II
Chichen Itza has had a long and varied history. Founded by the Mayas about 500 A. D. in their northern migrations from their original homes in Honduras and Guatemala, abandoned for four hundred years and settled again about the year 1000, Chichen was now to have two hundred years of growth and prosperity. Many of the older buildings still standing, date from this period. The famous League of Mayapan, Uxmal, and Chichen Itza, was a working alliance which resulted in all the cities of Yucatan making great strides forward in many of the arts. Several of the more famous structures at Chichen were erected in this epoch. Our story begins with the disruption of this League, when Mayapan brought in Mexican forces to prey upon the other cities of the peninsula. Peace gave way to many years of civil strife. The final destruction of Mayapan, about the middle of the fifteenth century, marked the end of the Maya civilization. The Spaniards found only the lingering remnants of the former splendor.
None of the ruined cities of Yucatan is more wonderful than Chichen Itza, stately and grand even now when many of its temples have fallen into decay, and others are buried in the depths of the forest. The sharp outlines of the Great Pyramid still rise above the level line of the trees of the jungle. The fine proportions of the pyramid, and the temple still standing on its top, mark it as perhaps the most complete and perfect building still extant in the whole Maya area. The substantial walls of the Ball Court remain as solid as when they were built. One of the stone rings still projects from the wall, a witness to the love of sport of the ancient people. The beautiful Temple of the Tigers, standing on the end of one of the walls, has been a prey to the devastating forces of man, of beast, and of nature. Vines and the roots of trees have gained a foothold on the roof, and many of the carved stones have fallen. Iguanas run in all directions when the chance visitor approaches. The frescoes of the inner chamber are but blurred remains of a former art.
And the Cenote of Sacrifice, that famous well, so vividly described by the early Christian priests, is now but a deserted shrine. Trailing vines, ferns, and palms almost cover the precipitous sides. The dark green waters are almost concealed by the slime of decaying vegetation. But the sight of the silent, sinister pool, surrounded by the unbroken forest, makes it easy, even now, to picture the scenes of sacrifice which it has witnessed.
The country is still peopled by the Mayas but their greatness is a thing of the past. The present-day native may well pause to wonder what the ruined buildings of his country were really for. He knows only what his white masters have told him. “They are the temples of your ancestors who have had a past unequaled in the early history of the New World, a past stretching back almost to the beginning of the Christian Era.” He only shakes his head and murmurs in his adopted language, “Quien sabe.”
The Maya civilization formerly embraced the whole peninsula of Yucatan, Chiapas and Tabasco, states of Mexico, the greater part of Guatemala, British Honduras, northern Honduras, and northern Salvador. This country is still occupied in general with peoples speaking various dialects of the Maya language.
The Mayas, both linguistically and culturally, are distinct from the Zapotecs in Oaxaca and the Nahua-Aztec peoples of Central Mexico. There is little doubt, however, that all the cultures of Mexico and Central America go back to a common origin. The Maya civilization is older than that of the Toltecs in Mexico which, in turn, preceded that of the Aztecs. The Toltec culture greatly influenced the late Maya of northern Yucatan about 1200 A. D.
MAYA CHRONOLOGY (CHICHEN ITZA)
?-200 A. D. Period of migrations. 200-600 Chichen Itza founded. 520 Chichen Itza abandoned. 640-960 Itzas at Chakanputun. 700-960 Chichen rebuilt. League of Mayapan. 960-1200 Old Empire. Great cities of Guatemala and Honduras flourished. 1200-1442 Toltec influence, especially at Chichen Itza. 1442 Fall of Mayapan and end of Maya civilization.
The historical accounts upon which parts of our story are based are:
Molina, J. Historia del discubrimiento y conquista de Yucatan, 1896, pp. 47-51
Herrera, Historia General, 1601-1605.
Prescott, Chapter III, after Herrera, Torquemada, etc.
Landa (156), Brasseur de Bourbourg ed. 1864, pp. 344-346.
Relacion de Valladolid (1579) in Col. de Doc. Ineditos, 1898-1900, vol. XIII, p. 25
Other historical and general references are:
History:
Cogolludo, D. L. Historia de Yucatan, 1688.
Villagutierre, J. Historia de la conquista de la Provincia del Itza, 1701.
Means, P. A. A history of the Spanish conquest of Yucatan and of the Itzas, in Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. VII, 1917.
Chronology:
Morley, S. G. The correlation of Maya and Christian chronology. (American Journal of Archaeology, 2nd series, vol. XIV, pp. 193-204.)
The historical value of the Books of Chilam Balam (American Journal of Archaeology, 2nd series, vol. XV, pp. 195-214.)
Ruins:
Stephens, J. L. Incidents of travel in Yucatan, 1843.
Incidents of travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan, 1841.
Maudslay, A. P. Biologia Centrali-Americana Archaeology, 1889-1902.
Holmes, W. H. Archaeological Studies among the Ancient Cities of Mexico. (Field Columbian Museum, Anthropological Series, vol I, 1895-1897.)
Joyce, T. A. Mexican Archaeology. 1914.
Spinden, H. J. A study of Maya art. (Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, vol. VI, 1913.)
Gordon, G. B., Thompson, E. H., and Tozzer, A. M. in Memoirs of the Peabody Museum.
Hieroglyphic writing:
Bowditch, C. P. The numeration, calendar systems and astronomical knowledge of the Mayas, 1910.
Morley, S. G. An introduction to the study of the Maya hieroglyphs, (Bulletin 57, Bureau of American Ethnology, 1915.)
The inscriptions at Copan, (Carnegie Institution, 1920.)
Present population:
Tozzer, A. M. A comparative study of the Mayas and the Lacandones, 1907.
Maya language:
Tozzer, A. M. A Maya grammar with bibliography and appraisement of the works noted (Papers of the Peabody Museum, vol. IX, 1921.)
Relation with surrounding cultures:
Spinden, H. J. Ancient civilizations of Mexico and Central America. (Handbook Series, No. 3, American Museum of Natural History, 1917.)
The origin and distribution of agriculture in America. (Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Americanists, New York, 1917.)
Tozzer, A. M. The domain of the Aztecs, (Holmes Anniversary Volume, 1916.)
The Shellmound People
The Shellmound people who lived on the shores of San Francisco Bay for perhaps three or four thousand years, down to early historic times, are regarded as having belonged towards the end to the Costanoan linguistic family. These Costanoans inhabited the portion of California extending from the Golden Gate south to Soledad, and from the Pacific Ocean east to the San Joaquin River. Although totalling more than 7000 square miles in extent, this territory was nevertheless largely occupied by mountains and marshes unsuitable for permanent habitation. The principle settlements were in consequence confined to the ocean shore, the bay shore, and the portion of the San Joaquin valley lying between the marsh and the Coast Range foothills. Seven Spanish missions were established in the territory during the latter part of the 18th century, and from the old records of these institutions Bancroft has extracted the names of some two hundred villages, several of which, however, were outside the Costanoan territorial limits. The estimated population may be placed conservatively at about 10,000.
One of the principal dialectic divisions of the Costanoan stock was known as the Mutsuns or Mutsunes; and for purposes of the story the Ahwashtee tribe, to which Wixi and his villagers of Akalan belonged, has been connected with this group. As a matter of fact, the Ahwashtees are definitely reported to have lived on the bay shore, though probably the Mutsunes did not.
There is next to no available historical data about the Shellmound people, as such, and very little archæological evidence in the shellmounds themselves that the Indians continued to inhabit them after the arrival of the white man. The principal references are:
Bancroft, H. H. Native Races of the Pacific States of North America, vol. I, 1874.
Mason, J. A. The Mutsun Dialect of Costanoan. (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. XI, No. 7. 1916.)
Nelson, N. C. Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. VII, No. 4. 1909.)
Powers, Stephen. Tribes of California. (Contributions to North American Ethnology, vol. III. 1877.)
Uhle, Max. The Emeryville Shellmound. (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. VIII, No. 1. 1907.)
Yurok
The Yurok are one of half a dozen tribes in northwestern California who exhibit jointly a surprisingly complex way of living. Others of this highly cultured group are the Hupa, the Karok, the Tolowa, the Chilula, and the Wiyot. One element especially in the tribal life of the region, is the notion of aristocracy based upon wealth. This makes them rather grasping. Every injury, from slander to rape, demands its money price. The Yurok, accordingly, become adept at the art of taking offense. Quarrelsomeness is a religion, and wrangling for a price, a fine art. Some Yurok are born “stinkers” in money matters. The remainder have that quality thrust upon them by the pressure of tribal feeling. They speak an Algonkian language, live along the lower part of the Klamath River, subsist mostly on fish (though they eat a lot of acorns) and are nice folks when you know their ways (not until then, however). The principal works which describe the Yurok are:
Powers, Stephen. Tribes of California (U. S. Interior Department, Contributions to North American Ethnology, vol. III.)
Waterman, T. T. Yurok Geography (University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. XVI.)
Notes on Yurok Culture (Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, [in press]).
A book which has no title, except a dedication “To the American Indian,” by a Yurok woman, privately printed at Eureka, California, in 1916.
Goddard, P. E. Life and Culture of the Hupa, University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. I. (a very fine work, describing not the Yurok, but the neighboring Hupa, who follow the same mode of life.)
Nootka
The Nootka Indians, sometimes known as Aht, are a group of tribes occupying the west coast of Vancouver Island, from about Cape Cook south to Sooke Inlet, also the extreme northwest point, Cape Flattery, of Washington. The Indians of Cape Flattery, generally known as Makah, are sometimes considered distinct from the Nootka, but their speech is practically identical with that of the Nitinat, the southern group of Vancouver Island Nootka. The dividing line between the Nitinat and northern Nootka (Nootka proper) is a little south of Cape Beale. It is determined by linguistic considerations, the Nitinat dialects and those of the northern Nootka being mutually unintelligible groups. The dialectic differences within the groups are comparatively slight. Directly north of the northernmost Nootka are the Quatsino, one of the Kwakiutl tribes; south of the southernmost island Nitinat are the Sooke, a Coast Salish tribe of the Lkungen-Clallam group; while south of the Makah are the Quilleute, a Chimakuan tribe.
The total number of Nootkas in 1906 was about 2500, of which over 400 belonged to the Makah. The Nootkas in no sense form a political unit. They are merely a group of independent tribes, related by language, inter-tribal marriage, and close cultural inter-influences.
The Nootkas, using the term in its widest sense, are fairly remote linguistic relatives of the Kwakiutl (including Kwakiutl proper, Bella Bella, and Kitamat), who occupy the northernmost part of the island and adjoining parts of the mainland of British Columbia as well. Nootka and Kwakiutl are often combined by ethnographers into the “Wakashan” stock.
The Nootka tribes are culturally quite distinct from both the Kwakiutl and the Coast Salish tribes of the southeastern part of Vancouver Island, but have been much influenced, particularly in ceremonial respects, by both.
The chief works on the Nootka are:
Boas F. The Nootka (Report of British Association for the Advancement of Science, Leeds meeting, 1890, pp. 582-604; reprinted, pp. 30-52, in Sixth Report on the Northwestern Tribes of Canada.)
The Nootka ([Religious Ceremonials] pp. 632-644 of The Social Organization and the Secret Societies of the Kwakiutl Indians, in Report of U. S. National Museum, 1895).
Sagen der Nutka (pp. 98-128 of Indianische Sagen von der Nord-Pacifischen Küste Amerikas, Berlin, 1895).
Hunt, George (collector). Myths of the Nootka (pp. 888-935 of Boas, F.: Tsimshian Mythology, 31st Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1909-10.)
Jewitt, John R. (also Jewett) Adventures and Sufferings of John R. Jewitt, only Survivor of the Crew of the Ship Boston during a captivity of nearly three years among the Indians of Nootka Sound (Middletown, 1815; Edinburgh, 1824; often reprinted, see edition of Robert Brown, London, 1896); also published as The Captive of Nootka, or the Adventures of John R. Jewett (Philadelphia, 1841).
Sapir, E. A Flood Legend of the Nootka Indians of Vancouver Island (Journal of American Folklore, 1919, pp. 351-355).
A Girl’s Puberty Ceremony among the Nootka Indians (Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 3rd series, vol. VII, 1913, pp. 67-80).
Some Aspects of Nootka Language and Culture (American Anthropologist, N. S., vol. XIII, 1911, pp. 15-28).
Vancouver Island, Indians of (in Hastings’ Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics; deals with Nootka religion).
Sproat, G. M. Scenes and Studies of Savage Life (London, 1868).
Swan, James G. The Indians of Cape Flattery (Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge, vol. XVI, part 8. pp. 1-106, Washington, 1870).
Chipewyan
A Northern Athabascan group extending over a considerable area in Canada, from the Churchill River to Lake Athabaska and the Great Slave Lake. They are sometimes mistaken for the Algonkian Chippewa (Ojibwa). Their number is set at nearly 1800.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hearne, Samuel. Journey from Prince of Wales’s Fort in Hudson’s Bay, to the Northern Ocean. (London, 1795).
Petitot, E. Traditions indiennes du Canada nord-ouest. (Alençon, 1887.)
Russell, Frank. Explorations in the Far North. (Des Moines, 1898.)
Goddard, P. E. Chipewyan Texts. (Anthropological Papars American Museum of Natural History, vol. X, pp. 1-65.)
Lowie, Robert H. Chipewyan Tales. (ibid., vol. X, pp. 171-200.)
Ten’a
Anvik is a village on the Anvik River, a tributary of the Yukon River, about four hundred miles from its mouth and about one hundred and twenty-five miles from the coast. The village is populated by the most northern of one of the Athabascan peoples, called Ingalik or Ingilik by the Russians, meaning Lousy, according to Jetté, an Eskimo name, or Tinneh or Ten’a, a native name. The native name for Anvik is Gudrinethchax; it means Middle People, a place name, as are the other native names for the river villages.
The only published accounts of the Ten’a are those of the French missionary Jetté, stationed at Konkrines and the American missionary Chapman, stationed at Anvik. At the American mission Mr. Reed was educated, and his opportunities to observe his own people have been in certain particulars limited. In spite of his knowledge of English, and of American culture he is, however, unusually unsophisticated and he has been an acute and sympathetic observer of the life at Anvik, White and Indian. He is therefore what we frequently look for among school-taught Indians but rarely find—a qualified interpreter of native culture. As the time available for working with him was quite limited, he was asked to present his information as if he were telling the story of an Anvik villager from birth to death.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Jetté, J. On the Medicine-Men of the Ten’a. (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, XXXVII [1907], 157-188.)
On Ten’a Folklore (ibid. XXXVIII [1908], 298-367).
On the Superstitions of the Ten’a Indians, (Anthropos, VI [1911], 95-108, 241-259, 602-615, 699-723).
Riddles of the Ten’a Indians, (ibid. VIII [1913], 181-201, 630-651.)
Chapman, John W. Notes on the Tinneh Tribe of Anvik, Alaska. (Congrès International des Américanistes, 15th Session, II, 7-38. Quebec, 1907.)
Athabascan Traditions from the Lower Yukon. (Journal of American Folklore, XVI [1903], 180-5.)
Ten’a Texts and Tales. (Pub. American Ethnological Society, VI, Leyden, 1914.)
Eskimos
The Eskimos occupy the whole Arctic coast from Behring Strait to Labrador and Greenland. They have also a few isolated villages on the extreme eastern point of Siberia. Notwithstanding a general uniformity of cultural life, there are marked differences between the Eskimo of the region west of the Mackenzie River and the eastern group. The Eskimo of Greenland are considerably modified by European contact. The group to which the tale refers are the Eskimo of Baffin Land, the large island extending from Hudson Strait northward and forming the west coast of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, more particularly of the eastern shore of the island. The total number of individuals living in this area does not exceed 400.
Individuals belonging to these villages make extensive travels and come into contact with the natives of the northern coast of Hudson Bay and of the mainland northwest of Hudson Bay. Only Eskimo tribes are known to them.
The principal descriptions of these tribes are found in the following publications:
Boas, Franz. The Central Eskimo (6th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, Washington, 1888).
The Eskimo of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay (Bulletin, vol. XX, American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1901, 1907).
Other important publications may be found in the bibliographies attached to these volumes. The most important recent publication on the Eskimo of Greenland is:
Thalbitzer, William. The Ammassalik Eskimo; Meddelelser om Gronland, vol. XXXIX, Copenhagen, 1914.