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

origin, which for other reasons cannot yet be settled.276

      Having thus given a sketch of the sources to which we may look for all that is known and has been conjectured respecting the American past, I shall proceed to place before the reader in the remaining chapters of my work what these authorities reveal on the subject. I have not, I believe, exaggerated their value, but fully comprehend the unsubstantial character which must be attributed to many of them. I am well aware that aboriginal American history, like the ancient Egyptian and Hebrew annals, differs materially in its nature and degree of accuracy from the history of England since the expedition of William the Conqueror, or of Mexico since the Conquest by Hernan Cortés. I do not propose to record such events only as may be made to conform to the modern idea of chronologic exactitude, rejecting all else as fabulous and mythic. Were such my purpose, a chapter on the subject already given in the second volume would suffice, with some contraction for the earlier epochs, and a corresponding expansion, perhaps, for Aztec history during the century immediately preceding the Conquest. On the contrary, I shall tell the tale as I find it recorded, mingled as it doubtless is at many points with myth and fable, and shall recount, as others have done, the achievements of heroes that possibly never lived, the wanderings of tribes who never left their original homes. It is not in a spirit of real or feigned credulity that I adopt this course, – on the contrary, I wish to clearly discriminate between fact and fancy wherever such discrimination may be possible, and so far as an extensive study of my subject may enable me to do so – but it is in accordance with the general plan of the whole work to record all that is found, rejecting only what may be proven false and valueless rather than what may possibly be so.

TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECT

      I have compared the American past to a dark sea, from the bluff coast line of which projects an occasional cape terminating in precipitous cliffs, quicksands, and sunken rocks, beyond which some faint lights are floated by buoys. The old authors, as Torquemada, Clavigero, and Veytia, had but little difficulty in crossing from the headlands to the tower of Babel beyond the Sea of Darkness; they told the story, fables and all, with little discrimination save here and there the rejection of a tale infringing apparently on orthodoxy, or the expression of a doubt as to the literal acceptation of some marvelous occurrence. Of modern authors, those who, like Wilson, refuse to venture upon the projecting capes of solid rock and earth, who utterly reject the Aztec civilization with all its records, are few, and at this day their writings may be considered as unworthy of serious notice. Other writers, of whom Gallatin is a specimen, venture boldly from the main coast to the extremity of each projecting point, and acknowledge the existence of the rocks, sands, and buoys beyond, but decline to attempt their passage, doubting their security. These men, in favor of whose method there is much to be said, accept the annals of the later Aztec periods, but look with distrust upon the traditions of the Chichimec, Toltec, and Olmec epochs; and hardly see in the far distance the twinkling floating lights that shine from Votan's Empire of Xibalba. Then there are writers who are continually dreaming they have found secure footing by routes previously unknown, from rock to rock and through the midst of shifting sands. Such are the advocates of special theories of American history resting on newly discovered authorities or new readings of old ones. They carefully sift out such mythic traditions as fit their theories, converting them into incontrovertible facts, and reject all else as unworthy of notice; these, however, have chiefly to do with the matter of origin. Finally, I may speak of Brasseur de Bourbourg, rather a class by himself, perhaps, than the representative of a class. This author, to speak with a degree of exaggeration, steps out without hesitation from rock to rock over the deep waters; to him the banks of shifting quicksand, if somewhat treacherous about the edges, are firm land in the central parts; to him the faintest buoy-supported stars are a blaze of noon-day sun; and only on the floating masses of sea-weed far out on the waters lighted up by dim phosphorescent reflections, does he admit that his footing is becoming insecure and the light grows faint. In other words, he accepts the facts recorded by preceding authors, arranges them often with great wisdom and discrimination, ingeniously finds a historic record in traditions by others regarded as pure fables, and thus pushes his research far beyond the limits previously reached. He rejects nothing, but transforms everything into historic facts.

      In the present sketch I wish to imitate to a certain extent the writers of each class mentioned, except perhaps the specialists, for I have no theory to defend, have found no new bright sun to illumine what has ever been dark. With the Spanish writers I would tell all that the natives told as history, and that without constantly reminding the reader that the sun did not probably stand still in the heavens, that giants did not flourish in America, that the Toltec kings and prophets did not live to the age of several hundred years, and otherwise warning him against what he is in no danger whatever of accepting as truth. With Wilson and his class of antiquarian sceptics I would feel no hesitation in rejecting the shallow theories and fancies evolved by certain writers from their own brain. With Gallatin I wish to discriminate clearly, when such discrimination is called for and possible, between the historic and the probably mythic; to indicate the boundary between firm land and treacherous quicksand; but also like Brasseur, I would pass beyond the firm land, spring from rock to rock, wade through shifting sands, swim to the farthest, faintest, light, and catch at straws by the way; – yet not flatter myself while thus employed, as the abbé occasionally seems to do, that I am treading dry-shod on a wide, solid, and well-lighted highway.

      CHAPTER III.

      THE PRE-TOLTEC PERIOD OF ABORIGINAL HISTORY

      Subdivision of the Subject – Tzendal Tradition of the Votanic Empire – Votan's Book and its Contents as reported by Nuñez de la Vega, Cabrera, and Ordoñez – Testimony of Manners and Customs, Religion, Languages, and Monuments of the Civilized Nations respecting the Primitive Maya Peoples – The Quiché Record, or Popol Vuh – Civilizing Efforts of Gucumatz and his Followers – Exploits of Hunahpu and Xbalanque – Conquest of Xibalba – Migration from Tulan Zuiva, the Seven Caves – Meaning of the Quiché Tradition – Nahua Traditions – The Toltecs in Tamoanchan according to Sahagun – The Codex Chimalpopoca – Pre-Toltec Nations in Mexico – Olmecs and Xicalancas – The Quinames – Cholula and Quetzalcoatl – The Totonacs – Teotihuacan – Otomís, Miztecs, Zapotecs, and Huastecs – The Toltecs in Huehue Tlapallan – Migration to Anáhuac – The Chichimecs in Amaquemecan – Ancient Home of the Nahuatlacas and Aztecs – Primitive Annals of Yucatan – Conclusions.

TREATMENT OF THE SUBJECTDIVISION OF THE SUBJECT

      In order to render more vivid than it would otherwise have been a picture of Nahua and Maya institutions as they were found in the sixteenth century, I have devoted one chapter of a preceding volume to an outline view of aboriginal history; to fill in so far as possible its details, is my remaining task. The sketch alluded to will prove convenient here, since it will enable me at various points to refer intelligibly and yet briefly to events somewhat in advance of their chronologic order. As has been stated, the sixth century is the most remote period to which we are carried in the annals of Anáhuac by traditions sufficiently definite to be considered in a strict sense as historic records. Prior to the sixth century there were doubtless other periods of Nahua greatness, for there is little evidence to indicate that this was the first appearance in Mexico of this progressive people, but previous development cannot be definitely followed – in a historical sense – although affording occasional glimpses which supply interesting matter for antiquarian speculation.

      In the southern regions, where the Maya culture flourished, or what may be considered geographically as Central America, we have seen that the chronologic record is much less extensive and perfect even than in the north, taking us back in an oft-broken line only a few centuries beyond the Conquest. Yet we have caught traditional glimpses far back in the misty past of a mighty aboriginal empire in these tropical lands, of the earlier and grander stages of Maya culture, of Votan, of Xibalba, of even the early periods of Nahua civilization and power. Palenque, Copan, and their companions in ruin, the wonderful material monuments of the ancient epoch, proving it to be no mere creation of the imagination, have been described and pictured. With the breaking-up of the Maya empire into separate nations at an unknown date, the aboriginal history of Central America as a whole ceases, and down to a period closely preceding the Conquest, we have only an occasional event, the memory of which is preserved in the

276

Languages, 'the most ancient historical monuments of nations.' 'If in the philosophical study of the structure of languages, the analogy of a few roots acquires value only when they can be geographically connected together, neither is the want of resemblance in roots any very strong proof against the common origin of nations.' Humboldt's Pers. Nar., vol. v., pp. 143, 293. Language, 'which usually exhibits traces of its origin, even when the science and literature, that are embodied in it, have widely diverged.' Prescott's Mex., vol. iii., p. 394. 'In the absence of historical evidence, language is the best test of consanguinity; there are reasons why climate should alter the physical character, but it does not appear that the language would be materially affected by such local influence.' Prichard's Nat. Hist. Man, vol. i., p. xvi. 'Efectivamente, la historia por sí sola nada nos descubre acerca del orígen de las naciones, muy poco nos enseña sobre la mezcla y confusion de las razas, casi nada nos dice de las emigraciones de los pueblos, mientras todo esto lo esplica admirablemente el análisis y la investigacion del filólogo.' Pimentel, Discurso, in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, tom. viii., pp. 367-8. 'The problem of the common origin of languages has no necessary connection with the problem of the common origin of mankind… The science of language and the science of Ethnology have both suffered most severely from being mixed up together. The classification of races and languages, should be quite independent of each other. Races may change their language and history supplies us with several instances where one race adopted the language of another. Different languages, therefore, may be spoken by different races; so that any attempt at squaring the classification of races and tongues must necessarily fail.' Müller's Science of Lang., vol. i., pp. 326-7.