[205] Wilde, Catalogue, pp. 58, 356.
[206] Meaning Tectetan = ‘I don’t know.’ So the M’adri on an old English chart of the Euphrates.
[207] Select Letters of Columbus, &c. p. 201. Translated by R. H. Major, Hakluyt Society, 1870.
[208] Humboldt, Travels, iii. 194.
[209] Commentaries of the Yncas. Translated by Clements R. Markham, C.B. Hakluyt Society, 1871.
[210] Daniel Wilson’s Prehistoric Man, vol. i. chap. viii.; The Metallurgic Arts, Copper (pp. 231–79). Prof. Brush, of Yale College, calculated that 6,000 tons were yielded in 1858.
[211] R.E., Spanish America, &c. (Philadelphia: Abraham Small, 1819), p. 49.
[212] It was divided, like the Greek and Roman, into centuries (pachacas), chiliarchies (hurangos), and inspectorships (tokrikrok), generally under royalties. The organisation was due to the Ynka Inti-Kapak (the Great), b.c. 1500–1600. There was a large fleet (‘magna colcharum classis’) of ships not smaller than the contemporary European, ‘navigiis velificantur nihili vestris minoribus,’ says P. Martyr (Decad. ii. lib. 3). Neither traveller nor historian has explained how this mighty organisation crumbled to pieces at the touch of a few European adventurers.
I have read with interest the able work of M. Vicente F. Lopez, Les Races Aryennes du Pérou (Paris: Franck, 1871): he derives the word from Pirhua, the first Ynka deified to a Creator. He adopts (p. 17) against Garcilasso de la Vega, who gave the Ynkarial Empire 400 years, the opinions of the learned Dr. Fernando Montésinos el Visitador, of the later sixteenth century, who is set aside by Markham, Narratives of the Yncas (Hakluyt, 1873). Montésinos derives the Peruvians from Armenia five centuries after ‘the Flood,’ and assigns 4,000 years with 101 emperors to the dynasty; it begins with Manko Kapak, son of Pirhua Manko; and Sinchi Roka (No. xcv. of Montésinos) is Garcilasso’s official founder (p. 25).
But I cannot follow M. Lopez in his theories of ‘Aryanism’ (Zend and Sanskrit) or ‘Turanianism’ (Chinese and Tartar). The Quichua wants the peculiar Hindu cerebrals (which linger in English), and lacks the ‘l,’ so common in ‘Indo-European’ speech; ‘Lima,’ for instance, should be ‘Rima.’ It has no dual, and no distinction between masculine and feminine. But with the licence which M. Lopez allows himself, any language might be derived from any other. For instance, chinka from sinha, ‘the lion’ (p. 138); hakchikis = hashish, ‘intoxicating herb’; kekenti, ‘humming-bird,’ from kvan, ‘to hum’; huahua, ‘son,’ from su, ‘to engender,’ sunus, &c., (when in Egypt we have su); and mama, ‘mother,’ from mata, μήτηρ, mater, when we have mut and mute in Nile-land. For mara, ‘to kill,’ ‘death,’ the old Coptic preserves mer, meran, ‘to die’; and for mayu, ‘water,’ mu.