Brühl, Culturvölker d.
alt. Amerikas. Plans of the ruins will be found in Waldeck (pl. vii.,
followed mainly by Bancroft, iv. 298, 307), Stephens (ii. 310),
Dupaix (pl. xi.), Kingsborough (iv. pl. 13), and Charnay (ch. 13
and 14). The views of the ruins given by these authorities mainly
make up the stock of cuts in all the popular narratives.
The most interesting of the carvings is what is known as the
Tablet of the Cross, which was taken from one of the minor
buildings, and is now in the National Museum at Washington. It
has often been engraved, but such representations never
satisfied the student till they could be tested by the best of
Charnay’s photographs. (Engravings in Brasseur and Waldeck, pl.
21, 22; Rosny’s Essai sur le déchiffrement, etc.; Minutoli’s
Beschreibung einer alten Stadt in Guatimala (Berlin, 1832);
Stephens’s Cent. Amer., ii.; Bancroft, Nat. Races, iv. 333;
Charnay, Les anciens Villes, and Eng. transl. p. 255; Nadaillac,
325; Powell’ s Rept., i. 221; cf. p. 234; Amer. Antiquarian, vii.
200.) The most important discussion of the tablet is Charles Rau’s
Palenqué Tablet in the U. S. National Museum (Washington,
1879), being the Smithsonian Contri. to Knowledge, no. 331, or
vol. xxii. It contains an account of the explorations that have
been made at Palenqué, and a chapter on the “Aboriginal writing
in Mexico, Central America, and Yucatan, with some account of
the attempted translations of Maya hieroglyphics.” Rau’s
conclusion is that it is a Phallic symbol. Cf. a summary in Amer.
Antiquarian, vi., Jan., 1884, and in Amer. Art Review, 1880, p.
217. Rau’s paper was translated into Spanish and French: Tablero
del Palenque en el Museo nacional de los Estados-Unidos
[traducido por Joaquin Davis y Miguel Perez], in the Anales del
Museo nacional. Tomo 2, pp. 131-203. (México, 1880.) La Stèle
de Palenqué du Musée national des Etats-Unis, à Washington.
Traduit de l’Anglais avec autorisation de l’auteur. In the Annales
du Musée Guimet, vol. x. (Paris, 1887.) Rau’s views were
criticised by Morgan.
There are papers by Charency on the interpretation of the
hieroglyphs in Le Muséon (Paris, 1882, 1883).
The significance of the cross among the Nahuas and Mayas
has been the subject of much controversy, some connecting it
with a possible early association with Christians in ante-
Columbian days (Bancroft, iii. 468). On this later point see
Bamps, Les traditions relatives à l’homme blanc et au signe de la
cruz en Amérique à l’Epoque précolumbienne, in the Compte
rendu, Congrès des Américanistes (Copenhagen, 1883), p. 125;
and “Supposed vestiges of early Christian teaching in America,” in
the Catholic Historical Researches (vol. i., Oct., 1885). The
symbolism is variously conceived. Bandelier (Archæol. Jour.)
holds it to be the emblem of fire, indeed an ornamented fire-drill,
which later got mixed up with the Spanish crucifix. Brinton (Myths
of the New World, 95) sees in it the four cardinal points, the rain-
bringers, the symbol of life and health, and cites (p. 96) various
of the early writers in proof. Brinton (Am. Hero Myths, 155)
claims to have been the first to connect the Palenqué cross with
the four cardinal points. The bird and serpent—the last shown
better in Charnay’s photograph than in Stephens’s cut—is (Myths,
119) simply a rebus of the air-god, the ruler of the winds. Brinton
says that Waldeck, in a paper on the tablet in the Revue
Américaine (ii. 69), came to a similar conclusion. Squier
(Nicaragua, ii. 337) speaks of the common error of mistaking the
tree of life of the Mexicans for the Christian symbol. Cf. Powell’s
Second Rept., Bur. of Ethnol., p. 208; the Fourth Rept., p. 252,
 where discredit is thrown upon Gabriel de Mortillet’s Le Signe de
la cross avant le Christianisme (Paris, 1866); Joly’s Man before
Metals, 339; and Charnay’s Les Anciens Villes (or Eng. transl. p.
85). Cf. for various applications the references in Bancroft’s index
(v. p. 671).

[1063] Both were alike, and one was broken in two. There are
engravings in Waldeck, pl. 25; Stephens, ii. 344, 349; Squier’s
Nicaragua, 1856, ii. 337; Bancroft, iv. 337.

[1064] These have been the subject of an elaborate folio, thought,

however, to be of questionable value, Die Steinbildwerke von
Copân und Quiriguâ, aufgenommen von Heinrich Meye; historisch
erläutert und beschrieben von Dr. Julius Schmidt (Berlin, 1883),
of which there is an English translation, The stone sculptures of
Copán and Quiriguá; translated from the German by a.d. Savage
(New York, 1883). It gives twenty plates, Catherwood’s plates,
and the cuts in Stephens, with reproductions in accessible books
(Bancroft, iv. ch. 3; Powell’s First Rept. Bur. Ethn. 224; Ruge’s
Gesch. des Zeitalters; Amer. Antiquarian, viii. 204-6), will serve,
however, all purposes.

[1065] Squier says: “There are various reasons for believing that
both Copan and Quirigua antedate Olosingo and Palenqué,
precisely as the latter antedate the ruins of Quiché, Chichen-Itza,
and Uxmal, and that all of them were the work of the same
people, or of nations of the same race, dating from a high
antiquity, and in blood and language precisely the same that was
found in occupation of the country by the Spaniards.”

[1066] Named apparently from a neighboring village.

[1067] Ref. in Bancroft, iv. 79.

[1068] This account can be found in Pacheco’s Col. Doc. inéd. vi.
37, in Spanish; in Ternaux’s Coll. (1840), imperfect, and in the
Nouv. Annales des Voyages, 1843, v. xcvii. p. 18, in French; in
Squier’s Cent. America, 242, and in his ed. of Palacio (N. Y.
1860), in English; and in Alexander von Frantzius’s San Salvador
und Honduras im Jahre 1576, with notes by the translator and by
C. H. Berendt.

[1069] Stephens, Cent. Am., i. 131, 144; Warden, 71; Nouvelles

Annales des Voyages, xxxv. 329; Bancroft, iv. 82; Bull. de la Soc.
 de Géog. de Paris, 1836, v. 267; Short, 56, 82,—not to name
others.

[1070] His account is in the Amer. Antiq. Soc. Trans., ii.; Bull. Soc.
de Géog. 1835; Dupaix, a summary, i. div. 2, p. 73; Bradford’s
Amer. Antiq., in part. Galindo’s drawings are unknown. Stephens
calls his account “unsatisfactory and imperfect.”

[1071] Central America, i. ch. 5-7; Views of Anc. Mts. It is

Stephens’s account which has furnished the basis of those given
by Bancroft (iv. ch. 3); Baldwin, p. 111; Short, 356; Nadaillac,
328, and all others. Bancroft in his bibliog. note (iv. pp. 79-81),
which has been collated with my own notes, mentions others of
less importance, particularly the report of Center and Hardcastle
to the Amer. Ethnol. Soc. in 1860 and 1862, and the photographs
made by Ellerley, which Brasseur (Hist. Nat. Civ. i. 96; ii. 493;
Palenqué, 8, 17) found to confirm the drawings and descriptions
of Catherwood and Stephens.
Stephens (Cent. Am., i. 133) made a plan of the ruins
reproduced in Annales des Voyages (1841, p. 57), which is the
basis of that given by Bancroft (iv. 85). Dr. Julius Schmidt, who
was a member of the Squier expedition in 1852-53, furnished the
historical and descriptive text to a work which in the English
translation by a.d. Savage is known as Stone Sculptures of Copán
and Quiriguá, drawn by Heinrich Meye (N. Y., 1883). What
Stephens calls the Copan idols and altars are considered by
Morgan (Houses and House Life, 257), following the analogy of
the customs of the northern Indians, to be the grave-posts and
graves of Copan chiefs. Bancroft (iv. ch. 3) covers the other ruins
of Honduras and San Salvador; and Squier has a paper on those
of Tenampua in the N. Y. Hist. Soc. Proc., 1853.

[1072] Stephens’s Central America, ii. ch. 7; and Nouvelles Annales

des Voyages, vol. lxxxviii. 376, derived from Catherwood.

[1073] Other travellers who have visited them are John Baily,
Central America (Lond. 1850); A. P. Maudsley, Explorations in
Guatemala (Lond. 1883), with map and plans of ruins, in the
Proc. Roy. Geog. Soc. p. 185; W. T. Brigham’s Guatemala (N. Y.,
1886). Bancroft (iv. 109) epitomizes the existing knowledge; but
the remains seem to be less known than any other of the
considerable ruins. There are a few later papers: G. Williams on
the Antiquities of Guatemala, in the Smithsonian Report, 1876;
 Simeon Habel’s “Sculptures of Santa Lucia Cosumalhuapa in
Guatemala” in the Smithson. Contrib. xxii. (Washington, 1878), or
“Sculptures de Santa (Lucia) Cosumalwhuapa dans le Guatémala,
avec une rélation de voyages dans l’Amérique Centrale et sur les
cótes occidentales de l’Amérique du Sud, par S. Habel. Traduit de
l’anglais, par J. Pointet,” with eight plates, in the Annales du
Musée Guimet, vol. x. pp. 119-259 (Paris, 1887); Philipp Wilhelm
Adolf Bastian’s “Stein Sculpturen aus Guatemala,” in the Jahrbuch
der k. Museen zu Berlin, 1882, or “Notice sur les pierres sculptées
du Guatémala récemment acquises par le Musée royal
d’ethnographie de Berlin. Traduit avec autorisation de l’auteur par
J. Pointet,” in the Annales du Musée Guimet, vol. x. pp. 261-305
(Paris, 1887); and C. E. Vreeland and J. F. Bransford, on the
Antiquities at Pantaleon, Guatemala (Washington, 1885), from
the Smithsonian Report for 1884.

[1074] Nicaragua; its people, scenery, monuments, and the

proposed interoceanic canal (N. Y., 1856; revised 1860), a portion
(pp. 303-362) referring to the modern Indian occupants. Squier
was helped by his official station as U. S. chargé d’affaires; and
the archæological objects brought away by him are now in the
National Museum at Washington. He published separate papers in
the Amer. Ethnol. Soc. Trans. ii.; Smithsonian Ann. Rept. v.
(1850); Harper’s Monthly, x. and xi. Cf. list in Pilling, nos. 3717,
etc.

[1075] His explorations were in 1865-66. He carried off what he

could to the British Museum.

[1076] Like Bedford Pim and Berthold Seemann’s Dottings on the

Roadside in Panama, Nicaragua, and Mosquito (Lond., 1869).

[1077] J. F. Bransford’s “Archæological Researches in Nicaragua,” in

the Smithsonian Contrib. (Washington, 1881). Karl Bovallius’s
Nicaraguan Antiquities, with plates (Stockholm, 1886), published
by the Swedish Society of Anthropology and Geography, figures
various statues and other relics found by the author in Nicaragua,
and he says that his drawings are in some instances more exact
than those given by Squier before the days of photography. In his
introduction he describes the different Indian stocks of Nicaragua,
and disagrees with Squier. He gives a useful map of Nicaragua
and Costa Rica.
[1078] It is only of late years that they have been kept apart, for
the elder writers like Kingsborough, Stephens, and Brantz Mayer,
confounded them.

[1079] The Father Alonzo Ponce, who travelled through Yucatan in

1586, is the only writer, according to Brinton (Books of Chilan
Balam, p. 5), who tells us distinctly that the early missionaries
made use of aboriginal characters in giving religious instruction to
the natives (Relacion Breve y Verdadera).

[1080] Leon y Gama tells us that color as well as form seems to

have been representative.

[1081] See references on the accepted difficulties in Native Races,

ii. 551. Mrs. Nuttall claims to have observed certain complemental
signs in the Mexican graphic system, “which renders a
misinterpretation of the Nahuatl picture-writings impossible” (Am.
Asso. Adv. Science, Proc., xxxv. Aug., 1886); Peabody Mus.
Papers, i. App.

[1082] Prehist. Man, ii. 57, 64, for his views

[1083] Bancroft, Native Races, ii. ch. 17 (pp. 542, 552) gives a
good description of the Aztec system, with numerous references;
but on this system, and on the hieroglyphic element in general,
see Gomara; Bernal Diaz; Motolinia in Icazbalceta’s Collection, i.
186, 209; Ternaux’s Collection, x. 250; Kingsborough, vi. 87; viii.
190; ix. 201, 235, 287, 325; Acosta, lib. vi. cap. 7; Sahagún, i. p.
iv.; Torquemada, i. 29, 30, 36, 149, 253; ii. 263, 544; Las Casas’s
Hist. Apologética; Purchas’s Pilgrimes, iii. 1069; iv. 1135;
Clavigero, ii. 187; Robertson’s America; Boturini’s Idea, pp. 5, 77,
87, 96, 112, 116; Humboldt’s Vues, i. 177, 192; Veytia, i. 6, 250;
Gallatin in Am. Ethn. Soc. Trans. i. 126, 165; Prescott’s Mexico, i.
ch. 4; Brasseur’s Nat. Civ., i. pp. xv, xvii; Domenech’s Manuscrit
pictographique, introd.; Mendoza, in the Boletin Soc. Mex. Geog.,
2de ed. i. 896; Madier de Montjau’s Chronologie hiéroglyphico-
phonetic des rois Aztèques, de 1322 à 1522, with an introduction
“sur l’Ecriture Méxicaine;” Lubbock’s Prehistoric Times, 279, and
his Origin of Civilization, ch. 2; E. B. Tylor’s Researches into the
Early Hist. of Mankind, 89; Short’s No. Amer. of Antiq., ch. 8;
Müller’s Chips, i. 317; The Abbé Jules Pipart in Compte-rendu,
Congrès des Amér. 1877, ii. 346; Isaac Taylor’s Alphabets;
Foster’s Prehistoric Races, 322; Nadaillac, 376, not to cite others.
 Bandelier has discussed the Mexican paintings in his paper “On
the sources for aboriginal history of Spanish America” in Am.
Asso. Adv. Science, Proc., xxvii. (1878). See also Peabody Mus.
Reports, ii. 631; and Orozco y Berra’s “Códice Mendozino” in the
Anales del Museo Nacional, vol. i. Mrs. Nuttall’s views are in the
Peabody Mus., Twentieth Report, p. 567. Quaritch (Catal. 1885,
nos. 29040, etc.) advertised some original Mexican pictures; a
native MS. pictorial record of a part of the Tezcuco domain
(supposed a.d. 1530), and perhaps one of the “pinturas”
mentioned by Ixtlilxochitl; a colored Mexican calendar on a single
leaf of the same supposed date and origin; with other MSS. of
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. (Cf. also his Catal., Jan.,
Feb., 1888.)
The most important studies upon the Aztec system have been
those of Aubin. Cf. his Mémoire sur la peinture didactique et
l’écriture figurative des Anciens Méxicains, in the Archives de la
Soc. Amér. de France, iii. 225 (Revue Orient. et Amér.), in which
he contended for the rebus-like character of the writings. He
made further contributions to vols. iv. and v. (1859-1861). Cf. his
“Examen des anciennes peintures figuratives de l’ancien
Méxique,” in the new series of Archives, etc., vol. i.; and the
introd. to Brasseur’s Nations Civilisées, p. xliv.

[1084] Bancroft (Nat. Races, ii. ch. 24) translates these from Landa,
Peter Martyr, Cogulludo, Villagutierre, Mendieta, Acosta, Benzoni,
and Herrera, and thinks all the modern writers (whom he names,
p. 770) have drawn from these earlier ones, except, perhaps,
Medel in Nouv. Annales des Voyages, xcvii. 49. Cf. Wilson,
Prehistoric Man, ii. 61. It will be seen later that Holden discredits
the belief in any phonetic value of the Maya system. But compare
on the phonetic value of the Mexican and Maya systems, Brinton
in Amer. Antiquarian (Nov. 1886); Lazarus Geiger’s Contrib. to the
Hist. of the Development of the Human Race (Eng. tr. by David
Asher). London, 1880, p. 75; and Zelia Nuttall in Am. Ass. Adv.
Sci. Proc., Aug. 1886.

[1085] Dr. Bernoulli, who died at San Francisco, in California, in

1878, and whose labors are commemorated in a notice in the
Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft (vi. 710) at
Basle, found at Tikal, in Guatemala, some fragments of
sculptured panels of wood, bearing hieroglyphics as well as
designs, which he succeeded in purchasing, and they were finally
deposited in 1879 in the Ethnological Museum in Basle, where
 Rosny saw them, and describes them, with excellent
photographic representations, in his Doc. Ecrits de l’Antiq. Amér.
(p. 97). These tablets are the latest additions to be made to the
store already possessed from Palenqué, as given by Stephens in
his Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan; those of the Temple
of the Cross at Palenqué, after Waldeck’s drawings in the Archives
de la Soc. Amér. de France (ii., 1864); that from Kabah in
Yucatan, given by Rosny in his Archives Paléographiques (i. p.
178; Atlas, pl. xx.), and one from Chichen-Itza, figured by Le
Plongeon in L’Illustration, Feb. 10, 1882; not to name other
engravings. Rosny holds that Rau’s Palenqué Tablet (Washington,
1879) gives the first really serviceably accurate reproduction of
that inscription. Cf. on Maya inscriptions, Bancroft, ii. 775; iv. 91,
97, 234; Morelet’s Travels; and Le Plongeon in Am. Antiq. Soc.
Proc., n. s., i. 246. This last writer has been thought to let his
enthusiasm—not to say dogmatism—turn his head, under which
imputation he is not content, naturally (Ibid. p. 282).

[1086] “Landa’s alphabet a Spanish fabrication,” appeared in the

Amer. Antiq. Soc. Proc., April, 1880. In this, Philipp J. J. Valentini
interprets all that the old writers say of the ancient writings to
mean that they were pictorial and not phonetic; and that Landa’s
purpose was to devise a vehicle which seemed familiar to the
natives, through which he could communicate religious
instruction. His views have been controverted by Léon de Rosny
(Doc. Ecrits de la Antiq. Amér. p. 91); and Brinton (Maya
Chronicles, 61), calls them an entire misconception of Landa’s
purpose.

[1087] Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., n. s., i. 251.

[1088] Troano MS., p. viii.

[1089] Relation, Brasseur’s ed., section xli.

[1090] This is given in the Archives de la Soc. Amér. de France, ii.

pl. iv.; in Brasseur’s ed. of Landa; in Bancroft’s Nat. Races, ii.
779; in Short, 425; Rosny (Essai sur le déchiff. etc., pl. xiii.) gives
a “Tableau des caractères phonétique Mayas d’après Diégo de
Landa et Brasseur de Bourbourg.”

[1091] Manuscrit Troano Etudes sur le système graphique et la

langue des Mayas (Paris, 1869-70)—the first volume containing a
fac-simile of the Codex in seventy plates, with Brasseur’s
 explications and partial interpretation. In the second volume
there is a translation of Gabriél de Saint Bonaventure’s
Grammaire Maya, a “Chrestomathie” of Maya extracts, and a
Maya lexicon of more than 10,000 words. Brasseur published at
the same time (1869) in the Mémoires de la Soc. d’Ethnographie
a Lettre à M. Léon de Rosny sur la découverte de documents
relatifs à la haute antiquité américaine, et sur le déchiffrement et
l’interprétation de l’écriture phonétique et figurative de la langue
Maya (Paris, 1869). He explained his application of Landa’s
alphabet in the introduction to the MS. Troano, i. p. 36. Brasseur
later confessed he had begun at the wrong end of the MS. (Bib.
Mex.-Guat., introd.). The pebble-shape form of the characters
induced Brasseur to call them calculiform; and Julien Duchateau
adopted the term in his paper “Sur l’écriture calculiforme des
Mayas” in the Annuaire de la Soc. Amér. (Paris, 1874), iii. p. 31.

[1092] L’écriture hiératique, and Archives de la Soc. Am. de France,

n. s., ii. 35.

[1093] Ancient Phonetic Alphabets of Yucatan (N. Y., 1870), p. 7.

[1094] It is the development of a paper given at the Nancy session

of the Congrès des Américanistes (1875). Landa’s alphabet with
the variations make 262 of the 700 signs which Rosny catalogues.
He printed his “Nouvelles Recherches pour l’interpretation des
caractères de l’Amérique Centrale” in the Archives, etc., iii. 118.
There is a paper on Rosny’s studies by De la Rada in the Compte-
rendu of the Copenhagen session (p. 355) of the Congrès des
Américanistes. Rosny’s Documents écrits de l’antiquité Américaine
(Paris, 1882), from the Mémoires de la Société d’Ethnographie
(1881), covers his researches in Spain and Portugal for material
illustrative of the pre-Columbian history of America. Cf. also his
“Les sources de l’histoire anté columbienne du nouveau monde,”
in the Mémoires de la Soc. d’Ethnographie (1877). For the titles
in full of Rosny’s linguistic studies, see Pilling’s Proof-sheets, p.
663.

[1095] Anthropol. Review, May, 1864; Memoirs of the Anthropol.

Soc., i.

[1096] Memoirs, etc., ii. 298.

[1097] Memoirs, etc., 1870, iii. 288; Trans. Anthrop. Inst. Gt.
Britain.
[1098] Introd. to Cyrus Thomas’s MS. Troano.

[1099] Am. Antiq. Soc. Proc., n. s., i. 250.

[1100] Actes de la Soc. philologique, March, 1870. Cf. Revue de

Philologie, i. 380; Recherches sur le Codex Troano (Paris, 1876);
Actes, etc., March, 1878; Baldwin’s Anc. America, App.

[1101] Cf. Sabin’s Amer. Bibliopolist, ii. 143.

[1102] Contributions to N. A. Ethnology, Powell’s Survey, vol. v. Cf.

also his Phonetic elements in the graphic system of the Mayas
and Mexicans in the Amer. Antiquarian (Nov., 1886), and
separately (Chicago, 1886), and his Ikonomic method of phonetic
writing (Phila., 1886). Thomas in The Amer. Antiquarian (March,
1886) points out the course of his own studies in this direction.

[1103] Cf. Short, p. 425. Dr. Harrison Allen in 1875, in the Amer.
Philosophical Society’s Transactions, made an analysis of Landa’s
alphabet and the published codices. Rau, in his Palenqué Tablet
of the U. S. Nat. Museum (ch. 5), examines what had been done
up to 1879. In the same year Dr. Carl Schultz-Sellack wrote on
“Die Amerikanischen Götter der vier Weltgegenden und ihre
Tempel in Palenqué,” touching also the question of interpretation
(Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, vol. xi.); and in 1880 Dr. Förstemann
examined the matter in his introduction to his reproduction of the
Dresden Codex.

[1104] Studies in Central American picture-writing (Washington,

1881), extracted from the First Report of the Bureau of
Ethnology. His method is epitomized in The Century, Dec., 1881.
He finds Stephens’s drawings the most trustworthy of all,
Waldeck’s being beautiful, but they embody “singular liberties.”
His examination was confined to the 1500 separate hieroglyphs in
Stephens’s Central America. Some of Holden’s conclusions are
worth noting: “The Maya manuscripts do not possess to me the
same interest as the stones, and I think it may be certainly said
that all of them are younger than the Palenqué tablets, far
younger than the inscriptions at Copan.” “I distrust the methods
of Brasseur and others who start from the misleading and
unlucky alphabet handed down by Landa,” by forming variants,
which are made “to satisfy the necessities of the interpreter in
carrying out some preconceived idea.” He finds a rigid adherence
to the standard form of a character prevailing throughout the
 same inscription. At Palenqué the inscriptions read as an English
inscription would read, beginning at the left and proceeding line
by line downward. “The system employed at Palenqué and Copan
was the same in its general character, and almost identical even
in details.” He deciphers three proper names: “all of them have
been pure picture-writing, except in so far as their rebus
character may make them in a sense phonetic.” Referring to
Valentini’s Landa Alphabet a Spanish Fabrication, he agrees in
that critic’s conclusions. “While my own,” he adds, “were reached
by a study of the stones and in the course of a general
examination, Dr. Valentini has addressed himself successfully to
the solution of a special problem.” Holden thinks his own solution
of the three proper names points of departure for subsequent
decipherers. The Maya method was “pure picture-writing. At
Copan this is found in its earliest state; at Palenqué it was already
highly conventionalized.”

[1105] See references in Bancroft’s Nat. Races, ii. 576.

[1106] Cogulludo’s Hist. de Yucatan, 3d ed., i. 604.

[1107] Prescott, i. 104, and references.

[1108] Dec. iv., lib. 8.

[1109] Brasseur de Bourbourg’s Troano MS., i. 9. Cf. on the Aztec

books Kirk’s Prescott, i. 103; Brinton’s Myths, 10; his Aborig.
Amer. Authors, 17; and on the Mexican Paper, Valentini in Amer.
Antiq. Soc. Proc., 2d s., i. 58.

[1110] Cf. Icazbalceta’s Don Fray Juan de Zumárraga, primer

Obispo y Arzobispo de México (1529-48). Estudio biográfico y
bibligráfico. Con un apéndice de documentos inéditos ó raros
(Mexico, 1881). A part of this work was also printed separately
(fifty copies) under the title of De la destruction de antigüedades
méxicanas atribuida á los misioneros en general, y
particularmente al Illmo. Sr. D. Fr. Juan de Zumárraga, primer
Obispo y Arzobispo de México (Mexico, 1881). In this he exhausts
pretty much all that has been said on the subject by the bishop
himself, by Pedro de Gante, Motolinía, Sahagún, Duran, Acosta,
Davila Padilla, Herrera, Torquemada, Ixtlilxochitl, Robertson,
Clavigero, Humboldt, Bustamante, Ternaux, Prescott, Alaman,
etc. Brasseur (Nat. Civil., ii. 4) says of Landa that we must not
forget that he was oftener the agent of the council for the Indies
than of the Church. Helps (iii. 374) is inclined to be charitable
towards a man in a skeptical age, so intensely believing as
Zumárraga was. Sahagún relates that earlier than Zumárraga, the
fourth ruler of his race, Itzcohuatl, had caused a large destruction
of native writings, in order to remove souvenirs of the national
humiliation.
[1111] Humboldt was one of the earliest to describe some of these
manuscripts in connection with his Atlas, pl. xiii.

[1112] Cf. Catal. of the Phillipps Coll., no. 404. An original colored
copy of the Antiquities of Mexico, given by Kingsborough to
Phillipps, was offered of late years by Quaritch at £70-£100; it
was published at £175. The usual colored copies sell now for
about £40-£60; the uncolored for about £30-£35. It is usually
stated that two copies were printed on vellum (British Museum,
Bodleian), and ten on large paper, which were given to crowned
heads, except one, which was given to Obadiah Rich. Squier, in
the London Athenæum, Dec. 13, 1856 (Allibone, p. 1033), drew
attention to the omission of the last signature of the Hist.
Chichimeca in vol. ix.

[1113] Rich, Bibl. Amer. Nova, ii. 233; Gentleman’s Mag., May,
1837, which varies in some particulars. Cf. for other details
Sabin’s Dictionary, ix. 485; De Rosny in the Rev. Orient et Amér.,
xii. 387. R. A. Wilson (New Conquest of Mexico, p. 68) gives the
violent skeptical view of the material.

[1114] Sabin, ix., no. 37,800.

[1115] Léon de Rosny (Doc. écrits de l’Antiq. Amér., p. 71) speaks

of those in the Museo Archæológico at Madrid.

[1116] Hist. Nueva España.

[1117] Pilgrimes, vol. iii. (1625). It is also included in Thevenot’s

Coll. de Voyages (1696), vol. ii., in a translation. Clavigero (i. 23)
calls this copy faulty. See also Kircher’s Œdipus Ægypticus;
Humboldt’s plates, xiii., lviii., lix., with his text, in which he quotes
Du Palin’s Study of Hieroglyphics, vol. i. See the account in
Bancroft, ii. 241.

[1118] Prescott, i. 106. He thinks that a copy mentioned in

Spineto’s Lectures on the Elements of Hieroglyphics, and then in
the Escurial, may perhaps be the original. Humboldt calls it a
copy.

[1119] Humboldt placed some tribute-rolls in the Berlin library, and

gave an account of them. See his pl. xxxvi.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookbell.com