The position which must be assigned to the Zapotec raises a question of considerable interest. Their indebtedness to Maya culture is obvious from the consideration of a large proportion of their architectural remains and their art, but certain peculiar features make their appearance. In the first place, no migration legends are recorded, while the fact that certain localities were held to be the entrance to the underworld rather emphasizes the “indigenous” nature of the population. Again, though cremation makes its appearance among the later Maya, the Zapotec, for religious reasons, held out against it, practising, in the main, secondary burial. Finally, certain forms of ornament applied to architecture (as at Mitla) and to pottery (as at Cuicatlan) are unique in this part of America. Of interest is the fact that the geometric ornament at Mitla finds an exact parallel in the stucco decoration of some of the early ruins of the Peruvian coast, while the designs of the Cuicatlan pottery reproduce with equal exactness a favourite textile ornament belonging to the same region. Certain of the Peruvian coast-dwellers preserved traditions of immigration by sea, and these combined facts might be taken as a vague indication of early coasting-voyages down the west coast of America. It would be rash to put this forward as a definite theory, but at any rate further investigations in this direction might prove of great interest. The Zapotec at one period seem to have extended considerably further north than in later times, and to have been driven south by the Mixtec who at least contained an immigrant element. The peculiar slab discovered at Placeres del Oro seems to bear some affinity with Zapotec reliefs, but here again the “Peruvian” character of the decoration is paramount. Affinities with Peruvian archæology extend into Michoacan, where the practice of providing the mummy-pack of the dead with a false head prevailed, and similarities with Peruvian beliefs may be seen in the Mexican custom of providing the deceased with a dog to convey his soul to the underworld, and in ill-treating dogs during eclipses of the moon. Resemblances also exist between the Peruvian and Maya cultures; certain stone reliefs showing a figure seated in a niche have been found at Manabi in Ecuador (where again traditions of immigration by sea survive), which look very like travesties of some of the Piedras Negras stelæ; while the famous monolith discovered at Chavin de Huantar in the Andes bears a very distinct “Maya” stamp, though it is related also to the art of the Nasca valley. But great caution is necessary in dealing with similarities of this nature, which may arise from no more than a common psychology, and may bear witness only to the “American” basis shared by both cultures.

With the possible relations which Mexican and Maya culture may bear to those of the outer world I do not propose to deal at all. The past has shown the futility of speculating upon insufficient evidence, and it is sad to note how large a proportion of the literature dealing with American archæology serves only as a monument to wasted energy and misplaced zeal. It is impossible to deny a certain superficial similarity, often surprising, between the Maya ruins and those of south-east Asia, but these disappear for the most part upon closer analysis. Mere similarity of ornament means nothing when the ornament in question is found to symbolize beliefs of an entirely different character; from the constructional point of view the buildings differ essentially; while the absolute gulf which separates the American language, calendrical system and vegetable means of sustenance from those of Asia provides difficulties which must be explained before any theory suggesting contact in any form can legitimately be put forward. The question of the ultimate origin of the American population lies beyond the scope of this book, but it is an evident fact that the Americans physically stand in comparatively close relation to the Asiatics. That being so a somewhat similar psychology is natural, and this would lead, subject to modifications produced by environment, to the evolution of a culture and art in which certain analogies might be expected to appear. But what I have elsewhere written of Peruvian culture applies with equal force to that of the Mexicans and Maya. The onus probandi must necessarily be upon those who wish to prove that contact with the external world existed, and the evidence which we possess points rather to the undisturbed evolution of Mexican and Mayan civilization on American soil, and that civilization may therefore be regarded as in every sense American.

APPENDIX I

NAMES OF THE DAYS IN THE MEXICAN AND MAYA CALENDARS

Maya Mexican
Yucatan Tzental
(Chiapas)		 Quiché and
Kakchiquel		 Aztec
Imix Imox Imox Cipactli
Ik Igh Ig Eecatl
Akbal Votan Akbal Calli
Kan Ghanan Kat Quetzpalin
Chicchan Abah Can Coatl
Cimi Tox Camey Miquiztli
Manik Mozic Quieh Mazatl
Lamat Lambat Ganel Tochtli
Muluc Mulu Toh Atl
Oc Elab Tzii Itzcuintli
Chuen Batz Batz Ozomatli
Eb Enob Balam Malinalli
Ben Been Ah Acatl
Ix Hix Itz Ocelotl
Men Tziquin Tziquin Quauhtli
Cib Chabin Ahmak Cozcaquauhtli
Caban Chic Noh Olin
Eznab Chinax Tihax Tecpatl
Cauac Cahogh Caok Quiauitl
Ahau Aghual Hunahpu Xochitl

APPENDIX II

NAMES OF THE MONTHS IN THE MEXICAN AND MAYA CALENDARS

Maya Mexican
Yucatan Kakchiquel Aztec
Pop (July 16) Tacaxepual (Feb. 1) Atlcaualco (Feb. 2)
Uo Nabey Tumuzuz Tlacaxipeualiztli
Zip Rucan Tumuzuz Tozoztontli
Zotz Zibix Uei Tozoztli
Tzec Uchum Toxcatl
Xul Nabey Mam Etzalqualiztli
Yaxkin Rucab Mam Tecuiluitontli
Mol Likinka Uei Tecuiluitl
Chen Nabey Tok Tlaxochimaco
Yax Rucab Tok Xocouetzi
Zac Nabey Pach Ochpaniztli
Ceh Rucab Pach Teotleco
Mac Tziquin Kih Tepeiluitl
Kankin Cakan Quecholli
Muan Ibota Panquetzaliztli
Pax Katik Atemoztli
Kayab Itzcal Kih Tititl
Cumhu Pariche Izcalli
Uayeh Tzapi Kih Nemontemi

INDEX