From the same mysterious regions from where had issued the aboriginal Chichimecas and Toltec people, there subsequently came still other bands of sedentary Indians, who finally came to settle around the lakes of Anahuac. These settlers all spoke closely related dialects of the same language as their predecessors, the Toltecs. Finally the Aztecs appeared on the scene, coming from the same mysterious land of the “Seven Caves.” According to their historical picture-writings, they founded the Pueblo of Mexico in 1325. It is somewhat singular that no record of this event appears on the calendar stone. If the artist was ingenious enough, as Prof. Valentine thinks he was, to represent the dispersion of the Toltecs in the eleventh century, he surely would have found some way to refer to such an important event as the founding of their Pueblo. From this date the Mexicans steadily rose in power, until they finally became the leading power of the valley.99

REFERENCES

  1. The manuscript of this chapter was submitted to A. F. Bandelier for criticism. The part bearing on religion was subsequently rewritten. Absence from the country prevented his examining it.
  2. Mr. Bandelier is the author of three essays on the culture of the ancient Mexicans. These are published in Volume II of “Peabody Museum Reports.” We wish to make a general reference to these essays. They are invaluable to the student. Every position is sustained by numerous quotations from the early writers. In order to save constant references to them, we will here state that, unless other authorities are given for striking statements as to the culture of the Mexicans, their social organizations, etc., it is understood that our authority is found in these essays.
  3. In Mexican, “Tlaca-tecuhtli.”
  4. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 572.
  5. “Contribution to North American Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 229.
  6. Morgan’s “Contributions to N.A. Ethnology,” p. 256.
  7. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 576.
  8. “Who over heard of an imperfectly developed race decorating so profusely and so delicately their ordinary abodes, in a manner usually reserved for temples and palaces?” S. F. Haven, in Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1880, p. 57.
  9. Morgan’s “Contribution to N.A. Ethnology,” Vol. IV, p. 186.
  10. Cortez saw “trinkets made of gold and silver, of lead, bronze, copper, and tin.” They were on the confines of a true Bronze Age. Proceedings of Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1879, p. 81.
  11. “History of the Conquest of Mexico.”
  12. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II.
  13. “History of America,” 1818, Vol. III, book viii, p. 9.
  14. Wilson’s “Conquest of Mexico.”
  15. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 91.
  16. But, on this point, see “Peabody Reports,” Vol. II, p. 685 —note, p. 282.
  17. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 197.
  18. Ibid., p. 205.
  19. “Ancient Society,” p. 118.
  20. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 147.
  21. We refer again to Mr. Bandelier’s articles. A careful reading of them will convince any one that the picture of Mexican Government as set forth in Mr. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, is very erroneous. Mr. Bancroft’s views are, however, those of many writers.
  22. “Ancient Society,” p. 528.
  23. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 537.
  24. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 435.
  25. It is needless to remark that these results are greatly at variance with those generally held, as will be seen by consulting Mr. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, Chap. xiv. Mr. Bancroft, however, simply gathers together what other writers have stated on this subject. We follow, in this matter, the conclusions of an acknowledged leader in this field, Mr. Bandelier, who has fully worked out Mr. Morgan’s views, advanced in “Ancient Society.”
  26. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 193.
  27. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 95.
  28. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 194.
  29. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 94.
  30. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 195.
  31. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. I, p. 344.
  32. Valentine, in Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society, April, 1879.
  33. Gallatin: “American Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 119.
  34. Valentine: Proceedings American Antiq. Soc., October, 1880, p. 75.
  35. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 381. Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, April, 1879, p. 110.
  36. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 193.
  37. “Fifth Annual Report Archæological Institute of America,” p. 83.
  38. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 389.
  39. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 325.
  40. Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1879, p. 90.
  41. Ibid., p. 111.
  42. North American Review, Oct. 1880, p. 310.
  43. See “Copper Age in Wisconsin,” in Proceedings American Antiquarian Society, No. 69, p. 57.
  44. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 483.
  45. Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, Oct., 1881, P. 66. (Valentine.)
  46. Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, Oct., 1881, p. 66. (Valentine.)
  47. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 489.
  48. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, pp. 182-199. In this connection, see also Bandolier: “An Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 185, note 2. It seems that none of the early writers speak of such a belief. The idea of one single God is first found in the writings of Ixtilxochitl.
  49. Brinton’s “Myths of the New World,” p. 45.
  50. Tezcatlipoca, the tutelar deity of Tezcuco; Huitzilopochtli, the tutelar deity of Mexico; Camaxtli, the tutelar deity of Tlaxcala; Quetzalcohuatl, the tutelar deity of Cholula.
  51. Bandelier: “An Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 188.
  52. This subject is fully treated of in Brinton’s “Myths of the New World.”
  53. “Among the Indians it is very easy to become deified. The development of the Montezuma myth among the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico is an instance.” (Bandelier.)
  54. Brinton’s “Myths of the New World.”
  55. Bandelier: “An Archæological Tour in Mexico.” pp. 168-213.
  56. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 298, note 9.
  57. “American Antiquarian,” January, 1883, p. 78.
  58. “An Archæological Tour in Mexico,” p. 67.
  59. “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 600. Dr. Brinton in “Myths of the New World,” p. 281, gives some instances that might be thought to show the contrary. But even in those extracts we notice the parties had to deserve the office, and that in no case was it confined to certain persons.
  60. Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. III, p. 335.
  61. Bancroft: “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 500.
  62. Mr. Bandelier remarks that the numbers from five to ten should be macuil-pa-oc-ce, etc. We give the same table as both Mr. Gallatin and Mr Bancroft.
  63. For authorities on this subject see Gallatin in “American Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p, 49; Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 497; Valentine, in Am. Antiq. Soc. Proceedings, Oct., 1880, p. 61.
  64. Perez “Chronology of Yucatan,” in Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. I, p. 435.
  65. See Valentine: “The Katunes of Maya History,” in Proceedings Am. Antiq. Soc., October, 1879, p. 114.
  66. We refer to the division of five days, not to the thirteen day period, of which we will soon speak.
  67. Bandelier: “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 579. Note 29.
  68. Mr. Bancroft, “Native Races,” p. 508, gives a table showing the variation of authors in this respect. Gallatin “American Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 66, says, “the published hieroglyphics are dissimilar in many respects.”
  69. Stephens’s “Yucatan,” Vol. I, p. 438.
  70. Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, p. 513, note 15.
  71. Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, April, 1878, p. 99.
  72. Gallatin: “American Ethnological Soc. Trans.,” Vol. I, p. 71.
  73. See Valentine, in Proceedings American Antiq. Society, April, 1878, p. 106. Gallatin, who is also good authority, gives the order different, viz., Tochtli, Acatl, Tecpatl, Calli.
  74. Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Soc., Oct., 1879, p. 84, et seq.
  75. Thomas: “A study of the Manuscript Troano,” in “Contributions to North American Ethnology,” Vol. V, p. 29.
  76. According to the teachings of the Mexican priests nine deities governed the days. They had painted lists of these weeks, and the deities governing each.
  77. Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Soc., Oct., 1879, p. 85.
  78. In this table we have followed Mr. Gallatin. According to Prof. Valentine, the order of the years is different. This, however, is immaterial to an understanding of the system.
  79. Gallatin: “Am. Eth. Soc. Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 94, et seq.
  80. Thus says Prof. Valentine. The cast of this stone in the Smithsonian Institution gives the date eight, instead of seven Ozomatl.
  81. For information on the Calendar Stone, consult, “American Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 94, et seq.; Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. II, chap. xvi, and p. 755, et seq.; Valentine: American Antiquarian Society’s Proceedings, April, 1878, p. 92, et seq.; Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 419, et seq.
  82. Morgan’s “Ancient Society,” p. 143.
  83. Brinton: “Introduction to the Study of the Manuscript Troano.”
  84. Valentine: Proceedings of American Antiquarian Society, April, 1880.
  85. Gallatin: “American Ethnological Society’s Transactions,” Vol. I, p. 131.
  86. Valentine: Amer. Antiq. Society’s Transactions, April, 1880, pp. 59-91.
  87. Brinton’s “Introduction to Study of manuscript Troans,” p. xxvi.
  88. American Antiquarian Society, April, 1881, p. 294.
  89. “Myths of the New World.” The doctor now thinks his statement just referred to, too strong. There is, indeed, a resemblance, as he pointed out; but it is not strong enough to found any theories on.
  90. Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 474.
  91. Brinton’s “Myths of the New World.”
  92. This historical manuscript represents the traditions of the Maya people shortly after the conquest. It is very likely its author had before him picture records of what he wrote. Such records have since disappeared. The manuscript itself, the interpretation of it, and Perez’s remarks are found in Stephen’s “Yucatan,” Vol. II, Appendix. The same in Bancroft’s “Native Races,” Vol. V, p. 628. The fullest and most complete discussion is by Prof. Valentine in Proceedings Am. Antiq. Soc., October, 1879, p. 80, et seq. Whether there is any thing worthy of the name of history is doubtful.
  93. Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, Oct., 1882.
  94. “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 578.
  95. “Peabody Museum Reports,” Vol. II, p. 387.
  96. Valentine: Proceedings Am. Antiq. Society, October, 1882, p. 209.
  97. North American Review, from Sept., 1880, to 1883.
  98. Short’s “North Americans of Antiquity,” p. 218.
  99. This historical notice is a mere outline. Such, however, is all we wished to give. Those who wish for more details can not do better than to refer to Mr. Bancroft’s fifth volume on the “Native Races.” We do not believe, however, that any thing definite is known of the early periods of which some writers give such glowing descriptions. When they talk about the doings of monarchs, the rise and fall of dynasties, and royal governors, we must remember the majority of the descriptive matter is mere nonsense, consequently our faith in the dates given can not be very great.

Chapter XVI
ANCIENT PERU.

First knowledge of Peru—Expeditions of Pizarro—Geography of Peru—But a small part of it inhabitable—The tribes of ancient Peru—How classified—Sources of our knowledge of Peru—Garcillasso De La Vega—Origin of Peruvian civilization—The Bolson of Cuzco—Historical outline—Their culture—Divided into phratries and gentes—Government—Efforts to unite the various tribes—Their system of colonies—The roads of the Incas—The ruins of Chimu—The arts of the Chimu people—The manufacture of pottery—Excavation at Ancon—Ruins in the Huatica Valley—The construction of a Huaca—The ruins at Pachacamac—The valley of the Canete—The Chincha Islands—Tiahuanuco—Carved gateway—The Island of Titicaca—Chulpas—Ruins at Cannar—Aboriginal Cuzco—Temple of the Sun—The Fortress—General remarks.

early part of the sixteenth century was surely a stirring time in the world’s history. The night of the Dark Ages was passing off of the Old World; the darker gloom of prehistoric times was lifting from off the New. Spanish discoveries followed each other in rapid succession in the South. As yet, they supposed these discoveries to be along the eastern shores of Asia, but, in 1513, Balboa, from a mountain peak, in Darien, saw the gleam of the great Pacific, which intervenes between America and Asia. At the same time he was informed there was a country to the southward where gold was in common use, and of as little value among the people as iron among the Spaniards. As gold was what the Spaniards most desired, we can imagine how they rejoiced over such information.

The rich country of which Balboa was thus informed was later known as Peru. Balboa himself did not attempt its discovery. There was no lack, however, of those who wished to achieve fame and fortune by so doing. Among other restless spirits who had been attracted to the New World, was Francisco Pizarro. He had been associated with Balboa in founding the settlement of Darien, and, of course, he was among the first to hear of the marvelous country farther south. In 1518, Panama, on the Pacific coast, was made the seat of government for the Spaniards in that section of the country. Pizarro was one of the first there—his services had been rewarded by the grant of an estate. The historian of his expedition speaks of him as “one of the principal men of the land, possessing his house, his farm, and his Indians.”1 We need not doubt but what he often pondered over his knowledge of the rich country south. He was well acquainted with Indian character, and knew that a small band of resolute Europeans, possessed of fire-arms, could sweep every thing before them.

He could not endure the quiet life on his estate, and so he obtained from the governor permission to explore the coast of the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his fortune on a good ship and the necessary supplies for the voyage, and finally set sail from Panama in November of 1524. It needed a man of no common spirits to withstand the disappointments of the next few years. In less than a year this ship returned to Panama for reinforcements. Pizarro himself and a few of his men remained at a place not very far from Panama. Here he was joined by reinforcements under Almagro. Undismayed by his first experience, he again sailed southward along the coast. Xeres’s brief account is as follows: “When they thought they saw signs of habitations, they went on shore in their canoes they had with them, rowed by sixty men, and so they sought for provisions. They continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crew died of hunger, insomuch that there were not fifty surviving. During all these years they discovered no good land; all was swamp and inundated land without inhabitants.”

This expedition accomplished nothing further than to obtain definite information as to Peru. Pizarro’s grant from the governor having expired, and the further fact that he had spent all his fortune in these unsuccessful expeditions, made it necessary for him to go to Spain. Received by the emperor with favor, clothed with ample authority, he was able to raise men and money, and finally sailed from Panama in 1531 on his third and successful expedition for the conquest of Peru. Thus was made known to the world what is regarded as the most wonderful example of native civilization in the two Americas.