The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 5, Primitive History. Hubert Howe Bancroft

that from this the more finished and permanent structure would grow; which is true enough. But if we are to believe, as is stated, that the American pyramids grew from such beginnings as the Mississippi mounds, then what reason can there be in comparing the pyramids of Teotihuacan with those of Gizeh in Egypt. For if the Egyptian colonists, at the time of their emigration to America, had advanced no further toward the perfect pyramid than the mound-building stage, would it not be the merest coincidence if the finished pyramidal structures in one country, the result of centuries of improvement, should resemble those of the other country in any but the most general features? Finally, pyramidal edifices were common in Asia as well as in Northern Africa, and it may be said that the American pyramids are as much like the former as they are like the latter.128

      In its general features, American architecture does not offer any strong resemblances to the Egyptian. The upholders of the theory find traces of the latter people in certain round columns found at Uxmal, Mitla, Quemada, and other places; in the general massiveness of the structures; and in the fact that the vermilion dye on many of the ruins was a favorite color in Egypt.129 Humboldt, speaking of a ruined structure at Mitla, says: "the distribution of the apartments of this singular edifice, bears a striking analogy to what has been remarked in the monuments of Upper Egypt, drawn by M. Denon, and the savans who compose the institute of Cairo."130

SCULPTURE AND HIEROGLYPHICS

      Between American and Egyptian sculpture, there is, at first sight, a very striking general resemblance. This, however, almost entirely disappears upon close examination and comparison. Both peoples represented the human figure in profile, the Egyptians invariably, the Americans generally; in the sculpture of both, much the same attitudes of the body predominate, and these are but awkwardly designed; there is a general resemblance between the lofty head-dresses worn by the various figures, though in detail there is little agreement.131 These are the points of analogy and they are sufficiently prominent to account for the idea of resemblance which has been so often and so strongly expressed. But while sculpture in Egypt is for the most part in intaglio, in America it is usually in relief. In the former country, the faces are expressionless, always of the same type, and, though executed in profile, the full eye is placed on the side of the head; in the New World, on the contrary, we meet with many types of countenance, some of which are by no means lacking in expression.

      If there were any hope of evidence that the civilized peoples of America were descendants, or derived any of their culture from the ancient Egyptians, we might surely look for such proof in their hieroglyphics. Yet we look in vain. To the most expert decipherer of Egyptian hieroglyphics, the inscriptions at Palenque are a blank and unreadable mystery, and they will perhaps ever remain so.132

      Resemblances have been found between the calendar systems of Egypt and America, based chiefly upon the length and division of the year, and the number of intercalary and complementary days. This, however, is too lengthy a subject to be fully discussed here. In a previous volume I have given a full account of the American systems, and must perforce leave it to the reader to compare them with the Egyptian system.133

      Of course a similarity of customs has to be found to support this theory, as in the case of others. Consequently our attention is drawn to embalmment, circumcision, and the division of the people into castes, which is not quite true of the Americans; some resemblance is found, moreover, between the religions of Egypt and America, for instance, certain animals were held sacred in both countries; but all such analogies are far too slender to be worth anything as evidence; there is scarcely one of them that would not apply to several other nations equally as well as to the Egyptians.

THE PHŒNICIAN THEORY

      Turning now to Western Asia, we find the honor of first settling America given to the adventurous Phœnicians. The sailors of Carthage are also supposed by some writers to have first reached the New World, but as the exploits of colony and mother-country are spoken of by most writers in the same breath, it will be the simplest plan to combine the two theories here. They are based upon the fame of these people as colonizing navigators more than upon any actual resemblances that have been found to exist between them and the Americans. It is argued that their ships sailed beyond the Pillars of Hercules to the Canary Islands, and that such adventurous explorers having reached that point would be sure to seek farther. The records of their voyages and certain passages in the works of several of the writers of antiquity are supposed to show that the ancients knew of a land lying in the far west.134

VOYAGES OF THE PHŒNICIANS

      The Phœnicians were employed about a thousand years before the Christian era, by Solomon, king of the Jews, and Hiram, king of Tyre, to navigate their fleets to Ophir and Tarshish. They returned, by way of the Mediterranean, to the port of Joppa, after a three-years' voyage, laden with gold, silver, precious stones, ivory, cedar, apes, and peacocks. Several authors have believed that they had two distinct fleets, one of which went to the land since known as America, and the other to India. Huet, bishop of Avranches,135 and other authors, are persuaded that Ophir was the modern Sofala, situated about 21° S. lat., and that Tarshish comprised all the western coast of Africa and Spain, but particularly the part lying about the mouth of the Bœtis or Guadalquivir. According to Arius Montanus, Genebrardus, Vatable, and other writers, Ophir is the island of Hispaniola. It is said that Christopher Columbus was induced to adopt this idea by the immense caverns which he found there, from which he supposed that Solomon must have obtained his gold. Postel and others have believed that the land of Ophir was Peru.136 Horn137 claims that the Phœnicians made three remarkable voyages to America; the first, under the direction of Atlas, son of Neptune; the second, when they were driven by a tempest from the coast of Africa to the most remote parts of the Atlantic ocean, and arrived at a large island to the west of Libya; and the third, in the time of Solomon, when the Tyrians went to Ophir to seek for gold. According to those who believe that there were two distinct fleets, that of Solomon and that of Hiram, the first set out from Eziongeber, sailed down the Red Sea, doubled Cape Comorin, and went to Taproban (Ceylon), or some other part of India; this voyage occupied one year. The other fleet passed through the Mediterranean, stopping at the various ports along the coasts of Europe and Africa, and finally, passing out through the straits of Gades, continued its voyage as far as America, and returned after three years to its starting-place, laden with gold.

      The Periplus of Hanno, a Carthaginian navigator of uncertain date, contains an account of a voyage which he made beyond the Pillars of Hercules, with a fleet of sixty ships and thirty thousand men, for the purpose of founding the Liby-Phœnician towns. He relates that setting out from Gades, he sailed southwards. The first city he founded was Thumiaterion,138 near the Pillars of Hercules, probably in the neighborhood of Marmora. He then doubled the promontory of Soloeis,139 which Rennel considers to be the same as Cape Cantin, but other commentators to be the same as Cape Blanco, in 33° N. latitude. A little to the south of this promontory five more cities were founded. After passing the mouth of the river Lixus, supposed by Rennel to be the modern St Cyprian, he sailed for two days along a desolate coast, and on the third day entered a gulf in which was situated a small island, which he named Kerne, and colonized. After continuing his voyage for some days, and meeting with various adventures, he returned to Kerne, whence he once more directed his course southward, and sailed along the coast for twelve days. Two days more he spent in doubling a cape, and five more in sailing about a large gulf. He then continued his voyage for a few days, and was finally obliged to return from want of provisions. The authenticity of the Periplus has been doubted by many critics, but it appears probable from the testimony of several ancient authors that the voyage was actually performed. But be the account true or false, I certainly can discover in it no ground for believing that Hanno did more than coast along the western shore of Africa, sailing perhaps as far south as Sierra Leone.

128

Humboldt reviews the points of resemblance and comes to the conclusion that they afford no foundation upon which to base a theory of Egyptian origin. Vues, tom. i., pp. 120-4. 'There is much in the shape, proportions and sculptures of this pyramid (Xochicalco) to connect its architects with the Egyptians.' Mayer's Mex. as it Was, p. 186. Bradford finds that some 'of the Egyptian pyramids, and those which with some reason it has been supposed are the most ancient, are precisely similar to the Mexican Teocalli.' But he only sees Egyptian traces in this; he shows that similar pyramidal structures have been found in very many parts of the world; and he believes the Americans to have originated from many sources and stocks. See Amer. Antiq., p. 423.

129

See vol. iv., chap. v., vii., and x. Quoting from Molina, Hist. Chili, tom. i., notes, p. 169, M'Culloh writes: 'Between the hills of Mendoza and La Punta, upon a low range of hills, is a pillar of stone one hundred and fifty feet high, and twelve in diameter.' 'This,' he adds, 'very much reminds us of the pillar and obelisks of ancient Egypt.' Researches, pp. 171-2. Jones, Hist. Anc. Amer., pp. 122-3, is very confident about the obelisk. He asks: 'What are the Obelisks of Egypt? Are they not square columns for the facility of Sculpture? And of what form are the isolated columns at Copan? Are they not square, and for the same purpose of facility in Sculpture with which they are covered, and with workmanship "as fine as that of Egypt?"… The columns of Copan stand detached and solitary, – the Obelisks of Egypt do the same, and both are square (or four-sided) and covered with the art of the Sculptor. The analogy of being derived from the Nile is perfect, – for in what other Ruins but those of Egypt, and Ancient America, is the square sculptured Column to be found?'

130

Essai Pol., tom. i., p. 265. Notwithstanding certain points of resemblance, says Prescott, 'the Palenque architecture has little to remind us of the Egyptian, or of the Oriental. It is, indeed, more conformable, in the perpendicular elevation of the walls, the moderate size of the stones, and the general arrangement of the posts, to the European. It must be admitted, however, to have a character of originality peculiar to itself.' Mex., vol. iii., pp. 407-8.

131

There is a plate showing an Aztec priestess in Delafield's Antiq. Amer., p. 61, which, if correctly drawn, certainly presents a head-dress strikingly Egyptian. The same might almost be said of a cut in vol. iv. of this work, p. 562 , and, indeed, of several other cuts in the same volume. Mr Stephens, Cent. Amer., vol. ii., p. 441, gives, for the sake of comparison, a plate representing two specimens of Egyptian sculpture; one from the side of the great monument at Thebes known as the Vocal Memnon, and the other from the top of the fallen obelisk at Carnac. 'I think,', he writes, 'by comparison with the engravings before presented, it will be found that there is no resemblance whatever. If there be any at all striking, it is only that the figures are in profile, and this is equally true of all good sculpture in bas-relief.' He happens, however, here, to have selected two Egyptian subjects which almost find their counterparts in America. In the preceding volume of this work, p. 333 , is given a cut of what is called the 'tablet of the cross' at Palenque. In this we see a cross, and perched upon it a bird, to which (or to the cross) two human figures in profile, apparently priests, are making an offering. In Mr Stephens' representation from the Vocal Memnon we find almost the same thing, the differences being, that instead of an ornamented Latin cross, we have here a crux commissa, or patibulata; that instead of one bird there are two, not on the cross but immediately above it; and that the figures, though in profile and holding the same general positions, are dressed in a different manner, and are apparently binding the cross with the lotus instead of making an offering to it; in Mr Stephens' representation from the obelisk of Carnac, however, a priest is evidently making an offering to a large bird perched upon an altar, and here, again, the human figures occupy the same position. The hieroglyphs, though the characters are of course different, are, it will be noticed, disposed upon the stone in much the same manner. The frontispiece of Stephens' Cent. Amer., vol. ii., described on p. 352, represents the tablet on the back wall of the altar, casa No. 3, at Palenque. Once more here are two priests clad in all the elaborate insignia of their office, standing one on either side of a table, or altar, upon which are erected two batons, crossed in such a manner as to form a crux decussata, and supporting a hideous mask. To this emblem they are each making an offering.

132

Delafield, it is true, discerns a distinct analogy between the hieroglyphs of Egypt and America. And the evidence he adduces is absurd enough. 'Hieroglyphic writings,' he says, 'are necessarily of three kinds, viz: phonetic, figurative, and symbolical.' He then goes on to show at great length, that both in Egypt and in America all three of these systems were used: hence, the resemblance. Antiq. Amer., pp. 42-7. 'Les monumens du Palenque présentent des inscriptions hiéroglyphiques qui ne paraissent pas différer des hiéroglyphes de l'ancienne Thèbes.' Giordan, Tehuantepec, p. 57. Jomard pronounces an inscription found at Grave Creek to be Lybian. Domenech's Deserts, vol. i., pp. 411-12. Says M'Culloh: 'The Game of the Flyers, we notice in this place, as M. Denon in the plates to his Travels in Egypt, has given the copy of some figures taken from the Egyptian hieroglyphics, which have every appearance of a similar design with this Mexican amusement or ceremony. – The similarity of device will be best seen, by comparing the plate given by Clavigero, with the (lxiii. plate) of Denon's Atlas, &c.' Researches on Amer., pp. 170-1. Priest, Amer. Antiq., p. 122, gives a comparative table of Lybian characters, and others, which he affirms to have been found at Otolum, or Palenque: the whole statement is, however, too apocryphal to be worthy of further notice. See, also, a long letter from Prof. Rafinesque to Champollion, 'on the Graphic Systems of America, and the Glyphs of Otolum, or Palenque, in Central America,' in Id., pp. 123-9. The hieroglyphics of Palenque and Tula encourage the idea that they were founded by an Egyptian colony. Juarros, Hist. Guat., p. 19.

133

In a letter by Jomard, quoted by Delafield, we read: 'I have also recognized in your memoir on the division of time among the Mexican nations, compared with those of Asia, some very striking analogies between the Toltec characters and institutions observed on the banks of the Nile. Among these analogies there is one which is worthy of attention. It is the use of the vague year of three hundred and sixty-five days, composed of equal months, and of five complementary days, equally employed at Thebes and Mexico, a distance of three thousand leagues. It is true that the Egyptians had no intercalation, while the Mexicans intercalated thirteen days every fifty-two years. Still farther: intercalation was proscribed in Egypt, to such a point that the kings swore, on their accession, never to permit it to be employed during their reign. Notwithstanding this difference, we find a very striking agreement in the length of the duration of the solar year. In reality, the intercalation of the Mexicans being thirteen days on each cycle of fifty-two years, comes to the same thing as that of the Julian calendar, which is one day in four years; and consequently supposes the duration of the year to be three hundred and sixty-five days, six hours. Now such was the length of the year among the Egyptians, since the sothic period was at once one thousand four hundred and sixty solar years, and one thousand four hundred and sixty-one vague years; which was, in some sort, the intercalation of a whole year of three hundred and seventy-five days every one thousand four hundred and sixty years. The property of the sothic period – that of bringing back the seasons and festivals to the same point of the year, after having made them pass successively through every point – is undoubtedly one of the reasons which caused the intercalation to be proscribed, no less than the repugnance of the Egyptians for foreign institutions. Now it is remarkable that the same solar year of three hundred and sixty-five days, six hours, adopted by nations so different, and perhaps still more remote in their state of civilization than in their geographical distance, relates to a real astronomical period, and belongs peculiarly to the Egyptians… The fact of the intercalation (by the Mexicans) of thirteen days every cycle, that is, the use of a year of three hundred and sixty-five days and a quarter, is a proof that it was either borrowed from the Egyptians, or that they had a common origin.' Antiq. Amer., pp. 52-3. 'On the 26th of February, the Mexican century begins, which was celebrated from the time of Nabonassor, seven hundred and forty-seven years before Christ, because the Egyptian priests conformably to their astronomical observations had fixed the beginning of their month Toth and the commencement of their year at noon on that day; this was verified by the Meridian of Alexandria, which was erected three centuries after that epoch. Hence it has been contended there could exist no doubt of the conformity of the Mexican with the Egyptian calendar, for although the latter assigned twelve months of thirty days each to the year, and added five days besides, in order that the circle of three hundred and sixty-five days should recommence from the same point; yet, notwithstanding the deviation from the Egyptian mode in the division of the months and days, they yet maintained that the Mexican method was conformable thereto, on account of the superadded five days; with this only difference, that upon these the Americans attended to no business, and therefore termed them Nemontemi or useless, whereas the Egyptians celebrated, during that epoch, the festival of the birth of their gods, as attested by Plutarch de Feide, and Osiride. Upon the other hand it is asserted, that though the Mexicans differed from the Egyptians by dividing their year into eighteen months, yet, as they called the month Mextli Moon, they must have formerly adopted the lunar month, agreeable to the Egyptian method of dividing the year into twelve months of thirty days; but to support this assertion no attempt has been made to ascertain the cause why this method was laid aside. The analogy between the Mexican and the Egyptian calendars is thus assumed to be undeniable. Besides what has been here introduced, the same is attempted to be proved in many other works which I pass over to avoid prolixity, and therefore only mention that they may be found in Boturini, in La Idea del Universo, by the abbé don Lorenza de Hervas, published in the Italian language, in Clavigero's dissertations, and in a letter addressed to him by Hervas, which he added to the end of his second volume.' Cabrera, Teatro, in Rio's Description, pp. 103-5. See also: Humboldt, Vues, tom. i., pp. 344, 348; Clavigero, Storia Ant. del Messico, tom. iv., p. 20; Malte-Brun, Précis de la Géog., tom. vi., p. 295.

134

I follow, chiefly, M. Warden's résumé of these accounts, as being the fullest and clearest. Recherches, p. 406, et seq.

135

Hist. du Commerce, cap. viii.

136

Acosta compares the gold of Ophir with that of Hispaniola. He entertains the opinion that Tarshish and Ophir are distant imaginary places and not distinct countries, but imagines them to be somewhere in the East Indies. 'Cur autem in Orientali potius India quam in hac Occidentali Ophir fuisse existimem, illud caput est, quod ad nostrum Peru non nisi infinito circuitu tota India Orientali & Sinarum regione enauigata Salomonia clasis peruenire poterar.' De Novi Orbis, p. 36. Ophir is supposed to be in India or Africa. Robertson's Hist. Amer., vol. i., p. 7. Crowe, Cent. Amer., p. 65, considers the probability of Ophir and Tarshish being on the west coast of America. The Phœnician 'Ophir, or Ofor, which means, in their ancient language, the Western country, was Mexico and Central America, the land of gold.' Fontaine's How the World was Peopled, pp. 259-60. On p. 162, he says that the best authorities, Volney, Bochart, Michaelis, and Forster, suppose Ophir to have been situated on the Persian Gulf. The Phœnician Ophir was Hayti, for Columbus thought that he could trace the furnaces in which the gold had been refined. Carver's Trav., p. 192. Kingsborough, Mex. Antiq., vol. vi., pp. 184-5, considers the position of Ophir, but is undecided as to its position. Ens, West und Ost Indischer Lustgart, pp. 5-8, disagreeing with Vatablus and Stephanus, can find no resemblance to Ophir in Hayti or Peru, and comes to the conclusion that Ophir lay somewhere in the Old World, most likely in the East Indies. This seems to be a plagiarism of Acosta. See also Gottfriedt, Newe Welt, p. 3. Humboldt, Exam. Crit., tom. ii., pp. 40-5, discusses the position of Ophir in Veragua. Piñeda, De Rebus Salomonis, believes Ophir to have been America. Warden, Recherches, p. 196. See also Id., pp. 106-7.

137

De Origine Gentium Americanarum, lib. ii., cap. vi., vii., viii.

138

'Sur le cap Mollabat, au pied duquel on bâti ensuite le vieux Tanger.' Gosselin, cited by Warden, Recherches, p. 107, note 8.

139

'Le cap Spartel, qui forme l'extrémité occidentale du détroit.' Id., note 9.