Hon. Lewis H. Morgan, in an interesting article in the North American Review, entitled “Montezuma’s Dinner,” makes the statement that “American aboriginal history is based upon a misconception of Indian life which has remained substantially unquestioned to the present hour.” He considers that the accounts of Spanish writers were filled with extravagancies, exaggerations and absurdities, and that the grand terminology of the old world, created under despotic and monarchial institutions, was drawn upon to explain the social and political condition of the Indian races. He states, that while “the histories of Spanish America may be trusted in whatever relates to the acts of the Spaniards, and to the acts and personal characteristics of the Indians; in whatever relates to Indian society and government, their social relations and plan of life, they are wholly worthless, because they learned nothing and knew nothing of either.” On the other hand, we are told that “Indian society could be explained as completely, and understood as perfectly, as the civilized society of Europe or America, by finding its exact organization.”[45-*] Mr. Morgan proposes to accomplish this result by the study of the manners and customs of Indian races whose histories are better known. In the familiar habits of the Iroquois, and their practice as to communism of living, and the construction of their dwellings, Mr. Morgan finds the key to all the palatial edifices encountered by Cortez on his invasion of Mexico: and he wishes to include, also, the magnificent remains in the Mayan territory. He would have us believe, that the highly ornamental stone structures of Uxmal, Chichen-Itza, and Palenque, were but joint tenement houses, which should be studied with attention to the usages of Indian tribes of which we have a more certain record, and not from contemporaneous historical accounts of eye witnesses.
In answer to Mr. Morgan’s line of argument, it may be said, that the agreement of early voyagers and chroniclers, of whom there is so large a number, as to the main facts, is strong evidence that their impressions, as stated, were founded upon what they saw, and not on pictures of the imagination. Moreover, the existing undecyphered manuscripts, together with the hieroglyphical and symbolical inscriptions upon buildings, traced in characters similar to those found in aboriginal manuscripts, prove that there was a literature among the Mayan and Aztec races, which places them in a grade of civilization far above that of communistic Indian tribes of which we have any record. More than all, the manuscript of Bishop Landa, an eye witness of expiring Mayan civilization, with its detailed account of the political and social relations of the Indians of that country, is strong testimony to the correctness of the generally accepted theories regarding their social and political systems. The truthfulness of Bishop Landa’s account is attested by its conformity to other accounts, and to the customs and usages of the Yucatan Indians of to-day, as described by recent travellers. We are obliged to consider the argument of Mr. Morgan insufficient to destroy the common opinions of three centuries and a half, in so far as relates to the Maya Indians.
Mr. Morgan also says that “the Aztecs had no structures comparable with those of Yucatan.” If the only grounds for this statement are, that almost no ruins now remain in that country, and that the early accounts of Spanish writers, of what they themselves saw, are considered, by him, untrustworthy, the weight of probability seems, to the writer of this paper, on the contrary, to lie in quite the other direction. When Cortez left Havana, in 1519, he visited Cozumel, famous for its beautiful temples, and Centla, and certain other towns in Central America, on his way to Mexico. Having thus seen the wonderful structures of Central America, is it not strange, that the historians of that expedition, and Cortez himself, should be filled with wonder and amazement at what they found in Mexico, to a degree that disposed them to give a much more particular account of the Aztec palaces than of Yucatan buildings, if they were inferior to them in point of architecture? Mexico has since that time been more populous than Yucatan, and its ruins have naturally disappeared more rapidly in the construction of modern buildings; but the records of its former civilization exist in the accounts of the discoverers, and in the numerous relics of antiquity contained in the museums of Mexico, and scattered about in the archæological collections of Europe and America. The celebrated calendar stone found buried in the Plaza Mayor of Mexico, and now preserved in that city, demonstrates the astronomical advancement of the Aztecs in an incontrovertible manner, and that monument alone would establish their advanced position.
The observations and conclusions of a traveller and archæologist of large experience, as to the condition of Central America at the time of its discovery and settlement by the Spaniards, are contained in the valuable monograph of Dr. C. Hermann Berendt, the discoverer of the site of ancient Centla, who having made a special study of the antiquities of that country in five expeditions, each of several years duration, is entitled to special consideration as one who knows whereof he speaketh.[48-*] This writer, while he concedes the insufficiency of consulting the records of Spanish writers alone, thinks that archæology and linguistics will at length furnish us the means of reading these records with positive results, as well as help us to a better understanding of the early history of this continent. He says “Central America was once the centre, or rather the only theatre of a truly American, that is to say, indigenous, development and civilization. It was suggested by Humboldt half a century ago, that more light on this subject is likely to be elicited, through the examination and comparison of what palpably remains of the ancient nations, than from dubious traditions, or a still more precarious speculation. And such palpable remains we have, in their antiquities and in their languages. Thus linguistic science has begun to invade the field of American ethnology: and let it not be forgotten that this science is as little bound, as it is qualified, to perform the whole task alone: archæology must lend a helping hand. We must have museums, in which the plastic remains of the ancient American civilizations, either original, or in faithful imitations, shall, in as large numbers as possible, be collected, and duly grouped and labelled, according to the place and circumstances of their discovery.”
The plan for the study of Mayan and Central American ethnology, as indicated by Dr. Berendt, seems to agree most fully with the views entertained by some of the later writers in the publications of the Société Américaine de France, and may be thus stated in brief. First, The Study of Native Languages. Second, The Study of the Antiquities themselves. Third, The formation of Museums, where materials for archæological research may be brought together, and made accessible and available. From the study of aboriginal American history in this practical way, the most satisfactory results can not fail to be reached.
In this brief hour, it would be impossible to describe and elucidate this interesting subject, if the ability were not wanting; but it may be accepted as a welcome service, that draws the attention of this Society to an important field, which the Société Américaine de France, and other European archæologists, are regarding with increased interest.
[4-*] M. L’Abbé Brasseur de Bourbourg, in his Histoire des nations civilisées du Mexique (Paris, 1859, vol. I. Preface), speaks of M. Aubin as the translator of the manuscript “Historia Tulteca,” as the author of the Mémoire sur l’écriture figurative et la peinture didactique des anciens Mexicains, in which he reconstructed the system of Mexican figurative writing almost entirely, and as the present owner of what remains of the celebrated Boturini collection, and of many other historical treasures, gathered in his various travels.
[5-*] “In the Congress of Americanists held last July at Nancy, France, M. Léon de Rosny delivered a masterly address on the Maya hieroglyphics. He critically analyzed the attempts at decypherment by Brasseur de Bourbourg and H. de Charency. The Bishop de Landa first discovered a clue to their meaning. He made out seventy-one signs, which number Rosny has increased to one hundred and thirty-two. Rosny has also determined the order in which they should be read, as a rule from left to right, but in exceptional cases from right to left.”—[The Popular Science Monthly, New York, May, 1876, pp. 118-119.]
[7-*] Geographia de las lenguas y carta ethnografica de Mexico. By M. Orosco y Berra, Mexico, 1864. Introduction p. X. La Situation actual de la Raza indigena de México. By Don Francisco Pimentel, Mexico, 1864, Dedication.
[7-†] Views of Nature, page 131.