The Natural History of the Varieties of Man

by R. G. Latham

Again, phrases, like picture-writing, are only safe so long as we compare them with their real equivalents; and these are not the painted and sculptured walls of Ægypt, but the rude hide of the Pawni, whereon he scratches or daubs a sketch of his exploits.

More exceptionable still is the term hieroglyphics;[167] of which the following is said to be a specimen. The sign denoting Cimatlan, the name of a place, was compounded of the symbol of Cimatl, a root, and tlan, signifying near. Surely this is no example of phonetic spelling. C-i-m-a-tl-tl-a-n, consists of eight elementary articulate sounds. How then can two signs spell it phonetically: eight are required to do it properly; and unless it can be shown that the symbol=cimatl be in the same category with the letter x (ks), and that it is a compendium for two or more (in this case eight) simple single signs, the phonetic character either falls to the ground, or the term changes its meaning. Again, the spelling is not even syllabic. Cim-atl-an, consists of three syllables; which have only two signs to express them.

The real spelling is neither more nor less than rhæmatographic, with one sign for one word, and two signs for two; just as if in English we spelt the word representing the idea of a shore by one combination of points and lines, that of a ham by another, and that of the town Shore-ham by a combination of the two. Now no one would say that this spelt Sh-o-re-h-a-m.

One more instance—since I am indicating rather than exhausting lines of criticism—shall be taken from the account of a so-called remarkable phænomenon in the arithmetic of the tribes akin to the Mexican.

Some of the rudest tribes of South America, like the generality of the Australians, are unable to count beyond five. The Mexicans, however, have a simple term for twenty. Nay more, for 400 and 8000, they have simple terms also, i.e. for the first and second powers of twenty; just as we have in the words hundred and thousand, simple undecompounded names for the first and second powers of ten. A great contrast this! exhibiting multiplicational as well as mere numerational arithmetic.

What else?—there is a Notation as well, and certain symbols stand for 20, 800, and 4000.

Gallatin observes, that the symbols thus standing for these numbers also express words equivalent to company, regiment, and army, in the military system, and, thence, he argues that the vigentesimal system determined the organisation of the legions of Montezuma. I do not say that such was not the case. I believe, however, that it is much more likely that the organisation of the army determined the so-called vigentesimal numeration, and that, just as the word for 20=man (i.e. 10 fingers and 10 toes), so the word for 400 was the name of 20 companies of 20, and that for 8,000 the name for 20 regiments of 400.

If this be true, so far from the Mexican multiplying 20 by 20, he might be unable to count to 45; having names for the higher numbers furnished him by an accident, but without terms for the intermediate ones.

As for the agricultural condition of the Mexicans, contrasted, as it may be, with the hunter-state of the Sioux and others, it is no contrast, except in degree, with the habits of the Diggers and other tribes of California and Oregon, where game is scarce and esculent roots abundant; and whilst the archæology of the Valley of the Mississippi shows rudiments of their architecture, the more important confederations, such as the Creek, are analogues of what may be somewhat grandiloquently called their imperial organisation.

Then as to the Casas Grandes, surely these show Mexican architecture beyond the area of Mexico (i. e. Aztek Mexico). But what if they also show the extent to which the Mexican civilisation extended itself? In such a case they prove nothing as to the independent civilisational development of the nation on the area where they occur. But is this the only inference that they suggest? No. It is not even the most legitimate one. Casas Grandes, in localities a thousand miles from Mexico, indicate, not that the Mexican influence was spread so far beyond the Valley of Mexico, but that more nations than one built with stone and brick. To assume colonisation from community of characteristics is inadmissible.