The North Americans of Antiquity: Their origin, migrations, and type of civilization consideredShort, John T. (John Thomas)
History
The North Americans of Antiquity: Their origin, migrations, and type of civilization considered
Short, John T. (John Thomas)
Indians -- Origin; Indians of Mexico -- Antiquities; Indians of North America -- Antiquities
Ixtlilxochitl and all the early writers to the contrary. Supposing
that the sweeping assumption of the northern origin so persistently
adhered to by native and Spanish writers is nothing but a priestly
fabrication, be admitted, simply that our attention may be turned to
other testimony, still the evidence is against the southern origin
theory. The material relics of Honduras and Nicaragua absolutely
disprove the positive supposition that they were ever the work of the
people who figured in Anahuac, and no transition from one style of
sculpture to the other has ever been discovered, nor could be imagined.
An examination of the first few chapters of Mr. Bancroft’s fourth
volume and the works from which it has been drawn will fully satisfy
the reader of this fact. The evidence from the linguistic standpoint is
even more satisfactory, since the Nahua language as spoken in Central
America, in the states of San Salvador and Nicaragua, is dialectic,
indicating a fragmentary migration southward.[392]
It has been the common custom of Spanish writers and those who
followed them down to the middle of this century, to locate Hue hue
Tlapalan on the Californian coast. Vater and Humboldt from their
standpoints of investigation fell in with this view. The former,
basing his convictions on seeming linguistic affinities in the
north-west, which, while they are quite significant, indicative of
Nahua influences if not of Nahua residence, are too few to prove any
lengthy sojourn. Humboldt based his opinion chiefly on the traditions
and certain ethnological and geographical facts. Buschmann[393] has
completely overthrown the arguments of Vater in his series of works
on American languages, while Mr. Bancroft has shown conclusively that
there are no material remains assignable to the Toltecs to be found on
the Californian coast or the adjoining region.[394] When he asserts,
however, that there are no remains farther north than California, he
overlooks a well-known fact. We refer to the mounds of Oregon and
their extension eastward into the Yellowstone and North Missouri River
region. The most reasonable conjecture as to the locality of Hue hue
Tlapalan is that which places it in the Mississippi Valley, and assigns
the works of our Mound-builders to the Nahua nations. In previous
chapters we have shown the close resemblance of the mound crania to
the ancient Mexican, and have pointed out the gradual transition from
the rude and simple mounds of the north to the truncated pyramid of
the south, constructed on strict geometrical principles, having one
or more graded ways, and so closely resembling the Mexican teocallis.
Besides the testimony of Sahagun that the first settlers of Mexico
came from towards Florida, and the universal report of a northern
origin prevalent among the Aztecs at the time of the conquest, there
are other evidences of a racial identity common to Mound-builders and
Mexicans, such as pottery, sculptured portraitures of the facial type,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account