New Witnesses for God (Volume 3 of 3)

by B. H. Roberts

III.

Human Sacrifices. Cannibalism.

Another statement in the Book of Mormon with reference to a Lamanite custom concerning their treatment of prisoners taken in war is as follows. Speaking of an invasion of the Lamanites into Nephite territory the Book of Mormon says:

And they did also march forward against the city of Teancum, and did drive the inhabitants forth out of her, and did take many prisoners both women and children, and did offer them up as sacrifices unto their idol gods. And it came to pass that in the three hundred and sixty and seventh years, [A. D.], the Nephites being angry because the Lamanites had scattered their women and their children, that they did go against the Lamanites with exceeding great anger, insomuch that they did beat again the Lamanites, and drive them out of their lands.^[[25]]

Later, referring to a second invasion of the Nephite lands, Mormon also says:

And when they had come the second time, the Nephites were driven and slaughtered with an exceeding great slaughter; their women and their children were again sacrificed unto idols.^[[26]]

Some years later, Mormon, in an epistle to his son Moroni, speaking of the awful depravity which characterized both Nephites and Lamanites, says of them: "They thirst after blood and revenge continually."^[[27]] Of the treatment of certain prisoners taken from one of the cities he also says:

And the husbands and fathers of those women and children they have slain; and they feed the women upon the flesh of their husbands, and the children upon the flesh of their fathers; and no water, save a little, do they give unto them.^[[28]]

He describes how the Nephites defiled the daughters of Lamanite prisoners, and then continues:

And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies, even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery.^[[29]]

This, doubtless, was the beginning—in the later part of the fourth century A. D., "not early in the fourteenth century," as held by Prescott^[[30]]—of those horrible human sacrifices and acts of cannibalism found among the Aztecs at the time of the Spanish invasion of Mexico, and which so shocked even the cruel Spaniards. Bancroft, in telling of the treatment of prisoners taken in war among the Aztecs, describes an unequal battle for life that was sometimes accorded the male prisoners, and then adds:

Those who were too faint-hearted to attempt this hopless combat, had their hearts torn out at once, whilst the others were sacrificed only after having been subdued by the braves. The bleeding and quivering heart was held up to the sun and then thrown into a bowl, prepared for its reception. An assistant priest sucked the blood from the gash in the chest through a hollow cane, the end of which he elevated towards the sun, and then discharged its contents into a plume-bordered cup held by the captor of the prisoner just slain. This cup was carried round to all the idols in the temples and chapels, before whom another blood-filled tube was held up as if to give them a taste of the contents; this ceremony performed, the cup was left at the Palace. The corpse was taken to the chapel where the captive had watched and there flayed, the flesh being consumed at a banquet as before. The skin was given to certain priests, or college youths, who went from house to house dressed in the ghastly garb, with the arms swinging, singing, dancing, and asking for contributions; those who refused to give anything received a stroke in the face from the dangling arm.^[[31]]

Prescott, referring to the chief object of war among the Aztecs, and the treatment of prisoners taken, says:

The tutelary deity of the Aztecs was the god of war. A great object of their military expeditions was, to gather hecatombs of captives for his altars. * * * * * * At the head of all, [i. e., all the Aztec deities] stood the terrible Huitzilopotchli. * * * * * * * This was the patron deity of the nation. His fantastic image was loaded with costly ornaments. His temples were the most stately and august of the public edifices; and his altars reeked with the blood of human hecatombs in every city of the empire. * * * * * The most loathsome part of the story—the manner in which the body of the sacrificed captive was disposed of—remains yet to be told. It was delivered to the warrior who had taken him in battle, and by him, after being dressed, was served up in an entertainment to his friends. This was not the coarse repast of famished cannibals, but a banquet teeming with delicious beverages and delicate viands, prepared with art, and attended by both sexes, who, as we shall see hereafter, conducted themselves with all the decorum of civilized life. Surely, never were refinement and the extreme of barbarism brought so closely in contact with each other.^[[32]]

Such are the depths of depravity to which a people may sink when once the Spirit of God is withdrawn from them. It is not to excite reflections upon this condition of refined barbarism, however, that these quotations are made. I am interested here only in pointing out the fact that these revolting customs found among the native Americans confirms the statement made in the Book of Mormon, that such horrible customs had their origin among their Nephite and Lamanite ancestors.

IV.

Burying the Hatchet.

Doubtless the native American custom of "burying the hatchet" (that is, in concluding a war, it is the native custom, as a testimony that hostilities have ceased, and as a sign of peace, to bury the war-hatchet or other weapons of war), had its origin in the following Book of Mormon incident: Early in the first century B. C., a number of Nephites, sons of King Mosiah II., succeeded in converting a number of Lamanites to the Christian religion; and such became their abhorrence of war, which aforetime had been one of their chief delights, that they entered into a covenant of peace and determined no more to shed the blood of their fellow men. In token of this covenant they buried their weapons of war, their leader saying:

And now, my brethren, if our brethren seek to destroy us, behold, we will hide away our swords, yea, even we will bury them deep in the earth, that they may be kept bright. * * * * And now it came to pass that when the king had made an end of these sayings, and all the people were assembled together, they took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man's blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth; and this they did, it being in their view a testimony to God, and also to men, that they never would use weapons again for shedding a man's blood.^[[33]]

This circumstance of burying weapons of war in token of peace is several times afterwards alluded to in the Book of Mormon.

V.

Hagoth's Marine Migrations Preserved in Native Legend.

Another historical event very apt to live in the native traditions is the first Nephite migration in ships after their landing in the western hemisphere. This event took place in the latter half of the century immediately preceding the birth of Christ. One Hagoth, described in the Book of Mormon as "an exceedingly curious man,"

Went forth and built a large ship on the borders of the land Bountiful, by the land Desolation, and launched it forth in the west sea, by the narrow neck which led into the land northward. And behold, there were many of the Nephites who did enter therein and did sail forth with much provisions, and also many women and children; and they took their course northward.^[[34]]

Subsequently other ships were built and the first returned, and migration by this method of travel was kept up for some time. Finally two of the vessels conducting this migration by the way of the west sea, were lost; and the Nephites supposed them to have been wrecked in the depths of the sea.^[[35]] So marked a circumstance as this, I repeat, occurring as it did among a people that can not be considered as a sea-faring people, would be apt to live in the traditions of their descendants. Such a tradition, I believe, exists. Bancroft, speaking of a war of conquest waged by the Miztec and Zapotec kings against a people inhabiting the southern shores of Tehuantepec, called the Huaves, says:

The Huaves are said to have come from the south, from Nicaragua, or Peru, say some authors. The causes that led to their migrations are unknown; but the story goes that after coasting northward, and attempting to disembark at several places, they finally effected a landing at Tehuantepec. Here they found the Mijes, the original possessors of the country; but these they drove out, or, as some say, mingled with them, and soon made themselves masters of the soil. * * * * * * * But the easy life they led in this beautiful and fertile region soon destroyed their ancient energy, and they subsequently fell an unresisting prey to the Zapotec kings.^[[36]]

A tradition which locates the landing of a similar maritime expedition still further north is related by Nadaillac. Speaking of the "Kitchen-Middens" or shell-heaps found here and there on the Pacific coast, and which our author takes as indicating the location of the former homes of numerous tribes, says:

When the Indians were questioned about them [the shell-heaps] they generally answered that they are very old, and are the work of people unknown to them or to their fathers. As an exception to this rule, however, the Californians attributed a large shell heap formed of mussel shells and the bones of animals, on Point St. George, near San Francisco, to the Hohgates, the name they give to seven mythical strangers who arrived in the country from the sea, and who were the first to build and live in houses. The Hohgates killed deer, sea-lions, and seals; they collected the mussels which were very abundant on the neighboring rocks, and the refuse of their meals became piled up about their homes. One day when fishing, they saw a gigantic seal; they managed to drive a harpoon into it, but the wounded animal fled seaward, dragging the boat rapidly with it toward the fathomless abysses of the Charekwin. At the moment when the Hohgates were about to be engulfed in the depths, where those go who are to endure eternal cold, the rope broke the seal disappeared, and the boat was flung up into the air. Since then the Hohgates, changed into brilliant stars, return no more to earth, where the shell heaps remain as witness of their former residence.^[[37]]

The word "Hohgates," I believe is but a variation of the word "Hagoth," the name of the man who started these maritime expeditions, and it would be altogether in keeping with Nephite customs^[[38]] for those who sailed away in his vessels to be called "Hagothites" or "Hohgates." The vessel of this tradition may be one of those lost to the Nephites, which finally found its way to the Californian coast where its occupants landed with their ideas of Nephite civilization, and lived as described in the tradition. One is tempted to smile at the childish ending of the tradition; but under it may not one see that it is but the legendary account of the fact that the vessel sailed away from the California shores and was lost, or, at least, was heard of no more by the natives of those shores.

VI.

Native American Race Unity.

The subject of American antiquities should not be closed without a brief reference, at least, to the unity of the American race. Barring such migrations of other races to America as may have taken place since the fall of the Nephites at Cumorah, at the close of the fourth century A. D., and such as to a limited extent may have been going on in the extreme north via Behring Strait at an earlier date, the Book of Mormon requires substantial unity of race in the later native American people. That is to say, they ought to be of Israelitish descent, a mixture of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh and Judah—but chiefly, if not all, of Hebrew descent; and even the Jaredites were but a more ancient branch of the same stock.^[[39]]

On this subject, as upon all others pertaining to American antiquities and peoples, writers are divided; yet it is not difficult to marshal in support of race unity for native Americans the very highest authority; and what is of most importance is the facts are beyond question behind their theory.

Citing the facts on which certain authors rely to establish the unity of the American race, Bancroft says:

It was obvious to the Europeans when they first beheld the natives of America, that these were unlike the intellectual white-skinned race of Europe, the barbarous blacks of Africa, or any nation or people which they had hitherto encountered, yet were strikingly like each other. Into whatsoever part of the newly discovered lands they penetrated, they found a people seemingly one in color, physiognomy, customs, and in mental and social traits. Their vestiges of antiquity and their languages presented a coincidence which was generally observed by early travelers. Hence physical and psychological comparisons are advanced to prove ethnological resemblances among all the peoples of America. * * * * * * Morton and his confreres, the originators of the American homogeneity theory, even go so far as to claim for the American man an origin as indigenous as that of the fauna and flora. They classify all the tribes of America, excepting only the Esquimaux who wandered over from Asia, as the American race, and divided it into the American family and the Toltecan family. Blumenbach classifies the Americans as a distinct species. The American Mongolidae of Dr. Latham are divided into Esquimaux and American Indians. Dr. Morton perceives the same characteristic lineaments on the face of the Fuegian and the Mexican, and in tribes inhabiting the Rocky mountains, the Mississippi valley, and Florida. The same osteological structure, swarthy color, straight hair, meagre beard, obliquely cornered eyes, prominent cheek bones, and thick lips, are common to them all. * * * * * * Humboldt characterizes the nations of America as one race, by their straight glossy hair, thin beard, swarthy complexion and cranial formation.^[[40]]

Dr. Daniel G. Brinton, professor of American archaeology and linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania—than whom no higher authority upon the subject can be quoted—says:

On the whole, the race is singularly uniform in its physical traits, and individuals taken from any part of the continent could easily be mistaken for inhabitants of numerous other parts. * * * * * * The culture of the native Americans strongly attests the ethnic unity of the race. This applies equally to the ruins and relics of its vanished nations, as to the institutions of existing tribes. Nowhere do we find any trace of foreign influence or instruction, nowhere any arts or social systems to explain which we must evoke the aid of teachers from the eastern hemisphere. * * * * American culture, wherever examined, presents a family likeness which the more careful observers of late years have taken pains to put in a strong light. This was accomplished for governmental institutions and domestic architecture by Lewis H. Morgan, for property rights and the laws of war by A. F. Bandelier, for the social condition of Mexico and Peru by Dr. Gustav Bruhl, and I may add for the myths and other expressions of the religious sentiment by myself. * * * The psychic identity of the Americans is well illustrated in their languages. There are indeed indefinite discrepancies in their lexicography and in their surface marphology; but in their logical sub-structure, in what Willhelm von Humboldt called the "inner form," they are strikingly like. The points in which this is especially apparent are in the development of pronominal forms, in the abundance of generic particles, in the overweening preference for concepts of action (verbs) rather than concepts of existence (nouns), and in the consequent subordination of the latter to the former in the proposition.^[[41]]

Following the same general line of thought Nadaillac says:

The Indians, who were successively conquered by foreign invaders, spoke hundreds of different dialects. Bancroft estimates that there were six hundred between Alaska and Panama. Ameghino speaks of eight hundred in South America. Most of these, however, are mere derivatives from a single mother tongue like the Aymara and the Guarani. We quote these figures for what they are worth. Philology has no precise definition of what constitutes a language, and any one can add to or deduct from the numbers given according to the point of view from which he considers the matter. As an illustration of this, it may be mentioned that some philologists estimate the languages of North America at no less than thirteen hundred, whilst Squier would reduce those of both continents to four hundred. These dialects present a complete disparity in their vocabulary side by side with great similarity of structure. "In America," says Humboldt, "from the country of the Esquimaux to the banks of the Orinoco, and thence to the frozen shores of the Straits of Magellan, languages differing entirely in their derivation have, if we may use the expression, the same physiognomy. Striking analogies in grammatical construction have been recognized, not only in the more perfect languages, such as those of the Incas, the Aymara, the Guarani, and the Mexicans, but also in languages which are extremely crude. Dialects, the roots of which do not resemble each other more than the roots of the Slavonian and Biscayan, show resemblances in structure similar to those which are found between the Sanscrit, the Persian, the Greek, and the Germanic languages."^[[42]]

The fact that the different dialects, or languages, as some call them, "are mere derivatives from a single mother tongue," argues strongly, of course, for ultimate race unity.

The following summary of evidences on the substantial unity of race in American peoples is from Marcus Wilson, and will be found valuable:

Nor indeed is there any proof that the semi-civilized inhabitants of Mexico, Yucatan, and Central America, were a race different from the more savage tribes by which they were surrounded; but, on the contrary, there is much evidence in favor of their common origin, and in proof that the present tribes, or at least many of them, are but the dismembered fragments of former nations. The present natives of Yucatan and Central America, after a remove of only three centuries from their more civilized ancestors, present no diversities, in their natural capacities, to distinguish them from the race of the common Indian. And if the Mexicans and the Peruvians could have arisen from the savage state, it is not impossible that the present rude tribes may have remained in it; or, if the latter were once more civilized than at present, as they have relapsed into barbarism, so others may have done. The anatomical structure of the skeletons found within the ancient mounds of the United States, does not differ more from that of the present Indians than tribes of the latter, admitted to be of the same race, differ from each other. In the physical appearance of all the American aborigines, embracing the semi-civilized Mexicans, the Peruvians, and the wandering savage tribes, there is a striking uniformity; nor can any distinction of races here be made. In their languages there is a general unity of structure, and a great similarity in grammatical forms, which prove their common origin; while the great diversity in the words of the different languages, shows the great antiquity of the period of peopling America. In the generally uniform character of their religious opinions and rites, we discover original unity and an identity of origin; while the diversities here found, likewise indicate the very early period of the separation and dispersion of the tribes. Throughout most of the American tribes have been found traces of the pictorial delineations, and hieroglyphical symbols, by which the Mexicans and the Peruvians communicated ideas, and preserved the memory of events. The mythological traditions of the savage tribes, and the semi-civilized nations, have general features of resemblance—generally implying a migration from some other country—containing distinct allusions to a deluge—and attributing their knowledge of the arts to some fabulous teacher in remote ages. Throughout nearly the whole continent, the dead were buried in a sitting posture; the smoking of tobacco was a prevalent custom, and the calumet, or pipe of peace, was everywhere deemed sacred. And, in fine, the numerous and striking analogies between the barbarous and the cultivated tribes, are sufficient to justify the belief in their primitive relationship and common origin. * * * * * * With regard to the opinion entertained by some, that colonies from different European nations, and at different times, have been established here, we remark,^[[43]] that, if so, no distinctive traces of them have ever been discovered; and there is a uniformity in the physical appearance of all the American tribes, which forbids the supposition of a mingling of different races.^[[44]]

The well established fact, of race unity, is one more evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon to be added to that cumulative mass of evidence we are here compiling, since unity of race is what the Book of Mormon requires for the peoples of America.