CHAPTER III.
DIVERSITY OF OPINION AS TO THE ORIGIN OF THE ANCIENT AMERICANS.
Conflict of Discovery and Dogmatism—Antipodes—Arabic Learning in the 8th Century—Spirit of Early Writers on America—Common Opinion as to the Origin of the Americans—Father Duran—Lost Tribes of Israel—Garcia—Lascarbot—Villagutierre—Torquemada—Pineda, etc.—Abbé Domenech—Modern Views—Pre-Columbian Colonization—Plato’s Atlantis—Kingsborough—The Book of Mormon—Phœnicians—George Jones—Greek and Egyptian Theories—The Tartars—Japanese and Chinese Theories—Fusang—The Mongol Theory—Traces of Buddhism—White-Man’s Land—The Northmen—The Welsh Claim.
VARIOUS perplexing problems presented themselves to the minds of the discoverers of the new continent for solution, as well as to their immediate successors, which were greatly intensified by the dogmatic teaching of the times. The status of science in the Middle Ages was defined from time to time by some ecclesiastical utterance without any reference to the phenomena of nature or the revelations of accidental discovery. We say accidental, for no designed or systematic investigation was so much as tolerated, much less encouraged by friendly recognition. This unfortunate antagonism to progress had its foundation chiefly in ignorance, and its origin in the misinterpretation and perversion of Sacred Scripture.
Two questions, especially in view of the dogmatic utterances of the day, presented grave difficulties to the minds of the discoverers and their successors in the New World. “Is the world a sphere?” “Are the Inhabitants of the Indias of a common origin with the rest of mankind?” These were the most serious problems that forced themselves upon their consideration. As long ago as 280 B. C., the investigations of Aristarchus of Samos, though not accepted by antiquity, suggested an affirmative answer to the first question. But the Fathers of the Church had spoken authoritatively on this subject at quite an early day, and consequently left no room for speculation. St. Augustine discusses the question as follows: “But as to the fable that there are antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets to us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, that is on no ground credible. And, indeed, it is not affirmed that this has been learned by historical knowledge, but by scientific conjecture, on the ground that the earth is suspended within the cavity of the sky, and that it has as much room on the one side of it as on the other; hence they say that the part which is beneath us must also be inhabited. But they do not remark that although it be supposed or scientifically demonstrated that the world is of a round and spherical form, yet it does not follow that the other side of the earth is bare of water; or even though it be bare, does it immediately follow that it is peopled. For Scripture, which proves the truth of its historical statements by the accomplishment of its prophecies, gives no false information; and it is too absurd to say that some men might have taken ship and traversed the whole wide ocean, and crossed from this world to the other, and that thus even the inhabitants of that distant region are descended from that one first man.”[156]
Though, during the kalifate of Al-Mamoun (A.D. 813–833) Arabic learning had well-nigh demonstrated the globular form of the earth and determined its circumference, according to their measurements, to be about 24,000 miles, still not a man in Christendom ventured to advocate the theory for almost half a dozen centuries, such was the power of the ban put upon investigation which ran counter to the pre-expressed opinions of a dark age. The theories of Tascanelli and the observations of Columbus on the polar star prepared the way for the great triumph achieved by De Gama in 1497–8, in his voyage around the Cape of Good Hope; and the question of the globular form of the earth was forever set at rest twenty-two years afterwards by the voyage of Magellan.[157] When it was definitely determined that America was a continent of itself and not the eastern extremity of India, the fact that it was inhabited gave rise to speculations which have since been often repeated. Through an unaccountable misapprehension, not only the questions of the origin of the Americans, but the manner of their separation from the rest of the race, together with the routes they pursued in reaching the new world—all were thought to be capable of solution by the light of Scripture. The education of the early writers enables us to account for the intolerance with which they looked upon any other solution of the problem than that which alone would conform to the teachings of the church.[158]
It is true that the natural nobility of character possessed by such writers as Las Casas, Duran and a few others, tempered the fanaticism which had been inculcated by education, and enabled them to furnish invaluable information concerning the real condition and traditions of the so-called Indians. But, upon the other hand, there were great numbers of blind, unscrupulous ecclesiastics who either destroyed outright the manuscripts and picture-writing of the natives, committing them to the flames, or so warping tradition in order that it might conform to their mistaken theology, that in many cases the most precious information is irretrievably lost. Such men could hardly be expected to have treated calmly and with any degree of liberality the question before us—one which has so often been asked, but as yet never satisfactorily answered, and one which in the present state of knowledge cannot be.[159]
The unanimity with which the most celebrated writers on the Americans during three centuries following the discovery, fixed upon a solution of the problem, will be best illustrated in the following pages: One of the most ingenious and at the same time most calmly expressed opinions on the origin problem is that recorded by Father Duran, a native of Tezcuco in Mexico, in his History of New Spain, written in the year 1585.[160] He was convinced that the natives had a foreign origin, and that they performed a long journey of many years duration in their migration to the new world. He arrived at these conclusions on account of several considerations, some of which are as follows: The natives had no definite knowledge of their origin, some claiming to have proceeded from fountains and springs of water, others that they were natives of certain caves, and others that they were created by the gods, while all admit that they had come from other lands. Furthermore, they preserved in their traditions and pictures the memory of a journey in which they had suffered hunger, thirst, nakedness and all manner of afflictions, “with which,” he adds, “my opinion and supposition is confirmed that these natives are of the ten tribes of Israel that Salmanasar, king of the Assyrians, made prisoners and carried to Assyria in the time of Hoshea, king of Israel, and in the time of Hezekiah, king of Jerusalem, as can be seen in the fourth Book of the Kings, seventeenth chapter, where it says that Israel was carried away from their land to Assyria, etc., from whence, says Esdras, in Book Fourth, chapter third, they went to live in a land, remote and separated, which had never been inhabited, to which they had a long and tedious journey of a year and a half, for which reason it is supposed these people are found in all the islands and lands of the ocean constituting the Occident.”[161] The preceding opinion was concurred in by many Spanish writers; but the first English writer to support the theory was Thorowgood, in his work entitled, Jewes in America.[162] L’Estrange, who replied to this work, controverted the theory of the lost tribes of Israel, but concluded that Shem was the progenitor of the Americans; that he was ninety-eight years old at the time of the flood, and was not present at the building of Babel.[163] “Thus far,” he quaintly remarks, “have I offered my week conceptions, first, how America may be collected to have bin first planted, not denying the Jewes leave to goe into America, but not admitting them to be the chief or prime planters thereof, for I am of opinion, that the Americans originated before the captivity of the ten tribes, even from Shem’s near progeny.”[164] Garcia presents an argument in favor of the same theory, based upon the presence of Scripture names in Peru and Yucatan. He is positive that the word Peru has the same meaning as Ophir, the name of the grandson of Heber, from whom the Hebrews derive their name. In Yucatan he also finds the name Ioctan, identical with that of Ophir’s father.[165] However, with a determination not to be surpassed by any other theorist who might assume the unity of the race as the basis of his conjectures, he offers a plan for populating the new world so comprehensive that no room was left for originality in any who might follow him in the same field. Hispaniola, Cuba and neighboring isles, he believed to have been peopled by the Carthaginians. The natives of other parts proceeded from the ten lost tribes; others from the people whom Ophir commanded to colonize Peru; others from the people living in the isle Atlantis; others from regions adjoining that island, and by means of it passed to America; others from the Greeks; others from the Phœnicians, and still others from the Chinese and Tartars.[166] Lescarbot cites five opinions on the subject, all based more or less on scriptural authority, and adds his own that the Americans were the descendants of Noah. He thinks it not impossible for voyagers to have reached the western continent when Solomon’s ships were sent on voyages of three years’ duration.[167] Herrera, with characteristic soberness, states that because of the lack of knowledge concerning the proximity of the continents at the “ends of the earth” he is unable to say positively from whom the natives were descended, but it seems most reasonable to him to suppose that they are the descendants of men who passed to the West Indies by the proximity of the land.[168] Villagutierre reiterates the same opinion, believing that Noah’s descendants were able to reach the new world either by land in some unknown quarter, or by swimming, or by embarking in canoes and balsas, for short distances. He supposes that animals reached the new continent in the first two ways.[169] Torquemada, after a long discussion of the subject, falls in with this view, adding, however, the opinion that, because of their color, they in all probability were descended from the sons and grandsons of Ham.[170] Pineda adopts substantially the preceding opinion, but improves upon it somewhat by pointing out the particular branch of the family of Ham, to which we may trace the origin of the first Americans. For some reason, perhaps no more apparent to himself than us, he designates Naphtuhim, son of Mezraim and grandson of Ham, as their progenitor. He thinks that the colonization was accomplished soon after the confusion of tongues, and may have been effected in any of the numerous ways we have previously mentioned. He cites the tradition of Votan as a proof.[171] Siguenza y Gongora and Sister Agnes de la Cruz, according to Clavigero, were the authors of this opinion, who further designated Egypt as the starting-point for that important expedition of colonists.[172]
Echevarria y Veitia treats the subject fully, tracing it through the traditions of the people. He cites their creation and flood myths, their account of the building of the Tower of Babel and the confusion of tongues, their dispersion upon the face of the earth, and the passage of seven families to the new world (to Hue hue Tlappalan) by means of balsas, with which they crossed rivers and arms of the sea which they encountered in their journey. Though minute in his details, he does nothing more in this respect than other important writers to whom we shall refer in a further chapter, except that his computations by means of the Mexican calendar have enabled him to assign dates to some of these occurrences, which, though they probably are not accurate, are at least interesting. His study of the Mexican paintings convinces him that the natives had a foreign origin.[173] The same author in a part of his work refers to the giants as the first inhabitants of the country, but fails to state whether they came from the old world or not.[174] Ulloa thinks Noah’s long and aimless voyage in the ark was not without fruit to the science of navigation. It gave confidence to his immediate descendants, who no doubt were enterprising enough to construct similar vessels and undertake voyages in them. These, falling in with adverse winds and treacherous currents, were driven to strange islands and even to the new world, and being unable to return, became the first colonists in these remote regions. He thinks the custom of eating raw fish, common to the American tribes, was acquired during long sea voyages.[175] The Abbé Domenech’s opinion has been cited by Mr. Bancroft in his summary of the views of this class of writers; we presume, however, only for the amusement of the reader.[176] The Abbé, less than a score of years ago, committed himself to the ludicrous and antiquated theory that Ophir had colonized Peru.[177] Clavigero considers the creation, flood, and Babel myths of the natives sufficient evidence of unity of origin. He, however, believes that the migration to this continent began at a very early period.[178]
These few writers pretty well represent the opinions of their numerous contemporaries who, though they wrote voluminously enough on this subject, added nothing to what we have noted. The opinions of modern writers are as diverse as those of Garcia, and only surpass him in the ingenuity with which they press their favorite theories. Very little has been done in this field with a true scientific spirit. Each has been an advocate rather than an inquirer; has had his theory to prove sometimes at the expense of reason and fact, and it is remarkable that the majority of works written by such advocates have presented the familiar anomaly of more learning than of probability. It is scarcely the province of this work to discuss these well-known productions of imaginative and too often credulous writers. To more than refer to them would be to lose sight for the time of the object before us.
The claims for the Pre-Columbian colonization of this continent of course include most of those already mentioned, and properly are of two classes: First, those which fix the period of colonization remote enough to account for the old civilization or some phases of it. Second, those which avowedly are too recent to have accomplished that civilization. Of the first-named class there are about a dozen thoroughly elaborated claims, while of the second there are less than half that number. Mr. Warden years ago treated them all in a manner and with a fullness which has not been excelled by any more recent writer.[179] Though it is due to Mr. Bancroft to say that never before has the subject been so exhaustively handled in our own language as by him.[180] As nothing new has been developed in this field of speculation since Mr. Bancroft, and we might add since Mr. Warden treated it, and as nothing could be contributed either to the sciences of ethnology or archæology by a repetition of the old discussion here, for we have our doubts whether any of the claims can ever be substantiated at all, we will content ourselves with the simple enumeration of the theories. A theory which rivals in antiquity, if Egyptian chronology is reliable, the claims of the Fathers that the immediate descendants of Noah peopled the new world shortly after the deluge, is that which seeks to establish the truth of the tradition told to Solon by the Egyptian priests of Psenophis, Sonchis, Heliopolis and Sais concerning the ancient island Atlantis. Critias, whose grandfather had heard the tradition from Solon, communicated it to Socrates. Plato first committed it to writing, and states that the events which it described occurred nine thousand Egyptian years before Solon heard it. After speaking of the “Atlantic Sea,” the priest adds “that sea was indeed navigable, and had an island fronting that mouth which you call the Pillars of Hercules; and this island was larger than Libya and Asia put together, and there was a passage hence for travellers of that day to the rest of the islands, as well as from those islands to the whole opposite continent that surrounds the real sea. For as respects what is within the mouth here mentioned, it appears to be a bay with a kind of narrow entrance, and that sea is indeed a true sea, and the land that entirely surrounds it may truly and most correctly be called a continent.” The priest concludes his account with the statement that an earthquake in a single night buried the entire island and its inhabitants. This mysterious island has been sought for in every quarter of the globe; but the fact that part of the description seems applicable to the West Indies and the Gulf of Mexico, has led theorists to place its submerged shores between that locality and the Cape Verde or Canary groups. It is claimed that this imaginary land bridge, this backbone of earth and rock, may have once been the connecting link between the two continents. The claim has had many champions, but none so celebrated as the lamented Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg. The labors of this learned Américaniste are too well known to require comment.[181] The Codex Chimalpopoca, a Nahua MS. of anonymous authorship, which served the Abbé as the chief authority for the Toltec Period of his Histoire des Nations Civilisées, is the basis upon which he rests the advocacy of his “Atlantic Theory.” This singular Codex, which appears to the eyes of the uninitiated to be only “A History of the Kingdoms of Culhuacan and Mexico,” he considers susceptible of an allegorical interpretation, in which he reads the history and fate of that first of the continents, on whose soil originated all civilization and whose inhabitants were the genii of the arts, the origin of which are without even a tradition.[182]
The popularity of the Jewish theory at an early date has been indicated by our citations from some of the Spanish missionaries. Garcia, after a seven years residence in Peru, wrote his work for the purpose of proving conclusively that the Jews had been the chief colonists of the continent at an early date. He elaborated the argument set forth by Father Duran,[183] which is founded on passages in Esdras, but proceeded to prop up this theory with a catalogue of analogies between the Jews and Americans, some of which are so remote from each other that the very attempt to assimilate them is simply puerile. Garcia has had many disciples, some of whom have been no more critical than himself.[184] The illustrious advocate of the Jewish colonization of America was that indefatigable antiquary, Lord Kingsborough. No more masterly, no abler and more exhaustive defence was ever made in behalf of a hopeless and even baseless claim than his; and as the result, the historian and antiquary has placed at his disposal fac-simile prints of most of the important hieroglyphic MSS. of Mexican authorship deposited in the various libraries of Europe, as well as pictures of the architecture and stone records common to ancient America. We must confess that the work itself, with its curious plates, its maze of notes and references, its masterly and novel discoveries of analogies, though many of them are imaginary, is to us, after prolonged examination, as much of a riddle as the great and improbable theory which it seeks to establish.[185] Closely allied to the theory of the ten lost tribes, is the claim set forth in that pretentious fraud, the Book of Mormon, which attributes the colonization of North America, soon after the confusion of tongues, to a people called Jaredites, who, by divine guidance, reached our shores in eight vessels, and developed a high state of civilization on our soil. These first colonists, however, became extinct about six centuries B.C., because of their social sins. The Jaredites were followed by a second colony, this time of Israelites, who left Jerusalem in the first year of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Juda. They reached the Indian Ocean by following the shores of the Red Sea, where they built a vessel which bore them across the Pacific to the western coast of South America. Having arrived in the new land of promise, they separated into two parties, called Nephites and Laminites respectively, after their leaders. They grew to be great nations and colonized North America also. Religious strife sprang up between the two nations because of the wickedness of the Laminites; the Nephites, however, adhered to their religious traditions and the worship of the true God. Christ appeared in the new world and by his ministrations converted many of both peoples to Him. But towards the close of the fourth century of our era, both Laminites and Nephites backslid in faith and became involved in a war with each other which resulted in the extermination of the latter people. The numerous tumuli scattered over the face of the country cover the remains of the hundreds of thousands of warriors who fell in their deadly strife. Mormon and his son Morani, the last of the Nephites who escaped by concealment, deposited by divine command the annals of their ancestors, the Book of Mormon written on tablets, in the hill of Cumorah, Ontario County, New York, in the vicinity of which the last battle of these relentless enemies took place.[186] The claim, of course, merits mention only on the ground of its romantic character, and not on the supposition for a moment that it contains a grain of truth. The Phœnician and Carthaginian colonization of this continent has been much discussed and credited by a larger number of Americanists than any other theory, except that which refers the original population to those parts of Asia adjacent to Alaska. This claim is based on the maritime achievements of that nation of navigators. The three-year voyages of Hiram and Solomon’s fleet to Ophir and Tarshish, has often been made to do service for this theory. Ophir has most frequently been placed by its advocates in Hayti or Peru.[187] Such speculations, however, are incapable of proof, and are scarcely deserving of sober consideration. The theory itself is one of the few that command respectful attention, since tradition, history, and many facts in natural science, seem to point to its probability.[188] Mr. Bancroft refers at some length to the voyage of Hanno, a Carthaginian navigator, whose exploits beyond the pillars of Hercules, with a fleet of sixty ships and thirty thousand men, is recorded in his Periplus.[189] With true critical insight, Mr. Bancroft rejects the opinion that Hanno reached America, and thinks he only coasted along the shores of Africa.[190] The only tradition preserved by the Americans is that of the mysterious Votan, whom some have sought to assign to a Phœnician nativity.[191] Of late years the theory of the Phœnician colonization has failed to receive its share of support from new writers. This is owing probably to the fact that the labors of Mr. George Jones, embodied in his Original History of Ancient America Founded on the Ruins of Antiquity; the Identity of the Aborigines with the People of Tyrus and Israel, and the Introduction of Christianity by the Apostle St. Thomas,[192] may have rendered all such support unnecessary. It is more probable, however, that the assumption and credulity displayed in this extraordinary work have discouraged any critical writer from aspiring to the honor of having his name transmitted to posterity as an advocate of the Phœnician theory, side by side with that of the author of the Original History. We have no space to devote to so positive a writer, except to state that he colonizes America with a remnant of the inhabitants of Tyre who escaped from their island-city when it was besieged by Alexander the Great in 332 B. C. They sailed out beyond the Pillars of Hercules to their colonies in the Canaries, whence the trade-winds bore them across the Atlantic to the shores of Florida. Ezekiel xxvii. 26, is quoted as proof: “Thy rowers have brought thee into great waters; the east wind hath broken thee in the midst of the seas.”[193] The theory that the ancient Americans descended from the Greeks has been incidentally advocated by several authors, most of the arguments being based upon supposed Greek inscriptions. Two advocates of the theory are, however, quite decided in its defence, namely, Mr. Pidegeon[194] and Mr. Lafitau.[195] The latter believing that the ancient inhabitants of the Grecian archipelago were driven from their country by Og, king of Bashan, supposes the inhabitants of the new world descended from that people, and cites numerous analogies of a political and social nature.[196] No claim has been advanced, we believe, which advocates an actual Egyptian colonization of the new world, but strong arguments have been used to show that the architecture and sculpture of Central America and Mexico have been influenced from Egypt, if not attributable directly to Egyptian artisans. These arguments are based on the resemblance between the gigantic pyramids, the sculptured obelisks, and the numerous idols of these pre-historic countries and those of Egypt. It requires no practised eye to trace a resemblance in general features, though it must be said that the details of American architecture and sculpture, are peculiarly original in design.[197] The principal advocate of the theory, Delafield, has furnished many comparisons, but we think no argument has been presented sufficiently supported by facts to prove that American architecture and sculpture had any other than an indigenous origin.[198] Turning westward our attention is arrested by the probability of the theory which claims that this continent was peopled with the Tartars and nations occupying the regions of North-western Asia. No one can consider the natural certainty of long-continued communication between the two continents at Behring’s Straits without being impressed with the truth that that narrow channel served probably as the first highway between the old world and the new, and vice versa. Certainly a part of the ancient population of America came upon our soil at that quarter. Mr. Bancroft remarks: “The customs, manner of life, and physical appearance of the natives on both sides of the straits are identical, as a multitude of witnesses testify, and it seems absurd to argue the question from any point. Of course, Behring’s Strait may have served to admit other nations besides the people inhabiting its shores into America, and in such cases there is more room for discussion.”[199] Nearly as plausible is the theory which claims that if the original population of this continent were not Japanese, at least a considerable infusion of Japanese blood into the original stock has taken place from time to time, either by intentional colonization or by the accidents incident to navigation. The great number of shipwrecks which are continually being cast upon our Pacific coast by the Japanese current or Kuro-suvo are constant and substantial witnesses to the reasonableness of the claim.[200]
The Chinese colonization theory, unfortunately, does not date far enough back to account for the oldest American civilization. It is nevertheless remote enough, were it proven true, to considerably antedate the Aztec and Inca periods. Upwards of a century ago the learned French sinologist Deguignes announced that he had found in the writings of early Chinese historians the statement that in the fifth century of our era certain adventurers of their race had discovered a country which they called Fusang.[201] He further expressed it as his opinion that the country described must be Western America, and probably Mexico. The original document on which the Chinese historians base their statements was the report of a Buddhist missionary named Hoei-Shin, who in the year 499 A.D., claims to have returned from a long journey of discovery to the remote and unknown east. This report, whatever may be its intrinsic value, was accepted as true by the Chinese, and found its way into the history of Li yan tcheon—written at the beginning of the seventh century of our era. In 1841, Dr. Neumann, Professor of Oriental Languages and History at Munich, after a residence of a couple of years at Canton, published a translation of the narrative of Hoei-Shin with comments upon it.[202] A few of the most striking passages of the account given by this Buddhist missionary are as follows: “Fusang is about 20,000 Chinese li in an easterly direction from Tahan and east of the Middle Kingdom.[203] Many Fusang trees grow there whose leaves resemble the Dryanda cordifolia; the sprouts, on the contrary, resemble those of the bamboo tree, and are eaten by the inhabitants of the land. The fruit is like a pear in form, but is red. From the bark they prepare a sort of linen which they use for clothing, and also a sort of ornamental stuff. The houses are built of wooden beams; fortified and walled places are there unknown. They have written characters in this land, and prepare paper from the bark of the Fusang. The people have no weapons and make no wars, but in the arrangement of the kingdom, they have a northern and southern prison. Trifling offenders are lodged in the southern prison, but those confined for greater offences in the northern. The name of the king is pronounced Ichi. The color of his clothes changes with the different years. The horns of the oxen are so large that they hold ten bushels. They use them to contain all manner of things. Horses, oxen, and stags are harnessed to their wagons. Stags are used here as cattle are used in the Middle Kingdom, and from the milk of the hind they make butter. No iron is found in the land; but copper, gold, and silver are not prized, and do not serve as a medium of exchange in the market. Marriage is determined upon in the following manner: the suitor builds himself a hut before the door of the house where the one longed for dwells, and waters and cleans the ground every evening. When a year has passed by, if the maiden is not inclined to marry him he departs; should she be willing it is completed. In earlier times these people lived not according to the laws of Buddha, but it happened that in the second year—named ‘Great Light’ of Song (A.D. 458)—five beggar-monks from the kingdom of Kipin went to this land, extended over it the religion of Buddha, and with it his early writings and images. They instructed the people in the principles of monastic life, and so changed their manners.”[204] Dr. Neumann does not claim that the Chinese Fusang tree is identical with the Maguay plant, but that the resemblance between it and the great numbers of the latter found in Mexico suggested a name for the country to the discoverer. The uncertainty as to the distance, arising out of our inability to determine what was considered the length of a Chinese li in the fifth century, is of course an obstacle to the satisfactory solution of the question. The amusing and preposterous statement as to the size of the horns of oxen is no argument against the general truth of the narrative, since we have no data from which to determine the capacity of the measure, the name of which is here translated bushel, since the widest possible difference exists between the ancient and modern Chinese tables of measurement. The references to horses and oxen are perplexing, and give the narrative the air either of imposture or mistake, since both were brought to America first by the Spaniards.[205] The argument by the opponents of this theory that Fusang was Japan stands on a very slender foundation, since at a very early period, centuries before our era, Japan afforded naval stations for Chinese ships.[206] Klaproth, and later Dr. E. Bretschneider, designated the island of Tarakai, known as Saghalien on our maps, as the Fusang of Hoei-Schin.[207] M. D’Eichthal and Professor Neumann have both made able arguments in defence of the authenticity and reasonableness of this claim, but there are too many uncertainties about it to admit of its unqualified acceptance. We are more disposed to give credence to the theory that the Chinese discovered America at a very early day, than to attach much importance to the particular account of that discovery by Hoei-Shin. The theory is a good one, with an abundance of geographical and ethnological testimony in its favor.[208]
Closely allied to the Chinese theory is that so enthusiastically advocated by Ranking, who maintains that the Mongol emperor Kublai Khan, in the thirteenth century sent a large fleet against Japan, but that the vast armada was destroyed by a tempest, and a portion of its ships were wrecked on the shores of Peru.[209] The first Inca he believes was the son of Kublai Khan. It is a well-known fact that the Mongol fleet was dispersed by a storm, but there are grave objections to the opinion that any of the vessels were cast upon the shores of South America. No tradition was found among the Peruvians only three centuries later concerning the Incas or any other people having reached their shores by the accident of shipwreck, or who could be identified as of Asiatic origin. It is true the Incas may have designed to keep their human origin as well as their misfortunes a secret, that they might the better set up their claim to imperial and divine honors among the people whom they sought to subjugate by that most powerful ally to ambition—superstition. Mr. Ranking wrote a very plausible book, but often fell into errors of credulity and unrestrained enthusiasm which leaves many of his statements open to suspicion. The theory cannot be accepted without additional and more satisfactory proof.[210] Should it prove to be true, it certainly cannot throw light upon the origin of the population, but only on a phase of civilization. Humboldt, Tschudi, Viollet-le-Duc, Count Stolberg and other writers have pointed out striking analogies between the religion of Southern Asia, especially of India and that of Mexico.[211] If the argument from analogy is to be relied on, there is abundant reason to believe that Buddhism in a modified form had permeated the religious systems of the new world with its mystic element besides grafting upon them some of its better and more humane institutions.
These are all the colonization claims worth mentioning, which date back far enough to account for the ancient civilization. Of the second class (those too recent to have made much impression on the existing state of things) there are three. The earliest of these as to date, is the claim which credits the Irish with the colonization of the Atlantic coast from North Carolina to Florida. “White-Man’s Land,” so often located in this country, is no doubt imaginary. The obscure and unsatisfactory chronicle which forms the basis of this claim destroys its own authority by the statement that White-Man’s Land was six days’ sail from Ireland.[212] Another legend set forth by Broughton, which claims that St. Patrick preached the Gospel in the “Isles of America,” carries its own refutation upon its face by the use of the word America in its text.[213] The Scandinavian discovery of America is a well-known fact, and requires no discussion here. The Codex Flatioiensis, as expounded by the learned Prof. Rafn in the Antiquitates Americanæ, has, no doubt, set at rest the whole matter. Humboldt, in reviewing the evidence upon which the claim is founded, sums it up in these words: “The discovery of the northern part of America by the Northmen cannot be disputed. The length of the voyage, the direction in which they sailed, the time of the sun’s rising and setting, are accurately given. While the caliphate of Bagdad was still flourishing under the Abbassides, and while the rule of the Samanides, so favorable to poetry, still flourished in Persia, America was discovered about the year 1000 by Lief, son of Eric the Red, at about 41½° north latitude.” No evidence of a substantial character has been produced to show that the Scandinavians left any impress upon the American civilization. It is true, Brasseur de Bourbourg, when he first began his labors in the field of American archæology expressed such an opinion, but we believe he never repeated it in the latter years of his life.[214] The learned Abbé was guilty of many contradictions, and this may be considered one of them. The most positive claims in this direction are advanced by two recent authors, M. Gravier[215] and Prof. Anderson,[216] the former attributing the Aztec civilization to Norse influence. He cites the discovery in Brazil of an ancient city near Bahia, in which was found the statue of a man pointing with his forefinger to the North Pole; of course, according to M. Gravier, he was a Northman.[217] Several authorities for the discovery of Norse remains in the United States might be cited, but the unwarrantable arguments of most of them add nothing to the already established fact of Norse colonization in the tenth century of our era. Another Pre-Columbian claim to the discovery of America is that which declares Madoc-Ap-owen and his Welsh countrymen to have reached this continent in 1170 A.D. The chronicle on which the claim is based, is wanting in authority. A translation of it, taken from a history of Wales by Dr. Powell, was published by Hakluyt, in 1589. As this claim can have no relation to our subject, we refrain from a discussion of it here.[218] The only remaining theory, and probably the most important of all, because of its purely scientific character, which presents itself for our consideration, is that which not only considers the civilization of ancient America to have been indigenous, but also claims the inhabitants themselves to have been autochthonic; in a word, that by process of evolution or in some other way, the first Americans were either developed from a lower order in the animal kingdom or were created on the soil of this continent. As the latter theory involves a denial of the unity of the race, it requires a separate and critical examination.