1. Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. V, p. 78.
  2. Stephens’s “Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan,” Vol. I, p. 113, et seq.
  3. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 95.
  4. “Report of Bureau of Ethnology,” Vol. I. Mr. Holden’s article.
  5. Fourteen years later, these ruins were visited and described by an Austrian traveler, Dr. Scherzer. His account, though much more complete than Mr. Stephens’s, has not yet appeared in English. Mr. Bancroft, in “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 118, et seq., gives a résumé of all information known as to these ruins.
  6. “Central America,” Vol II, p. 122. We are not sure about this inclosure. But Mr. Catherwood mentions a wall, and we are told the ruins are, in all respects, similar to those of Copan.
  7. For full information consult Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, pp. 115 to 139.
  8. “Central America,” Vol. II, pp. 152-3.
  9. Brasseur De Bourbourg styles Fuentes’s description of Copan “La description menteuse de Fuentes.” Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 80, note.
  10. Charney, in North American Review, 1881.
  11. “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 300, et seq.
  12. Morgan’s “Contribution to N.A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 268.
  13. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 319.
  14. Armin: “Das Heute Mexico.”
  15. “Native Races,” Vol. IV.
  16. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” p. 326.
  17. Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 389.
  18. Holden, in “First Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology.”
  19. Brasseur De Bourbourg.
  20. “Myths of the New World.”
  21. Holden, in “First Annual Report Bureau of Ethnology.”
  22. This tablet is named after its discoverer. The building in which it is situated was but a short distance from the others; yet, owing to the density of the forest, neither Waldeck nor Stephens discovered it. A cast of it is now in the National Museum at Washington.
  23. Rau, in “Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge,” Vol. XXII, p. 40.
  24. “Myths of the New World,” p. 95.
  25. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. V, p. 506.
  26. See, also, “American Encyclopedia,” Art. “Cross.”
  27. “Conquest of Mexico,” p. 160.
  28. “Smithsonian Contribution to Knowledge,” Vol. XXII.
  29. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 470.
  30. “Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,” Vol. I.
  31. Mr. Holden uses, as an important link in his arguments, a figure engraved on a chalchiute (a sacred stone). He concludes it to be a representative of Huitzilopochtli, the god of war, or rather the Maya representative of the Mexican god of that name. It is unfortunate that Prof. Valentine gives to this same figure a different significance. In the “Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society,” for April, 1884, in a paper on that subject, he concludes it to be a representation of a victorious warrior giving sacrifice to his god. The only persons entitled to speak on such subjects are those thoroughly acquainted with Maya Archæology.
  32. Huitzilopochtli.
  33. Tlaloc.
  34. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 324.
  35. While such seem to us to be the results of Mr. Holden’s labors, it must not be understood that he vouches for them. They must be regarded as personal views which we express with some mental forebodings. In this matter we must abide by further investigations.
  36. Bandelier: “An Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 184.
  37. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 345.
  38. See Charney, in North American Review, 1881. They wore formerly in a house.
  39. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 332.
  40. Brinton’s “Contribution to North American Ethnology,” Vol. V, p. 36. “Introduction to Study of Manuscript Troano,” by Prof. Thomas.
  41. North American Review, February, 1881, p. 187.
  42. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” p. 287.
  43. “Central America,” Vol. II, p. 261. At this time Mr. Stephens had not seen the ruins at Palenque, and those in Yucatan.
  44. Pronounced “oosh-mal.”
  45. Our principal authority on the ruin’s of Yucatan is Mr. Stephens, whose work, “Incidents of Travel in Yucatan,” in two volumes, is all that can be desired. Mr. Bancroft, in “Native Races,” Vol. IV, has gathered together whatever of worth there is in the writings of various explorers.
  46. Mr. Stephens thinks they were for the support of the arches, while building. As, however, it is almost certain they constructed this arch over a solid cove of masonry, which they afterwards removed (see “Contributions to N.A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 262), they could not have been intended for such use.
  47. The pyramid is three hundred and fifty feet square at the base and nineteen feet high. The terraces are along the south side. The lowest terrace is three feet high and twenty feet wide. The second is twelve feet high and forty-five feet wide. The third is four feet high and five feet wide. The building on the south side is two hundred and seventy-nine feet long, twenty-eight feet wide, and eighteen feet high. The north one is two hundred and sixty-four feet long, twenty-eight feet wide, and twenty-five feet high. The eastern one, one hundred and fifty-eight feet long, thirty-five feet wide, and twenty-two feet high. The western one, one hundred and seventy-three feet long, thirty-five feet wide, and twenty feet high. (Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 174.) The area of the court is two hundred and fourteen feet by two hundred and fifty-eight feet. It is about two and a half feet lower than the buildings on the eastern, western, and southern sides. There are seventy-six rooms in the four ranges of buildings, and twelve more in the facings of the terrace of the north building, to be described. In size the rooms vary from twenty to thirty feet long by from ten to twelve feet wide.
  48. Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. IV, p. 179.
  49. The dimensions of this mound are as follows: Length of base, two hundred and thirty-five feet; width of base, one hundred and five feet; height, eighty-eight feet. Though diminishing as it rises, it is not exactly pyramidal, but its corners are rounded. It is incased with stone, and is apparently solid from the plain.—Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. I, p. 316.
  50. See “Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society,” April, 1880, p. 57.
  51. North American Review, 1882.
  52. “Contributions to North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 267.
  53. Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. II, p. 164.
  54. Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 396; Charney: North American Review, October, 1880.
  55. “Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society,” Oct., 1878, p. 73.
  56. Learned men of the Mayas.
  57. American Antiquarian Society, October 1878.
  58. The tigers can be seen on the engraving of the gymnasium.
  59. Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, April, 1877, p. 97.
  60. Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, April, 1877, p. 101.
  61. M. Le Plongon interprets the curved figures issuing from the throat of the wise-man. In the original, different parts of this figure were of different colors. The doctor frankly tells us, that “imagination does the greater part of the work” in his interpretation.
  62. “Guided, as I have said, by my interpretations of the mural paintings, bas-reliefs, and other signs, . . . I directed my steps, perhaps inspired by the instincts of the archæologist, to a dense part of the thicket.” Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1877, p. 85.
  63. North American Review, October, 1880. And yet there are indications that this is a statue. See Bandelier’s “Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 74.
  64. Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. II, p. 318.

Chapter XV
THE CULTURE OF THE CIVILIZED TRIBES.1

Different views on this question—Reason for the same—Their architecture—Different styles of houses—The communal house—The tecpan—The teocalli—State of society indicated by this architecture—The gens among the Mexicans—The phratry among the Mexicans—The tribe—The powers and duties of the council—The head chiefs of the tribe—The duties of the “Chief-of-men”—The mistake of the Spaniards—The Confederacy—The idea of property among the Mexicans—The ownership of land—Their laws—Enforcement of the laws—Outline of the growth of the Mexicans in power—Their tribute system—How collected—Their system of trade—Slight knowledge of metallurgy—Religion—Quietzalcohuatl—Huitzilopochtli—Mexican priesthood—Human sacrifices—The system of Numeration—The calendar system—The calendar stone—Picture writing—Landa alphabet—Historical outline.

landscape presents varied aspects according to the standpoint from which it is viewed. Here we have a glimpse of hill and dale; there a stretch of running water. But two persons, standing in the same position, owing to their different mental temperaments, will view things in a different light. Where one, an artist born, is carried away with the beautiful scenery, another, with a more practical turn of mind, perceives only its adaptability for investments. Education and habits of life are also very potent factors in determining our views on various questions. Scholars of wide and extended learning differ very greatly in their views of questions deeply affecting human interests. We know how true that is of abstruse topics, such as religion and questions of state polity. It is also true of the entire field of scientific research. The unknown is a vastly greater domain than the known, and men, after deep and patient research, adopt widely different theories to explain the same facts.

It need, therefore, occasion no surprise to learn that there is a great difference of opinion as to the real state of culture among the so-called civilized tribes of Mexico and Central America. We have incidentally mentioned this difference in describing the ruins and their probable purpose. As one of the objects we have in view, and perhaps the most important one, is to learn what we can of the real state of society amongst the prehistoric people we treat of, it becomes necessary to examine these different views, and, if we can not decide in our own minds what to accept as true, we will be prepared to receive additional evidence that scholars are now bringing forward, and know to how weigh them and compare them with others.

It has only been within the last few years that we have gained an insight into the peculiar organization of Indian society. After some centuries of contact between the various tribes of Indians and whites, their social organization was still unknown. But we are now beginning to understand this, and the important discovery has also been made that this same system of government was very widely spread, indeed. This subject has, however, been as extensively treated as is necessary in chapter xii, so we need not stop longer. But if, with all the light of modern learning, we have only lately gained a clear understanding of the social organization of Indian tribes, it need occasion no surprise, nor call for any indignant denial, to affirm that the Spaniards totally misunderstood the social organization of the tribes with which they came in contact in Mexico.

We must also take into consideration the political condition of Europe at this time. Feudalism still exercised an influence on men’s minds. The Spanish writers, in order to convey to Europeans a knowledge of the country and its inhabitants, applied European names and phrases to American Indian (advanced though they were) personages and institutions. But the means employed totally defeated the object sought. Instead of imparting a clear idea, a very erroneous one was conveyed.

As an illustration of this abuse of language, we might refer to the case of Montezuma, which name itself is a corruption of the Mexican word “Motecu-zoma,” meaning literally “my wrathy chief.” Mr. Bandelier2 and Mr. Morgan have quite clearly shown what his real position was. His title was “chief of men.”3 He was simply one of the two chief executive officers of the tribe and general of the forces of the confederacy. His office was strictly elective, and he could be deposed for misdemeanor. Instead of giving him his proper title, and explaining its meaning, the Spaniards bestowed on him the title of king, which was soon enlarged to that of emperor, European words, it will be observed, which convey an altogether wrong idea of Mexican society. Many such illustrations could be given.

The literature that has grown up about this subject is very voluminous, but the authors not being acquainted with the organization of Indian society, have not been able to write understandingly about them. We do not flatter ourselves that we have now solved all the difficulties of the case. But since Mr. Morgan has succeeded in throwing such a flood of light on the constitution of ancient society, and especially of Indian society, and Mr. Bandelier has given us the results of his careful investigation of the culture of the Mexicans, we feel that a foundation has been laid for a correct understanding of this vexed problem.