[III-15] Cabrera, Teatro, p. 30; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, p. cix.; Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., tom. i., p. 165; See on Votan and his empire, besides the works that have been mentioned in this chapter, Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 203; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. i., pp. 150-1, tom. iv., pp. 15-16; Boturini, Idea, pp. 114-5; Brasseur de Bourbourg, Popol Vuh, introd; Id., Esquisses; Id., Palenqué; Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, p. 136; Tschudi's Peruvian Antiq., pp. 11-15; Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., p. 10, et seq.; Levy, Nicaragua, p. 4; Priest's Amer. Antiq., pp. 248-9; Beaufoy's Mex. Illust., pp. 218-21; Farcy, Discours, in Antiq. Mex., tom. i., div. i., p. 43.
[III-16] On the Antiquity of Copan, the ruins of Yucatan, and Palenque, see [vol. iv., pp. 104], [280-5], [359-62].
[III-17] 'The monuments of the Mississippi present stronger internal evidence of great antiquity than any others in America, although it by no means follows that they are older than Palenque and Copan.' [Vol. iv., p. 790].
[III-18] Yucatan, vol. ii., pp. 454-5. By a careful study of Mr Stephens' conclusions, it will appear evident to the reader that he ascribes the Central American ruins to the Toltecs, simply as the oldest nations on the continent of America, of which we have any knowledge, and that he reconciles their condition at the time of his exploration with their recent origin, chiefly by a consideration of the Yucatan ruins, most of which doubtless do not date back to the Votanic empire, and many of which were still occupied at the coming of the first Spaniards.
[III-19] Although in the 'general view,' [vol. ii., chap. ii.], I have classed the Toltecs among the Nahua nations, it will be noticed that the preceding conclusions of the present chapter are independent of such a classification, and are not necessarily opposed to the theory, held by some, that the cities of Central America were built by the Toltecs before they assumed a prominent position among the nations of Anáhuac. The following notes bear more or less directly on points involved in the preceding text. Mr Tylor, Anáhuac, pp. 189-93; Researches, p. 184, believes that the civilization of Mexico and Central America were originally independent although modified by contact one with the other, and attributes the Central American cities to a people who flourished long before the Toltecs, and whose descendants are the Mayas. Yet he favors the climatic theory of the origin and growth of civilization, according to which the culture of the south must have been brought from the Mexican tierra templada. I have no objection to offer to this theory. It is in the Usumacinta region that the Maya civilization has left its first record both traditional and monumental; and that is sufficient for my present purpose. Orozco y Berra, Geografía, pp. 124-5, etc., concludes from his linguistic researches that the Palenque civilization was much older than the Toltec and distinct from it. Hellwald, in Smithsonian Rept., 1866, pp. 340-1, pronounces the Palenque culture the oldest in America, with no resemblance to that of the Nahuas. He rejects the theory that the ruins were the work of migrating Toltecs. Palenque will probably some day decide the question of American civilization. It only awaits a Champollion. Charnay, Ruines Amér., p. 439. The ruins in the south have undoubted claims to the highest antiquity. Bradford's Amer. Antiq., p. 199. The Usumacinta seems a kind of central point for the high culture of Central America. Müller, Amerikanische Urreligionen, p. 456.
[III-20] See [vol. iii., pp. 42-4, note 1], for a bibliographical notice of the Popol Vuh.
[III-21] Popol Vuh, pp. 1-5; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 4-5.
[III-22] [Vol. iii., pp. 44-7].
[III-23] Popol Vuh, pp. 5-31; Ximenez, Hist. Ind. Guat., pp. 5-14.
[III-24] Popol Vuh, p. 195, et seq.